The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If you have seen the news today - a professor has carried out a live autopsy on a 72 year old german infront of 400 people and TV camara's despite being threatened that he will be aresseted by the police.
The professor felt that it had to be done to 'educate people'
Some found it rather disturbing and others enjoyed watching it, I personally think it's quite sick.
do you agree or disagree with this?
The professor felt that it had to be done to 'educate people'
Some found it rather disturbing and others enjoyed watching it, I personally think it's quite sick.
do you agree or disagree with this?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> I said the IMAGERY was the same.
*
The imagery is similiar - but a dead body is a dead body.
It was a publicity stunt, but at the same time I thought was interesting to see what actually happens during an autopsy.
> I said the IMAGERY was the same.
*
The imagery is similiar - but a dead body is a dead body.
It was a publicity stunt, but at the same time I thought was interesting to see what actually happens during an autopsy.
Unsurprisingy astute there...
This seems like a win-win situation:
Artist/doctor gets money for reprising what every medical student does in first year.
90% of the audience pays £12 to feel daring and controversial.
10% of the audience pays £12 to feel outraged and morally superior.
90% of the audience go home, write a letter to The Guardian about what a profound statement was made, waffle on aboout the transience of life and then eat some polenta.
10% of the audience go home, write an article for The Daily Mail, file an expense claim for £50 (ticket, taxi, large popcorn), condemn the barbarians who would watch such a spectacle, and then read a porn mag to see if it really is sexist.
In the morning everyone buys a newspaper, has all their prejudices confirmed and enjoys the rest of the day. In the evening journalists replace the words 'public autopsy' with 'Celebrity Big Brother' and submit the same article to their delighted editors.
And on the world turns...
Artist/doctor gets money for reprising what every medical student does in first year.
90% of the audience pays £12 to feel daring and controversial.
10% of the audience pays £12 to feel outraged and morally superior.
90% of the audience go home, write a letter to The Guardian about what a profound statement was made, waffle on aboout the transience of life and then eat some polenta.
10% of the audience go home, write an article for The Daily Mail, file an expense claim for £50 (ticket, taxi, large popcorn), condemn the barbarians who would watch such a spectacle, and then read a porn mag to see if it really is sexist.
In the morning everyone buys a newspaper, has all their prejudices confirmed and enjoys the rest of the day. In the evening journalists replace the words 'public autopsy' with 'Celebrity Big Brother' and submit the same article to their delighted editors.
And on the world turns...
Nomad Soul wrote:
> The difference is he didn't murder them and he got their consent to
> use their bodies in this way beforehand.
I said the IMAGERY was the same.
~~Belldandy~~
> The difference is he didn't murder them and he got their consent to
> use their bodies in this way beforehand.
I said the IMAGERY was the same.
~~Belldandy~~
phi11ip wrote:
> And they could have at least covered up the bloke's 'you know what'
*
What's the matter? You ain't lived until you've seen a dead man's willy.
> And they could have at least covered up the bloke's 'you know what'
*
What's the matter? You ain't lived until you've seen a dead man's willy.
Vast Luckystar wrote:
> I thought it was no big deal.
>
> The question which kept popping up in my mind was: "Why is the
> main German guy wearing a black hat?"
He say it was in honour of the 'old' people who used to wear hats like that!
And they could have at least covered up the bloke's 'you know what'
> I thought it was no big deal.
>
> The question which kept popping up in my mind was: "Why is the
> main German guy wearing a black hat?"
He say it was in honour of the 'old' people who used to wear hats like that!
And they could have at least covered up the bloke's 'you know what'
I thought it was no big deal.
The question which kept popping up in my mind was: "Why is the main German guy wearing a black hat?"
The question which kept popping up in my mind was: "Why is the main German guy wearing a black hat?"
Belldandy wrote:
> Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that
> exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of
> dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi
> concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose
> no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't
> want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ?
---
Completely different.
He obtained consent from the families, didnt brutally murder half a million of them and force them into slave labour or perform experiments on them whilst still alive.
It wasn't wartime torture or genocide.
What he does is no different to that of Damian Hirst, but because he uses bodies there's this whole taboo thing going on.
He's the dude responsible for the Bodyworks exhibition, which is incredibly informative, interesting and had not only artistic but educational value.
I was in absolute hysterics reading The Daily Mail's report of this autopsy, talk about manipulative journalism:
"His skeletal, grim smile and lizard tongue" and several other phrases that were anything other than knee-jerk bordedom.
And that journalist was the guy that hollered about it being disrespectful to wear a hat?
Bwahahahahahaha, this was from a man who paid £12 to watch.
Quite frankly, this will disappear from the radar in a day or two and we can all move on.
> Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that
> exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of
> dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi
> concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose
> no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't
> want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ?
---
Completely different.
He obtained consent from the families, didnt brutally murder half a million of them and force them into slave labour or perform experiments on them whilst still alive.
It wasn't wartime torture or genocide.
What he does is no different to that of Damian Hirst, but because he uses bodies there's this whole taboo thing going on.
He's the dude responsible for the Bodyworks exhibition, which is incredibly informative, interesting and had not only artistic but educational value.
I was in absolute hysterics reading The Daily Mail's report of this autopsy, talk about manipulative journalism:
"His skeletal, grim smile and lizard tongue" and several other phrases that were anything other than knee-jerk bordedom.
And that journalist was the guy that hollered about it being disrespectful to wear a hat?
Bwahahahahahaha, this was from a man who paid £12 to watch.
Quite frankly, this will disappear from the radar in a day or two and we can all move on.
Belldandy wrote:
> Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that
> exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of
> dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi
> concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose
> no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't
> want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ? Better not criticise
> anything or it's seen as denying freedom of expression and speech.
> It's gone far enough.
The difference is he didn't murder them and he got their consent to use their bodies in this way beforehand.
> Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that
> exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of
> dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi
> concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose
> no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't
> want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ? Better not criticise
> anything or it's seen as denying freedom of expression and speech.
> It's gone far enough.
The difference is he didn't murder them and he got their consent to use their bodies in this way beforehand.
If it was illegal then it should have been stopped, it clearly was so why wasn't it ?
Does this now mean that, in Britain, you can do illegal things as long as you have a paying audience ? What shall we try next eh ? Pipe in some live executions from the Middle East ? They're mostly public after all. I'm sure theres loads of crime we could televise live and get massive ratings for, and charge more than £12 each to view.
What if it wasn't an old man he cut up, and it'd been a child, or a younger person instead ? I guarantee it would have hcanged the whole way this was looked at.
Don't kid yourselves this was anything other than exploitative tv and a way of raising the profile of an "artist" who would otherwise be an unknown. He made little money from this, but he bought publicity, hundreds of future magazine and tv appearances, and so on. It was no different from Big Brother or Popstars, apart from the audiences - both live and watching on tv - largely convinced itself it was somehow being educated and was therefore enlightened by watching it.
Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ? Better not criticise anything or it's seen as denying freedom of expression and speech. It's gone far enough.
This is nothing more than someone using dead bodies to promote his own, otherwise noteless, career, and most people are falling for it.
~~Belldandy~~
Does this now mean that, in Britain, you can do illegal things as long as you have a paying audience ? What shall we try next eh ? Pipe in some live executions from the Middle East ? They're mostly public after all. I'm sure theres loads of crime we could televise live and get massive ratings for, and charge more than £12 each to view.
What if it wasn't an old man he cut up, and it'd been a child, or a younger person instead ? I guarantee it would have hcanged the whole way this was looked at.
Don't kid yourselves this was anything other than exploitative tv and a way of raising the profile of an "artist" who would otherwise be an unknown. He made little money from this, but he bought publicity, hundreds of future magazine and tv appearances, and so on. It was no different from Big Brother or Popstars, apart from the audiences - both live and watching on tv - largely convinced itself it was somehow being educated and was therefore enlightened by watching it.
Earlier in the year he did a similar publicity stunt with that exhibition with the preserved bodies in it. How did his piling up of dead bodies, and use of them, vary from the scenes found in Nazi concentration camps ? The imagery was exactly the same, but I suppose no one is allowed to say that, with him being german and all, don't want to offend anyone in these PC times do we ? Better not criticise anything or it's seen as denying freedom of expression and speech. It's gone far enough.
This is nothing more than someone using dead bodies to promote his own, otherwise noteless, career, and most people are falling for it.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: