Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

library.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#101

Post by mablopoule »

ethbr1 wrote: post #99
mablopoule wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D. Joke aside, I see your point.

The one detail I was unable to find was "What is the book about?" Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!

Oh, I haven't realized that the name of the book wasn't in English! It's "Des destinées de l’âme", which translates to "Of the fates of soul".

From what I've gathered it's a writer/poet/actor striken by grief who ponders about what happens after death, and about the notion of a soul, both historically (he seems to be speaking a bit about hinduism and greco-roman conceptions of a soul), philosophically, and theologically.

While this still doesn't justify the initial act of using someone skins, knowing the title in french makes it clear that there is a posthumous thematic, I haven't realized that it may not be obvious to non-french speakers.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#102

Post by tarboreus »

pg_1234 wrote: post #86
stetrain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one were to slice the ear off of a dead body, mount it, and frame it on their wall, at what point does it stop being gross evidence of a crime and start becoming an important historical artifact and part of our heritage? How many months, how many years? Does it matter if the person who did it is a respected scholar or a convicted serial killer?

85 years and 3 months with an extra 10 years for respected scholars

That's the standard.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#103

Post by ethbr1 »

mablopoule wrote: post #101
ethbr1 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one detail I was unable to find was "What is the book about?" Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!

Oh, I haven't realized that the name of the book wasn't in English! It's "Des destinées de l’âme", which translates to "Of the fates of soul". From what I've gathered it's a writer/poet/actor striken by grief who ponders about what happens after death, and about the notion of a soul, both historically (he seems to be speaking a bit about hinduism and greco-roman conceptions of a soul), philosophically, and theologica…

Yeah, the title was easy enough to translate and mentioned in most English news, but I was disappointed that none of the articles (or anywhere else I could find on the internet) summarized the book's content.

That's definitely a bit more debatable, for thematic purposes as you said, but I think I (personally) would want some utility in the book (instead of a more artistic or philosophical work) to justify a skin cover.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#104

Post by astura »

torstenvl wrote: post #98
astura wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expressing an opinion you disagree with isn't a "personal attack."

"So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library?" Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.

No it's not, dude.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#105

Post by torstenvl »

astura wrote: post #104
torstenvl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library?" Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.

No it's not, dude.

Yes, it inarguably is. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on this issue of objective fact. Attacking something personal—such as motive—is a personal attack.

"Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (emphasis added)

Arguing against preservation of an artifact—based on the the opponent's ostensible motive that "we should glorify some sick mind" who created the artifact—is a personal attack. It is unbecoming, and it is prohibited on HN.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#106

Post by astura »

torstenvl wrote: post #105
astura wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not, dude.

Yes, it inarguably is. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on this issue of objective fact. Attacking something personal—such as motive—is a personal attack. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE , or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Have you considered going outside?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#107

Post by rasz »

torstenvl wrote: post #97
devnullbrain wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Marine, you are probably aware Marines assisted the toppling of the famous Saddam Hussein statue?

And you are probably aware that Saddam was alive and had just been deposed at that time. It wasn't the past, nor was it an artifact. It wasn't in a museum or a library's special collection. And the Marines didn't destroy it (though the Iraqis appear to have).

Afaik Marines did burn his LM002, which is a piece of art and important historical artifact :-)

https://www.carscoops.com/2007/10/war-crimes-soldiers-destro...

Post reply on HN