Artist to eat stillborn dead baby as performance art- Why is this even legal to show?

[Rider]

Placenta is different because it is a byproduct, not a human being. It’s akin to eating snot, really. Yuck, did I just say that?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

originally posted by Rider:
**Here’s a cite for my above post, but don’t read it if you’re easily upset by the subject of the post.

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1995/4/14-2_1.html

**

Originally posted by astro *
Oh my GOD!! That story is more disconcerting than my OP by an order of magnitude… no make that orders* of magnitude.

All the docs and the kids of the docs at the birth control clinics in China are apparently very well fed. **

Snopes also addresses Rider’s story, in the same link as it addresses the “artist eating stillborn baby” story.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm

The rumor about the Chinese eating dead babies did not begin with this “work of art,” however. In 1995, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia raised a short-lived media ruckus by asserting he’d encountered credible reports of Chinese hospitals’ selling human fetuses to be used as health food. Citing a 12 April 1995 article from Eastern Express, an English-language daily in Hong Kong, he demanded the Clinton administration and international human rights groups investigate these allegations.

Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those “credible” reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact.

Okay, so is everyone in this thread now grasping that Zhu Yu doesn’t actually eat a stillborn baby? According to Snopes, it’s probably a duck carcass.

[Rider]

Yes, but the Eastern Express thing was considered as old news by the Chinese press, who run the story of fetus consumption from time to time. It was on TV reports here, also. It did/does happen.

[Rider]

“Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those “credible” reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact.”

Just to add, a lot bigger stories than this have gone away when major powers have had issues. I’d wager that the Clinton Admin just didn’t consider it something worth going to bat over at the time. It’s about politics, not press reliability.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Old news–but old “untrue” news. Just because the Chinese media run the story every so often doesn’t make it true. The media here run the same story every year about NORAD tracking Santa’s sleigh all the way from the North Pole–but that doesn’t make it true.

It did/does happen.

Cite? Snopes says it’s probably an UL, that there’s no confirmation of it other than the one Hong Kong Express article. What else have you got? And sorry, it doesn’t count just to say “there aren’t any reports because the Clinton administration didn’t care to concern themselves with it.” Name another story with the same potential for messy and exciting front-page headlines as the “fact” that the Chinese are selling and eating aborted human fetuses that was ignored by the Powers That Be. I doubt if you can.

a lot bigger stories than this have gone away when major powers have had issues.

Such as?

Also, the Clinton Administration didn’t choose what news went on CNN, or the BBC. If there had been a story there, there would have been some followup.

After a while we didn’t hear anything more about cold fusion, and that was because it was a hoax, not because the Administration didn’t concern itself with it.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Rider *
**“Nothing apparently came of this call to arms, leading us to believe those “credible” reports turned out to be not so reliable after all. Just like this latest scare, in fact.”

Just to add, a lot bigger stories than this have gone away when major powers have had issues. I’d wager that the Clinton Admin just didn’t consider it something worth going to bat over at the time. It’s about politics, not press reliability. **

Forget about the performance artist. Let’s assume he’s a fraud. The more interesting issue is whether Chinese people will really eat placentas and embryos when and if if they can get them.

This investigative follow up to the article seems to kind of debunk the nummy fetus issue.

Blood Libel: Eating Children

[Rider]

I think we’re digging too deep here (A heretical claim, i know, on this message board). My Chinese girlfriend at the time couldn’t understand why I was getting so uptight about the news reports. To her, it was just like saying…hey those Scottish folk eat Haggis. I had a few Chinese friends who also were remarkably offhand in their confirmation of this practice. Come to this part of the world, and you’ll be hard put to find a Chinese person who will deny that eating fetuses goes on in Chinese society.

[Padeye]

Let’s see if Bertie Botts every flavor beans has those favors.

[Johnny_L.A]

Snopes says it’s false.

The photo shown above was taken seriously by a number of important agencies who viewed it, and both Scotland Yard and the FBI investigated this matter, trying to determine when and where the picture was taken and the identities of those appearing in it. Its origin was quickly uncovered: The man in the photo is Chinese artist Zhu Yu, who performed a conceptual piece called “Eating People” at a Shanghai arts festival in 2000. The controversial photo has since been part of a number of art exhibits. **As for the “baby,” it was most likely constructed by placing a doll’s head on a duck’s carcass. **

[Johnny_L.A]

:rolleyes: Once again, I posted without reading the entire thread.

I’ll go away now…

[Daoloth]

I remember when a certain nefarious website whose domain starts with an ‘r’ posted images of this. They got in trouble and had to post the explanation that confirms what Snopes said.

Said website are also the inventors of the infamous Bonsai Kitten.

[istara]

I can’t imagine choosing stir fried homo (as in sapiens) with black bean sauce myself, but if I was stranded on a desert island and the only meat in sight was the Swiss Family Robinson, I could get an appetite…

[Berkut]

*Originally posted by astro *
**Giant WOOSHING sound fills the air as a large man is carried up into the clouds by a mighty, whirling tornado of credulity.

“But, but… it was in the papers” he cried “and on the internet” as his voice slowly faded into the distance. **

Snopes is on the internet, and their sources for debunking were newspapers. Is it false just because they say so?

I just don’t see how Snopes debunked this when they use the same unreliable sources that started the whole thing. Could I “debunk” Snopes by making my own website that has links to newspapers saying that it’s true?

I apologize for the hijack. I think the story is crap too, I just don’t get the whole Snopes thing. Please feel free to educate me if there is something I’m missing (I know you guys will ).

[Daoloth]

*Originally posted by Joey G *
**Snopes is on the internet, and their sources for debunking were newspapers. Is it false just because they say so?

I just don’t see how Snopes debunked this when they use the same unreliable sources that started the whole thing. Could I “debunk” Snopes by making my own website that has links to newspapers saying that it’s true?

I apologize for the hijack. I think the story is crap too, I just don’t get the whole Snopes thing. Please feel free to educate me if there is something I’m missing (I know you guys will ). **

The reason I trust Snopes, is that they’re more than 95% accurate. However, I’m positive this is a hoax, as I have seen outside corroboration.

Here is a UK Register debunking, including a link to a review of the art show.

Here is the rebuttal by the staff of the infamous site who first popularized the picture. [Note to mods- this links only to an article]

[GIGObuster]

Like Daoloth said, and I will add that the reason thrust in Snopes is high among dopers is that it guide us to do a better targeted search, like DDG there showed. Many times Snopes survives the BS detectors and investigators from this board, which is no small feat, hence the respect many have for it.

Besides, it is better than becouseIsaidso.com

[superfreakicus]

psshh…didn’t they already do this on fear factor?

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Daoloth *
Here is a UK Register debunking, including a link to a review of the art show.

Huh? Your link says the following:

This raises the possibility that the child pictured is an actual dead baby. Conceptualists typically go for maximum authenticity in their work, being a lot of anything-for-a-buck illiterate knuckleheads oblivious to the glaring contradiction between ‘authenticity’ and ‘art’ evident to those of us who can, like, read books and sit exams and such.

Whether because he, like most artists, can’t afford actual groceries, or whether in an effort to make some profound statement, the likelihood exists that ‘Foetus Breath Zhu’ is actually committing the crime of eating long pig with – it’s almost too horrible to write – orange juice.

And:

there is a common and often fatal infantile disease rampant in China known as ‘being a baby girl’. Zhu may simply have obtained a victim of this dreadful illness, and immortalized her in art.

*Originally posted by Daoloth *Here is the rebuttal by the staff of the infamous site who first popularized the picture. [Note to mods- this links only to an article]

This too does not “rebut” anything, beyond claiming that rotten.com is not guilty of any crime.

I agree with Joey G. The pure and unsullied faith that so many posters have in Snopes is misplaced.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

My understanding is that Barbara and David Mikkelson actually go and look things up, do research, make phone calls. They are not God, but then, neither is Cecil.

[IzzyR]

They also put out a lot of silly “nobody would ever do this because it makes no sense” arguments. (As well as other weak types of arguments that are not in play here).

In this case, they seem to be debunking the story of widespread fetus-eating by simply asserting that

Taiwan maintains the same attitude towards cannibalism as the rest of the world; the practice is as abhorrent there as it is anywhere else.

And the artist story by speculating

As for the “baby,” it was most likely constructed by placing a doll’s head on a duck’s carcass

Maybe, maybe not.

Snopes is as good as the research they do, and the evidence they put forth. Not much indication of either, in this case.

[jayseebee]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
**Still, I think we still have some presumption of truth allowable to us. If the Guardian is reporting this and quoting governmental sources talking about it I don’t think we, as the public, have taken leave of our senses to believe just any old thing. **

The UK has a few problems but luckily, Anne Widdeciombe being a member of the Government is no longer one of them… go Tony.