See if this doesn't gross you out!

unformed · April 11, 2005

hey you're back. i think you forgot about the suicidal parachutists thread. we need your input there.

This ad space for sale.

billvon · April 11, 2005

> Besides, even if we assume that the knowledge of martial arts is
>more dangerous than what you learn seeing the Body Worlds, it still
>doesn’t mean that what you learn seeing Body Worlds is not dangerous.

Compared to what? Chemistry is far more dangerous; look what Timothy McVeigh did with his knowledge of chemistry. Physics is far more dangerous as well. Just knowing what ionizing radiation will do to a body is dangerous knowledge! And don't even get me started on writing or math.

Now, compare the benefits vs the risks of having all that info. People who go to Body Worlds will see firsthand what smoking will do to your lungs, what drinking will do to your liver, what morbid obesity will do to your guts. That is real, valuable knowledge that will help people live longer. The drawback is that you might know how to hurt someone better. However, that is NOT explained at Body Worlds; you would need to know a fair bit about martial arts already to injure someone with your knowledge. Knowing where the spinal cord is helps not a bit; punching someone in the back will most likely result in a sore hand and an angry victim who will then pound the perpetrator in the usual places, like his face. And said perpetrator would discover that even though one's face doesn't seem like a particulary vulnerable place when you see it at Body Worlds, it hurts a lot more than it would seem to.

>I guess that showing violence in an abstract, poetical way is art but a
>dangerous one.

Are you referring to violence as shown on TV? Arnold Schwartzenegger using circular saw blades to lop people's heads off is an 'poetic' way of showing violence? I think you have a different definition of "poetic" than I do.

>However it’s not the same as Von Hagens exhibition which shows you
>mutilated corpses posed as if they were alive and at the same time
>draws your attention to how they are build and makes you neglect
>thinking about what would happen if you tried to make a living person
>look like that.

That's because they don't make living people look like that. When you look at a cemetary, are you desensitized to the horrible thought that people might be buried alive? Should we restrict cemetaries to undertakers, lest children think it's OK to bury people alive?

craichead · April 11, 2005

Quote
Craichead; some posts ago i wrote that seeing mutuilated bodies “makes me THINK of pain, sufferind and Nazi experiments”. It is NOT the same as saying that what Von Hagens does actually IS like the Nazi experiments.

Then why did you choose to point out that von Hagen's father was a Nazi? Did you not want to imply that von Hagen's himself was a Nazi conducting evil Nazi-like experiments on these bodies?

Quote
You say that the knowledge gained on the Exhibition is “unlikely to be used for the purpose of harming people”. That’s interesting. HOW can you know?

The fact is that I don't know. I didn't even claim to know--I said, "I think...." I think it's unlikely because there are far more effective ways of learning how to hurt people. As Bill said, yours is a pretty silly angle.

Quote
Do you REALLY think that people would admit that they came to see the macabra? Regardless of the true motives, most people would say that they wanted to learn something about their bodies. Are you authentically naive enough to think that people usually tell the truth in such situations or you just pretend?

I won't know until I have asked them. Since I've been to the exhibit, I've had at least the opportunity to see the visitors and their reactions. As a result of merely being at the exhibit and observing other visitors around me, I have a better base to work on than you do (more RELIABILITY, as it were).

From my brief observations within the exhibit, I can say I'm fairly certain that there are a number of people who go for the shock value. I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people who go there to satisfy their curiosity and to learn something. There were several people there who were there because they were with a school group and were required to go.

From you, all I see is that you're still making assumptions about the way people think and act. You seem to think that you know everything about human behavior and why people go to see this exhibit without even asking them why. You're authentically naive enough to think you know what they would say if you did ask them why. Wow. At least I'm aware enough to know what I don't know.

Quote
I repeat, i don’t try to talk for the whole world. Self-confidence is completely irrelevant here. But to tell the truth, i consulted a few people and their opinion is the same as mine. Anyway it’s very interesting. Perhaps whole this discussion proves that the Slovians have a different approach to death than Americans and the English?

Well, you're still trying to speak for the people who've gone to see the exhibit and why they went to see it. You consulted a few people who think exactly the same way you do? So what? This discussion proves nothing. It may support the idea that the Americans/English think of death differently than Slovenians, but what difference does that make? Every culture views death differently. No surprise there!

Quote
I disagree that i create assumptions with no basis. I’ve read about the Exhibition. I’ve seen many pictures of those plastinated people. I’m aware of the fact that Von Hagens tries to make it all look very scientific. And still i have a strong feeling that what he does is VERY not OK.

I said no basis in fact. Let's see what we've garnered so far:

Have you been to the exhibition?

No.

Have you asked several random people who've been to the exhibition why they went, what they do for a living, what their experience was, etc.?

No.

Do you know what the exhibit really looks like and how it's displayed?

No.

Everything that you've read about the exhibition and every photograph that you've looked at are merely representations of the exhibit and not the real thing. You know very little of what the exhibit actually is. So, you're pretty much basing your assumptions on extremely incomplete representations and the opinions of others. Pretty weak assumptions.

When are you going to understand the idea that you can't know what something is really like by reading about it and looking at pictures of it? Do you really think imagination is sufficient and can be equated with experience in reality?

You are certainly free to think that what von Hagens does is "VERY not OK," and that's okay with me. A lot of other people see great value and benefit in what he does. Right now, it seems that the people who see the benefit are outweighing the people who object to it. So, the exhibition will continue regardless of your opinion.

Quote
As far as doctors are concerned; they have to, among others, pass the prosectorium to get their degrees so the argument that if not for Von Hagens’ show they would never have the opportunity to see authentic dissectected corpses is pretty silly.

Where did that come from? I didn't even make that argument. I asked you a simple question of "would you go to a doctor who learned purely from realistic (but fake) models and textbooks?" Since you seem to think that realistic 1:1 models and illustrations in textbooks are entirely sufficient for learning about the human body, why would we even need bodies for doctors (and forensic scientists, nurses, paramedics, physical therapists, etc.) to dissect as part of their curriculum? All the information is already out there, right?

And if it isn't sufficient for the education of professionals who work with the human body, why would you deny that information and real experience from the "common" people? Do you think that only medical/scientific professionals have the right to possess that knowledge and the experience of seeing the inside of a real body?

Quote
But WHY you think such sophisticated funeral traditions were invented and are still practised all around the world? Why do we wash those dead bodies, dress them and so on? Why don’t we get rid of them as soon as their owners are dead? Why don’t we make soap out of them? Afterall everybody knows that the best soap is made of human fat. This way the useless meat would contribute to those who are still alive, right?

I think it's because people are emotional, form deep attachments and have a hard time letting go of their loved ones. Maybe all of these elaborate rituals and traditions give people some illusion of being with their loved ones longer. Then maybe it gives them the opportunity to say goodbye and then some semblance of closure. I don't really know. I think those rituals are kind of silly and wasteful, but people are generally free to do whatever they want that makes them feel better about a loved one's death.

I'm all for organ donation. After I'm dead, I hope that my family will choose a combination of these options: 1) donate my body to science 2) harvest the usable organs for patients in need of transplants 3) dispose of the rest (in any manner they wish). If some manufacturer wants to take the fat (I've got plenty to spare) and make soap (you've been reading too much Fight Club), then they're free to do that, too. I don't think there's huge market for that right now, though.

Quote
Body is a physical manifestation of a person and the only connection the consious part of us has with the outside world. It’s an extremely intricate tool and at the same your closest friend (unless of course it gives you a hard time which of course also happenes) – the only thing you really own from the very begining to the very end. I could write a whole essay about it but if you don’t feel it instinctively all explanations will be useless.

Nice avoidance. You also seem to have ownership and control issues.

I don't own this body...borrowing or leasing is the way I look at it. I'm merely using it on this go-around to experience and learn as much as I can about this life and the world I live in. When it's dead, it's dead. I can't use it anymore. If someone else can use it for education or living another X number of years, they're free to take it!

Quote
When i wrote that “the sight one can see on the exhibition would normally be connected with pain and suffering” i meant what is written in the following sentences. You took it out of context. “Normally” means in the world we live in.

Oh, so these are the world's standards? Oh, I see...you're still trying to speak for the whole world. I should've known.

Quote
I don’t agree that the value of the appreciation, can only be opined by the one it's bestowed upon; first of all, i can make opinions on anything i like.

Yes, you can make opinions on anything you like. If I bestow appreciation (or an opinion) on something you've done, only you can give it a sense of value since the appreciation is directed towards you. You may value my opinion or you may not. I don't really care how you value it. I don't really care how anyone else values it, either.

Quote
Second of all, i didn’t think of whether those two opinions are important to you; i thought rather of their RELIABILITY. Perhaps the example wasn’t good. Imagine a laic who sees you performing headdown. He watches it for a while and say, what a dull crap. And then he sees an AFF student who’s struggling hard to regain his lost stability and states, now THIS is good. See what i mean? An opinion of an expert must be more valuable because an expert knows what he’s talking about.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but what you're referring to is criticism, not necessarily the same as appreciation. They're both opinions, to be sure. However, appreciation is admiring or recognizing the value in something. Appreciation is pretty much positive all around. What you've just illustrated is criticism, which can be positive or negative in nature. Subtle differences. Learn them. You'll be much better at your silly polemics games if you do.

You've pretty much discredited yourself with your own argument. If an opinion or criticism is more valuable because of the greater knowledge and experience behind it, then your arguments and opinions against Body Worlds have very little value and reliability because you have minimal knowledge and NO real experience of the exhibition.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

TPO · April 11, 2005

Sorry for taking so long to reply, not been on here for a while…

Right, I’ll just reply to the questions directed at me, cos this is going on a bit! Does anyone ever just agree to disagree here?!

Quote
So you actually say that you DO NOT consider yourself authorative enough to say that RAPE, MURDER and TERRORIST ATTACKS are EVIL??? Does this mean you are uncapable of telling good from evil?

Obviously I have the innate knowledge to know that rape, murder and terrorist attacks are evil. I do not need to experience them, to know that they are wrong. However, my point was that I am not going to comment on how I am likely to feel after doing such acts – because who knows – I might surprise myself and really enjoy such acts.

I’m not sure I can pull off serial rape, as apparently us ladies aren’t capable of raping a man! So I am not incapable of telling good from evil, I’m just going to restrain myself from saying how I ASSUME I will feel after doing something bad. I might enjoy it! Just like you might enjoy visiting the BW Exhibition. OK OK, before you say – maybe ‘enjoy’ is the wrong word…perhaps just ‘surprise’ yourself.

I asked if you were a skydiver, because you only used negative examples in your examples of trying new things. I assume you enjoy skydiving? But what made you start in the first place? Were you not scared? Excited? For many people, the thought of ‘jumping out of a plane’, most could not comprehend how it would feel to them, until they’d done it. But clearly you did it. The same goes for the sex comment. I don’t actually want to KNOW if you are a virgin. It was simply an example of trying something for the first time, and the anxieties that go with it – but then, you find you love it!

And now I feel I must address your other ‘virginity’ issues, because as Skyrad mentioned – I think we may have stumbled upon something more interesting!! SO here goes…

Just because you masturbate, does not of course mean you have lost your virginity. I refer to the physical virginity here, as I’m not sure there technically is another! For example, you can masturbate without penetration – i.e. clitoral stimulation and you can penetrate yourself without it being classed as masturbation – i.e. inserting tampons.

In order to lose your virginity you are to have ‘sexual intercourse’ – I realise this is tricky in relation to lesbianism. Having said that, the definition relates to the sexual organs being brought together – there’s a loophole there I’d say! The definition then states ‘esp. of a man and a woman’ – but does not exclude two women, or two men, for that matter. I’m not saying virginity isn’t a complex problem – it’s like anything else in this world where a traditional term gets a modern twist. Once you start putting different spins on terminology, you get into a whole new ball game (no pun intended fellas!). That’s what lawyers do after all!

Quote
Can a woman be called a virgin if she hasn’t have sex with anybody but has experienced orgasms during masturbation

Yes, she’s a virgin.

Quote
Or if a man has made love to her but hasn’t penetrated her vagina with his penis?

How would this have happened? Anally? Then she’s a ‘vagina virgin’.

Quote
Or if she has had sex “only” with another woman?

Then she’s a ‘man virgin’.

Quote
Or if she has had sex with a woman and there has been a vibrator involved?

See above.

Quote
Or if she has had the classical vaginal sex with a man but her hymen hasn’t been fully broken?

Tampons break the hymen, so that guy must be teeny! But, if she hasn’t decided the guy’s not worth the effort and goes through with it, no, she’s not a virgin. She’s a real woman now!

Quote
Or if she has had sex with various people but never came?

Hahahaha. Nothing to do with it. Not climaxing does not a virgin make.

Quote
Or if she has had sex and has had some orgasm but never actually loved any of her lovers?

Doing the do, with or without love, with or without orgasms, means you ain’t a virgin no more.

Quote
Or if no-one has ever made love to her but she happens to be an oral sex expert?

Ooooh, ‘making love’ ain’t the same as sex now, is it? I assume you mean she’s an oral sex expert but a ‘technical virgin’? So, blow jobs (or the 'lady love' version) aside, she’s a ‘vagina virgin’.

Quote
So what exactly you meant asking whether i’m a virgin? ;)

I mean, you’ve obviously (or perhaps not, but others have) tried something for the first time, that is potentially a big deal for people, that they might not know for sure how they will react, but what the hey – they throw in the chips anyways! Good on 'em I say!

AdD · April 12, 2005

I heard about this guy years ago when he was touring the country with some kind of exhibit to discourage smoking. Showing ppl what happens to their lungs would probably make some think twice.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

dropoutdave · April 13, 2005

Quote
I don’t agree that the value of the appreciation, can only be opined by the one it's bestowed upon; first of all, i can make opinions on anything i like. Second of all, i didn’t think of whether those two opinions are important to you; i thought rather of their RELIABILITY. Perhaps the example wasn’t good. Imagine a laic who sees you performing headdown. He watches it for a while and say, what a dull crap. And then he sees an AFF student who’s struggling hard to regain his lost stability and states, now THIS is good. See what i mean? An opinion of an expert must be more valuable because an expert knows what he’s talking about.

Funny you should say that Ying because TPO happens to be a Forensic Scientist and an EXPERT witness and when she put across her expert opinion on the differences in gaining knowledge from a plastinated body and a swollen rotting body you still insisted that your opinion was right.

Still, when the experts opinon supports yours it's all good right.

Come on, admit it, your argument has been torn apart on every level, like angry kittens on a tapestry.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

TPO · April 13, 2005

Why thank you, Mr Dave. I have to say, I whole-heartedly agreee with you - but then, I may be slightly biased here!!

Skyrad · April 13, 2005

like angry kittens on a tapestry

I love that!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

ying · April 18, 2005

Craichead, TPO, Skyrad, DropoutDave;
you’ve turned my own argument against me. You say that the fact that an opinion of an expert is more valuable than the opinion of the laic applies to me as well. It’s really nasty. They say the one who fights with a sword dies of a sword. Oh well... have you REALLY failed to notice that i DON’T say that the plastination process gives poor effects and i DON’T claim that Von Hagens is not professional in what he does and i DON’T suggest that the exhibition is badly organised, that one cannot learn anything seeing it etc. The problem we’ve been discussing here is of a purely ETHICAL orgin. Therefore opinions of the ethicists and not of the biologists, radiologists and forensic scientists must be considered binding here. Would you agree? ;)

Billvon;
Previously i wrote: “Even if we assume that the knowledge of martial arts is more dangerous than what you learn seeing the Body Worlds, it still
doesn’t mean that what you learn seeing Body Worlds is not dangerous.”

To which you wrote: “Compared to what? Chemistry is far more dangerous; look what Timothy McVeigh did with his knowledge of chemistry. Physics is far more dangerous as well. Just knowing what ionizing radiation will do to a body is dangerous knowledge! And don't even get me started on writing or math.”

Well, i meant IN GENERAL. The fact that chemistry and physics are more dangerous than anatomy does not mean that anatomy is not dangerous at all. What’s more, the fact that some knowledge has benefits also does not mean that this knowledge isn’t dangerous and cannot be used to harming people.

A skilled fighter does not hit the opponent’s face just like that. There are certain points hitting which is very effective and can result in an immediate knock-out or death. I guess you wouldn’t argue that a person who knows where those points are located will have advantage over someone who doesn’t.

About violence; there are movies that show it in an non-realistic sophisticated way and there are movies that make you feel sick whan you watch them. Compare the Chinese wuxia movies, for instance Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Robocop. Now you see what i mean? And by the way, i can’t remember Schwarzenneger lopping people’s heads with a circular saw in any of his movies. Which one was that? In Running Man he did use a chainsaw on one’s guy’s crotch, however one could argue the guy got what he deserved because he was a very bad person whose work was to massacre defenceless people with this chainsaw as a part of a reality show :/

You ask: “When you look at a cemetary, are you desensitized to the horrible thought that people might be buried alive? Should we restrict cemetaries to undertakers, lest children think it's OK to bury people alive?”

Cementaries are necessary. Von Hagens’ exhibition is NOT. Nobody makes any money ot of admitting people to the cementaries (at least in my country) and Von Hagens earns millions on plastinating corpses and exhibiting them. What’s more, he takes those bodies out of the context of pain and suffering to make a show, which is disgusting, and his excuse is it’s very educational and scientific. Who knows what happenes next if such things are possible now? Perhaps soon we’ll see an exhibition presenting bodies massacred in car accidents and the like? You know, to make us be more careful while driving, playing with bangers and working with explosives. Now THAT would be educational and useful.

Craichead;
I mentioned Von Hagens’ father to suggest that maybe he had a negative influence on the emotional development of his son. Of course it didn’t have to be so but one could think it was seeing what Von Hagens junior is doing.

You say you’ve seen the reactions of other visitors; do you think it’s wise to judge by the appearences and ignore the scientific facts concerning the rules of the masses’ behaviour? People gathering to watch the effects of an accident and those who watch those emotionally pornographic talk-shows as well as the fans of sex pornography also can seem concentrated and interested. If you could hear the comments exchanged by boys after porn seances. They quite often concern anatomy. And yet pornography is generally thought to be harmful although it’s hard to deny the educational benefits of watching it. In fact, as i said before, the mechanisms responsible for the attractiveness of post-accident sights and the popularity of various types of pornography are the same as the mechanisms responsible for the popularity of Von Hagens’ exhibition.

You wrote: “I can say I'm fairly certain that there are a number of people who go for the shock value.”

Well, FINALLY you’ve admitted that. Now we could consider whether it is not the attitude of the majority. How do you think, sophisticated, scientifically oriented people who read books and want to learn as much as possible about the world outnumber the simple ones in the global scale? Or perhaps the majority watches reality shows and slither on the surface of things being totally disinterested in seeing what’s underneath?

As far as cultural differences are concerned; Americans, the English and the Slavic people live on the areas where Christian culture is dominant. That’s why i said that the differeces in the approach to the exhibition are interesting. I’m not sure if the popularity of the Body Worlds is not due to the fact that it’s been quite a long time since the West experienced a war. And before you say there’s been a lot of local conflicts in Europe lately; do you think that the exhibition would gain such popularity if it was shown in Chechnia or just after the World War II has ended?

You say i haven’t been to the exhibition and haven’t talked to people who’ve seen it. It’s irrelevant. I’m familiar with the concept behind the exibition and i know what the plastination process is about. It’s enough. No matter how scientifically the exhibits are presented – for me, organising such a show and making money out of it is IMMORAL. Will you polemicize with that?

And now let’s apply your own method to your very self.

Have you been circumcised?
> Probably not.

Have you witnessed the ritual?
> Probably not.

Have you talked to any woman who’s been subjected to it or seen how it’s done?
> Probably not.

Do you think that removing a woman’s clitoris with a use of a razor or a glass shard and having her labia or its part sewn together is a BAD thing?
> Probably YES.

Really? If so, your opinion has been formulated on “no basis in fact”. In other words and according to your logic – you must be WRONG.

You wrote: “When are you going to understand the idea that you can't know what something is really like by reading about it and looking at pictures of it? Do you really think imagination is sufficient and can be equated with experience in reality?”

Your assumption seems to be correct but you haven’t taken some important factors into consideration. The Chinese say that if you need water no decription can substitute the water itself. I’m not questioning that. The thing is the exhibition has been created around the idea which i find repulsive. The results of many Nazi experiments have proved very useful. Does this mean that what the Nazis did was OK? As it’s been already said, the fact something is scientific and educational is NOT enough to pronounce it GOOD. You don’t need to experience something to know you wouldn’t ever like to experience it. How about having your stomach sliced open, your guts taken out, sprinked with fluor and slowly eaten by a pig while you’re still alive? No? But you haven’t “experienced it in reality” – your objections are groundless :)

You say that “Right now, it seems that the people who see the benefit are outweighing the people who object to it.” I accept this fact. But then in Africa the people who see the benefit of circumcising women outweight the people who are against. Perhaps the majority is not always right?

In your previous post you asked: “Would you go to a doctor who learned purely from realistic (but fake) models and textbooks?"

No, i wouldn’t but this argument is irrelevant in our discussion since it is IMPOSSIBLE to become a doctor gaining only theorethical knowledge. By the way, have you heard about the rat models designed for young scientists to practice the injections without harming rats unnecessarily?

You wrote: “If it isn't sufficient for the education of professionals who work with the human body, why would you deny that information and real experience from the "common" people? Do you think that only medical/scientific professionals have the right to possess that knowledge and the experience of seeing the inside of a real body?”

You’re right – there’s no LOGICAL reason to restrict the access to such knowledge. However from the ETHICAL point of view things look slightly different. There are areas exploring which only for satisfying one’s curiosity can be seen as morally questionable. I do realize that humans (in general) have an in-built thirst for knowledge. It’s quite likely that one of humanity’s discoveries will destroy it one day. I’ve recently read a good SF short story about it – imagine nanorobotes programmed to turn the organic materia into the copies of themselves getting outside the laboratory....

I do accept the fact that for you a body is just flesh and bones. But if a stinking rich necrofile proposed you signing a contract according to which he’d get your body after you die to have sex with it and in return pay your family 10 million British pounds as well as financially support for instance a cancer clinic, would you agree? And if your husband/ girlfriend had an attitude identical with yours would you mind to give his/ her body to the necrofile on the same conditions?

I said: ‘When i wrote that “the sight one can see on the exhibition would normally be connected with pain and suffering” i meant what is written in the following sentences. You took it out of context. “Normally” means in the world we live in.’

To which you wrote: “Oh, so these are the world's standards? Oh, I see...you're still trying to speak for the whole world. I should've known.”

The so called “world standards” are the standards for which the laws of of this universe are responsible for. Maybe in alternative realities you can skin and gut a living and conscious person without causing pain. But in this world of ours it is IMPOSSIBLE. Should i understand you disagree?

You suggest that if someone bestows appreciation (or an opinion) on something somebody else’s done, only this person can give it a sense of value since the appreciation is directed towards this person. I disagree. If a master calligraphs a Chinese ideogram a laic may say that its an awful scrawl. Regardless of what the calligrapher say, somebody else is fully entitled to point out the laics ignorance and discredit his or hers opinion ascribing it a low or no value at all. In fact it’s something people do all the time – they polemicize with other people’s opinions on work of somebody else. What you propose stands in contradiction with the reality.

TPO;
you say you won’t comment on how you are likely to feel after doing something until you actually have done it. Well, you’re right of course but the thing is that even if you’re not sure about how you’d feel there are cases in which you can predict that you wouldn’t like to feel like that. Since i don’t know if you minded to read what i wrote to Craichead, let me repeat the example i’ve already used; how about having your stomach sliced open, your guts taken out, sprinked with fluor and slowly eaten by a pig while you’re still alive? You probably haven’t ever experienced anything like that and yet i bet you’d rather avoid it, right?

You wrote: “I’m not sure I can pull off serial rape, as apparently us ladies aren’t capable of raping a man!”

You’re such an innocent woman :) Actually from a technical point of view raping a man would be more than easy. All you need is..... a vibrator/ dildo/ strap-on, etc. I think there’s no need to explain how to use these acessories to perform a rape.

I used only negative examples of trying new things because i consider the exibition a negative thing and because such examples are a better illustration to what i’m saying here.

As for jumping for the first time; in my case it was a form of autodestruction. I felt the urge of doing dangerous things and the need of giving myself a hard time. I wasn’t scared at all. Exiting the plane was like leaving a bus. The pre-exit stress came later. At that point, jumping was a bit like commiting multiple suicide. The exit was like dying. Freefalling was like floating out of time and space. Opening the parachute was like being born again. Now, as harmony is back in my life i don’t enjoy skydiving that much anymore.

The virginity issues; it might be a begining of another lenghty discussion :) But then why not? :)

Let’s start with masturbation ;) There are people to whom virginity is something more than an intact hymen and the fact a woman has never had a penis in her vagina. Even if a woman hasn’t been ever touched by anybody, an orgasm experience would eliminate her from the group the Real Virgins in some people’s opinion. Afterall orgasm has a strong sexual aspect ;) So a woman who have known it would not be 100% pure anymore.

But you say that in order to lose virginity a woman has to have a sexual intercourse. The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language defines sexual intercourse as:

1) Sexual union between a human male and a human female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
2) Sexual union between human beings involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

So in fact if we assume that it’s enough to have a sexual intercourse to lose virginity then having sex with a man is not necessary.

You ask how it is possible to have sex with a man without the vaginal penetration; the answer might change your life forever ;) If you’re not prepared for that skip the 8 following lines and proceed to the next paragraph ;) In fact no penis penetration is needed at all – many women find the French sex much more satisfying. Some even say that the French sex performed on a woman is the highest and the most sophisticated form of sex possible. Others are even more radical and sneer at the vaginal and the anal form as primitive and “looking really stupid”. Before you say that no man could possibly be with a woman of such attitude let me assure you that there is a kind of men who tend to neglect their well functioning penises and notorically abuse their tongues ;) Believe it or not but those oral maniacs rarely have trouble getting a date :)

The rest of your comments concerning the ambiguous cases i mentioned reveal lack of consistency; for instance you say that a woman can be a “vagina virgin” or a “man virgin” and at the same time you suggest that feeling love towards the one she has had sex with and experiencing orgasms have nothing to do with virginity. If your virginity evaluation system is to be consistent then both not loving any of her lovers and not experiencing orgasms would make a woman a Love Virgin and an Other-Person-Generated-Orgasm Virgin respectively ;) But that’s not the end – if we assume the above the fact that someone’s never had sex on the table would make this person a Table Virgin, and the fact that the person’s never had sex under the shower would make this person a Shower Virgin; so in fact EVERYBODY was, is and always will be some virgin :)

And finally, to my question WHAT you meant if i’m a virgin you wrote: “I mean, you’ve obviously (or perhaps not, but others have) tried something for the first time, that is potentially a big deal for people, that they might not know for sure how they will react, but what the hey – they throw in the chips anyways! Good on 'em I say!”

Damn, i’ve read it 5 times in a row and i’m still not sure if i understand :/ Could you possibly rephrase it? :/

Regards,

ying.

ying · April 18, 2005

P.S. Unformed;
I haven't forgotten about the suicidal thread. No new posts that would contribute to the discussion have been added there. Should i understand you'd like to see me polemicising with my own self? ;)

craichead · April 18, 2005

Quote
you’ve turned my own argument against me. You say that the fact that an opinion of an expert is more valuable than the opinion of the laic applies to me as well. It’s really nasty.

Why would you be exempt from your own belief?

Quote
You say you’ve seen the reactions of other visitors; do you think it’s wise to judge by the appearences and ignore the scientific facts concerning the rules of the masses’ behaviour?

I have news for you. What you think are scientific facts of psychology are NOT facts. They're theories, some supported by evidence, some not. You have very little evidence for your theory since you 1) haven't been to the exhibition, and 2) haven't gathered data from a large number of people who've been to the exhibition.

Quote
How do you think, sophisticated, scientifically oriented people who read books and want to learn as much as possible about the world outnumber the simple ones in the global scale? Or perhaps the majority watches reality shows and slither on the surface of things being totally disinterested in seeing what’s underneath?

I don't know. I haven't asked. Neither have you. Stop trying to present your unsupported theory as fact.

Quote
No matter how scientifically the exhibits are presented – for me, organising such a show and making money out of it is IMMORAL. Will you polemicize with that?

Why is it immoral? The bodies are dead. They were dead at the time of plastination. The people gave their permission for these things to be done.

Quote
And now let’s apply your own method to your very self.

Have you been circumcised?
> Probably not.

Have you witnessed the ritual?
> Probably not.

Have you talked to any woman who’s been subjected to it or seen how it’s done?
> Probably not.

Do you think that removing a woman’s clitoris with a use of a razor or a glass shard and having her labia or its part sewn together is a BAD thing?
> Probably YES.

Really? If so, your opinion has been formulated on “no basis in fact”. In other words and according to your logic – you must be WRONG.

I haven't even presented any kind of argument or opinion regarding this topic. What does it have to do the present discussion? And if you really want to know, I have no opinion on this issue because I really don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion. I'd like to know the culture, history and tradition behind it, and if possible, talk to women who've experienced it to know what their experiences were like. I don't form strong opinions on topics I know very little about and try to present them as fact.

Quote
But if a stinking rich necrofile proposed you signing a contract according to which he’d get your body after you die to have sex with it and in return pay your family 10 million British pounds as well as financially support for instance a cancer clinic, would you agree? And if your husband/ girlfriend had an attitude identical with yours would you mind to give his/ her body to the necrofile on the same conditions?

I'm not sure what I would do. Until I experience that actual situation in reality, I couldn't tell you how I'd react. Are you that necrophile?

Quote
Maybe in alternative realities you can skin and gut a living and conscious person without causing pain. But in this world of ours it is IMPOSSIBLE. Should i understand you disagree?

We're talking about skinning and gutting DEAD people who no longer feel pain because they're DEAD. Reasonable and sane people who go to the exhibit know that the bodies are DEAD and were DEAD at the time of plastination. So it shouldn't remind them of whatever evil experimentations or scenes in movies that you're referring to.

Quote
You suggest that if someone bestows appreciation (or an opinion) on something somebody else’s done, only this person can give it a sense of value since the appreciation is directed towards this person. I disagree. If a master calligraphs a Chinese ideogram a laic may say that its an awful scrawl. Regardless of what the calligrapher say, somebody else is fully entitled to point out the laics ignorance and discredit his or hers opinion ascribing it a low or no value at all. In fact it’s something people do all the time – they polemicize with other people’s opinions on work of somebody else. What you propose stands in contradiction with the reality.

Yeah, so? I never said they weren't entitled to form and express their own opinions. I also made the distinction between appreciation and criticism, which you failed to understand.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

billvon · April 18, 2005

>Well, i meant IN GENERAL. The fact that chemistry and physics are
>more dangerous than anatomy does not mean that anatomy is not
> dangerous at all. What’s more, the fact that some knowledge has
> benefits also does not mean that this knowledge isn’t dangerous and
> cannot be used to harming people.

Of course. But the issue is that the benefit of knowing how to write, how to do math, how chemistry works, how physics works, and how your body works all outweigh the risks of that knowledge. Sure, a child who knows how a nuclear reactor works could build his own nuclear reactor. In fact, that has actually happened. That's a poor reason to not teach physics.

So we as a society have decided that learning those things is worth the risk. Learning how a human body works poses far less risk than learning how a reactor works, and thus the argument "but it's too dangerous to teach anatomy!" doesn't work. It is clearly less risky than other sorts of knowledge, and those are not too risky.

>A skilled fighter does not hit the opponent’s face just like that. There
> are certain points hitting which is very effective and can result in an
> immediate knock-out or death.

Absolutely. But I've both seen Body Worlds and have taken martial arts courses. I learned far more about how to harm someone (primarily by learning what _not_ to do in sparring) than I learned at Body Worlds. Claiming you can look at a cadaver and learn how to hurt someone is like claiming you can look at a disassembled 747 and suddenly how to fly it.

>And by the way, i can’t remember Schwarzenneger lopping people’s
>heads with a circular saw in any of his movies. Which one was that?

No idea what the name was. His daughter is kidnapped, and he proceeds to rescue her by killing about 100 people in various ways, including using circular saw blades like frisbees.

>In Running Man he did use a chainsaw on one’s guy’s crotch,
>however one could argue the guy got what he deserved because he
>was a very bad person whose work was to massacre defenceless
>people with this chainsaw as a part of a reality show . . .

You seem to condemn Body Worlds as too violent and extreme, yet you defend someone who performs a simulated chainsaw massacre, because it was 'what he deserved?'

Speaker's Corner is a strange place.

>Cementaries are necessary.

They are absolutely not necessary. Cremation is a more space-conserving, more sanitary way of disposing of bodies. You may prefer burial; that's fine. But it is not necessary.

>Who knows what happenes next if such things are possible now?
> Perhaps soon we’ll see an exhibition presenting bodies massacred
>in car accidents and the like? You know, to make us be more careful
> while driving, playing with bangers and working with explosives. Now
>THAT would be educational and useful.

They showed just such a movie during my driver training, to drive home the effects of drinking and driving.

ying · April 21, 2005

You know, posting in this thread for the first time i’d never expected that those few lines i wrote would set off such hell of a discussion. Well, i must admit i really like opponents who don’t withdraw right after the first clash ;)

Craichead;
Should i understand you give up? :) You haven’t answered all my arguments. Does this mean you agree with them or that you don’t know what to write? If it’s the later i already have the 2nd degree victory granted as far as you are concerned :) Unless of course you do something about it :)

You ask why i should be extempt from my own belief; it was i joke. I wanted to make it look as if i was annoyed by the fact that you finally managed to corner me. Which you didn’t ;) You’ll have to try harder to do it ;)

About the scientific facts concerning the behaviour of the masses; correct me if i’m wrong but cannot a scientific assumption backed up by evidence be called a scientific fact?

About the proportions of sophisticated, scientifically oriented people and simple people in the global population; let’s consider this on the example of America. Take a look at mainstream movies, music and literature. Their level reflects the level of the majority of American society. If it didn’t it wouldn’t sell. And it sells. Any conclusions?

You ask why the exhibition is immoral; i’ve already said why. More then once. Of what religion/ philozophical system you are? Whom would you consider your moral authority?

If Von Hagens is such a great guy then WHY he has patented the plastination process? If he’s so concerned about educating people about their bodies then WHY he doesn’t do it for free? You REALLY see nothing inappropriate in exhibiting dissected corpses and making money on it?

You say that you need to KNOW THE CULTURE that requires removing a woman’s clitoris with a razor or a glass shard and so on, to decide whether it’s good or not?! Jesus! Admit honestly, you don’t know what clitoris is, do you? :/ Because if you do, you should be capable of imagining how cutting it off must feel like. And if unless you aren a Radical Sex Hater you shouldn’t have ANY problems imagining how an average woman’s sex life would suffer if her clitoris was removed :/

It’s irrelevant that you haven’t presented any opinion on the topic of circumcision. The method i used is called ANALOGY. I simply adopted your logic to show you that your thinking bears an error – in other words, your assumptions don’t work. Basing your arguments on them leads to statements logically valued zero (false). It IS possible to judge something and to know you wouldn’t like to experience it WITHOUT experiencing it in reality. The circumcision example proves that despite of your ABSURD answer.

You say you’re NOT SURE what you would do if a necrofile wanted to buy and use your body or a body of someone you loved, for the sexual purposes? Oh, but you don’t say NO? Yeah, and you’d probably want to talk to some necrofiles and explore their rich culture before you decide whether necrophilia is OK or not? Now that’d be a good one!

To your information – dead bodies don’t turn me on. A suggestion they do is a bit strange from a person who claims the Body Worlds is a great show.

Previously i said: ‘When i wrote that “the sight one can see on the exhibition would normally be connected with pain and suffering” i meant what is written in the following sentences. You took it out of context. “Normally” means in the world we live in.’

To which you wrote: “Oh, so these are the world's standards? Oh, I see...you're still trying to speak for the whole world. I should've known.”

To which i answered: ‘The so called “world standards” are the standards for which the laws of of this universe are responsible for. Maybe in alternative realities you can skin and gut a living and conscious person without causing pain. But in this world of ours it is IMPOSSIBLE. Should i understand you disagree?’

To which you suprisingly commented: “We're talking about skinning and gutting DEAD people who no longer feel pain because they're DEAD.”

Actually NO. We’re talking about taking mutilated bodies out of context of pain and suffering. Read more carefully.

You also suggest that due to the fact that they were dead at the time of plastination Von Hagen’s exhibits “shouldn't remind of whatever evil experimentations or scenes in movies that you're referring to”.

Now that’s indeed very interesting; since WHEN you decide what references things should evoke in me?

You say: “I never said [people] weren't entitled to form and express their own opinions. I also made the distinction between appreciation and criticism, which you failed to understand.”

Womanl! I wasn’t talking about expressing opinions but about valuing appreciation and criticism. You’d better go back to your previous post and check what you wrote. Because as far as i see it was: “If I bestow appreciation (or an opinion) on something you've done, ONLY you can give it a sense of value since the appreciation is directed towards you.”

It’s an abstraction – everybody can value both the appreciation and the criticism (directed to someone else) according to his or her own views. And the distinction between appreciation and criticism, well, there’s no need of making it. The difference is more than obvious.

Billvon;
You say: “the issue is that the benefit of knowing how to write, how to do math, how chemistry works, how physics works, and how your body works all outweigh the risks of that knowledge.”

Well, not exactly. I haven’t questioned that. I don’t try to convince anybody that the exhibition should be closed because the presented knowledge is too dangerous. Some posts ago i suggested that the fact that the knowledge of anatomy is useful ISN’T ENOUGH to say that the exhibition is good. Because not all which is useful is good. Making explosives and killing people in a way that makes it impossible for them to make any noise also can be cosidered VERY useful and yet nobody says it’s good and nobody organises public courses and exhibitions for laics who’d like to learn how to do it. Some of you tried to brush these arguments off saying that no dangerous knowledge is presented during the Body Worlds. That’s why i said that anatomy can be used for harming people. And it can.

Looking at a corpse surely will not generate many information on how to hurt people but if you read the additional info you might for instance realize that cutting an artery can be much more effective than cuting muscle or that hitting a certain nerve can cause immediate death. Besides, lots of people don’t know exactly where for instance the blood tracks run. And slicing through them is an effective way of wining for instance a knife fight. I don’t say that everybody who has visited the exhibition will buy a combat knife and start slicling through other people’s arteries but the knowledge Von Hagens gives access to CAN be used for such purposes.

As far as circular saw blade frisbees are concerned; you probably think of Commando. It’s possible that a scene like the one you described appears there. Well, what can i say.... surely kindapping Arnie’s daugher wasn’t wise of those villains ;) But his tactics proved sucessful – the history doesn’t mention the girl being kindapped again ;) Now seriously; movies such as Commando are popular for the similar reasons as Von Hagens’ exhibition and they can be harmful but still, no real corpses are used during their production, right?

I don’t defend violent movies. I just said that one could ARGUE that the the chaisaw brute had deserved his awful fate. Both Christianity and Buddhism suggest we return good for evil but then didn’t Christ mentioned eliminating individuals who endanger others?

About cementaries; you claim they’re unnecessary. Well, you’re right. At least from the theoretical point of view. The problem is that, as you wrote it, some people don’t accept the idea of cremation. In my country it’s partially because of what the Nazis did here during the occupation but in some cases people simply don’t like the idea of roasting regardless of the fact they’re bound to be dead at the time it takes place. In such sense the cementaries are necessary – a lot of people needs them. But there is also another factor you apparently haven’t taken into consideration – what about those who already lie in the ground? Should we wait till the families taking care of their graves die out or simply exhumate the remains and subject them to cremation? Even if it was done not everybody wpold be willing to keep the urn at home. So as you can see, getting rid of the cementaries won’t be that easy. In other words they are and will be necessary for long years from now.

You say that in America movies presenting the effects of drinking and driving are shown during the driving licence courses. I must admit i really like this idea but it’s not exactly what i was talking about. Showing such movies is not the same as turning the awfully massacred bodies into regular exhibits and making a show. In my opinion even if such an exhibition could be seen for free, it would not make it OK. And making money on it would not only be inappropriate and unethical but also sick and disgusting, don’t you think?

Regards,

ying.

Shotgun · April 21, 2005

I recently received a body donor packet from Body Worlds, which includes info on their donor program and a consent form. Some of this info can be downloaded here (for anyone who is interested in learning more about the plastination process and where the bodies come from).

Oh, and Jeffrey never answered my question about whether that movie was any good or not. Did he get banned or something?

craichead · April 25, 2005

Quote
Should i understand you give up? :) You haven’t answered all my arguments. Does this mean you agree with them or that you don’t know what to write?

...

You ask why i should be extempt from my own belief; it was i joke. I wanted to make it look as if i was annoyed by the fact that you finally managed to corner me. Which you didn’t ;) You’ll have to try harder to do it ;)

Your arguments regarding Body Worlds have been deemed invalid and lacking credibility by your own argument regarding the value of knowledgeable criticism. What more is there to talk about? You seem to be desperately grasping for something to argue so you throw in completely irrelevant controversial topics.

Quote
About the scientific facts concerning the behaviour of the masses; correct me if i’m wrong but cannot a scientific assumption backed up by evidence be called a scientific fact?

I already corrected you. Obviously you haven't taken enough science and psychology courses to know the difference. If you have, then you had crappy teachers.

Quote
Of what religion/ philozophical system you are? Whom would you consider your moral authority?

I don't see why this information is relevant. If you think Body Worlds is immoral, then fine, you think it's immoral. We'll agree to disagree.

What makes you an expert in morality? Are you an ethicist? Maybe your arguments would have more credibility if you could demonstrate that you're well-informed in anything that you argue.

Quote
If Von Hagens is such a great guy then WHY he has patented the plastination process? If he’s so concerned about educating people about their bodies then WHY he doesn’t do it for free? You REALLY see nothing inappropriate in exhibiting dissected corpses and making money on it?

I'm not talking about if he's a "great guy" or not. His accomplishments are great. Why doesn't he do it for free? Do you think all of this came out of a vacuum? Or maybe he had a magic wand to generate the exhibit without costs? How is he going to pay for the materials? The tools? The workers?

Gosh, if doctors really wanted to help fix people, they'd do all of their medical services for free! And if teachers really wanted to educate and make a difference, they'd do it for free, too! Forget all of the expenses incurred to provide the services, they should pay everything out of their own pockets and out of the goodness of their own hearts!

No, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Quote
It IS possible to judge something and to know you wouldn’t like to experience it WITHOUT experiencing it in reality. The circumcision example proves that despite of your ABSURD answer.

Yeah, it's possible to judge something without knowing it, but you'd look pretty silly doing so since you already argued that such a judgment would have little value. The more you know about the issue, the more credibilty your argument has, right?

As far as your analogy of female circumcison is concerned, you're applying your western/european views of sex and the body to their culture without knowing about their culture. If you can demonstrate that you have researched the culture, tradition and first-hand accounts from both sides of the issue, maybe I'd respect your opinion more. For now, in my eyes, you're just an angry zealot spouting off ignorant opinions.

Quote
Yeah, and you’d probably want to talk to some necrofiles and explore their rich culture before you decide whether necrophilia is OK or not?

It's not about determining whether it's "okay" or not. It's about having an INFORMED opinion, which you clearly do not have. Anyway, I think it would be interesting to talk to a necrophile...probably not pleasant, but interesting.

Quote
Now that’s indeed very interesting; since WHEN you decide what references things should evoke in me?

Since you can do it, why can't I?

Okay, fine...what have you learned from your first-hand observations of people who have just seen the Body Worlds exhibition? What did those people have to say when you asked them what they thought of it? Oh, wait, you HAVEN'T learned anything about what they're thinking or how they reacted because YOU DON'T KNOW! Shocking.

Quote
Actually NO. We’re talking about taking mutilated bodies out of context of pain and suffering. Read more carefully.

Ha! Construct your arguments more carefully. As far as most people in this debate are concerned, we've been referring to the corpses in the Body Worlds exhibition which are dead, were dead, and will continue being dead. No pain, no suffering. You're the one taking them out of context and putting them into your own reality.

Quote
I wasn’t talking about expressing opinions but about valuing appreciation and criticism.

We were originally talking about appreciation only. The true sense of value of appreciation can only be determined by the person it's bestowed upon. Sure, everyone else can assign value as they wish, but who cares how other people value the appreciation? "It's all good."

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

WrongWay · April 26, 2005

Interesting idea.....but I just can't bring myself to open that window.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

dropoutdave · April 26, 2005

Go on, try it, ya might like it.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

ying · May 9, 2005

Perhaps you'll find this interesting.....

Two weeks ago the court in Heidelberg ruled that Gunther von Hagens was to pay a 140 thusand dollar fine for using a FALSE scientific title. Von Hagens has no right to be called professor and that’s how he had been adressed on the Heidelberg University. According to the court, as far as scientific titles are concerned, Von Hagens has so far gained only a honorific (!) doctorate of a communist university in China.

ying · May 9, 2005

Oh, and one more thing;

Guys, if you don’t like the idea of being skinned, gutted and turned into an exhibit after you die, contact the company called LifeGem. For a few good years they have been transforming human ashes into jewelry. First, pure carbon is obtained from the ashes. Then in a special press a jewel is formed; the relatives and friends of the person who decided to subject his or her ashes to the process, can watch it on the internet.

I must admit i’d prefer such option to becoming a plastinated object belonging to some suspicious type who’s used to using false scientific titles :/

dropoutdave · May 9, 2005

Yeah, my friend had 'Lord' on his driving licence once, so sue him. Who gives a fuck.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

Shotgun · May 10, 2005

Quote
Guys, if you don’t like the idea of being skinned, gutted and turned into an exhibit after you die, contact the company called LifeGem. For a few good years they have been transforming human ashes into jewelry. First, pure carbon is obtained from the ashes. Then in a special press a jewel is formed; the relatives and friends of the person who decided to subject his or her ashes to the process, can watch it on the internet.

That's pretty cool... I just had the Body Worlds people send me the donor packet out of curiosity, but I probably won't actually sign up for it. My husband and I are both more interested in something like Eternal Reefs (http://www.eternalreefs.com/index.html). I sort of like the idea of being cremated, just to be absolutely certain there is nothing still going on in my body (yeah I know, that's pretty silly).

ying · May 12, 2005

Shotgun;
i thought you were a plastination fan. Eternal Reefs is an interesting idea.

Dropout Dave;
yeah, sure, who cares - let's all call ourselves lords, doctors and professors. If we are caught on it no-one will surely consider the whole situation discrediting and damaging to our reputation.

Craichead;
In your previous post you wrote: “Your arguments regarding Body Worlds have been deemed invalid and lacking credibility by your own argument regarding the value of knowledgeable criticism. What more is there to talk about? You seem to be desperately grasping for something to argue so you throw in completely irrelevant controversial topics.”

What, you’ve got ENOUGH of sparring with me? :)

I disagree that my arguments are invalid. Those “irrelevant topics” you mention were in fact analogies that prove it is possible to have relevant opinions about certain phenomenons, objects and so on WITHOUT actually experiencing them in reality. I mean, is there ANYBODY in this world who’s ever seen a geometrical POINT? :) Or a particle which has a ½ spin? Or our galaxy?

You seem to completely lack imagination and the ability of creative thinking. Like i’ve already said 10 times before – the fact you haven’t experienced something yourself does NOT mean you can’t be 100% positive that you wouldn’t like to experience it. You obviously mistake water’s boiling point with the right angle. What you say is like arguing that normally water boils in 90 degrees Celsius.

Let me give you an ultimate example. I’ve made a bet that you won’t comment it :) Have you ever flown a kindapped plane full of passengers into a skyscraper? Oh, you HAVEN’T? Then according to your logic you CAN’T condemn such deed until you try it yourself. Afterall, you might LOVE it after you’ve done it, right?

About money Von Hagens gets from plastination; yeah – making a living out of using dissected corpses for entartaining the masses surely is very noble. The man has good reasons to be proud of himself.

I asked you of what religion you are and whom you considered your moral authority. You haven’t answered. One might wonder why. Are you ashamed of your beliefs? How interesting....

You suggest that i’d be more credible if i introduced myslef as an ethicist. So you admit you value things people say by their profession? How ugly of yours. A person who hasn’t finished university studies can be very wise. I know people like that. And an university graduate can be a real idiot. I’ve met LOADS of such individuals. Tell me, if it turns out that i’m a street cleaner then you’ll reject all i’ve written so far as crap, and if it turns out i’m a philozphy professor you’ll accept my superiority in this discussion? Just don’t forget it’s the internet – i can tell you whatever i like and you won’t be able to verify the information.

You wrote: “As far as your analogy of female circumcison is concerned, you're applying your western/european views of sex and the body to their culture without knowing about their culture. If you can demonstrate that you have researched the culture, tradition and first-hand accounts from both sides of the issue, maybe I'd respect your opinion more. For now, in my eyes, you're just an angry zealot spouting off ignorant opinions.”

An angry zealot spouting off ignorant opinions? :)Applying MY western/european views of sex and the body to other culture without knowing about their culture?? :) Hm. Hmmm.... You you’re studying biology, right? It seems indeed very unlikely in face of your opinions concerning clitoris removal. But perhaps it’s the fault of the lovers you’ve had? Ever heard of the clitoral orgasms and their role in an average woman’s sexual satisfaction?

Circumcision conducted in the way it is conducted in Africa inflicts some serious effects on the health of women subjected to the ritual. "Short-term results include tetanus, septicemia, hemorrhages, cuts in the urethra, bladder, vaginal walls, and anal sphincter. Long-term: chronic uterine infection, massive scars that can hinder walking for life, fistula formation, hugely increased agony and danger during childbirth, as well aws early deaths." (The New York Times, April 12, 1996).

Now, will you continue on arguing that it is necessary to study African culture to judge all those who support the idea of genital mutilation and the genital mutilation itself?

You wrote that: “It's not about determining whether [necrophilia] is "okay" or not. It's about having an INFORMED opinion, which you clearly do not have.“

Oh i see. So you are one of those ultimate relativists. Necrophilic culture includes among others – see Erich Fromm’s essay Necrophilia for detalis – having sex with dead bodies. And Nazi culture assumed exterminating Jewish people. And yet somehow the Nazis are usually condemned in the so called civilised world. According to your logic such condemnation should be called “angry and ignorant applying of non-Nazi views of morality to the Nazi culture”. But then maybe your logic is selective and valid only in the case of some Reality aspects? :)

About taking mutilated bodies out of context of pain and suffering; you say you referred to the dead exhibits. No honey, you DIDN'T. You referred to my argument against the exhibition. And - among others - it happened to concern living people. It’s completely irrelevant what the rest of this debate is about. The important thing is what is said in particular threads the debate consists of. Looks like you’re incapable of following the written text. You didn’t understand again. Again. But i’ll rephrase it for you.

I wrote that exhibiting mutilated corpses posed as if they were living persons is harmful because if anybody wanted to see a living person deprived of his or her skin, a great amount of pain would have to be caused to that person. You attacked me suggesting that i’m creating my own standards to which i answered that they happen to be the standards of this universe. That’s what we were talking about. I repeat then – read more carefully and think at least for a while before you write another silly thing.

You say that in an other thread of this discussion we were orginally talking about appreciation only. NO. In general terms our discussion concerned valuing opinions of other people. Because appreciation is an opinion and therefore what applies to appreciation must also apply to other opinions. If it doesn’t the argument is invalid.

Regards,

ying.

craichead · May 12, 2005

Quote
yeah, sure, who cares - let's all call ourselves lords, doctors and professors. If we are caught on it no-one will surely consider the whole situation discrediting and damaging to our reputation.

Uh, did you neglect to see that he earned his doctorate from the University of Heidelberg in 1975? And he worked there for 20 years as a lecturer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens

I'm guessing that this is where the controversy comes from--that he wasn't given the title of "Professor," just "Lecturer." Simply titles that designate seniority, rank and function. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

Quote
Those “irrelevant topics” you mention were in fact analogies that prove it is possible to have relevant opinions about certain phenomenons, objects and so on WITHOUT actually experiencing them in reality.
...
Like i’ve already said 10 times before – the fact you haven’t experienced something yourself does NOT mean you can’t be 100% positive that you wouldn’t like to experience it.

Your analogies are pretty bad and incongruous with anything that we're actually discussing here. No, you can't be 100% positive about how you would feel and react to something without experiencing it. Maybe you can predict to a 99.99999...% degree of accuracy how you'd react and feel about something, but you're never going to be 100% sure until you actually experience it.

Quote
Have you ever flown a kindapped plane full of passengers into a skyscraper? Oh, you HAVEN’T? Then according to your logic you CAN’T condemn such deed until you try it yourself. Afterall, you might LOVE it after you’ve done it, right?

No, you miss the point. I CAN condemn it. I can say anything I want about the situation, and you can, too. However, I cannot say for sure what the terrorists were thinking, how they felt, or what their reasonings behind their actions were, etc. Nor can you say for sure what the visitors of Body Worlds thought, felt, experienced when they saw the exhibition.

Quote
I asked you of what religion you are and whom you considered your moral authority. You haven’t answered. One might wonder why. Are you ashamed of your beliefs? How interesting....

And I asked you why that was relevant. You haven't answered. Are you ashamed to admit that it really has nothing to do with this discussion? How interesting...

This is where your wonderful "imagination and creativity" get you into trouble. Now you're trying to make it personal and "imagine" the psychology behind what I'm thinking--i.e. assuming that I'm ashamed of my beliefs.

Quote
So you admit you value things people say by their profession? ... Tell me, if it turns out that i’m a street cleaner then you’ll reject all i’ve written so far as crap, and if it turns out i’m a philozphy professor you’ll accept my superiority in this discussion?

Nope, not by their profession, by their demonstration of knowledge. You still haven't demonstrated why or how you're a moral or ethical expert. What you've written is still crap.

Quote
But perhaps it’s the fault of the lovers you’ve had?

Again with the trying to make it personal and trying to imagine the psychology behind my thoughts. Way to troll!

Quote
Circumcision conducted in the way it is conducted in Africa inflicts some serious effects on the health of women subjected to the ritual. "Short-term results include tetanus, septicemia, hemorrhages, cuts in the urethra, bladder, vaginal walls, and anal sphincter. Long-term: chronic uterine infection, massive scars that can hinder walking for life, fistula formation, hugely increased agony and danger during childbirth, as well aws early deaths." (The New York Times, April 12, 1996).

Now, will you continue on arguing that it is necessary to study African culture to judge all those who support the idea of genital mutilation and the genital mutilation itself?

Oh look! Some seemingly credible research from ONE side! Yup, tell me some other sides to the story. Preferably from the culture that practices it, and maybe firsthand accounts from some females in the culture who have been circumcised. Then you would have an INFORMED opinion, and maybe I would consider your opinion with more regard. For now, still an angry zealot.

Regarding necrophilia, nazis, and other controversial drivel and dross that really has nothing to do with the discussion that you so love to throw in to muddle the issues: You've missed the point. Have an informed or educated opinion formed by getting to know as many sides as possible. Human nature is multi-faceted. You don't know them all, but you can at least try to get everyone's perspective before you throw out an emotional opinion that you've merely backed up with your emotional imagination.

Quote
I wrote that exhibiting mutilated corpses posed as if they were living persons is harmful because if anybody wanted to see a living person deprived of his or her skin, a great amount of pain would have to be caused to that person. You attacked me suggesting that i’m creating my own standards to which i answered that they happen to be the standards of this universe. That’s what we were talking about.

The fact is that these "mutilated corpses" weren't ever alive when skinned, gutted, and put into these positions. The bodies that we've been referring to were dead, are dead, and will continue being dead. And, you haven't directly observed or talked to any of the visitors of the exhbition to know what they thought when they saw these dead bodies. You cannot assume that people are thinking what your wonderful imagination has dreamt up about what YOU think about dead plasticized bodies. I'll say it again. Your "standards" are still not the universe's standards.

Quote
I repeat then – read more carefully and think at least for a while before you write another silly thing.

Same goes for you.

Quote
You say that in an other thread of this discussion we were orginally talking about appreciation only. NO.

Uh, yeah we were. Looks like you're incapable of following written text, too!

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Shotgun · May 12, 2005

Quote
Shotgun;
i thought you were a plastination fan. Eternal Reefs is an interesting idea.

I have no problem with Body Worlds or the plastination process. After seeing the exhibit, it is something I was considering for myself... but I think I like the Eternal Reefs idea better (and of course donating any usable organs to someone who needs them before I am cremated).

Quote
I wrote that exhibiting mutilated corpses posed as if they were living persons is harmful because if anybody wanted to see a living person deprived of his or her skin, a great amount of pain would have to be caused to that person.

Exhibiting corpses has nothing to do with seeing a living person deprived of their skin; the corpses are dead (by definition), and they were dead when their skin was removed, so seeing one doesn't imply that any sort of pain was involved... unless you want to use your imagination, but if we're going to get into imaginary things then we can come up with all sorts of things. (We can go to a cemetery and imagine that all the corpses there are really still alive and trying desperately to get out of their graves, etc., etc., etc....)

ying · May 15, 2005

Shotgun, Craichead;
As far as the “standards” are concerned; i CAN”T believe you don’t understand what i’m writing! You’re kidding me, aren’t you? :/

The word “standards” was used in the context of people who are alive. It concerned an impossibility of skinning and gutting a LIVING and conscious person without causing pain. Now you will surely quote the two previous sentences and comment that the exhibits are dead... ripping pieces of what someone says out of context is a nasty habit.

You say that exhibiting plastinated corpses has nothing to do with seeing a living person deprived of their skin; Hmm, such a statement from the citizens of a country were an instruction of a microwave includes a suggestion that the machine is not designed for drying animals?

Can you guarantee that the exhibition does not have a negative impact on the visitors’ psyches, that seeing it does not deepen the callous indifference the Western societies are already suffering from? Can you guarantee that the exhibition does not encourage treating living people like objects uniting meat and bones and that nobody will try to dissect a cat, a dog or perhaps even a human being just to see whether they really look so funny inside? Finally, having in mind the well known fact that sex and guts always sell well, can you be sure that it’s the scientific benefits that make the exhibition so attractive to the masses?

Craichead;
As far as facts are concerned; will you deny that masses act in a particular way? Will you deny that those regularities can be used to influence people? Will you deny that there’s something that might be called a group instinct? Will you deny that sex and guts have always been generating interest and selling well? Will you deny that the exhibition can be ascribed a gut category? Will you deny that if it was really the thirst for the knowledge of how our bodies are built that make the exhibition so popular then all anatomy albums and books would have been bestsellers since the day they had become available for the first time? They aren’t. Why? Any ideas?

About the right to condemn whatever one feels like to condemn; You DID suggest that i shouldn’t criticize the exhibition because i haven’t seen it. THAT was your point. Later you told me you can’t condemn the circumcision without studying African culture which is an interesting opinion as for a biologist. Especially that according to the specialists depriving a woman of her clitoris is equal to deprving a man of his whole penis. The cultural aspect is completely irrelevant here.

No excuse is good enough to justify mutilating any woman like that. And an average African woman’s opinion is of little importance as well, since she’s been growing up among people who think circumcising women it’s a right thing to do. How should she know that it’s wrong?

But let’s not digress any further; you said you won’t condemn the circumcision without studying the African culture. OK. You’re fully entitled to your own opinion. Yet your own rule applies also to yourself – if we assume the above, you CAN’T condemn the the WTC terrorist attack because you’ve never conducted one. Or in other words – you have the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution but since YOU LACK personal experience in conducting terrorist attacks your condemnation will be only an “uninformed, intellectually mediocre inflammatory crap”. And don’t try to dodge this argument by telling me that you meant one cannot be sure how exactly he or she would feel doing something new because i’ve NEVER tried to undermine that. I said that despite the fact that one cannot be sure about his or her exact feelings, one can still predict he or she wouldn’t ever like to experience certain things. You DID negate that. Are you withdrawing from supporting the negation?

About being able to follow the written text; Orginally, we surely WEREN’T talking ONLY about the appreciation. We were talking about VALUING appreciation. And appreciation was just an example we worked on. So in fact we were talking about VALUING opinions.

I’ve never tried to talk to you from the position of a morality expert. It makes things too easy :) This is the Internet – since one can be whatever one wants to be here, one’s views and opinions are the most important thing and the impossible to verify declarations concerning one’s name, sex, age, education and so on are of little or no importance. The logical system in confines of which i operate is clear and consistent. But your statements lack consistence notorically. And yet you say my performance convinces you that what i write is crap. Where have your great theories praising the multi-faced world culture gone? Shouldn’t they also apply to me? :)

You ask what is the importance of my question concerning your religion and moral authorities; you have NO IDEA? :) Okay, i’ll enlighten you. The information i try to obtain would be quite telling and it would make it possible to track the influences that might have been playing a signifficant role in the process of forming your views. And by the way, i haven’t assumed you actually ARE ashamed to admit who you are. Nor have i imagined any psychology behind your refusal. I just ASKED if this is the case. Are you unable to distinguish between a question (suggestion) and assumption?

About being a troll; oh, LOOK WHO’S TALKING! So you say that my opinions make me a “zealous troll” and your stating my posts are: “crap, intellectually mediocre, infammatory, uninformed, ignorant (etc.) statements” that are based on “drivel and dross” is perfectly OK? I don’t know how you classify it in America but in Europe the double standards you have for yourself and the others would be called HYPOCRISY.

You wrote “Regarding necrophilia, nazis, and other controversial drivel and dross that really has nothing to do with the discussion that you so love to throw in to muddle the issues: You’ve missed the point. Have an informed or educated opinion formed by getting to know as many sides as possible. Human nature is multi-faceted.”

First of all, neither necrophilia nor Nazism should EVER be called drivel and dross. They’re serious and still powerful phenomenons existing in this imperfect world of ours. What’s more, there’s a strong connection between them. According to Fromm, Hitler was a perfect example of a necrofilic character. And in case you’ve forgotten, Nazism was directly responsible for the World War II. Drivel and dross you say?

I haven’t referred to those phenomenons just for the sake of controversy. That’s what (among others) the art of polemic is about – finding suitable analogies. And it happens that the more extreme the analogy the more visible the mistakes of one’s opponents. That is – YOURS in this case :)

There’s absolutely NO NEED of consulting others and getting to “know as many sides as possible” to have consistently crystalized views in the discussion we’re having here. This ain’t no disfunctioning couples therapy session. A mature person should be able to think self-reliantly and form his or her OWN opinions. And the fact that human nature is multi-faced DOES NOT mean we should relativise everything because NO cultural differences can possibly justify for instance the homicide of Polish officers by Soviets in Katyn during the World War II, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, legal sex with 9 year old girls in Africa and other horrors that happened, are happening and surely will happen.

And finally Von Hagens’ scientific titles. I haven’t done any research in this area. I haven’t also suggested that Von Hagens is or isn’t a doctor. I just quoted a news report. And if, as you suggest, the problem really is of a minor importance then WHY the man was sentenced to pay a 140 thousand dollar fine? Perhaps it’s more serious than you think?

Regards,

ying.

Sign In

Sign In

See if this doesn't gross you out!

Recommended Posts

unformed 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,464

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

craichead 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TPO 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AdD 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dropoutdave 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TPO 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Skyrad 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ying 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ying 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

craichead 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,464

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ying 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Shotgun 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

craichead 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WrongWay 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dropoutdave 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ying 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ying 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites