Dog starved to death in the name of "art":

[jread]

This is one of the worst things I've read in a long time: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=96&pst=747331&archival=&posts=10


What is wrong with people......

[Delilah]

Since I'm not a crier.....
*loads gun, plots murder*

sick fucks

[Rhu]

What is wrong with people......
Yeah, really. All those "I'm disgusted, someone... someone say something! Please, I hope someone does something!" comments are pathetic.

Waitta go, folks. Keep showing you care by making meaningless e-gestures.

[stopharian]

Disgusting

[tinribz]

This is one of the worst things I've read in a long time: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=96&pst=747331&archival=&posts=10


What is wrong with people......

While this is a sick way to go about it the 'Artist' makes a valid point about people being happy to walk past this sort of thing in the street every day, yet boast revulsion from such a tiny change of context.

It's this sort of human hypocrisy that makes a mockery of religion too.

[Lateralus]

When I read the title of the thread, the first thing I thought was that the artist took a perfectly healthy dog and tortured it. According to the quote below, the dog was nearly dead before he even found it. I wonder if the artist realized the dog was in such poor health. Also, did the dog die of starvation or of disease? Animal rights people seem to be jumping to conclusions, here. (What else is new?) It seems to me that the previous owners are more culpable for the dog's condition.


A Costa Rican artist found himself in hot water with the animal protection people in his home country after using a starving, sick street dog as part of an exposition in Managua, Nicaragua, in August. Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas allegedly found the dog tied up on a street corner in a poor Nicaragua barrio and brought it to the showing.

He tied the dog, according to furious animal lovers, in a corner of the salon where it died after a day...

[Delilah]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who step over a dying animal everyday is indeed a valid point, and one that should be made,but you know, he could've just taken some damn pictures and taken the poor thing to the vet.

[stopharian]

When I read the title of the thread, the first thing I thought was that the artist took a perfectly healthy dog and tortured it. According to the quote below, the dog was nearly dead before he even found it. I wonder if the artist realized the dog was in such poor health. Also, did the dog die of starvation or of disease? Animal rights people seem to be jumping to conclusions, here. (What else is new?) It seems to me that the previous owners are more culpable for the dog's condition.

Whatever he did to it the photos show a dieing dog tied up in a museum. Whether he starved it or not is kind of irrelevant. If it was about to die, he mocked its death and provided no comfort for it in its last hours

[Delilah]

Whatever he did to it the photos show a dieing dog tied up in a museum. Whether he starved it or not is kind of irrelevant. If it was about to die, he mocked its death and provided no comfort for it in its last hours

agreed, tha dog may been too far gone to save, but he could've had it put down peacefully and quickly, there is no excuse for prolonging the suffering of another being for profit.

[Lateralus]

agreed, tha dog may been too far gone to save, but he could've had it put down peacefully and quickly, there is no excuse for prolonging the suffering of another being for profit.
I disagree. Are you a pacifist?

[Night]

This is utterly disgusting.

[Delilah]

I disagree. Are you a pacifist?

No, not at all. What did you disagree with precisely?

[Rice-Tactics]

Wouldn't it have also been art if he helped it? or shot it? Where he's right is when there is drama and when it creates emotion in the audience its a successful piece of art. But then again... isnt part of being an artists having the ability to evoke these emotions in people without having any real dramatic event happening? I'd sign the petition but I don't know what País means.

[Lateralus]

No, not at all. What did you disagree with precisely?
The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others. That's just one excuse (or many, depending upon how you look at it).

I'm in no way saying I support what the artist has done. I'm just getting a really strong F vibe from the INTPs in this thread. It's amusing, actually. The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one.

Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?

[Nocapszy]

If it was sick and it was going to die, then it's not so bad. We ought not to get worked up over this incidence when there are plenty of the same situation recurring domestically.

However it's ridiculous that this is considered art. How is this artistic at all?

[booyalab]

The guy knows how to get publicity. If he had done this to a baby we might not even be hearing about it.

[Nocapszy]

The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others. That's just one excuse (or many, depending upon how you look at it).
That's not art though, that's science. They're very different.



I'm in no way saying I support what the artist has done. I'm just getting a really strong F vibe from the INTPs in this thread. It's amusing, actually. The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one.

Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?

Yeah it is pretty F. More specifically SF. This happens all the time. Are you, INTPs upset because it was done publicly? That's really the only difference between this situation and every other animal abuse case anywhere.

[Nocapszy]

Yeah, really. All those "I'm disgusted, someone... someone say something! Please, I hope someone does something!" comments are pathetic.

Waitta go, folks. Keep showing you care by making meaningless e-gestures.

Well in all fairness Rhu, we can't expect these good sumeritans to get up from their chair and leave their cup of coffee, put on a cape and go save every animal in the world. How would they feed their own cat then?

[stopharian]

The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others. That's just one excuse (or many, depending upon how you look at it).

I'm in no way saying I support what the artist has done. I'm just getting a really strong F vibe from the INTPs in this thread. It's amusing, actually. The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one.

Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?


Refer to post just prior to your own(rice-tactics).
Of course we're giving an F vibe, are you saying its wrong to make judgments based on values?

[Delilah]

The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others. That's just one excuse (or many, depending upon how you look at it).

I'm in no way saying I support what the artist has done. I'm just getting a really strong F vibe from the INTPs in this thread. It's amusing, actually. The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one.

Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?

Ok, for starters, in medicine there is a positive end result and a scientifically valid reason. I would hope that his intentions were to bring about a a positive end result, and not solely for the sake of "art" (which is not a valid reason) but there are better ways to bring awareness to the cuase than to let a defenseless animal suffer needlessly.
Also, as suffering increases and become unbearable, the animal is put down humanely in a research setting, whereas this one died a slow and likely painful death, which was entirely unnecessary.
As I said in an earlier post, he could have photographed the dog, in the state and conditions it was in prior to and during the capture phase and done a brilliant and poignant pictorial with losers ignoring it and the poor thing scavenging for food in the streets that could have had an equally powerful affect on the observer,and gotten the dog help, if indeed the dog were in too poor of shape to be helped he could have even gone so far as to include a photo of the corpse, but to tie it up so people can watch it die is cruel and sick.

[PonderBee]

Apparently the dog did not die it escaped from the gallery and returned to its life as a stray. A blogger wrote to the gallery and received a response which basically relays that the dog was fed, cared for and not tethered during its time at the gallery with the exception of the duration of the 3 hour show.
http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

[helium]

The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others. That's just one excuse (or many, depending upon how you look at it).

I'm in no way saying I support what the artist has done. I'm just getting a really strong F vibe from the INTPs in this thread. It's amusing, actually. The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one.

You use "excuse" in place of "reason" and then say you think the act was not excusable. Medical research has been reasonable, if immoral. Yours is a bullshit semantic argument, playing the devil's advocate over something you clearly refuse to advocate. Or did you have a point?

[Lateralus]

Ok, for starters, in medicine there is a positive end result and a scientifically valid reason. I would hope that his intentions were to bring about a a positive end result, and not solely for the sake of "art" (which is not a valid reason) but there are better ways to bring awareness to the cuase than to let a defenseless animal suffer needlessly.
Also, as suffering increases and become unbearable, the animal is put down humanely in a research setting, whereas this one died a slow and likely painful death, which was entirely unnecessary.
Do you know his intent? What better ways are there to "bring awareness"?


As I said in an earlier post, he could have photographed the dog, in the state and conditions it was in prior to and during the capture phase and done a brilliant and poignant pictorial with losers ignoring it and the poor thing scavenging for food in the streets that could have had an equally powerful affect on the observer,and gotten the dog help, if indeed the dog were in too poor of shape to be helped he could have even gone so far as to include a photo of the corpse, but to tie it up so people can watch it die is cruel and sick.
Would that have had the same effect? I have my doubts.

[Delilah]

Do you know his intent? What better ways are there to "bring awareness"?.
No, which is why I said I would hope his intent was to etc. etc.
And I mentioned an option, that done right would have been a better way.




Would that have had the same effect? I have my doubts.

I think, if done right, it certainly could, if he is truly an artist that is, and of that I have MY doubts.

[stopharian]

Should have tortured the thing. maybe pull out it claws, battery terminals to the nads, acid, live skinnings etc. "Awareness" would have sky rocketed.

[Lateralus]

You use "excuse" in place of "reason" and then say you think the act was not excusable. Medical research has been reasonable, if immoral. Yours is a bullshit semantic argument, playing the devil's advocate over something you clearly refuse to advocate. Or did you have a point?
Actually, my point was that people, here, are jumping to conclusions without adequate information. Read PonderBee's post, above yours.

[Rhu]

Well in all fairness Rhu, we can't expect these good sumeritans to get up from their chair and leave their cup of coffee, put on a cape and go save every animal in the world.
I accept that direct intervention is probably not a viable option. However, validating the artist by gushing an emotional response rather than proactively raising awareness or actively calling upon the attention of some authority that actually can do something is akin to exhibitionist masturbation.



How would they feed their own cat then?
One can only hope that they simply stop feeding their cats in protest of this injustice.

[Delilah]

Actually, my point was that people, here, are jumping to conclusions without adequate information. Read PonderBee's post, above yours.

Regardless of the accuracy of the content in the OP, the discussion now is about whether or not this is right or wrong. You are asking us to defend why we believe this to be wrong. Just because the OP has turned from fact to fiction doesn't change my opinion of the posts I've made.
My question is why don't you think it's wrong?

[helium]

Actually, my point was that people, here, are jumping to conclusions without adequate information. Read PonderBee's post, above yours.

I have, and I couldn't care less if the dog lived or died, honestly. It's a dog. That doesn't change what you knew when you made your comment. I certainly don't see any excuse for intentionally abusing an animal (and you seem to agree), yet your commentary, to which I responded, engaged bullshit semantics to poke fun of those people who were offended by the alleged abuse. If your point really was as you wrote above, why not say just that?

My point? You were using false logic and fuzzy semantics to create static over an issue you weren't prepared to defend or stomach. Why?

[Nocapszy]

I accept that direct intervention is probably not a viable option. However, validating the artist by gushing an emotional response rather than proactively raising awareness or actively calling upon the attention of some authority that actually can do something is akin to exhibitionist masturbation.



One can only hope that they simply stop feeding their cats in protest of this injustice.

Amen!

Edit: Ok I'm going to take this a little more seriously now.

I tend to agree with you actually, in that these people are basically expressing fake concern.

Though there would be a lot more torture, animal or human, if it weren't for the public just speaking out against it. Let's not forget that MOST people (apparently not this guy) is affected and influenced by public opinion. Even just saying negative things hinders negative action.

However, it's sort of an embarrassment to be one of the ones who's JUST saying things. Don't get me wrong. I'm not portraying these people as heros, I'm just saying we can't expect everyone to be.

[Lateralus]

Regardless of the accuracy of the content in the OP, the discussion now is about whether or not this is right or wrong. You are asking us to defend why we believe this to be wrong. Just because the OP has turned from fact to fiction doesn't change my opinion of the posts I've made.
My question is why don't you think it's wrong?
The discussion is whatever we make of it, not what you decide. Look at my original post...people jumping to conclusions. Everyone is so upset about a dog being starved to death by an artist...but wait, the artist didn't starve him...wait, the dog didn't die, it was only held for one day. Now people pretend that the circumstances are irrelevant so they don't look gullible. That's exactly what happened.

What I've found interesting about this thread, from the start, is that when a story evokes a particular emotional response in an individual (in this case, outrage), that individual is far less likely to question its truth.

[Delilah]

The discussion is whatever we make of it, not what you decide. Look at my original post...people jumping to conclusions. Everyone is so upset about a dog being starved to death by an artist...but wait, the artist didn't starve him...wait, the dog didn't die, it was only held for one day. Now people pretend that the circumstances are irrelevant so they don't look gullible. That's exactly what happened.

What I've found interesting about this thread, from the start, is that when a story evokes a particular emotional response in an individual (in this case, outrage), that individual is far less likely to question its truth.

You asked if someone could provide a reasonable objective reason why we believed that the situation in the OP was wrong correct? That's where we're at now, and I could give a rat's ass about looking gullible or wrong (I do it all the time), but you still have not answered why you don't think it's wrong.

[Lateralus]

I have, and I couldn't care less if the dog lived or died, honestly. It's a dog. That doesn't change what you knew when you made your comment. I certainly don't see any excuse for intentionally abusing an animal (and you seem to agree), yet your commentary, to which I responded, engaged bullshit semantics to poke fun of those people who were offended by the alleged abuse. If your point really was as you wrote above, why not say just that?
Yep, I was poking fun. I even said I thought it was amusing. You haven't had any fantastic revelation, here.

Is it possible to have more than one objective?


My point? You were using false logic and fuzzy semantics to create static over an issue you weren't prepared to defend or stomach. Why?
Aren't you being aggressive! If I didn't know any better, I'd assume I had offended you. I wasn't prepared to defend my stance, though. I had things come up at work that slowed my replies. I apologize for lacking the "stomach" for this debate. :rolleyes:

[Delilah]

Yep, I was poking fun. I even said I thought it was amusing. You haven't had any fantastic revelation, here.

Is it possible to have more than one objective?


Aren't you being aggressive! If I didn't know any better, I'd assume I had offended you. I wasn't prepared to defend my stance, though. I had things come up at work that slowed my replies. I apologize for lacking the "stomach" for this debate. :rolleyes:

Ah, stirring the pot to exercise your arm then?

[Xenolith]

Consider the following.

Thousands of dogs die everyday at killing pounds and shelters. Did people care? He offed one stray dog and now everyone throws a tantrum.

[Nocapszy]

Consider the following.

Thousands of dogs die everyday at killing pounds and shelters. Did people care? He offed one stray dog and now everyone throws a tantrum.

Damn that's what I' been sayin'.

Pay attention people.

[helium]

Try again. There were a total of 5 posts before your first post (including the OP), and two of them were nothing close to "outrage" at the alleged abuse. That means fully half of the posts weren't animal rights activists "jumping to conclusions." All these amusing INTPs expressing feelings, indeed. If you count the original post, you have 2/5. Again, why did you want to stir up trouble? Although, I ask myself: "(What else is new?)"

[Delilah]

I needed a good tantrum today, now it's been ruined! Thanks guys!
*storms off in a huff*

[Autumn]

Not so long ago a kitten was drown in an "art-film" created here in Hungary. The film even won some prize. What a shame.
Some reference (I don't know what kind of sites these are, I just googled it up):
link1 (http://tmil.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/02/697829-drowning-a-kitten-winner)
link2 (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=96281)
I'm glad I didn't see that film. I don't know how the creator ended up (was he prosecuted or not).

[helium]

Ah, stirring the pot to exercise your arm then?

In effect, yes, and initially under the guise that animal abuse is equivalent to medical research.

:rolleyes2:

But now it's all just a joke. That's an easy way to end it.

[Lateralus]

Try again. There were a total of 5 posts before your first post (including the OP), and two of them were nothing close to "outrage" at the alleged abuse. That means fully half of the posts weren't animal rights activists "jumping to conclusions." All these amusing INTPs expressing feelings, indeed. If you count the original post, you have 2/5. Again, why did you want to stir up trouble? Although, I ask myself: "(What else is new?)"
You assume I was referring only to the people in this thread (did you even look at the link? Did you see all the outrageous responses?). You're making a lot of assumptions about my posts, Helium, most of them wrong.

[Rhu]

However, it's sort of an embarrassment to be one of the ones who's JUST saying things. Don't get me wrong. I'm not portraying these people as heros, I'm just saying we can't expect everyone to be.
Expect? Of course not. Some people prefer to never leave the comfort of limiting their perspective to splashing about only in the personal juices that they stew themselves in.

It would be equally irresponsible to not encourage alternate behavior, though.

[firch]

I get the impression that people here are upset that the dog wasn't killed by an appropriate agent. :rolleyes2:

At least this way it has put a spotlight on the plight of dogs in a certain corner of the world which is what I think the 'artist' intended.

[PonderBee]

Who do I talk to about charging admission and stud fees for the INTPc dog fights? I want a cut.

[Delilah]

In effect, yes, and initially under the guise that animal abuse is equivalent to medical research.

:rolleyes2:

But now it's all just a joke. That's an easy way to end it.

Disappointing. I thought it was a valid and potentially interesting topic.




At least this way it has put a spotlight on the plight of dogs in a certain corner of the world which is what I think the 'artist' intended.

As I said earlier, If that was his goal, I applaud his effort if not his method.

[helium]

You assume I was referring only to the people in this thread (did you even look at the link? Did you see all the outrageous responses?). You're making a lot of assumptions about my posts, Helium, most of them wrong.

"The INTPs here act as though they're so objective, yet they fall all over themselves with value judgments in certain threads, like this one." I guess I failed to assume the critical bit: that you had found a way to type complete strangers from "outrageous responses." You could have made that clear from the beginning, or in replying to my first post, but I'm certain that wasn't your purpose. Is it so hard to admit?

"Yep, I was poking fun. I even said I thought it was amusing. You haven't had any fantastic revelation, here. Is it possible to have more than one objective?"

Apparently it's not so hard to admit, and I give you credit for your ability to invent objectives as fast as they become necessary to support your argument.

:)

[Lateralus]

In effect, yes, and initially under the guise that animal abuse is equivalent to medical research.

:rolleyes2:

But now it's all just a joke. That's an easy way to end it.
Well, I could argue that the abuse of one animal is acceptable, if it had a meaningful effect on animal abuse, overall. You obviously disagree, but that's a philosophical discussion. By the way, I never argued that they were equivalent, though, I suppose I could if I bothered.

The reason I mentioned medical research is because erick made an outrageous claim, that animal abuse is never acceptable.

[Rhu]

Who do I talk to about charging admission and stud fees for the INTPc dog fights? I want a cut.
To get a cut, you'll need a role in the fights.

*clicks pen and peers at clipboard*

Do you have a desire to create, publicize or tend arenas? To arrange, supervise, or document our breeding program?

[Ivy]

Well, I could argue that the abuse of one animal is acceptable, if it had a meaningful effect on animal abuse, overall. You obviously disagree, but that's a philosophical discussion. By the way, I never argued that they were equivalent, though, I suppose I could if I bothered.

The reason I mentioned medical research is because erick made an outrageous claim, that animal abuse is never acceptable.

I wouldn't classify medical research as abuse. It's a subjective term, I guess.

[PonderBee]

To get a cut, you'll need a role in the fights.

*clicks pen and peers at clipboard*

Do you have a desire to create, publicize or tend arenas? To arrange, supervise, or document our breeding program?

I can provide pens, portable generators and ESTP's as bait animals.

[Lateralus]

blah blah blah
You're still having trouble seperating my objectives, jumping to conclusions (everyone, even non-INTPs), displaying lots of F (just the INTPs, here). I can understand why you're having trouble. You're upset. It's showing up in your posts. You're being very aggressive, playing the role of guardian, and it's having an effect on your reasoning. Step back, take a deep breath, and read my posts again, this time without all the malice clouding your vision.

[Lateralus]

I wouldn't classify medical research as abuse. It's a subjective term, I guess.
It's all subjective, every last bit of it.

[Rhu]

I can provide pens, portable generators and ESTP's as bait animals.
We already have a pen! (http://forums.intpcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56) (Or, depending on your perspective, this could be our holding cell. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/index.php))

As for the other resources--I assume the generators and ESTPs that you command have unique qualities that set them apart from our regularly stocked deliveries?

[helium]

Well, I could argue that the abuse of one animal is acceptable, if it had a meaningful effect on animal abuse, overall. You obviously disagree, but that's a philosophical discussion. By the way, I never argued that they were equivalent, though, I suppose I could if I bothered.


In fact, I don't disagree. I disagree with the implication that medical research is somehow equivalent to abuse in terms of moral quality, which is in fact what you implied.



The reason I mentioned medical research is because erick made an outrageous claim, that animal abuse is never acceptable.

So exactly what wrong assumption did I make about the "outrageous" claims you described?


You're still having trouble seperating my objectives, jumping to conclusions (everyone, even non-INTPs), displaying lots of F (just the INTPs, here). I can understand why you're having trouble. You're upset. It's showing up in your posts. You're being very aggressive, playing the role of guardian, and it's having an effect on your reasoning. Step back, take a deep breath, and read my posts again, this time without all the malice clouding your vision.

You didn't mention everyone until now. You mentioned INTPs. And I'm not the least bit upset. I'm having fun picking apart your bullshit semantic argument. When upset, I disengage. Of course, it's more or less over since you've already admitted to stirring up trouble for its own sake, without any real point, which was at the heart of my original post in this thread. Quoting me as saying "blah blah blah" emphasizes it.

[Delilah]

The reason I mentioned medical research is because erick made an outrageous claim, that animal abuse is never acceptable.

I don't consider medical research as abuse, it's scientific research with quantifiable data , which although unpleasant is often necessary.
What is outrageous about the statement that animal abuse is never acceptable?

[Xenolith]

This is a dramatic thread.

[PonderBee]

We already have a pen! (http://forums.intpcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?f=56) (Or, depending on your perspective, this could be our holding cell. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/index.php))

As for the other resources--I assume the generators and ESTPs that you command have unique qualities that set them apart from our regularly stocked deliveries?

All of my ESTPs will have gone thru surgical sterilization with an option for hobbling so as to give the INTPs a good chance to sink in their teeth. The generators are Briggs & Stratton 8,000 watts.

[helium]

I don't consider medical research as abuse, it's scientific research with quantifiable data , which although unpleasant is often necessary.
What is outrageous about the statement that animal abuse is never acceptable?

Probably the fact that your two objectives (animal abuse is wrong, and medical research is different) were in place before he started inventing multiple objectives for himself.

[Rhu]

All of my ESTPs will have gone thru surgical sterilization with an option for hobbling so as to give the INTPs a good chance to sink in their teeth.
Hm. Hmm. While interesting, the current training program of ritual self-scarring and free-for-all INTP on INTP pit fights has lasted for generations of posters.

I appreciate the offer, but before committing to a contract, I think we would require you to provide samples of your product for live trials.


The generators are Briggs & Stratton 8,000 watts.
I'd need to see the specs to see how the topic generation would work better than the current Briggs & Myers 1942 model.

[Nocapszy]

Expect? Of course not. Some people prefer to never leave the comfort of limiting their perspective to splashing about only in the personal juices that they stew themselves in.

It would be equally irresponsible to not encourage alternate behavior, though.

Right, so then I guess we don't really disagree. I was just providing some justification for those people, even though I think they're idiots.

[PonderBee]

Hm. Hmm. While interesting, the current training model of ritual self-scarring and free-for-all INTP on INTP pit fights has lasted for generations of posters.

I appreciate the offer, but before committing to a contract, I think we would require you to provide samples of your product for live trials.


I'd need to see the specs to see how the topic generation would work better than the current Briggs & Myers 1942 model.

erm ... the last time I posted links to our company's training videos it led to a multi-state investigation in which two high ranking Republicans, a Catholic Nun and an Imam were caught up. Live samples usually take a few weeks and a trip to either Oklahoma or LA to round-up - so its a no-go on the samples (just for now).
The 1942 is a hand-pull model yes/no? Ours start at the push of a button. I was prepared to bypass any leasing fees for 10 months but now your just busting my chops on this ...

[enjoysham]

While this is a sick way to go about it the 'Artist' makes a valid point about people being happy to walk past this sort of thing in the street every day, yet boast revulsion from such a tiny change of context.

It's this sort of human hypocrisy that makes a mockery of religion too.

The difference here though, would be between stepping over a homeless man in downtown Manhattan, and bringing him back to your home where you leave him chained against a wall and throw peanuts at him while your friends point and laugh until he starves to death.

There's a difference between being selfishly negligent, which rings of self-preservation or even Libertarianism... and the plotted, willful destruction of another being under your care.

[Delilah]

Probably the fact that your two objectives (animal abuse is wrong, and medical research is different) were in place before he started inventing multiple objectives for himself.

Don't you hate it when that happens?
I'm kinda bummed now, here I go and put almost 30 seconds into what I hoped would be an answer to "Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?" and have some interesting things thrown back at me to ponder.
Ah hell, I'l just make something up.

[Rhu]

erm ... the last time I posted links to our company's training videos it led to a multi-state investigation in which two high ranking Republicans, a Catholic Nun and an Imam were caught up. Live samples usually take a few weeks and a trip to either Oklahoma or LA to round-up - so its a no-go on the samples (just for now).
Well, if there's anything we can do to make your sample collection easier, please forward a request to headquarters.


The 1942 is a hand-pull model yes/no? Ours start at the push of a button. I was prepared to bypass any leasing fees for 10 months but now your just busting my chops on this ...
I'm interested in performance! Typically, I start snarling and drooling when I'm chop-busting. Do you see me doing either?

Rhetorical question--I know you're tempted to answer in the affirmative, I know I would if I were in your shoes. I'd even show you the goofy grin with which I'd say it, but the bosses aren't paying me for goofy grins.

[Toonia]

The arts have become a screaming contest. When this happens, meaning becomes irrelevant.

[Lateralus]

In fact, I don't disagree. I disagree with the implication that medical research is somehow equivalent to abuse in terms of moral quality, which is in fact what you implied.
Are you implying that morality is not also subjective?


So exactly what wrong assumption did I make about the "outrageous" claims you described?
Please, you know exactly what I was saying. Now you're just stirring the pot, yourself. At most, you can say I did not clearly make my point, but no, you instead choose to assign motivations.


You didn't mention everyone until now. You mentioned INTPs. And I'm not the least bit upset. I'm having fun picking apart your bullshit semantic argument. When upset, I disengage. Of course, it's more or less over since you've already admitted to stirring up trouble for its own sake, without any real point, which was at the heart of my original post in this thread. Quoting me as saying "blah blah blah" emphasizes it.
You keep calling my argument bullshit, but then you say you agree with me. "Blah blah blah" is more than that post deserved.


Probably the fact that your two objectives (animal abuse is wrong, and medical research is different) were in place before he started inventing multiple objectives for himself.
Quit whining. You didn't see that I had multiple objectives with my posts. It's not the end of the world. Get over it.


I don't consider medical research as abuse, it's scientific research with quantifiable data , which although unpleasant is often necessary.
What is outrageous about the statement that animal abuse is never acceptable?
Isn't that convenient, that you consider medical research to not be animal abuse. I suppose it's not abuse as long you gain from it, personally. That's not self-serving in the least. :rolleyes:

[Delilah]

The idea that there is no excuse for prolonging suffering for profit. That's just not reasonable. There are plenty of excuses. Medicine would not be where it's at, today, if it weren't for the suffering of others.
..............

Can anyone objectively tell me why this artist was "wrong"?


Isn't that convenient, that you consider medical research to not be animal abuse. I suppose it's not abuse as long you gain from it, personally. That's not self-serving in the least. :rolleyes:

Yes, it really is isn't it?:grin:

[Toonia]

Consider the following.

Thousands of dogs die everyday at killing pounds and shelters. Did people care? He offed one stray dog and now everyone throws a tantrum.

So the dog's life is worth less because it is stray and there are examples of strays that get killed on a regular basis? That reads like a very circumstantial measure of worth. If a human being is homeless and many such homeless people get killed, does that make the individual worth less? Is life defined solely by it's apparent circumstance?

There is also the consideration of one's sphere of influence. If a thousand such dogs die in a system in which you have limited influence, but you have it in your power to save the dog in front of you, are these two scenarios moral equivalents? Why would our lack of influence in one context imply no capacity for influence in another context? I think people are responding to his misuse within his sphere of obvious influence. He is in fact more responsible to the dog in front of him than to the thousands within the system.

EDIT: the issue is one of a power differential between personal power and a vulnerable creature. Our choices of how to treat those who fall within our power, define our deepest selves with the most clarity.

[Lateralus]

Yes, it really is isn't it?:grin:
Well, you still haven't given me an objective reason.

[helium]

Are you implying that morality is not also subjective?

Who said anything about subjectivity? Are you changing gears again?



Please, you know exactly what I was saying. Now you're just stirring the pot, yourself. At most, you can say I did not clearly make my point, but no, you instead choose to assign motivations.


That's correct. I know what you were saying. You were saying that INTPs were, to you, outraged (and amusingly so) before you switched gears and claimed that you were talking about all the other people who were outraged, until you came along and proved me right by pointing out how it was erick's outrage that got you started. It wasn't difficult for me to recognize you contradicting yourself. How is that assigning a motivation? I just thought I'd ask to make certain you didn't have some other motivation in mind when you said I was making wrong assumptions. But you claimed the motivation yourself: "poking fun". So I was right.



You keep calling my argument bullshit, but then you say you agree with me. "Blah blah blah" is more than that post deserved.

So far, I have agreed that you had no real point and were merely stirring up trouble (and actually, that's what I pointed out to begin with, so I guess I'm just agreeing with myself), and I have agreed that there's nothing wrong with medical research (though I have not agreed with your implication that it's morally equivalent to animal abuse).


Quit whining. You didn't see that I had multiple objectives with my posts. It's not the end of the world. Get over it.

You are changing gears again. This game is fun! Of course I saw it. You've created a new objective with every reply. Now your objective seems to be pointing out the subjectivity of it all, which is at least getting closer to the point I made initially: you were just pointing out the subjectivity of the INTP "outrage" to stir up trouble. Are you going to disclaim that now?

[booyalab]

Apparently the dog did not die it escaped from the gallery and returned to its life as a stray. A blogger wrote to the gallery and received a response which basically relays that the dog was fed, cared for and not tethered during its time at the gallery with the exception of the duration of the 3 hour show.
http://luckybunnynyc.blogspot.com/2007/10/starved-dog-as-art-update.html

that's odd, everything I found when googling about this indicated "dog starved to death in name of art".....which just confirms my distaste for animal rights activists.

and people are still ignoring your post...hey, everybody! the dog wasn't killed!

[Delilah]

and people are still ignoring your post...hey, everybody! the dog wasn't killed!

The dog got ran over in the stampede of people arguing to save it.

[helium]

that's odd, everything I found when googling about this indicated "dog starved to death in name of art".....which just confirms my distaste for animal rights activists.

and people are still ignoring your post...hey, everybody! the dog wasn't killed!

How is commenting on the overarching issue raised by the OP (whether true or false) ignoring the single alternative claim to this specific event (which also hasn't been verified)? God knows animals do get abused, after all.

[Lateralus]

Who said anything about subjectivity? Are you changing gears again?
Please, by mentioning objectivity, the mentioning of subjectivity is implied.


That's correct. I know what you were saying.
That's the first bit of truth from you in this entire thread.


You were saying that INTPs were, to you, outraged (and amusingly so)
Correct, I thought all the INFPs posting in this thread was amusing.


before you switched gears and claimed that you were talking about all the other people who were outraged,
My original post was in reference to the fact that everyone (here and in the link) either ignored the truth of the situation or simply refused to find it out.


until you came along and proved me right by pointing out how it was erick's outrage that got you started.
No, what prompted my first post was how the INTPs in this thread accepted the OP, even though it was false, without questioning. This is not the first thread where it has happened. It will not be the last.


It wasn't difficult for me to recognize you contradicting yourself.
It's a contradiction that you see, only because you want to see it.


How is that assigning a motivation? I just thought I'd ask to make certain you didn't have some other motivation in mind when you said I was making wrong assumptions. But you claimed the motivation yourself: "poking fun". So I was right.
:dont:


You are changing gears again. This game is fun! Of course I saw it. You've created a new objective with every reply. Now your objective seems to be pointing out the subjectivity of it all, which is at least getting closer to the point I made initially: you were just pointing out the subjectivity of the INTP "outrage" to stir up trouble. Are you going to disclaim that now?
Pointing out the subjectivity of it all goes back to my original amusement with the INTP outrage. INTPs supposedly pride themselves on their objectivity. I thought it was amusing to see some of them acting like PETA spokesmen.

[mr. treat]

it's just a dog. i'm not much for art, but the practical thing would have been to put it down rather than on display.

[Delilah]

Well, you still haven't given me an objective reason.

I did, Cruelty.
I don't see anything subjective about the cruelty implied in the OP.

[Lateralus]

I did, Cruelty.
I don't see anything subjective about the cruelty implied in the OP.
And you think that using animals for medical research isn't also cruel? Or is it somehow ok because it makes us feel bad? Do you think that our intentions make a difference to the animals that are suffering?

[Delilah]

And you think that using animals for medical research isn't also cruel?

I already covered that.

[Lateralus]

I already covered that.
I know, I'm trying to understand how that could possibly be an objective position. You saying that you don't "see anything subjective about it" doesn't really explain to me how it's objective. It seems to me that if you put yourself in the position of the animal, your opinion on the matter would change, making your stance subjective, not objective.

[helium]

Please, by mentioning objectivity, the mentioning of subjectivity is implied.

And if I mention apples, oranges are implied? And if I mention men, women are implied? WTF? I guess by that logic, your mention of animal abuse really did refer to medical research. I'm starting to see how this is coming together for you. You don't have to take one side or the other, you can question one assertion and thereby argue both sides!


That's the first bit of truth from you in this entire thread.

That's an utterly ridiculous assertion, never mind your disagreement with me.



My original post was in reference to the fact that everyone (here and in the link) either ignored the truth of the situation or simply refused to find it out.

No, what prompted my first post was how the INTPs in this thread accepted the OP, even though it was false, without questioning. This is not the first thread where it has happened. It will not be the last.

Right, they accepted it as fact just like you did when you questioned the inherent wrongness of abusing animals, and implied that it was like medical research. That is, you accepted it and used it to instigate until you learned otherwise and then backtracked on your argument and claimed it was just "poking fun," because by that point, you had accepted the single counterclaim.


It's a contradiction that you see, only because you want to see it.

How many times do you have to backtrack before I'm allowed to see a contradiction for what it is? Considering the following:


:dont:

That's a pretty lousy way of discounting me. You said I was making the wrong assumptions about your posts. I offered up your quotes and everything. You even said you weren't very clear about what you meant. First you meant everyone, which point you clarified after the fact, but only said INTPs. Then you said everyone, and I said you referred specifically to INTPs without referring to anyone else. And then you came back and said you were referring to erick (an INTP) specifically. Where did I make a wrong assumption?



Correct, I thought all the INFPs posting in this thread was amusing.

Pointing out the subjectivity of it all goes back to my original amusement with the INTP outrage. INTPs supposedly pride themselves on their objectivity. I thought it was amusing to see some of them acting like PETA spokesmen.

And yet your original amusement was predicated on facts (which are still unverified and stand in contrast to the overwhelming majority of claims, as booyalab pointed out) that you didn't have when you started your antagonism. Are you really unfamiliar with the extroverted feeling typical of INTPs? I know you've managed to post 1,800 times within 5 months, but have you read any of the posts? Have you read this one? Did you even note the fact that most of the INTPs have responded pretty dispassionately after the initial shock toward alleged animal abuse? I understand that you were just stirring them up intentionally, but what reaction did you expect when you were alert to achieving the desired effect? In fact, INFPs tend to react far more dispassionately. They extrovert thinking.

[Delilah]

I know, I'm trying to understand how that could possibly be an objective position. You saying that you don't "see anything subjective about it" doesn't really explain to me how it's objective. It seems to me that if you put yourself in the position of the animal, your opinion on the matter would change, making your stance subjective, not objective.

To tie a creature up and watch it starve to death would serve no purpose but to be cruel, to do medical experiments on a creature to better lives, although quite unpleasant , serves a purpose.
It looks the same to me from either side.

[Lateralus]

And if I mention apples, oranges are implied? And if I mention men, women are implied? WTF? I guess by that logic, your mention of animal abuse really did refer to medical research. I'm starting to see how this is coming together for you. You don't have to take one side or the other, you can question one assertion and thereby argue both sides!
Here's something for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

(men/women and apples/oranges are not dichotomies. Those were retarded comparisons.)


That's an utterly ridiculous assertion, never mind your disagreement with me.
Come on, you're only trying to stir things up because you're offended by the position I took, originally. That's why you don't just let it go. You have to "win".


Right, they accepted it as fact just like you did when you questioned the inherent wrongness of abusing animals, and implied that it was like medical research. That is, you accepted it and used it to instigate until you learned otherwise and then backtracked on your argument and claimed it was just "poking fun," because by that point, you had accepted the single counterclaim.
I accepted nothing. I'm at work. Sometimes I don't have time type long posts. Is that beyond your comprehension, too? Or should I go into greater detail? Should I describe to you how a couple of hours ago I had a 30 minute discussion with one of my bosses regarding an appraisal my firm is working on? Is it really necessary for you to know such details for you to accept the fact that everything you've assumed about me is wrong?


How many times do you have to backtrack before I'm allowed to see a contradiction for what it is? Considering the following:
Because it's not a contradiction. You only want it to be a contradiction. Your posts are overflowing with confirmation bias.


That's a pretty lousy way of discounting me. You said I was making the wrong assumptions about your posts. I offered up your quotes and everything.
I could have just said "see above". I guess the emoticon offended you.


You even said you weren't very clear about what you meant.
I made no such admission. I said that you could argue that point. Notice the difference? It's subtle. Then again, considering your analysis of my other posts, detecting subtlety is not your forte.


First you meant everyone, which point you clarified after the fact, but only said INTPs. Then you said everyone, and I said you referred specifically to INTPs without referring to anyone else. And then you came back and said you were referring to erick (an INTP) specifically. Where did I make a wrong assumption?
This is getting old. You keep repeating yourself and I'm getting tired of repeating myself for your enjoyment. Reread my old posts.


And yet your original amusement was predicated on facts (which are still unverified and stand in contrast to the overwhelming majority of claims, as booyalab pointed out) that you didn't have when you started your antagonism.
My annoyance was predicated on facts that were unverified. You keep forgetting that I was originally annoyed by the fact that the INTPs on this forum will rally like an angry mob when a story is posted that evokes a strong emotion. For example, I could start a thread about how Bush is a jerk and link a news story, then there will be pages upon pages of INTPs ranting on Bush, without even bothering to check the facts. How do I know this? It's happened before, many times. I saw similar behavior, here.

Btw, I'm not a Bush supporter. I just despise homerism.


Are you really unfamiliar with the extroverted feeling typical of INTPs? I know you've managed to post 1,800 times within 5 months, but have you read any of the posts? Have you read this one? Did you even note the fact that most of the INTPs have responded pretty dispassionately after the initial shock toward alleged animal abuse? I understand that you were just stirring them up intentionally, but what reaction did you expect when you were alert to achieving the desired effect? In fact, INFPs tend to react far more dispassionately. They extrovert thinking.
Dude, you are taking this far too seriously. The jab regarding INFPs wasn't even meant to be accurate. It was a jab. Are you always this annoying?

I was serious about properly researching the truth in the story (ie. read the story before saying you want to shoot the artist). My intention was not to be serious about the INTPs acting outraged, but you just can't leave well enough alone. So, how long do you want to do this?

[Lateralus]

To tie a creature up and watch it starve to death would serve no purpose but to be cruel, to do medical experiments on a creature to better lives, although quite unpleasant , serves a purpose.
It looks the same to me from either side.
And how exactly is purpose relevant for the animals that suffer? Do they get any sense of satisfaction from knowing they're saving human lives?

[Delilah]

And how exactly is purpose relevant for the animals that suffer? Do they get any sense of satisfaction from knowing they're saving human lives?

Of course not, but they aren't currently "in charge" are they? If I were to switch places with the animal, then it wouldn't be up to my captors to explain the situation, nor would I understand it if they tried.


*disclaimer* huge animal lover here, certainly not advocating increased animal testing, deplore companies who use it for unnecessary products like make-up, talking potentially life saving treatments, and if there is an alternative to it it would, of course, be preferable.

[Ivy]

And how exactly is purpose relevant for the animals that suffer? Do they get any sense of satisfaction from knowing they're saving human lives?

I'm sure some of the things I do as a parent seem cruel to my kids. If I accidentally get shampoo in the 2yo's eyes while giving him a bath, he's not really aware enough to reason it out and say "Well, she didn't mean to hurt my eyes, and I do need to have clean hair. Also, if she had done it on purpose, it would have been abusive, but since it was an accident, it was not." The purpose may not be relevant to the animal, but it's entirely relevant to classifying the action as cruel or not.

[Nocapszy]

This is sort of similar to the abortion debate in a central question this and the other debate have in common.

Is it cruel to take a life which can't rationalize its own death?


The purpose may not be relevant to the animal, but it's entirely relevant to classifying the action as cruel or not.

Why? Do you hold that the more sentient being should be left to make the decisions?

Cruelty is defined as intentionally causing pain or suffering. If an animal suffers, whether in the name of science or medicine, or for "art" or fun, it's still cruel, if the intention is to cause that suffering. Let's not change the meaning of the word or the context it's used in for the sake of maintainining a sense of nobility.

By your logic, we could justify rape as "not cruel" if it would help us find a safer way not to concieve.

[helium]

Here's something for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

(men/women and apples/oranges are not dichotomies. Those were retarded comparisons.)

Come on, you're only trying to stir things up because you're offended by the position I took, originally. That's why you don't just let it go. You have to "win".

Heh. I referenced apples and oranges as a popular aphorism. I don't mean for you to take this debate seriously. I'm well aware of the nature of dichotomy, and I don't believe subjectivity v. objectivity has any more relevance to your trouble-making than apples v. oranges or men v. women. If you had some point to make with your commentary about subjectivity, just make it already. Don't expect that I'm going to guess it and make your argument for you.

If I had wanted to win, I would have stopped when you admitted that you were just riling up the INTPs, because that's what I asked about in the first place. You have yet to make a point other than "poking fun." You certainly haven't presented anything otherwise verifiable, and in fact, as booyalab pointed out, the overwhelming body of "evidence," if you can call it that, still stands against you. Then again I don't have a "real job," other than making money with words, so this discussion of ours is just entertaining practice for me.



I accepted nothing. I'm at work. Sometimes I don't have time type long posts. Is that beyond your comprehension, too? Or should I go into greater detail? Should I describe to you how a couple of hours ago I had a 30 minute discussion with one of my bosses regarding an appraisal my firm is working on? Is it really necessary for you to know such details for you to accept the fact that everything you've assumed about me is wrong?

You should go into greater detail. So far you've only denied my assertions. Many prisoners deny the charges leveled against them. Denial doesn't make them innocent. (And no, that's not some sly metaphor I'm using to disparage your character; it's just an example.) I'll gladly wait. Your work I hope is more important to you than responding to me. But if you respond in haste, and you happen to respond with unfocused nonsense, I'm going to point out the errors.



Because it's not a contradiction. You only want it to be a contradiction. Your posts are overflowing with confirmation bias.

I could have just said "see above". I guess the emoticon offended you.


Heh. Nothing posted here has any power to offend me. In fact, if this forum didn't entertain me, I wouldn't be here. You said before that you didn't contradict yourself, but I'm waiting for you to respond to the points I made rather than to make unsupported claims. I've quoted you and pointed out the inconsistencies. Feel free to show me where I made a mistake.



I made no such admission. I said that you could argue that point. Notice the difference? It's subtle. Then again, considering your analysis of my other posts, detecting subtlety is not your forte.

This is getting old. You keep repeating yourself and I'm getting tired of repeating myself for your enjoyment. Reread my old posts.



At most, you can say I did not clearly make my point, but no, you instead choose to assign motivations.

Ah, that's right. I could say that you didn't make your point clearly, which admission seems to me an admission that you didn't make your point clearly. Or did you not make this recent point clearly? Did you really mean that you had made your previous point clearly? You still haven't even suggested how I assigned any motivations. You're making lots of claims and not backing any of them up. I'm repeating myself because I'm waiting for you to say something more than the functional equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" I'm sorry if my dogged attention to the words you use is frustrating you. Actually, no -- I'm not sorry.



My annoyance was predicated on facts that were unverified. You keep forgetting that I was originally annoyed by the fact that the INTPs on this forum will rally like an angry mob when a story is posted that evokes a strong emotion. For example, I could start a thread about how Bush is a jerk and link a news story, then there will be pages upon pages of INTPs ranting on Bush, without even bothering to check the facts. How do I know this? It's happened before, many times. I saw similar behavior, here.

Btw, I'm not a Bush supporter. I just despise homerism.


I don't care why you originally posted. I commented on your intent to stir up trouble in your second post, which you admitted, and although I did reference your first post, the brunt of my commentary has had to do with your second post (and your following posts that have made unsubstantiated claims against my original point and that have sidetracked into all kinds of commentary on my character), in which you solicited an emotional reaction, which reaction you knew you were going to get, I'll remind you.

And what does Homerism have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that you read something more into my statements than what I typed, or are you suggesting that I should have known what you meant even when you didn't type it? I'm guessing you're not referring to the classic definition of Homerism.



Dude, you are taking this far too seriously. The jab regarding INFPs wasn't even meant to be accurate. It was a jab. Are you always this annoying?

I was serious about properly researching the truth in the story (ie. read the story before saying you want to shoot the artist). My intention was not to be serious about the INTPs acting outraged, but you just can't leave well enough alone. So, how long do you want to do this?

I don't take this little debate of ours seriously at all. It's merely an exercise for me. But if you are serious as you say, again I ask: why not just say so? Why make generalized attacks against INTPs in general to try to stir them up, which you have admitted to doing? I just happened to call you on it. Why are you jabbing at all? (We're back to square one, by the way.) You haven't even solidly referenced where a bunch of INTPs have made passionate arguments against an utter lack of evidence. You merely suggest that INTPs here get involved in passionate arguments about facts that don't exist. Are you sure you can verify your facts? I can't help your reaction to my questioning your motives (not assigning them; you already did that for me). But honestly, I can do this all night. My line of work affords me that opportunity.

[Nocapszy]

Addition: Honestly, I couldn't care less what scientists or artists do, as long as it works, I'm just saying we can't say it's not cruel just because we have good intentions. Who's to say that our intentions are truly good?

[xNTP]

Fun thread.

I think people should try to avoid harming others for their own well-being. I don't condone experimentation. If the animal in this art-piece suffered, then that's bad, in the sense that the person causing the suffering loses appreciation for life. If it didn't suffer, that's a different story.

What about the question of whether or not this is art? I think that's fertile grounds for more arguing.

[Delilah]

Is it cruel to take a life which can't rationalize its own death?


Why? Do you hold that the more sentient being should be left to make the decisions?

Cruelty is defined as intentionally causing pain or suffering. If an animal suffers, whether in the name of science or medicine, or for "art" or fun, it's still cruel, if the intention is to cause that suffering. Let's not change the meaning of the word or the context it's used in for the sake of maintainining a sense of nobility..

Valid points, I suppose my original intent was more along the lines, cruelty without compassion or meaning.
Scientists are not setting out with the intent of making the animal suffer, it's a tragic side effect, and the animals are treated as kindly as possible while alive and put dwon as peacefully as possible in the end.


Fun thread.

I think people should try to avoid harming others for their own well-being. I don't condone experimentation. If the animal in this art-piece suffered, then that's bad, in the sense that the person causing the suffering loses appreciation for life. If it didn't suffer, that's a different story.

What about the question of whether or not this is art? I think that's fertile grounds for more arguing.


An interesting debate is always fun, even when it's about something sad.
Now the whole art thing? That is entirely subjective but I have a hard time calling this guy an artist, an activist with artistict intent maybe.

[LastRailway]

...Scientists are not setting out with the intent of making the animal suffer, it's a tragic side effect, and the animals are treated as kindly as possible while alive and put dwon as peacefully as possible in the end...

Oh well

[Nocapszy]

Valid points, I suppose my original intent was more along the lines, cruelty without compassion or meaning.
Scientists are not setting out with the intent of making the animal suffer, it's a tragic side effect, and the animals are treated as kindly as possible while alive and put dwon as peacefully as possible in the end.



The reason for starving a dog is irrelavent. What I'm getting at is not really an issue of morals. I'm just saying we shouldn't pretend that starving an animal is in any way more noble just because it will be put forth to save other lives. Cruelty is cruelty. A dog is still dead, whether it will save lives later on or not. If hypothetically starving a dog for medical science were to take place, the fact would still remain that a dog dies. There's no getting around that.

The end might justify the means, but we can't fairly claim that we're better people because we killed a dog.

It sounds like a semantics issue, to be sure, but really, I'm speaking of the entitlement humans seem to have awarded themselves as a species. We like to change the rules so we can do what we want and not be morally corrupt. I say, just admit it. We're animals. I mean after all, we actually are. Why not fess up?

[Delilah]

The reason for starving a dog is irrelavent. What I'm getting at is not really an issue of morals. I'm just saying we shouldn't pretend that starving an animal is in any way more noble just because it will be put forth to save other lives. Cruelty is cruelty. A dog is still dead, whether it will save lives later on or not. If hypothetically starving a dog for medical science were to take place, the fact would still remain that a dog dies. There's no getting around that.

The end might justify the means, but we can't fairly claim that we're better people because we killed a dog.

It sounds like a semantics issue, to be sure, but really, I'm speaking of the entitlement humans seem to have awarded themselves as a species. We like to change the rules so we can do what we want and not be morally corrupt. I say, just admit it. We're animals. I mean after all, we actually are. Why not fess up?

I can't disagree with any of that, and I'm not saying that the killing of any creature is good, I could never personally partake in animal experimantation, hell, I like animals more than people mostly, but that's a whole 'nother thing isn't it? The fact is it does have a different intent and a differnt outcome in the big picture than torturing an animal for pleasure, or profit or art.

[MacGuffin]

I was going to go and Godwin the thread, but then Edahan made the best post yet:

Fun thread.

I think people should try to avoid harming others for their own well-being. I don't condone experimentation. If the animal in this art-piece suffered, then that's bad, in the sense that the person causing the suffering loses appreciation for life. If it didn't suffer, that's a different story.

What about the question of whether or not this is art? I think that's fertile grounds for more arguing.

Bah!

[Lateralus]

Heh. I referenced apples and oranges as a popular aphorism. I don't mean for you to take this debate seriously. I'm well aware of the nature of dichotomy, and I don't believe subjectivity v. objectivity has any more relevance to your trouble-making than apples v. oranges or men v. women. If you had some point to make with your commentary about subjectivity, just make it already. Don't expect that I'm going to guess it and make your argument for you.
I've already made it. Your blindness or deliberate choice to ignore it is not my problem.


If I had wanted to win, I would have stopped when you admitted that you were just riling up the INTPs, because that's what I asked about in the first place. You have yet to make a point other than "poking fun." You certainly haven't presented anything otherwise verifiable, and in fact, as booyalab pointed out, the overwhelming body of "evidence," if you can call it that, still stands against you. Then again I don't have a "real job," other than making money with words, so this discussion of ours is just entertaining practice for me.
So now you're making false assumptions about others' posts, too? You really shouldn't do that. What (imaginary) evidence did booyalab point out that refutes my point? I really am interested.


Lots of trash talk
What a waste of time. I shouldn't be surprised since you've freely admitted that your time isn't worth much.

[Delilah]

Godwin the thread


*Whispers* I don't know what this means......

[MacGuffin]

*Whispers* I don't know what this means......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

[Delilah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Thank you, did I do that? :ph34r:

[Nocapszy]

I can't disagree with any of that, and I'm not saying that the killing of any creature is good, I could never personally partake in animal experimantation, hell, I like animals more than people mostly, but that's a whole 'nother thing isn't it? The fact is it does have a different intent and a differnt outcome in the big picture than torturing an animal for pleasure, or profit or art.

Sure, but a dog is still dead. You can't deny that. We can be moral and monsters at the same time.

[Nocapszy]

What about the question of whether or not this is art? I think that's fertile grounds for more arguing.

That's what I said a while back.

Edit: I think I deleted that post...

Whatever. Good question anyway.

How is it art? Some kind of obscure symbolism?

[helium]

So now you're making false assumptions about others' posts, too? You really shouldn't do that. What (imaginary) evidence did booyalab point out that refutes my point? I really am interested.


that's odd, everything I found when googling about this indicated "dog starved to death in name of art" [...]


You have one claim to the contrary and you believe it to be true.



What a waste of time. I shouldn't be surprised since you've freely admitted that your time isn't worth much.

I don't know. How much are you worth? I seem to have afforded your time. I thought of it as a freebie from my end, but not a waste. Do you often waste your time?

:)

[Delilah]

Sure, but a dog is still dead. You can't deny that. We can be moral and monsters at the same time.

True. I just don't believe that scientific pursuit should be lead by ones morals, it should be neutral.

[Kirai]

Instead of dieing on the street, the dog died in a museum corner. Instead of dieing in a meaningless fashion, he died making a strong impact.

...in this case, I support the 'artist'.

If he had starved the dog himself, it'd be an entirely different case - but as it is...