26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyNarrow minded as ever el...
So according to some of more morally braindead here the murder of a tortured and starving dog = artistic expression?
Too much television, i'm almost afraid to ask what you do for a living.
You guys are nutcases, just like the artist.
No one here has said "this is acceptable because it is art".
RTFA!
EDIT : Besides, your comments are rejected as an ad hominem 😛
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe same cultures that fatten animals to eat might actually have a problem with starving one for "art".
What's your point? In some cultures, dogs are eaten for food. In Michael Vick's backyard, they serve as gladiatorial fodder. You should be more concerned with the millions of babies each year who are snatched untimely from their mother's womb, carved up into tiny cadaver parts or have their brains sucked out, ground up and synthesized into anti-Alzheimer's drugs.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaBut that is not the case, many here have boldly expressed a shallow and uncaring attitude, that is reflected in the usual monotonic and morally incomprehensible cliches being expressed. There were several blah blah blah "in the name of art" type posts here, that uncourageously attempt to point this discussion in another direction, seeking identification with the psychopathic nutcase artist, yours was but one of them. It's that kind of moral duplicity and social apathy that i find appalling and unfathomable. It's all good until the bombs are falling on your street.
Narrow minded as ever el...
No one here has said "this is acceptable because it is art".
RTFA!
EDIT : Besides, your comments are rejected as an ad hominem 😛
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaRe: The words BUT and HOWEVER, when used after describing a heinous act---normally I'd agree with you. One word isn't enough to make a moral judgement about someone. Unless it's one of those 2 words, used in the context I described.
lol...you cherry-pick [b]one word from my post, and decide I am "utterly devoid of concience" as a result of that one word?
I'll bet you didn't even read the article did you...?[/b]
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaEl is oft chided for his views, but c'mon--somethings are clear as mother's milk! You don't starve animals, you don't kill innocents, you don't root for the Yankees. Some things ARE black and white!🙂
Narrow minded as ever el...
No one here has said "this is acceptable because it is art".
RTFA!
EDIT : Besides, your comments are rejected as an ad hominem 😛
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by eldragonflyOK, let me put it another way.
But that is not the case, many here have boldly expressed a shallow and uncaring attitude, that is reflected in the usual monotonic and morally incomprehensible cliches being expressed. There were several blah blah blah "in the name of art" type posts here, that uncourageously attempt to point this discussion in another direction, seeking identification ...[text shortened]... i find appalling and unfathomable. It's all good until the bombs are falling on your street.
No one here has condoned the act.
There is no justification for the (clearly premeditated) actions by Vargas that led to Nativity losing his life prematurely.
I certainly don't see any justification, and I would join you entirely in lambasting anyone who did (trolls aside).
Your comments :
"There were several blah blah blah "in the name of art" type posts here. Yours was but one"
There has not been a single such comment...I didn't make one either.
There have been a couple of perspective posts about how other cultures see dogs as a normal food source, and how some thought needs applying to the urchins paid a few local pittances to coral the animal in the first place...so ...what are you on about?
The fact is, Nativity IS dead...so what do we do with that information?
How else were we to respond to the initial post?
Register our disgust and that's that?
As with many walks of life, when something happens needlesly, we seek an explanation...and perhaps thereby a route by which the same thing may be prevented in future.
No more so than with the needless loss of life.
The first port of call in this instance is "What posessed Vargas to do such a thing?"
Read the article.
It still does not justify Vargas' original actions, for sure...but it does at least lead to a little hope that good may result from Nativity's demise.
In fact, it already has...RHP Debate Forum readers, and the myriad of blog readers out there, are now aware of the lack of realistic animal welfare in Costa Rica despite three resident organisations working to that end.
From little acorns, from the ashes...etc.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaYour ad hoc moralizations here are rather pathetic.
OK, let me put it another way.
No one here has condoned the act.
Here are the rather morally bankrupt/invisible viewpoints that you obviously are content in pretending are not there... or say something else.
1
Originally posted by Zadadka
I'm not supporting this deed, indeed, I find it utterly abhorent, however, there is an intersting perspective here, including by the artist himself :
2
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
What's your point? In some cultures, dogs are eaten for food. In Michael Vick's backyard, they serve as gladiatorial fodder. You should be more concerned with the millions...
3
Originally posted by mdhall
Ultimately, death is a necessary deed, despite how fearful we are of what form it comes.
4
Originally posted by mdhall
Ultimately, death is a necessary deed, despite how fearful we are of what form it comes.
Don't ask me to disect the rather unfortunate and morally repugnant language in these rather bland posts.
Let's take a quick look at the only facts here. This was an act of conscious animal torture. That animal was treated sadistically for no good reason. That artist is a psychopath, nothing more to say.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaHow about suggesting the artist be arrested for animal cruelty and be given a lethat injection?
The fact is, Nativity IS dead...so what do we do with that information?
How else were we to respond to the initial post?
Register our disgust and that's that?
Better still, how 'bout some vigilante justice?
27 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonfly[/b]More of your non-contributory garbage.
Your ad hoc moralizations here are rather pathetic.
Here are the rather morally bankrupt/invisible viewpoints that you obviously are content in pretending are not there... or say something else.
[b]1
Originally posted by Zadadka
I'm not supporting this deed, indeed, I find it utterly abhorent, however, there is an intersting per treated sadistically for no good reason. That artist is a psychopath, nothing more to say.
Goodbye.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaAnd your opening gambit is not?
Narrow minded as ever el...
No one here has said "this is acceptable because it is art".
RTFA!
EDIT : Besides, your comments are rejected as an ad hominem 😛
You seem to me to be one of those half-baked characters who like to appear 'different' from, and somehow superior to, the vast majority of people who comdemn such psychpathic acts without qualification.
27 Oct 07
I've made it perfectly clear I agree the act itself was wrong, psychopathic, whatever term you care to use.
At no stage have I "qualified" the act, or sought to, whether as art or otherwise.
The item was in Debates.
All I've done is look beyond, to see that some good has come of it...and shared that, because I thought it would somehow help to know his death wasn't necessarily in vain.
In doing so, I used the word "however"...if I'm being slapped down for that, if I'm now judged and branded simply because you see my using that sole word as negating entirely the spirit of my initial post...?..
..which you have clearly missed, having remained focussed on the initial knee-jerk reaction to "however" and seeing me as defending Vargas...
And if you'll notice, I used the word "but" to agree that it was "conscious animal torture".
That's what I meant about narrow minded.
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaOK. You must have been misunderstood. It's easlily done so let's call it a day.
I've made it perfectly clear I agree the act itself was wrong, psychopathic, whatever term you care to use.
At no stage have I "qualified" the act, or sought to, whether as art or otherwise.
The item was in Debates.
All I've done is look beyond, to see that some good has come of it...and shared that, because I thought it would somehow help to know his d ...[text shortened]... it was "conscious animal torture".
That's what I meant about narrow minded.