If we consider post-mortem rights to matter morally, then something like necrophilia or defiling someone's body after their death would be immoral even if they don't experience it (obviously) and even if they don't have any family or loved ones around to witness it or know that it happened. As an extension of themself, their dead body has intrinsic moral value as far as an obligation to treat it respectfully in accordance with what the person would have wanted or been okay with, not merely instrumental value that it serves to loved ones or the environment. And since we consider a person to have more moral value than the environment (otherwise it could be ethical to kill people to remove their environmental impact), even if it was more harmful to the environment to dispose of a body in a certain way (e.g. standard burial or cremation) over other methods, it would then still be ethical to dispose of it in a way the person either opted for or was likely aware would be done, rather than a less commonly known/practised and more invasive yet eco friendly method such as sky burial (putting their body on a mountain top and letting vultures tear it apart).

In other words someone's bodily autonomy extends into death because they lived in their body their whole life, have a personal attachment to it as part of their identity, and just as they likely wouldn't want it violated while alive (even if they were asleep for example), also likely wouldn't want their body used for something disrespectful or really anything other than a standard form of interment (process of disposing of a body or putting it in a final resting place) that they would probably be aware would happen when they died, or is as generally uninvasive/dignified as possible, unless they specifically consented to something different or made a particular request for what would happen to their body.

IF all of the above is considered true, then (or just in general) wouldn't it be unethical/disrespectful or a rights violation to preserve a human's shrunken head for hundreds of years and then have it in an oddity collector's shop to sell it to people to display in their houses?

Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I'm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people's freedom to do something (yes, even if it's done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner's freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it's only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

A Buddhist was saying to me that anything bad that happens to someone is deserved because they must have had bad karma as a result of having done something bad, either in this life or a previous incarnation. I don't believe in any of this personally, but I think it would be helpful to understand the idea of karma a bit better, because this seems problematic to me on its own.

Wouldn't it logically follow, then, that it's fine for any person to choose to commit harmful actions on another person, since if those harms did happen to befall the person (even if it was as a consequence of our willful decision to cause them), it would be deserved due to bad karma they had from a previous life (even if they were a young child/baby in their current life for example)? And then couldn't we use this to justify literally any harm we choose to do as being deserved due to assumed bad karma, making the idea of avoiding causing harm (ahimsa/nonviolence) meaningless or pointless?

Also, another way that this idea seems to contradict for me, is that if us choosing to harm someone else automatically means that they'd done something bad in a previous life to "deserve" it, then since we're physically capable of doing that to any individual that exists, wouldn't that mean that literally everyone has done something wrong in a past life, has bad harma and is deserving of that punishment? What if someone bombed all of humanity, would that mean that everyone had been bad in their past lives? Surely there would be some individuals that hadn't done anything particularly bad even in their past lives, didn't have bad karma and didn't deserve that punishment? Or is everyone just terrible (or has everyone been terrible in a past life) and therefore we all deserve to be punished for it, and it's okay for anyone to enact this punishment as they see fit?

By the way, I also believe in forgiveness and mercy even for those that DID do something wrong, but that's a separate idea I guess.

If I was going to try to rationalise this idea of karma in a way I was more comfortable with, I guess I would interpret it that if someone does something wrongful, they may bring bad karma back upon themselves, but that's something for the universe to decide how to address (it may even come about in ways that don't involve decisions of individuals) and it doesn't mean it's acceptable for us to choose to dole out punishments on any individual because we assume they deserve it. Not only does that seem highly likely to be causing injustices to innocent individuals, or at least showing a lack of mercy, but it also just seems like a way to justify or rationalise the harm we cause that we're actually doing for other reasons that have nothing to do with a perceived duty to serve karmic justice.

By the way, for context, the Buddhist person I was speaking to used this idea of karma to defend the evils humans cause to other animals in factory farming. Supposedly, all those animals must have had bad karma from a past life and therefore it was okay what we do to them. Which seems like a pretty gross idea to me, and very far away from the principle of ahimsa/nonviolence...

Have we really become so unempathetic as a society that the act of putting yourself in others' shoes is unbelievable to the point that people assume you must be part of the group you're defending? So I often see people being unfairly discriminatory and mean to certain types, attributes or qualities of people, which I know some would be offended and hurt by. But whenever I stick up for them, I get comments like this: "Tell me you're x without telling me you're x". "F*** off, x". A good example is gay people or trans people. I get heavily criticised for defending them and people immediately assume that I'm gay or trans just because I'm expressing that I empathise with how they're treated in society and think people should be kinder toward them. There are lots of other examples but I'm worried I'll be antagonised here just by saying them, so I picked some slightly more socially acceptable ones (yes there are some far less socially acceptable things than LGBT these days, in my experience, despite the rampant LGBTphobia).

Or what would that be called? Pretty much the same things that would usually be considered ableism, but when there's not a recognised disability involved but just health issue/s (which could be "disabling").

For example, not believing someone about their health issue, dismissing it or refusing to believe that it impacts their ability to function or can be a valid excuse for things (often solely on the basis that it's not a recognised disability), blaming someone's health issue on different things they aren't caused by (and trying to attribute it to the person's behaviour as if it's their fault), and/or claiming that their opinions can't be taken seriously due to their health problem

Would it be called health-based discrimination or something (despite somewhat mimicking the same mentalities as ableism)?

I do make a habit of carrying tissues everywhere, but I can imagine there would be cases where that's not practical...

They're also both very witty shows, and sort of a "joke a second" rather than joke a minute.. constantly hilarious and with so many little funny details packed in everywhere. Missing a show like this.

The word can have swearing but not genderisation which might be offensive (mother) nor allusions to sexual dominance (motherfucker). Nor, other possibly offensive connotations. It seems that the word is commonplace and people won't stop using it, so an alternative to the word may be useful. But the problem with alternatives, is that people might not use them unless they carry a meaning that's attention grabbing in some way, and when it comes to this word it needs to be able to be used in either a serious (non-funny) or comedic way.

I grew up with a thick Australian accent with a drawl I dislike, and have been consciously trying to change it for a while. The problem is I tried to make it sound more American at first but keep getting drawn to speaking "Britishly". Now it's a Frankenstein of all 3 accents and I don't know what to go with.

Some points for both:

▪︎ American accent sounds "cooler"

▪︎ British accent sounds more "proper and elegant"

• Australian accent sounds more "relaxed" (but I dislike this for myself, personally).