[QUOTE]
**Originally posted by Kaje **
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.” **[/QUOTE
Kaje, I understand your point, but I wish to ensure that the difference is clear: cats hunt and track prey the same in the house as they would in the wild. There is little, if any, difference in the style and technique used to stalk potential food. The fact that cats have food in a dish means nothing to them when there is real, live and moving food within reach.
When you compare their actions to those of the criminals in Canada, you are drawing a comparison that doesn’t exist, save the final outcome of a creature being killed. The difference, which really is all important, is that the cats, or crocodiles, or sharks, or eagles kill animals that are a normal part of their regular (read: non-mankind designed) food chain.
I think we both get each others argument, but I want to be clear in the wording/phrasing so that there is no misunderstanding by others that might chose to pervert your or my words to fit some skewed logic.
Why hasn’t PETA killed these people yet? Are they protesting in any way? I volunteer to help remove some of the ‘artists’ skin. Not all of it, I might throw up in the pro… Oh, wait a minute…
Quite some time ago, I posted a thread about my wife bringing a stray dog into our house. Like you, I think that, hey, it’s a damn dog…big whoop. Read the following thread and see what you’re arguing against with that argument.
As far as the torture of the cat goes, well, as far as I’m concerned, at least it wasn’t a person. I think that the persons responsible for it should be fined and perhaps jailed for a short while but NOT defenestrated or any of the other dumbass things that people have posted in this thread.
Let’s look at this realistically, even though I know that ain’t gonna happen. In order to provide certain types of kosher meat, it’s required that the animal’s throat be cut while it’s head is held in a clamp. Is this NOT torture or at least a form of torture?
Get over it already people…
And, by the way, I still have the stray that the wife brought in…as well as another stray that is gonna have babies within the next week or two…
Xploder, pleasure to meet your acquaintance. I’ll share my Kevlar vest and riot gear with you.
Yes, there isn’t much conversation in this thread anymore - but hey, I’ve been called an ignorant slut and a moral coward because I don’t think one cat’s suffering is worth imprisoning an artist for 9000 consecutive life sentences. There’s nothing like a bunch of zealots on their “moral high ground” flaming away anyone that says a peep they don’t like.
and I didn’t read the whole thing. So my two cents:
The people who did this are sick and need therapy to understand why toturing defensless creatures is a bad thing.
They also need a nice long prison term to understand that torturing defensless creatures is a bad thing. (Bubba will be teaching that course).
The art world has lost its soul. Two things have contributed to this:
First, technology which has allowed even the most mongrel of us to create things we like to look at. Photoshop and iMovie and other advances have made the creation of pleasing images child’s play. From a technical standpoint art is dead, or at the very least, what is left is the domain of nerds and George Lucas.
And secondly, educated masses who (as a corallary to above) no longer need “artists” to explain thing to them. Think back to the Renaisance when artists made it easy to see (and understand) the Bible stories. Now art is regulated to a sort of nihilistic self-examination that no one (outside of the art community) really cares about. But out of deference to the station art has held in previous ages we shrug at all the nonsense and accept that we are the ones out of touch.
I’m sorry I spent this much time on this subject. Perhaps by writing more than 3 words on the matter was the “purpose” of the “art”. But as this was not their stated mission (odd, since so much of the “art” out there seeks to drive discussion about the “subject matter”) perhaps I have fallen into the “trap”.
As a result I will also give a more direct response:
Which is probably why you’ll find a number of vegetarians arguing against you on this one (myself included).
sethdallob: You’re damn right there’s no conversation going on here, because you seem incapable of anything other than hyperbole and falsifications. Though, since we’re all just PETA-lovin fools in your mind, maybe you’re out of it enough to believe what you write.
Myrr, the funny thing is that sethdallob doesn’t even understand what the thread is about. If you go back and read my OP, and all my posts in this thread, I never once suggested any punishment (realistic or otherwise) for Powers and Wennemaker.
That was never my focus in this thread, and if I approached it at all, it was tangentially. My focus was on the directors of the gallery who seemed unable to conceive of a definition of “art” that excludes the torture of animals, and who I thus described as moral cowards.
If others throughout the thread have suggested hypberolic punishments for the artists, and sethdallob allowed himself to be distracted by that to the point where he didn’t understand what was being argued, I suggest that it’s his own defensiveness and lack of reading comprehension that are the cause.
The fact that he has been unable to accurately characterize either his debate opponents or their arguments is just the icing on the cake.
But arguing on his terms, yes, I cannot characterize an “Oh, let’s just let this one go by” as anything but moral cowardice, given the implications of what happens once we just let them all go by.
Congratulations, pldennison, I salute you. You just can’t let go without the last word, can you? Enough! We disagree. Just agree to disagree. I’m sorry that I bothered to address someone else except for you. Calling me an ignorant slut and a moral coward doesn’t do anything to convince me to your argument; I’m not doing anything to convince you to mine - so let’s just drop it, shut up, and move on in our lives. The Board will be down for a couple of days. Take a deep breath and calm down a little bit.
Not trying to start debate anew, just following up on this case:
Ontario: New cruelty charges laid
August 1, 2001
TORONTO - Two men accused of torturing and killing a
cat face new charges after a court appearance
yesterday. Anthony Ryan Wennekers, 24, faces four
counts of animal cruelty, two counts of mischief under
$5,000, one count of theft and one count of killing
animals. Jesse Power, 21, who said the alleged actions
and their videotaping were a work of art, faces three
charges of animal cruelty, one count of mischief under
$5,000, one count of theft and one count of killing
animals.
Okay, so killing a cat as a way of demonstration. [sarcasm]Not hypocritical at all[/sarcasm]. I suppose it’s a good thing these people weren’t anti-death penalty. They’d probably hatchet murder Lorenzo Lamas (not that this is, in and of itself, a bad idea:)). The definition of art IS up to the individual who VIEWS it, not the one who CREATES it. Each person gets to make up their own mind. I supported Maplethorpe’s right to his art shows in Cincinnati. But Maplethorpe just had some pictures of children. While that’s bad enough, it’s certainly not the same as killing an innocent cat. This doesn’t sicken me, nor does it offend me (I’m not sure I can either sickened or offended). What bothers me is the radicalness of the act. Personally, I think the guys are idiots. But I tend to think that of anyone who commits cruelty to animals. Even human ones (I’m omitting my views on the death penalty…that’s a discussion for another time). I’m not religious, but I’d be willing to bet I have more of a soul than either of these cockgobblers.
