ying

An article describing the effects of the oil crash that - according to some experts - we are to witness sooner than we expect...... http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

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.

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, 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.

Sorry for the delay, i’ve been quite busy recently. Skyrad :)))) My love life? Sure! What do you want to know? Nah, just kidding. You couldn’t seriously suspect me of being such an exhibicionist, could you. I discuss the details of my love life only with my lover. But if you want a general discussion i have nothing against. However i’d suggest swiching to e-mail. Or PMs. And those ambiguous cases i mentioned. Revealing if any of them concerns my person would spoil the fun. Decide for yourself. Or you can make up your own version if you find it interesting. Use your imagination. It’s the Internet afterall – untill we’re here you can mistake me for everything you want me to be, without slightest consequences (i.e. disappointment, health threat, etc) :) And anyway, perceptions have always been more important than the so called Truth ;) Cheers :) 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. And don’t you try the Method Of The Double Implication on me. It’s very spectacular but not always effective. And this not always happens to be our case. 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? You write that i keep making ridiculous and uninformed assumptions about the way the exhibition visitors think and act and you suggest that testing at least 100+ people is needed to state what is the reason for which they go to see Body Worlds. 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? Random testing is useless. But it’s enough you remind yourself the basic laws concerning the behaviour of the masses and everything becomes more than clear. With Body Worlds it is exactly the same mechanism as with the accidents and emotionally-pornographic talk-shows. People are strangely fascinated by them. If Von Hagens used 1:1 models the exhibition would never draw such numbers of visitors. 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? 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. Have you ever heard about the circumcision 2 million girls and young women in Africa are subjected to every year? You probably think it’s a bad thing. On what basis? Have you ever witnessed the process? And yet i’d bet you think it’s sick. Why? Because as i wrote before, you don’t have to eat shit to know you don’t want to have it in your mouth. In other words, humans possess the gift of IMAGINATION. They are capable of conducting a thinking process and forming conclusions. This allows them not to try everything by themselves. 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. I don’t agree that dead bodies are just flesh and bones. I mean, technically they are. 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? 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. 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. 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. Billvon; you wrote: > learning a martial art is far more 'dangerous' than seeing a cadaver. Heck, learning baseball is more dangerous in that way; once you know how to use that bat . . . Yes, you’re right. But you seem to ignore the fact that martial arts’ efficiency is based on the knowledge of anatomy. 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. I guess that showing violence in an abstract, poetical way is art but a dangerous one. 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. Perhaps watching such sights and deliberately overcoming the natural responce to them is not such a good idea?

Hi Jeiber :) Yes, i’ve missed you too ;) Sorry i post so late in this thread of yours but i’ve been suffering from a permanent lack of time lately and whole my internet activity is internet-cafe based so as you can imagine it doesn’t make makes things any easier. But nevermind those organisational problems; CATS are the most perfect creatures in the world. They’re beautiful, elegant and sophisticated. Anybody who seriously thinks of hunting them must be a mierzavietz and a BARBARRRIAN! There have already been people in China and USSR who tried to make the nature function better. Guess what happened - they caused utter devastation. Ever heard of the Chinese organised action that took place during the Cultural Revolution? The sparrows were its object. They ate the corn or something and Chinese authorities came to the conclusion that it brought loses so it was decided that every family had to kill as many sparrows as possible. And so was done. Not much time paseed and China suffered from an ultimate bug plague. Of course, apart from being living perfections, cats are also effincintly effective killing machines but then not only cats kill other animals. Squirells and mice don’t eat meat as far as i know but why don’t you think about all those poor insects the nasty birds exterminate? Don’t they also have the right to live? You pity birds who die in jaws of the cats? What about all those defenceless cows, pigs and chickens slaughtered each year just for the sake of our palatal pleasures? And how about hundreds of Grass Leaves That Are Destroyed Each Time The Skydivers Land (copyright by Ulissa) after having their egoistic pleasure of skydiving? Not to mention the global pollution, destroying forests and CO2 emission. Humanity can be easily seen as the CANCER eating the Earth away. Why not legalize men hunting? Or better – provoke a massive neutron bomb attack that would wipe humanity out and let the Earth be finally reborn. Now let’s all chant: FREE THE EARTH! FREE THE EARTH! ;) Regards, ying.

To all those who say that they avoid the CRAP in Speaker's Corner; could you define CRAP? Or perhaps you call CRAP everything that requires effort to be understood and/ or what makes you feel anxious? :) If so, do not worry - it's quite common approach in the global scale :/ Afterall, thinking hurts as hell and the one who said it didn't only thought he had been ever thinking ;)

To everybody; I’m not saying that what Von Hagens does is the same as Nazi experiments and the like. The examples i presented were to show you that the fact that something is scientific and educational cannot be enough to pronounce it good. TPO, Craichead; you say that teaching people about human anatomy cannot make any harm. I disagree. If you know where the main blood tracks run it’s enough to sick a kife in them to kill a person within a few seconds. If you know the mechanics of joints it’ll be easier for you to break them and so on. So don’t tell me that the knowledge of anatomy cannot be used to harm people. Skyrad; i don’t have any evidence that would prove that the concentration camps exist in Northern Korea. But i’ve seen a documentary, i guess it was made by BBC, in which a former camp officer who’s escaped from Korea talked about what was going on inside the camp he worked in. In addition to that i’ve read some articles based on the human rights organisations reports. I can’t give you any internet links because i don’t know them. But if you’re interested in the subject try to contact Amnesty International. They should have suitable materials. To everybody; I do accept the fact that many Proffesionals Allied to Medicine visit the exibition. But that’s not the thing. Would you say that they are the majority of the visitors? I do accept the fact that it is possible to learn a lot watching the Body Worlds but would you say that the majority of people who come there do it because of the thirst for knowledge? It’s interesting how you stubbornly ignore the fact that there’s a lot of people who come there mainly to see the skinned and dissected corpses. Or perhaps you will try to tell me that this hasn’t been happening? Skyrad, Craichead; as far as human body being a popular exhibit all over the world is concerned; you’re right of course, but that’s not exactly what i meant. I thought of DEAD human bodies and i was sure such interpretation would be obvious from the context. What you wrote means it is not that obvious. OK. I understand. Should have been more precise. Let me repeat then – corpses as exhibits and making money out of showig them is something i find extremely disgusting. TPO; I’ve read your first post once again today and i’ve noticed that i didn’t answer one of your arguments. You wrote that in your opinion to be able to retain the full physical glory you once had in life, is much more poetic (than rotting or roasting). I understand human fear of the process in which they disapper from this world but is being skinned and dissected really retaining the full physical glory you mentioned? I see you’re familiar with the suicidal thread ;) But neither here nor there nor anywhere have i said that my views are unique. I’ve only said they’re different than yours. If they weren’t different the discussion wouldn’t last long. I don’t mean to sound matter-of-factly. I just express my opinion. I don’t try to speak for the whole world if that’s what you mean. You say that it seems that the views on here are in favour of learning from the Exhibition. Hmmm. You out-number me that’s for sure. I am aware that if i don’t stop making excrement related comparisons you’re likely to think that it’s some kind of obsession for me but two times ain’t not the obsession yet so let me tell you that basing your argument on the fact that it’s the majority’s view is like saying: eat shit – billions of flies cannot possibly wrong ;) You wrote: “I don’t need to know how I will feel after doing such things (rape murder, etc.) – nor would I consider myself authoritative enough to try and comment or pass judgement on something I have never actually done.” Hmmm. That’s interesting. 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? Or maybe you’re an extreme relativist? You ask whether i am a skydiver; well, i’ve jumped a few times, i’ve got a FAI licence and even the ULC’s Certificate of Qualification of the Aviation Presonnel Member, so i’d say i am a skydiver, but then you could argue that i’m not since i made my last jump in September 2004 because then the seazon ended and winter begun, so maybe i can’t call myself a skydiver until i pass the KWT (Theoretical Knowledge Test) and sucessfully perform during the KTS (Jump Technique Verification) :) I’m not sure when i’ll do this because despite the astronomical spring the snow hasn’t melted yet, the air is pretty chilly and drunk white bears with kalashnikovs and cheap cigarettes in their teeth still wander the streets of our capital. But anyway, is it really important whether i jump or not? You also aks if i am a virgin :) My dear TPO, WHY do you want to know this? :) I must admit that my imagination fails me at this point and i can’t see HOW my alleged virginity is supposed to be relevant in our discussion. Despite of that, i’ll try to answer you but first you must tell me what kind of virginity you precisely mean - physical, mental or theoretical? ;) You may think that it’s splitting hairs but virginity is in fact a very complex problem. Can a woman be called a virgin if she hasn’t have sex with anybody but has experienced orgasms during masturbation? Or if a man has made love to her but hasn’t penetrated her vagina with his penis? Or if she has had sex “only” with another woman? Or if she has had sex with a woman and there has been a vibrator involved? Or if she has had the classical vaginal sex with a man but her hymen hasn’t been fully broken? Or if she has had sex with various people but never came? Or if she has had sex and has had some orgasm but never actually loved any of her lovers? Or if no-one has ever made love to her but she happens to be an oral sex expert? And so on and so forth. I could go on like this for hours. So what exactly you meant asking whether i’m a virgin? ;) Craichead; do i detect impatience in your last post? Calm down – we’re just having a nice polite conversation here. You say that what i do is trolling. Ever heard of the right to express one’s thoughts freely? I’m asking because you seem to be quite unhappy about the fact that i say what i think. Do you call a troll EVERY person who doesn’t agree with you? I might say that what YOU wrote was meant to cause a negative responce in me. Calling my posts “intellectually mediocre, uninformed, inflammatory statements” surely is far from being neutral. And yet i don’t call you a troll. I strongly suggest you rethink your attitude. You ask what one can learn from a rotting corpse. Well, as a matter of fact, quite a lot. Such a sight can, though of course it doesn’t have to be an inspiration to ponderings concerning for instance the fragility of life, sense of our existence and the afterlife. It can lead to studying biology, anatomy, philozophy or whatever. But OK, you insist that the labels, placards, notes and so on play the crucial role in making the Body Worlds so valuable. Uh-oh. The CRUCIAL role? Hmm. So you actually say that if not for that “additional” stuff you would learn little or nothing? Well, if so then what’s the purpose of exhibiting all those poor bodies? Wouldn’t 1:1 realistic models be equally good? To everybody; Von Hagens’ exhibition is like pornography. It’s disgusting but still some people prefer it to idealized and horeographically sophisticated love scenes from non-porn movies. It’s real but at the same time it’s fake because you rarely can see dissected people playing basketball or riding horses. The sight one can see on the exhibition would normally be connected with pain and suffering. Have you ever thought about it? Perhaps blunting people’s sensitivity by showing them such things and taking mutilated bodies out of context of pain and suffering is not a positive thing afterall? Perhaps treating corpses as exhibits, even if people they once belonged to agreed for that, is not such a good idea in the end? Craichead; You wrote that the funeral houses, casket makers, cementaries and crematories make money on death. Yes, but it’s not the same as what Von Hagens does. Of course there is something macabric in a guy who gives you a catalogue of caskets and it’s in a way awful that some people abuse the love people had for their relatives who are gone but imagine what would happen if not for the funeral houses and so on. What i mean is that their existence and activity is necessary. And Von Hagens’ exhibition is not. About appreciation; it surely is possible to appreciate something you know very little of. But don’t you think that the appreciation of an expert has a slightly different value than the one of a laic? Let me illustrate it with a simple example. Let’s say you watch a movie from your last skydive with couple of people. Afterwards a guy who’s just found out that a sport like skydiving exists tells you you were marvelous. And then a guy who’s jumped 10 000 times states you did a really good job and that you have an unusual talent. Would these two opinions be of the same value to you? Regards, ying.

WORD WARS - epizode XIV ;) Feuergnom; guess you’ve watched too many German movies lately :/ You say i post here because i don’t get laid properly? Wonder if you dared to repeat it to my boyfriend. I mean standing in front of him :) I truly pity you if you REALLY associate thinking with the lack of good sex. But be careful – if you were to be judged the way you judge others then whenever you said anything that didn’t expose your intelligence to ridicule, it would be a prof of your sexual frustration. But never mind such irrelevant details ;) Let me ask you, WHAT exactly you meant by saying i don’t get laid properly: 1. My fiery temperament and my unbridled apetite for sex? ;) 2. The alleged lack of physical closeness with a man? 3. The alleged lack of sex that involves vagina and penis? 4. The alleged lack of orgasms as such? And by the way – if your penis/ vagina could talk, what would it say in a few words? :) Skyrad; come on, there are hundreds of threads here. Can’t you just ignore this one if you can’t stand it? And if you can’t – don’t worry. I’ve got a feeling that my opponents get more and more tired so it probably won’t take long till i stand alone [ and explicitly victorious ;) ] on this battlefield of ours ;) As far as the spoon is concerned; it’s good you accept the fact that there is no spoon. But do you know WHY? ;) In case you’ve already reached toward the keyboard to write that the Machines got us all connected to the Matrix and so on; i mean the other, less spectacular explanation. Unformed; you’re right. At least partially – there are some truly great hash-ists among Polish skydivers ;) But in my case it’s not the hash but probably the fact that my father would put the speaker to my mum’s belly while she was pregnant and play modern orchestral music to the still unborn me. I have a suspicion that it was not without the effect on the development of my brain – hence my activity on your forum. But not only that :) Do you think i should sue my dad? ;) Jeiber :)))) If you don’t care enough to make a research and find out what PENIS IS WALKING AROUND ME means then WHY you think that i care about all those swirlies, noogies and throwing spirals you mentioned? If you stuffed your posts with Conrad-alike words then i’d surely check them but teenager slang? Come on! Call me humorless but i don’t see anything funny in talking to a non-native speaker deliberately using slang words and idioms she doesn’t understand and then accusing her of intelectual laziness. You play unfair and then try to mask it as jokes. It’s the tactics of the desperate ones who find no merithorical arguments to present. You mentioned nose picking; well i don’t think it requires the activity of the same brain areas as reading with understanding, creative thinking and writing if you mind such irrelevant technical details ;) About treating others with superiority; you can’t be serious. The fact i don’t agree with you does not automatically mean that i’m patronising you. I’ve already stressed i don’t consider myself better than you. If i did i’d call you fools ignorants and so on. Instead of that i’m patiently explaining what i mean. I answer everybody. I don’t say, cut out the bullshit. I say, yes, what you say is very interesting, but it seems you haven’t taken into account such and such factor. Does this really fit your concept of patronising attitude? You’re right – I’ve dissected the definition of suicide but since it is the central concept in our discussion the dissection was necessary. It’s good to establish the definition of the terms which are the basis of polemics. If you don’t do it you usually end up talking about something different than your opponent and this makes the duel practically endless. Sex with animals; i don’t believe you could possibly abuse those poor sheep. Instead i see you relieving the sexual tension in noble full contact fights a la Fight Club. But then the first rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club. No wonder you mentioned the sheep ;) And finally the Freudian hole and peg analogy; i like it very much :) But why didn’t you take it to the extreme? Why not the ultimate peg with a triangle as its horizontal section? It’d be so nicely perfidious – especially the triangle is the symbol of yoni (famale sexual organ) in Tantra and peg is traditionally associated with fallus :) Imagine those two in one :) I’m not going to digress any further, because the vaginal aspect of penis is a whole differnt story, but please oh please – can we have a triangle peg? :) Since you haven’t said NO let’s go back to our analysis ;) The circular hole might stand for the (so called) Reality and the triangle peg might be the common understanding of language. The false assumption you made is that i try to fit the peg into the hole. I don’t need to do this. I know without checking that the triangle peg won’t fit the round hole (unless we use a hammer or the peg is smaller than the hole). I describe the Reality. You insist that it’s different than what the language suggest. I tell you, put away that triangle peg – it’s useless. Find a round one instead. But you clutch on it tight and won’t let go. No, you say, the peg is OK – there’s something wrong with the hole! I’m asking you now, what’s more likely – that there’s something wrong with the (so called) Reality, or that the language, especially understood litterally, reveals serious imperfections? I think the later. The symbolics you used in your analogy seems to confirm that. The circle is said to be the perfect shape in the two dimensional world. Yet on the other hand, the triangle, although at first it seems to be the antithesis of roundness, is nothing but a rigid, simplified circle. What i say is the full version including all, and if not all then most, aspects of the problem, while what you say is the simplified, zipped form. See what your subconsious had smuggled into your consious? Somewhere deep inside you agree with me not even realizing that ;) Regards, ying.

Word Wars: Epizode XIII Narrator: Previously on WORD WARS.... The horror continues! Already a dozen of our brave heroes – Michele, Happythoughts and Justinb138 among them – have faced the ignominious defeat! But the Dreadful Ying is still strong and now the remaining warriors will have to double their efforts to protect the www.dropzone.com forum from the brutal invasion! But instead of planning how to effectively strike back, Unformed gave himself in to the paroxism of nervous laughter and Skyrad started to doubt whether the victory is possible at all. Now everything seems to be in the hands of Jeiber! Will he manage to attract the attention of the Enemy and save his side-kiks from Ying’s Viciouos-Though-Masked-As-Polite riposte?? Stay tuned! Jeiber: Ying, I give you one last chance! Leave this forum while you still can. Ying: Ha! You’ll need something more than that to defeat me, Jeiber! Jeiber: If that’s what you want.... But you have been warned! I’ll use an old technique which is the legacy of the Ancient Masters. No-one has managed to resist it so far. Ying: WHAT? Did you say the Ancient Masters? It can’t be true! Their knowledge’s been lost for centuries! You COULDN’T possibly possess it! Jeiber: In a moment you’ll find it out for yourself! Ying: Oh NO!! NO, please, it’s not fair! DON’T do this to me!! Jeiber: Too late! You had your chance to retreat! Now you’ll meet your doom! ULTIMATE ANALOGY, haaaa! Ying: AAAAA! You’ll pay for this! Narrator: Two ruthless warriors has clashed. Is this already the end of this horrible confrontation? Is Jeiber’s attack going to be be successful? Don’t miss the next epizode of WORD WARS!

Craichead, TPO; if you assume that watching Von Hagens’ exhibition is a good lesson then seeing a rottening body must be at least equally good. I’d say that a swollen corpse is even better as a source of knowledge because it’s authentic. Real bodies don’t look the way the clean, dry and scentless objects presented on the exibition look like. So in fact Von Hagens offers a scientific fake. And before Craichead misunderstands something again let me stress that both the Body Worlds and death-driven tourism are repulsive to me. Craichead; OK, so you’ve studied biology and so on. But how many of the Body Worlds exhibition viewers have? The majority or just a few of them? Without your knowledge, would you be able to fully appreciate the complexity of the human body? I don’t think so. And that’s what i meant. Craichead, TPO; You write about the educational valours; but why educate everybody about everything? Don’t get me wrong – everybody should have access to education, but do you really believe that most people who come to watch the Body Worlds do it because they want to LEARN something? I don’t think so. As i said, the main attracting factor here is the fact that the exhibition is shocking. People come to watch the macabra. Learning is only a side effect. If it occurs at all. And talking about learning; why not educate people about constructing explosives? Afterall it can be extremely useful – especially when you need to professionally destroy something, for instance an old building you want to get rid of to build a new one. Or when you’re interested in mining. Or in modeling metal tubes and pipes. Wonder why Chuck Palahniuk’s book Fight Club was censored. All those domestic methods of producing nitroglicerine or napalm he mentiones are also quite educational. And how about the advanced combat techniques – they can also prove helpful especially in the era of terrorist attacks. The ability to kill a nasty terrorist with one hit can save hundreads of lives, right? So exactly WHY the access to such knowledge is limited if people want to possess it? There is nothing inapropriate making a body or its parts available for the scientific purposes if the person to whom the body belonged had nothing against such proceder. But making a show for the masses out of it and turning it into a profitable business IS inapropriate. Euphemistically speaking. Human body as a public exibit is something i cannot and will never accept. I’m affraid that it’s not enough that something is educational. Everything can be educational. Nazi experiments in Auschwitz also were. Afterall, if not for them we wouldn’t have probably known what are the effects of making a human being a phenol injection. Or the concentration camps in Northern Korea. Have you heard about them? They use gas chambers there. They let people in, start pumping in the gas and observe the reactions through the glass roof. They’ve discovered that the families tend to keep together and survive longer. Very scientific and educational, isn’t it :/ Not to mention the ideological and economical experiments in USSR that devoured many many more victims than hitlerism. Craichead; the corpse of the pregnant woman – it’s simply the most shocking thing for me. That’s why i mentioned it two or three times. It’s true i haven’t been to the exhibition but i’ve read a lot about it and i’ve seen the pictures of those plastinated people. It’s enough for me. I don’t need to see anything more. TPO; i don’t have any problems with reading long posts so as far as i’m concerned you don’t need to say you’re sorry. Afterall people vistit the forums to read and write, don’t they. You say that we “are never going to know how something like that will affect us, unless we actually give it chance to affect us”. I disagree. If we assume your logic the conclusion might be that we should all try to at least once rape somebody, commit a murder and conduct one terrorist attack to actually know how we will feel about it. In my humble opinion you don’t have to eat shit to know that you don’t want to have it in your mouth. Would you agree? Regards, ying.