# Moral Cowardice WARNING: DEEPLY DISTURBING AND OFFENSIVE. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 19, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105 "2001-07-19T21:41:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/181 "2001-07-24T06:12:54Z")
Stoid: Concerning my definition of art, my first inclination would be to start with a base such as the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others. This, however, does not address the issue of found art. Some folks put forward that the act of identifying and presenting found art turns non-art into art. Thus we come to the business of anything an artist says is art supposedly being art, and since anyone can consider one’s self an artist, we come to the absurd position of everything being art. “That grain of sand at the bottom of the sea in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? It must be art because I am an artist and I say it is art. Same goes for that fine artistic creation of mine which gets flushed every morning. I’m an artist, so it must be art.” Sorry, but I don’t buy into this school. I believe that there are people who are trying to expand the concept of art to include that which has not been previously considered art, and in many instances they have had success. This is a far cry from establishing that everything is art. There are others, such as myself, who take a contextual approach. For example, when you say that art is something which is created to provoke a feeling or an idea, you are putting forth a contextual approach, for the audience cannot but help synthesize the impressions from the art with their existing views. My position is more along the lines of reader response, where the art is created as a result of the bringing together of both the artist’s work and the audience’s background. Thus without context, there is no art. This is why many works accepted as art within the art world are not considered to be art by those outside of the art world, for those on the outside may not have the background to provide enough of a context to permit a meaningful experience. In this sense, a work may be art for one person, but may not be art for another person simply due to a lack of context. As you can see, with my approach a lack of context negates the creation of art between the artist and the audience. An object, environment or experience can exist and not be art, but upon sufficient context, can then become art. The artist can not unilaterally claim to have created art. All the artist can claim is that the artist has created a work, and wait to see if art is created out of the interaction with the audience. I am also quite comfortable in stating that there are negative boundaries which define art. For example, the skinned cat would fit within both your definition and my definition of art up to this point. I believe, however, that a positive definition is not sufficient. You say that art is something which is created to provoke a feeling or an idea, but I can carry that to an absurd extreme by wandering about shooting people in the guts. It would provoke feelings and ideas. Would it be art? No. It would be an atrocity of no artistic merit what so ever. I believe that just as art requires a context, part of that context must be a consideration of societal mores. It is one thing to test the limits of what society considers acceptable, and to try to expand those limits. This is central to the world of art in recent times. However, there are actions which are so far beyond the pale of societal acceptance that they entirely fail to be art. Mass slaughters in ancient Rome’s fora and mass guillotining in early republican France may once have provided popular spectacles, but if either were to happen in our society today, they would not be art, for despite clearly meeting all the positive definitions of art you and I have put forward, they are simply too far outside of our society’s contextualization of art. Times change, so what may be art in some societies may not be art in others. Let’s try a mind experiment. Let’s say you are the director of a gallery, sitting at a long table with your entire family. The performance artist arrives, decrees that everything that evening will be art, then tells some nasty mother-in-law jokes, and asks you, “Is it art?” It easily fits the positive definitions we have put forth, so you say “Yes, it is art.” The performance artist then spits on your mother-in-law, and asks you if it is art. It fits all the positive definitions (and is probably a good thing in general anyway 😉 ), so you say, “Yes, it is art.” Then the performance artist breaks the old dear’s arm, and asks you if it is art. You say, “Yes, it is art, because it meets all the positive definitions,” but you also say that, “It is both morally and legally wrong.” The performance artist then breaks her neck, leaving her permanently a quadriplegic. Once again, you are asked if it is art. What do you reply? The performance artist continues moving up the table, either maiming or killing each and every member of your family, and each time he asks you, “Is it art.” And each time it fits the positive definitions of art. At what point do you say, “No. It is not art.” Think this through. Imagine that it really is your family up there, and this is actually happening. In all honesty, could you keep saying “Yes, it is art,” or at some point would you say, “No, it is not art. It is an atrocity and nothing more.” Or would you continue to say “Yes, it is art because you are the performance artist and you have decreed that it is art.” Or worse yet, try another mind experiment. I expect you are familiar with the artist Dolcett. Some will look at the illustrated stories and laugh, some will be turned on, and I expect most will be thoroughly revolted. But as long as the illustrated stories remain only that, a claim for art may be made in some quarters. Now imagine that rather than fiction, the illustrated stories are performance art, and you and your family are participants. Surely you can not seriously contend that such activity could be considered art? By now I expect that most would agree with me that not everything is art, and that some activities are so beyond the pale that they can not be considered to be art, despite meeting all of the positive definitions of art. In short, art is also negatively defined by what is not art. I believe that at the very least, when the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences directly and deliberately causes real, significant and non-consensual pain and death, then it is not art. How broad this negative aspect of the definition of art may be is just as subject to testing as the positive definitions. If a person were skinned alive, it would not be art. Now how about a cat? From my context, which includes a world view which places significant value on animals, there is no art, for the action is beyond the pale. For others who hold animals in less regard, perhaps the action falls close enough to the existing contextual envelope that art is created. From my definition of art, which includes both positive and negative qualifiers, the skinning of the cat is not art. And I truly hope that our society never turns to accepting such acts as art. ---
**Author:** ![sethdallob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@sethdallob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sethdallob)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/182 "2001-07-24T06:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by City Gent \* > \*\*Where would you propose the line be drawn? \*\* Wow, the first real question without a load of flaming poo. Thank you in advance **City Gent**. It’s not for me to determine where a line should be drawn when it comes to an artists’ expression. Every artist is trying to sell his/her ideas to an audience. The audiences for the acts you describe above are small, if not zero. The artist must first conceive of a thought, then realize it. Anyone that can do that has my respect, though I might disagree with the content. I think (and could be wrong) that the artists’ point is to elucidate the dependence on our spic-and-span world on the mass slaughter of animals. If he skinned a snake, no-one would care. If he sprayed a bug to death, no-one would care. To get our attention, he has to do something outrageous. To me, a cat isn’t any more special than a cow, a chicken, or any other animal, great or small. It just ‘hits home’ for some because some people think they are cute and fluffy. Would you be able to stand up and say that it’s wrong to kill a snake, or a rat, etc.? Probably not, because those aren’t “nice” animals. Some, like **pldennison** are true believers, and probably never would kill a dust mite - my hat’s off to you, oh great one (though I’d love to see that Newsweek article…). For the rest of us (the vast majority) it’s time to wake up and realize that beef, pork, fish and chicken don’t come from the supermarket, they come from mass slaughter. I think it’s a major problem with our modern culture that everything is all wrapped up and neatly packaged for us in a market. Most people have lost the connection that a rump roast is a cow’s ass. I think this artist tries to shake a little sense into us, and I think that thought/purpose is far more noble than the life of a cat. > [@](#): > > How about if they skinned a representative species from each of the major phyla? Personally, I’d love to see the guy try to skin a hippo (yes folks, that’s a joke). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/183 "2001-07-24T10:32:26Z")
And that is what makes you a moral coward–refusing to decry any action simply because it is committed behind the shield of art. ---
**Author:** ![F-Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c0e974/32.png) [@F-Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F-Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/184 "2001-07-24T10:34:15Z")
I feel sick having read this post. I wonder how anyone can do this to a helpless animal. I he had killed it humane and eaten it, it might have made a point. Maybe the artist should be the subject of a snuff video. 17 minutes of horror in where one sadist puts another sadist to death. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/185 "2001-07-24T11:27:36Z")
Hmmph… Well, I suppose it’s art… In the most absolutely technical sense of the word. The “bottom level” of art, so to speak. Right about on-par with amature porn videos or the like (Though those, at least, have some sort of worth to them, unlike this). Personally? I wouldn’t call it art so much as evidence. Art or not-art, it doesn’t make it one bit more acceptable. Claiming something as art does not give someone some moral shield from what they portray with it. It doesn’t absolve them of anything, it doesn’t protect the work in any way, it doesn’t legitimize it. I’d say destroy the tape (After, of course, any use of it for prosecution). Torturing something/one to make a statement is not some moraly secure goal. It’s terrorism. They deserve much, much more than what they got for their actions. ---
**Author:** ![sethdallob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@sethdallob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sethdallob)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/186 "2001-07-24T18:08:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\*And that is what makes you a moral coward–refusing to decry any action simply because it is committed behind the shield of art. \*\* Just like the “gun nuts” who hide behind the 2nd amendment, I hide behind the 1st amendment. I think that freedom of expression is a more important concept than the life of a cat. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/187 "2001-07-24T18:32:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sethdallob \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > > \*\*And that is what makes you a moral coward–refusing to decry any action simply because it is committed behind the shield of art. \*\* > > Just like the “gun nuts” who hide behind the 2nd amendment, I hide behind the 1st amendment. I think that freedom of expression is a more important concept than the life of a cat. \*\* Like I said, you’re a coward, a coward of the worst kind, willing to engage in apologetics for the most perverted of acts as long as someone can convince you that they are artworks. “Hide behind” is the most accurate phrase that could possibly be used – it allows you, and the kind of amoral people who support these things, to escape responsbility for your actions. If you can convince yourself that it’s for some noble purpose, you can pretend that there’s nothing wrong with it. I think anyone who tries to defend this kind of cruelty just because a couple of disturbed morons call it “art” is without a moral bone in their body. If these men **hadn’t** called this “art,” how would you feel about it? Would you chalk it up to “human nature”? Is [this](http://www.peta.com/news/0701/0701StLDog.html) OK with you? Just human nature? How about [this](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ksat/20010628/lo/844143_1.html)? [This](http://www.clickonsa.com/ant/news/stories/news-20010124-070425.html)? Maybe [this](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kcra/20010706/lo/850174_1.html)? [This](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kcra/20010706/lo/850174_1.html)? [This](http://www.mycfnow.com/orlpn/countynews/lake/stories/lake-82119220010614-160621.html)? These are just from the last two months. Apparently, this kind of behavior is perfectly OK with you. Even more so if the perpetrators call themselves artists. In fact, I recommend that all of these defendants simply say they were constructing artworks that are just far too deep and complicated for we Philistines to understand. Then they can deny culpability. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/188 "2001-07-24T18:43:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sethdallob \* > \*\* I think that freedom of expression is a more important concept than the life of a cat. \*\* Whoops. Time for me to pop back in the thread for a bit. Assuming, which I am, that the guy(s) killed a cat, it is _wholly unconnected to, separate from and irrelevant to_ the first amendment. For one thing, they’re in Canada. For another, more important thing, the first amendment and the concept of free expression do _not_ cover actions like this. How one feels about animal rights is irrelevant. The first amendment would no more protect the killing of a cat than it would the destruction of public property or the killing of a person. Do not use our most cherished freedoms to defend the illegal acts of anyone, self-proclaimed “artist” or not. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/189 "2001-07-24T19:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sethdallob \* > **The artist must first conceive of a thought, then realize it. Anyone that can do that has my respect, though I might disagree with the content.** And yet you don’t disagree with the content of the video of a cat-skinning. Why? > [@](#): > > **I think (and could be wrong) that the artists’ point is to elucidate the dependence on** (I think you mean “of”) **our spic-and-span world on the mass slaughter of animals.** Then they did a very poor job of it. > [@](#): > > **If he skinned a snake, no-one would care.** Every year in some little Texas town (I forget which one), there’s a rattlesnake roundup. Every year, PETA and other animal-rights groups get upset about it. > [@](#): > > **If he sprayed a bug to death, no-one would care.** As explained before, insects probably don’t feel pain; they definitely don’t feel emotions; their nervous systems are too simple. > [@](#): > > **To get our attention, he has to do something outrageous.** I think you mean “heinous and criminal.” > [@](#): > > **Would you be able to stand up and say that it’s wrong to kill a snake, or a rat, etc.?** It depends upon how and why. I once caught a non-venomous snake in my mother’s house. Since I recognized that it was not harmful to humans and probably caught a lot of mice, I did not kill the snake; I set it free outside. People kill rats and mice because they carry disease-carrying fleas and because they eat food and damage things by gnawing on them and they poop everywhere, which is another source of disease. But killing mice and rats for the pleasure of killing them is another thing altogether. If you have any ethics, you’d see why. > [@](#): > > **For the rest of us (the vast majority) it’s time to wake up and realize that beef, pork, fish and chicken don’t come from the supermarket, they come from mass slaughter.** Which ought to be conducted painlessly and humanely. > [@](#): > > **I think it’s a major problem with our modern culture that everything is all wrapped up and neatly packaged for us in a market. Most people have lost the connection that a rump roast is a cow’s ass. I think this artist tries to shake a little sense into us** A better way would have been to sneak a camera into a slaughterhouse, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![sethdallob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@sethdallob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sethdallob)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/190 "2001-07-24T21:07:54Z")
There isn’t any more point in going on with this conversation. No matter what you say, I’ll think that your viewpoints are too draconian and that you take one cats’ suffering to launch a _jihad_ of sorts. I think that PETA is a fine organization for true believers like **pldennison** , et. al. It’s a good cause, but not the most important thing by any stretch of the imagination. The true believers that will quote and flame away at whatever I say, because this is important to them; it’s what they believe, and I’m fine with that. Trying to convince these people is like trying to convince a preacher that God doesn’t exists. It’s not gonna happen. I think I’m right. They will swear on a stack of bibles that they are right. No room for comprimise – no discussion. I hope that the silent majority out there – the one’s who value human thought and expression, and realize that animal “abuse” is not a big problem (I’m sure that they argue it’s underreported), will take the artwork as art and interpret it as they see fit. ---
**Author:** ![thinksnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thinksnow/32/2849_2.png) [@thinksnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thinksnow)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/191 "2001-07-24T23:26:56Z")
> [@](#): > > **Al Zheimers** > According to this columnist, the police arrested the two “artists”, Jessie Powers 21 and Anthony Wenneker 24, and seized _70 “sickening” videotapes of cruelty to animals, including an orangutan, a fox, a pig, and the skinned cat._ Research, I’m sure. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > WHAT YOU CAN DO: > Mr. Powers and Mr. Wenneker will have their first court appearance on June 29th, at which time a trial date will be set. Although no specific prosecutor has yet been assigned, both Canadians and non-Canadians can write to the Crown Attorney’s office, who is handling the case, and ask them to seek the maximum possible penalties against these men: Ministry of the Attorney General, Old City Hall, 60 Queen St., Room 160, Toronto ONTARIO M5H2M4 or fax letters to (416) 327-6068 (sorry, no email available, but please DO write your letters— postage to Canada is 80 cents). Read the Globe and Mail article online at [http://www.globeandmail.ca/](http://www.globeandmail.ca/) (type ‘animal cruelty’ in the search box). The above is from [this site](http://www.catwrangler.com/cruelty/TorontoCase.htm) which has a form letter that you can send to the Ministry of the Attorney General. > [@](#): > > **Chas E.** > If you want to take offense, I’ll give you plenty of reason. In a small town not far from here, a couple of kids went into the local animal shelter and used a baseball bat to obliterate about 20 cats. Not just kill, they smashed them to bits. Sentence: 3 months, suspended. > > > [@](#): > > > > **Anthracite** > > Why on Earth only suspended??? Shit! > > I vividly recall the words of the town mayor, who supported the suspended sentence, and said “what’s the big deal, didn’t everyone kill a cat once, when they were young?” That is beyond vile. I’ll admit to putting tape on my cats paws as high humor, but whoTF shrugs off killing animals as some sort of right of passage or commonplace activity for youths? That is bordering on reprehensible in that it green-flags other malicious-minded miscreants for inflicting harm. Slippery, and disgusting, slope. Killing and torture are very noticeable signs of a disturbed mind and for people to just shrug them off because they didn’t harm a human, well, that’s simply wrong. > [@](#): > > **minty green** > The incident made national news, and prompted the Iowa legislature to strengthen penalties for animal cruelty. I don’t remember what happened to the proposed legislation. [Here](http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/cruelty.html) is a list of the Sates charge for first/second offense animal cruelty. [This site](http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/) lists states with clip-throughs to the current anti-cruelty statutes. > [@](#): > > **Bad Hat** > And who ever nitpicked my digesting in the stomache of a snake story, tell me you honestly believe that the average life on this earth ends with LESS that 17 minutes of horrible suffering? I got a grandma who died of cancer after years of INTENSE suffering. All said and done, I’d take the seventeen minutes I think. Lemme tell you about my friends who died of AIDS. but i think you know. Its a horrible reality to accept that most of the people around you, most of the people and animals in the world, meet painful ends. This kitten met its end (if the story is to be believed) at the hands of some seriously fucked-up guys, but I really have a hard time getting worked up about the damage done. And think that, as i said in my first point, if we are honest and look at the world of suffering that surrounds us, peculiarities of motivation aside, doesn’t stand out as a particularly news worthy. The difference is that this was a deliberate infliction of suffering and death, versus the random suffering of cancer or the acquired suffering of AIDS. Were someone to inflict the suffering of cancer on someone who didn’t have the disease, it wouldn’t be alright to pass it off by saying “Well, if you had cancer, you’d be feeling this anyway, so I’m not really hurting you.” That’s specious and dangerous thinking. To lift a quote from the original article “It reflects on us as an arts community,” [Cathy GordonMarsh, a local artist who has mounted the boycott] said. “I am very willing to say it is not art for the reason that it includes an unwilling partner. It is the difference between art and snuff.” This was snuff, and snuff is illegal, period. > [@](#): > > **sethdallob** > It’s a freakin’ cat! There are how many thousands of cats and dogs “put to sleep” every day! There are thousands of pigs, cows, deer, mice, bugs, etc. killed every day. Nature is not benign. Somewhere out there, as you read this, a mouse is being squeezed to death by a boa. It is taking it’s last breath in – wiggling it’s little tail – and poof! it’s dead. Now you probably didn’t care, because after all, it’s a slimy evil snake and a disease carrying rodent, right? Now this happens in nature all the time, but also _gasp_ in zoos! Same torturous death, different animals, no one cares. Being put to sleep or put down is relatively fast, humane and, get this, because this is important: painless. The boa killing the mouse is natural, as one is the others food source, so it was killed, get this: for a reason. See any difference between the merciful euthanization of an animal and the slow, torturous slaughter of one? > [@](#): > > Let’s put things in perspective. One cat gets killed by an “artist” – at least 100 lions, cheetahs, leopards etc. will be skinned alive and brutally killed and eaten today on the African plain. You didn’t care. Stop whining about one little kitty. [**Peta Tzunami**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1458647#post1458647) and [\*\*pldennison \*\*](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1459417#post1459417) did a good job of smashing this almost immediately (and again [later](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1461188#post1461188)), but since I’m actually working my way through the entire thread before posting, I’ll leave my rebuttal attached. Let’s put things in perspective: one artist commits a crime and is caught and should be punished. Any animal killed and eaten on the “African plain” will likely be done so quickly and for a reason (that of sustenance for the tribe eating it) while any that are slaughtered by poachers are killed by criminals and the outrage is the same, though muted as they have not been caught. When/if they are, they almost certainly will not try to justify their actions as some “artistic” expression. In short, get bent. > [@](#): > > but wait, there’s more! > For the rest of you, stop being hypocrites. What makes a horse, a cat, or a dog any more special than a snake, a hippo, or a cockroach? Oh yeah, those social norms. Well in other cultures, people eat all kinds of bugs for dinner. They are low in fat and high in protein; overall very healthy. Why don’t you eat them? Oh yeah, those social norms. This, IMHO, is what the artist was trying to elicit or provoke in your minds. If someone were to slowly, methodically torture _any_ animal (insects, not so much), I, and I’m sure many if not all the others here, would be offended. You obviously don’t get the distinction between the torture of an animal and the quick, efficient killing of food-staple animals. > [@](#): > > **Kaje** > So just don’t claim your cat is a pure beacon of all that is good and holy, cause they have their predatory quirks as well. Two things: if cats aren’t sentient, thing they can’t be held accountable for their actions, can they? Also, the cats actions are guided by the instincts, and as you said, they are a predator. Man, OTOH, is capable of rational thought and conscious action and does not have to rely on instinct. These guys were neither acting as predators nor on instinct, they were torturing (and killing) an animal for no useful purpose with malice aforethought. And I see [**coosa**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1460012#post1460012) caught this as well. For everyone that is involved in the “this isn’t art” “yes it is, the same as if I made a painting in my kitchen” thing, the point of this idiot was to do non-traditional art, as opposed to painting (which everyone seems to bring up.) Painting is art. Sculpture is art. Fringe, or non-traditional, art does not become art just because they “artist” says that’s his intention. Why not torture a mentally retarded baby (or adult, for that matter, since they surely “don’t provide any use to society”)? Call it a statement about the abortion of fetuses known to be “defective.” See, the problem is that it doesn’t matter, really, whether this counts as art or not (and I still say it doesn’t since the “artist” specifically said he did it to make a statement. Political or otherwise statements do not necessarily = art.) Skinning an animal alive is torture. It is not a statement, it is not art. It is cruel and abhorrent. To say otherwise is to sanction snuff, in all its forms, as legitimate art. Torture is a crime and as such, the perpetrator of the crime should be sufficiently punished as to deter future incidences from occurring (and hopefully act as a warning to others, though that is not the specific intended purpose.) FTR: I am an omnivore, but only because I truly believe that the meat I eat is killed in a quick, (relatively) humane manner and not sliced up while alive. I am not a hunter, but I have no problems with those that do hunt, as long as they actively track any animal they shoot. Trapping is torture, as is relying on a blood-trial as the animal bleeds out over time. I’ve had thoughts of taking a baseball bat to these guys in retribution for their actions, so I guess torture is not out of the question for me, either. But the knee-capping of these guys (and/or others like them) would be a punishment for actions taken, acts committed by them, as opposed to random abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/192 "2001-07-25T00:39:32Z")
Beautiful, thinksnow. And Peta and Phil are NOT members of PETA, am I right? Killing a cat is not about the first ammendment, dickweed. It’s about getting your rocks off from another being’s suffering. Cats may not be sentient-so what? They can still feel pain just as much as we do, and they don’t understand. And anyways, if you think cats are stupid, brain dead creatures, well, you haven’t met MY cats. ---
**Author:** ![sethdallob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@sethdallob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sethdallob)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/193 "2001-07-25T01:07:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*And anyways, if you think cats are stupid, brain dead creatures, well, you haven’t met MY cats. > \*\* And they haven’t met my car. I own a cat. I love my cat. When it dies, I’ll probably get another cat. You would probably take a bullet for your cat. I wouldn’t. A cat is a pet - no more, no less. A stray cat isn’t a pet. Now watch the PETA Police post a reward. Send in Kitten Protection Services - he might skin his own cat! Come on, impose your will! I’ve made my arguments, and I’m not here to argue with the PETA-pumpers. ---
**Author:** ![Peta\_Tzunami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b487fb/32.png) [@Peta\_Tzunami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peta_Tzunami)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/194 "2001-07-25T01:20:56Z")
Thank you, Thinksnow. Eloquent, articulate and succinct. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > **And Peta and Phil are NOT members of PETA, am I right?** At this time, PLD and I have opted not to financial support PETA (the organization) due to personal differences of philosophy and some tactics (re: certain of their campaigns); we do not denounce them exactly as many of their campaigns are still valid and valuable to ending needless animal suffering. Incidentally, I sent and received some correspondence related to this issue that might be of interest. In the interest of space/bandwidth conservation, I shall not include my letters (they are viewable on [my website](http://www.geocities.com/la_peta/letters.html), if anyone feels so inclined), but will share the responses. **From the Ontario College of Art & Design:** > [@](#): > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthews, Laura > To: ‘la\_peta@yahoo.com’ > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 6:09 PM > Subject: Message for Leigh-Anne [http://www.geocities.com/la\_peta/letters](http://www.geocities.com/la_peta/letters). > > Dear Leigh-Anne, > > Thank you for your comments sent to the Ontario College of Art & Design (OCAD). I can assure you that the Ontario College of Art & Design is also appalled and shocked by the alleged activity. In no way does OCAD condone cruelty to animals, or criminal acts of any kind, nor do we see such activity as acceptable as art. > > Of the three individuals charged, only Jesse Power is a student of Ontario College of Art & Design. What Power allegedly did, he did as a private citizen. The alleged material he produced was never known to anyone at OCAD, nor produced as part of his studies. His actions are completely independent of OCAD. If the alleged activity proves to be true, it is tragic, but an isolated incident, and does not reflect the values or ideals of art and design education at the Ontario College of Art & Design. > > We regret that OCAD’s position was not made clear in recent media coverage and would appreciate you forwarding our position to other interested parties including those who view your web site [http://www.geocities.com/la\_peta/letters](http://www.geocities.com/la_peta/letters). > > Thank you again for your comments. > Laura Matthews > Director, Communications > Ontario College of Art & Design > Tel 416-977-6000 ext 222 > Fax 416-977-4080 **From reknowned artist Sue Coe:** > [@](#): > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Coe > To: [la\_peta@yahoo.com](mailto:la_peta@yahoo.com) > Cc: (removed) > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 4:49 PM > Subject: life before art > > To whom it may concern: > > The majority of cases involving animal abuse/torture and death, involve white males, of all economic groups, in their early teens through to mid twenties. > > I read that these men, were making a comment about the meat industry, by taking a cat, who appears nameless, and with no guardian, and skinning this cat alive, and making a video documentation of that act, as art. And that the cat, took a long time to die. > > As I do not know the complexities/contradictions of the motives behind these men, I could not say whether they need counselling and/or incarceration. There are laws, that protect animals, against cruelty, such as being skinned alive. (pathetic though they are, at least they exist). In slaughterhouses animals are routinely skinned alive, without being properly stunned. However, the action of the slaughterhouse worker is rarely sadistic, (let alone artistic) because of continuous line speed up, instrumented by the Reagan administration, workers cannot keep up with the number of animals being stunned. Many workers have risked their jobs, and sometimes their lives, by raising concerns about the suffering of the animals beings slaughtered. > > Members of the animal rights movement all over the world have been documenting slaughtering plants, and factory farms, for sometime now, many serving prison sentences, for trespassing, and releasing/rescuing the animals. There is much video in evidence documenting this. In countries like Korea, cats and dogs, are slaughtered whilst conscious - for ‘meat’. > > Farm Sanctuary a rescue and legislative organization to which I belong, has video footage, of an alive cow, being dragged by chains, to the slaughterhouse, because she is a ‘downed animal’ and being her skin coming off, on the road. (she cries, and tries to raise her head, as she is being dragged) If the gallery needs footage of animals being flayed alive, they can go to the many activists websites and organizations struggling to change the lives and deaths of animals. > > Whether slaughtering an animal, to make a point, and calling it ‘art’ or not art, is besides the point. > > Vivisectionists, say they are helping the human race, by cutting up animals, is that healing? Slaughterhouses, say they are providing us with food by killing, is that nourishment? Hunters say that that they are protecting wild places, by killing, is that sport? Child exploiters say they are giving a wage to children that would normally starve, is that charity? The Nazis said that the tattoos of their flayed victims, were suitable ornaments, is that art? Shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, is that freedom of speech? > > We all have excuses and justifications for what is socially acceptable and rewarded behavior. There is nothing ‘punk’ or avant guard, about killing - (unless butchers become artists)…historically both those movements, struggled against a corrupted dominant class. As is now, the dominant class, rewards killing, and ignores the victims. Bourgeoise culture, embraces the newness of shock value, and glamorizes individuality, whilst all life, as a class, on this planet, is being sacrificed for profit. > > We have to look into our power relationships with others, just as a small cat has no power to prevent his/her own death at human hands, just as this gallery and the artists, are tiny and insignificant as compared to the mass killings of the meat industry. Yet there is a commonality in thinking. A murky type of acceptance of taking life. > > It is not a question of do animals have rights? But a question of - what gives us the right, to take life? Where do we draw the line? > > Hopefully cases such as this, take us out of the mire of the liberal apologist realm of what is art, and infantile rebellion - and into a debate which does not silently collude with killing. > > Billions of animals, are already murdered every year, in the oceans, and slaughterhouses, and laboratories, and forests, it is not necessary to make galleries and museums, into abattoirs too, even for only one black and white and grey cat. > > Yours sincerely, > Sue Coe > > “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.” > –Theodor Adorno Out of courtesy and respect for the fact that she responded personally (and in less than a day) and since I haven’t asked/received permission to share it, I have removed her email address as well as her CC list on this email, but I assure the rest of the email appears as it was sent to me. Sue Coe is the artist and author of such books as _Dead Meat_ and _Pit’s Letters_ (I made reference and linked to samples of her work in the GD thread on this subject). I don’t expect that these messages will change anyone’s attitudes, but I wanted to share them just the same. ---
**Author:** ![City\_Gent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a87d85/32.png) [@City\_Gent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/City_Gent)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/195 "2001-07-25T05:20:37Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by sethdallob \* \*\* > [@](#): > > It’s not for me to determine where a line should be drawn when it comes to an artists’ expression. Every artist is trying to sell his/her ideas to an audience. The audiences for the acts you describe above are small, if not zero. The artist must first conceive of a thought, then realize it. Anyone that can do that has my respect, though I might disagree with the content.\*\* So your answer is that no line should be drawn? You can’t be serious. Freedom of expression cannot be absolute unless we are willing to give up all other rights and freedoms. What’s the purpose of free expression if free expression itself can be used to justify any act, no matter how gratuitously cruel? Reminds me of the Onion headline “ACLU Defends Right of Nazis to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters” \*\* > [@](#): > > I think this artist tries to shake a little sense into us, and I think that thought/purpose is far more noble than the life of a cat. > \*\* These “artists” claim that they are speaking against cruelty to animals, but they think it’s OK to torture a cat for an art piece in an obscure little gallery in a medium-sized city that nobody is going to watch anyway. Bullshit - they made the video for kicks and had to come up with a cover story after the fact to try to mitigate their inevitable punishment. Some people think zoos are cruel because the animals are caged up. My opinion is that zoos may be cruel in some circumstances, but their function of educating the public about endangered species, etc. outweighs the small amount of cruelty that may occur. I hear you using a similar argument to defend these “artists”: their purpose was important enough for a cat to be tortured. But there are other ways the artists could have gotten the same point across; hell, they probably could have done the same thing with computer animation or just special effects, if they had any talent. In fact, it would be so easy for an actual artist to produce a convincing simulation of the cat skinning that you have to wonder why they chose the option of actually skinning a real cat - they had to have known they were breaking the law. Your dichotomy between free speech and the right of cats not to be tortured is therefore false. I hope you can follow this chain of reasoning; if not, I agree with others who have accused you of being morally underdeveloped. Finally - have the arts sunk so low that they have to resort to cruelty? Any idiot can get peoples’ attention by filming, drawing, painting, or photographing something shocking, and I daresay the audience knows it. Picasso’s Guernica is credited with focusing the world’s attention on the acts of Nazi Germany during the Spanish Civil War, but he, an artist, was able to do so without painting blood-spurting headless babies. These pathetic phonies who tortured the cat are not worthy of the title “artist”. That’s like calling someone who blows up buildings a civil engineer - it’s a perversion of the language. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/196 "2001-07-25T08:01:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve made my arguments, and I’m not here to argue with the PETA-pumpers. So you refuse to defend your statements, instead opting to denounce the followers of an organization that your opposition does not even belong to or support? How very original. Wish I’d thought of that. I could have been making blanket, baseless statements all the time, and then huffing off with The Republican Party as an excuse. Score! ---
**Author:** ![Kaje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f04885/32.png) [@Kaje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaje)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/197 "2001-07-25T11:00:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by thinksnow \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Kaje** > > So just don’t claim your cat is a pure beacon of all that is good and holy, cause they have their predatory quirks as well. > > Two things: if cats aren’t sentient, thing they can’t be held accountable for their actions, can they? Also, the cats actions are guided by the instincts, and as you said, they are a predator. Man, OTOH, is capable of rational thought and conscious action and does not have to rely on instinct. These guys were neither acting as predators nor on instinct, they were torturing (and killing) an animal for no useful purpose with malice aforethought. And I see [**coosa**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1460012#post1460012) caught this as well.\*\* I think the key difference in our arguments is “_ **if** _ cats aren’t sentient.” I argue that we _have no understanding whatsoever_ of the origin or roll of sentience, and therefore we can’t say a cat does or does not have it. This takes away from both sides of the argument: some of the “its just a cat” contingent are saying a cat is not sentient so to kill it isn’t a bad thing… but perhaps it IS sentient. Furthermore, some of th PETA-ish contingent argues that cats SURELY are sentient so we can’t kill them, but perhaps they’re NOT (not that its ok to torture a “non-sentient” creature either). My take is that man really is just a highly evolved animal whose instincts and reactions have grown into such a complex structure that we can’t easily reduce our “emotions” back down to this original level, but that doesn’t mean these “emotions” or “rational abilities” are some spectacular human-only “gift from God.” Does this excuse these guys? Not in the least, and I haven’t argued as such. Whether its just a web of insticts or not, we are finally able to live a life where this sort of thing is not necessary, and “live and let live” seems a pretty sound philosophy. The only reason I brought up that particular account of the cat was to show that these cats participate in a ritual every bit as drawn out, every bit as violent, and nearly every bit as _unnecessary_. Insticts or otherwise, this cat does not _need_ to torture the mouse to eat and/or survive. I brought it up because it seemed that the claim was being made that all cats ever do is love every other creature and eat dried catfood. I KNOW they are carnivores and I KNOW they have instincts, but they still participate in an act quite comparable to the one described in spirit if not in motive, so as I said before, “don’t claim your cat is a pure beacon of all that is good and holy, cause they have their predatory quirks as well.” ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/198 "2001-07-25T11:51:57Z")
Let’s see . . . **Peta Tzunami and I** : Not PETA members. Conditional support of some PETA goals. Vegetarians. **Guinastasia** : Not a PETA member, and does not support their activities. Not a vegetarian. **manhattan** : DEFINITELY not a member or supporter of PETA. Not a vegetarian. **City Gent** : Not a PETA member. Not a supporter, as far as I know. Not a vegetarian. **thinksnow** : Not a PETA member, and as far as I know, not a supporter. Obviously not a vegetarian. Are these the “PETA-pumpers” you’re whining about, seth? Are you such a coward that, confronted with the fact that you’re obviously on the wrong side of an argument, you cannot even accurately characterize those who disagree with you? (Don’t answer–it’s rhetorical.) Is your support for your own position so tenuous that you must cast the other posters as members of the Vast PETA Conspiracy so you can feel better about retreating and declaring victory? Coward. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/199 "2001-07-25T13:03:05Z")
**Anthracite** - PETA member? Yeah, right. Even objects strongly to the letter by Sue Coe. _Supports_ strongly **pldennison** and **Peta Tzunami** on this issue. > [@](#): > > \*\*Now watch the PETA Police post a reward. Send in Kitten Protection Services - he might skin his own cat! Come on, impose your will! > > I’ve made my arguments, and I’m not here to argue with the PETA-pumpers.\*\* Don’t these two statements have a conflict with each other? ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2001, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105/200 "2001-07-25T13:50:43Z")
Purile though it may be - I WAS a member of PETA - People for Eating Tasty Animals. With the “PETA-Pumpers” comment in mind: I’ve been strolling through the JDT threads, and was struck by how many times the following tactic is used: Label your opponent’s arguments as dogmatic instead of reasoned in an attempt to make them look like a mindless zealot. Then you make a parting shot, back out of the debate, and essentially perform a more sophisticated rendition of “LALALALALALAI’mnotlisteningtoyouLALALALALA”. Newbie that I am, I keep wondering if that is considered a weasle’s approach even in the Pit (I know it is in GD)… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-cowardice-warning-deeply-disturbing-and-offensive/73105.md?page=11)