What would a baby do with a giant over-size SUV? Sometimes, you don’t make a lot of sense, Elvish
At least she’s not setting them on fire or blowing their arms and legs off like Bush is. It rings kind of hollow for anyone who supports Bush to feign indignation over this.
Toddlers cry at the drop of a hat. I know. It doesn’t mean they’re being harmed. They aren’t traumatized by having a toy momentarily held away from them.
You, among others:
And a late entry that should have been included as an example in my last post.
So you admit your complaint is hypocritical and retarded when compared to something legitimately outrageous?
How are these babies being harmed, exactly?
Except, of course, that it occurred after that post. The number of posters saying making kids cry that you based your “numerous people who feel it was not a particularly bad thing” post on remains at one.
I think the artist got too close for comfort when she titled one of the pieces “Torture” while it was not the intention of **Bricker ** and then John Maze, her art now got the attention of many here (I just would not pay attention to her, never heard of her and I don’t approve of her methods).
Critics scream to heaven for seeing children suffer very mildly in a picture, I just say the artist is not right on doing that, however when politics is made the focus of the criticism then it is impossible to ignore the damming contrast that many on the right could not care less or ignore that the US has tortured people that in some cases were innocent of any wrongdoing.
I see Dio and Elvis as fitting your claim, but that shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. The other three looked to me like joke posts. Maybe it’s because I thought that they were funny.
If I can bother you with another question, were you more angry about the actions of the artist or the replies you thought that your pit thread of the artist would get?
I should clarify that I saw them as fitting your later claim of comparing the artists actions to those of the president. There has been only one (maybe two) that say that her actions were in and of themselves, no big deal.
People are acting like it takes some kind of really horrible action to make a baby cry. It takes virtually no effort at all (and the artist said that some of them cried on their own) and just because they’re crying doesn’t mean they’ve been hurt. You can make a baby cry just by making a face at her. It’s completely fucking trivial. I used to make my oldest daughter cry just by saying, “Wendy…I am your father” in a Darth Vader voice. Show me that the woman is doing something to actually harm these kids. It’s not like she’s sticking pins in them or anything.
The babies suffer no lasting harm.
I think deliberately making babies cry is cruel. Obviously, you disagree. That’s fine. I certainly agree it’s not major-league evil. It’s not even so much as criminal. It’s just cruel.
Just as spring in Appalachia was the point of Copland’s Appalachian Spring?
Artists make things, and then either name them, or don’t name them. The unnamed ones get titles like ‘unnamed oil #1’ or ‘Appalachian Spring’. The named ones also frequently get names that have fuck all to do with the intent of the work. To find out the intent of the artist, you have to ask them; and they’re notorious liars when money is involved.
It doesn’t require any cruelty. They cry at everything all the time already.
She’s taking lollipops away from them. I suppose that’s not a big deal, although I think it’s fair to call it cruel.
She gets the parents to leave the room to get the child to cry at the sight of parents leaving him or her alone. I think that’s even crueller.
Well done indeed; you submit a trolling OP filled with pre-judgment of the response you’ll get, along with preemptive scorn for your apparent “opposition” - then, when your baiting elicits less than complete agreement, you declare yourself proven right. It’s like december and Reeder all over again. Marvellous.
If that’s the case then my wife and I are cruel whenever we go to the bathroom or leave to go to work.
Don’t kid yourself. She made kids cry for profit, and their mothers went along with it. The whole damned bunch of them are beneath contempt.
Ms Greenburg says:
Do you or your wife go into the bathroom or leave for work for the express purpose of making your kids cry?
If you do, then yes, you are indeed cruel.
Bricker, m’lad, your loyalty would be noble were it not squandered on such unworthy men.