I want your honest answer.

[bennyboy]

What's this shit about burial grounds, anyway? Anywhere any body happens to be buried is a burial ground, and is likely sacred to the person buried there, and to his descendents.

[Zidneya]

All you guys talk about getting the permission of the deceased to dig their bones but I want to clarify. Were talking about fossils. How do you prove who is the actual descendant of ancient hominid fossils. Now since we are talking about fossils in a indian burial ground is logical to assume that the (descendants of those bones as well) the final decision relies upon the council or functional government of the tribe that owns the place. But what if they refuse? Because that means maybe hypothetically speaking we are letting the answers of evolution escape because religious motives?

I'm wondering at what point desecration becomes archaeology. Clearly not while there are living and possibly grieving relatives, but presumably there is some kind of overlap since in this scenario there's no issue with excavating the dinosaur bones.

Again this isn't archeology, but paleontology. Unless paleontology has the same set of rules that archeology…but I'm not sure. I don't think so, I may be wrong but who knows.

If there were a goldmine (scientific or otherwise) beneath the graves of your family and ancestors, would you be ok with their remains being sifted through in the name of progress?

I wouldn't mind, at all. I read a story a long time ago.
The disciples asked the master: Master what do you want us to do with your corpse when you die.
Master: leave it out door for all I care.
Disciples: But master if we do that you'll have a bunch and animals and insect pocking your body and feeding them of it.
Master: Then leave me a stick so I can defend myself.
Disciples: But master you won't be able to use that because you'll be dead.
Master: then why should I care what happen to my corpse?
I already said that I don't care about that kind of stuff. Nor to my own body when I die for that matters. It's just lifeless bones. I see them as a scientifically evidence and nothing more.

In my opinion, it's less of a cultural position and more so a personal one.

Yeah but thats my point(do you mind if I put it in black). Why should we let a personal religious choice about human remains stand in the way of scientific discoveries?

---

I am stunned that someone was watching Dr Quinn medicine woman.

WHY? IS THERE A PROBLEM?!!

Dr Quinn says that this is a point were the cost of science is to high.

Disagree. Truth is, I don't have much patience for this whole "those-bones-belonged-to-my-great-great-great-great-grandfather" shit.

And that's why we love you Mini. Never change.

There have been worse things done in the name of science than digging in graveyards. Like experimenting on live subjects.

That's when I draw the line. People can do whatever they want with inanimate object but when it's about live creatures that deserves thinking.

[ShaMan]

If there were a goldmine (scientific or otherwise) beneath the graves of your family and ancestors, would you be ok with their remains being sifted through in the name of progress?

I wouldn't mind, at all.

Fair enough. That's why I asked

In my opinion, it's less of a cultural position and more so a personal one.

Why should we let a personal religious choice about human remains stand in the way of scientific discoveries?

(italics added)
I never suggested we should, and I never made any religious distinction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, if I didn't want somebody digging up my ancestors remains it wouldn't -have- to have anything to do with religion. Maybe I've got plans to open a glue factory, or make quality orthopedic or dental products? Maybe I'm just hording them like a dragon over a pile of coin. No...no...I'm going to make replacement chandeliers for plague cathedrals - imagine how lucrative -that- contract must be.

I mean, I hope my family wouldn't be so foolish as to bury them on someone else's property or something like that if we did have such plans. Gotta protect your investment, you know?

[Minimalist]

3) The sentiments and cultural values attached with the place is treated with respect.

Whose?

Arguably the most important paleoanthropological find in North America was Kennewick Man. He lived 9,500 years ago byt modern Indian tribes...supported by crooked politicians...tried to claim that he was a kin of theirs without any testing at all to see where he came from. In fact, they were against any testing at all, probably because they don't want to let anything upset their little bullshit applecart about how they were the "first nations."

They lost. Kennewick Man is most closely related to the Ainu. The Indians and the Corps of Engineers can go screw themselves.

[Chad32]

There have been worse things done in the name of science than digging in graveyards. Like experimenting on live subjects.

That's when I draw the line. People can do whatever they want with inanimate object but when it's about live creatures that deserves thinking.

I think I heard once that there was a guy who would dissect live animals while telling people they couldn't really feel pain. How is screaming and struggling not indicative of pain? You have to be able to say the words "I'm in pain" before someone believes it?

[Cyberman]

Again this isn't archeology, but paleontology. Unless paleontology has the same set of rules that archeology…but I'm not sure. I don't think so, I may be wrong but who knows.

No, you're right. I got my ologies mixed up.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm wondering at what point desecration becomes archaeology. Clearly not while there are living and possibly grieving relatives, but presumably there is some kind of overlap since in this scenario there's no issue with excavating the dinosaur bones. And archaeologists are digging up remains of ancient humans all the time; everything from so-called cavemen to King Richard III, and he was killed less than six hundred years ago.

Two hundred years?