seth-most animals in shelters are not skinned alive. They are given an injection which causes them to fall asleep.
:rolleyes:
Your definition is incorrect, as is your citation. The online version of the American Heritage dictionary’s primary definition of “sentient” is “Having sense perception; conscious.” I noted that you conspicuously omitted the most crucial word in the definition: conscious.
Animals are not conscious in the sense that humans are, they have no sense of Self, no cat has ever thought “I think, therefore I Am.” Animals are insentient. Humans are the only sentient beings on earth.
This is not to say that animals feel pain any less than humans. But I get awfully sick of stupid anthropomorphization of animals. Your little kitty isn’t Garfield and it doesn’t think in complete sentences, so there is no reason to act as if it does.
Chas-how do you know? Are you a cat? I think not.
No, presumably, he or she is not, nor needs be. Cats are not sentient. An important component of sentience is self-awareness. Place a mirror in front of a cat and it will spend it’s entire existence either ignoring the simulacrum altogether or, thinking it’s another cat, swatting away at it (maybe not even that…I don’t know how well a feline brain can discern a two-dimensional image.) Some of the higher primates, however, can eventually grasp the concept, and will stand in front of the glass preening and making faces. And let’s not forget Koko, the sign-language gorilla, who in the past has been known to grieve, hurl insults, and even tell untruths, all indicators of some level of sentience and perception. In other words, humans don’t quite hold a monopoly on sentience. Nevertheless, willful, utterly superfluous cruelty towards animals remains morally repugnant if for no other reason than that agony, in any form, is just that.
If anyone needs to make a statement like that, they can do it by creating some grotesque painting no one will ever want. I fail to see what a typically loved house pet and an animal traditionally raised for meat have in common. I personally think this is just one sick little man who’s trying to make an excuse for the jollies he gets out of tormenting animals and destroying other people’s work.
[sub]you wouldn’t care if it was a video of cockroaches being sprayed with Raid, which dissolves their skins.[/sub]
Dear God:
I regret to inform you that many of the units designated Species: homo sapiens have developed a serious flaw in their design. The internal compassion circuits fail to operate properly in many of the units, and in some cases do not function at all. Several external corrections have been attempted (Jesus, Buddha, et. al.) with little success.
Since the failure of these circuits threatens not only the survival of this species, but that of all of the other species on this planet, we wish to return the defective units for repair and/or replacement. Should this prove to be a defect in the original design, we must insist that the entire species be recalled at the earliest opportunity.
Your prompt attention to this matter would be very much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Earth
I’m glad to hear somebody say this. This “myth” that somehow we humans have some quality that NO other animal has or can ever hope to have is deeply selfish and disturbing (Except of course when it comes from religion, which is deeply selfish and disturbing too but in a different way). Humans may or may not have the ultimate example of this “self-awareness” whether that’s something real or just a creation of our perceptive senses and abilities, but this in no way means that it is a black a white issue. While an animal such as a cat doesn’ seem to have “consciousness”, other animals we can observe would seem to demonstrate that they do.
eh… [/rant]
ONE reason cats swat in the mirror is that they are far sighted. Anything closer than 6 inches to their faces appears very blurry. And MY cats don’t swat at themselves in the mirror!
And from this radio show, more sadism against animals in the guise of art:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/071801/Hillsborough/Video_released_of_rad.shtml
Note to self: Buy stock in Preparation H, since Chas. E is going to need a lot of it if he keeps talking through his sphincter like this.
By any reasonable definition, including the one you use above, apes and dolphins are both sentient. Or perhaps you missed the research published only in the last few months noting that dolphins look at themselves in mirrors, and will go to great lengths to observe portions of their bodies on which researchers have drawn marks.
It isn’t by coincidence that humans define sentience as “something that humans have and other creatures don’t,” which is so far from the intent of the word as to be laughable.
You are clearly an idiot, Chas. You haven’t said a single thing in this thread that can even be remotely backed up.
As far as your objections to whether this event happened as described in the original link, please note that wqhen I e-mailed the TOronto PD, I linked to that article, which contains the quotes from Det. Scott as well as the directors of the gallery (who were concerned over Powers’ other videotpaes being confiscated as evidence) and another artist who decried their actions (I guess she must be one of them there “Philistines”). The Toronto PD saw no need to state that anything in that article was factually incorrect. I explicitly identified myself as an American and a private citizen, so any gag orders would not apply to me, presumably.
I’m going to call Det. Scott on Monday and embarrass you, Chas.
As for sethdallob, runner-up in the Unfounded Speculation contest:
-
If you cannot tell the difference between “Humans killing animsls to eat them,” “Animals killing other animals to eat them,” “Humans protecting themselves from disease vectors,” and “Kiling and torturing an animal you don’t intend to eat for no apparent reason,” you probably should not be posting at the Straight Dope. Or, maybe you need to post ten times as much, because in either case, you are ignorant.
-
My cats have certainly never killed a rodent. They live indoors. If they ever did, though, it would have been to eat it, an important distinction. They sometimes eat spiders and flies in the house. No skin off of my nose.
Art is supposed to be a sword cutting through our perceptions and beliefs, helping us gain new insights. Consequently, it is often given a wide latitude.
Art is not supposed to be a shield, protecting evil from sanction and prosecution.
When it comes to actual extreme non-consensual torture and killing, there is no art. There is just a claim to the protection afforded art.
You’ve never seen a cat “play” with a mouse? On multiple occassions at various friends’ houses (I don’t own a cat), I’ve seen cats catch a mouse, let it go, catch it again, let it go again. Then eventually when they tire of this they bite the mouse once or twice, just a nibble, and then let it try and run away again. Of course it can’t move too well now, so the cat gets it again and stars batting it around playfully. This gradual “torture”, if you will, continues on for ages until finally the mouse usually ends up dying and the cat usually takes the dead mouse to some other hidden location to eat it or hide it or whatever.
I only bring this up because it has been stated in other posts that the appalling factor in the video isn’t just that the cat was killed, but that it was a drawn out, deliberate process. 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.
Right. Like I said…
::sigh:: This isn’t an easy thread to read after a 12 hour shift on animal emergency. I’m too tired to muster a proper post…anyone who knows me knows how I feel about this sort of stuff anyway…thanks to coosa, PL, Peta, and others who have already made all my points for me.
I’m gonna go kiss my kitty kids (yes, they are very important to me, like children are to others) and head off to bed.
If you wish to dispute the obvious, then you certainly do have a need to call the Toronto cop and then follow up through the court system.
First, call the cop and determine which court is handling the matter. This will be released to you.
Second, call the court and ask that an ICON search be made to provide you with the next court date. The next court date will be released to you.
Third, once the court date has passed, follow up with the court to determine if there are any further court dates. These will be released to you.
Forth, once there are no further court dates, order up the transcripts from the court dates. These will be released to you for a fee.
By doing this, you will have the public record including a determination of fact.
So get your head out of your ass and do some proper legal research before denying the obvious – that a cat was skinned alive under the shield of art.
(And yes, IAAL in the jurisdiction.)
And while we are on the subject of offensive art, one’s having one’s head up one’s ass, and one’s being unable to raise a reasonable argument, let’s have a poetry reading:
The pyramid bird is a very strange bird
which when perplexed flys round and round
in ever decreasing concentric squares
Until such a time as it flys
up its own asshole
From such a vanage point it then spews
little balls of deficate derision
down up its bewildered adversaries
(I knew that M.A. would come in handy someday, 'cause now I can claim that the poem is art, rather than a personal attack.)
I take a bigger view - all of your definitions above have the same result - 1 dead animal. It’s dead now - it doesn’t make a difference whether it was shot by a hunter, sqeezed by a boa, or skinned for art. It’s dead.
Proportionately, we are talking about less than a drop in the bucket of animal deaths. Few, if any, will be encouraged to repeat the practice, becuase, as you say, it would be socially unacceptable. A deluded artist skinned a cat to give attention to the mass slaughter of other “less fluffy” animals and to expose the hypocrisy between them. That’s art. Just because you didn’t like it, or it’s not socially acceptable, does not make it “not art.”
Who was the ignorant one here? When you leave little Fluffy alone, s/he becomes a different creature. I’m sure that they have pounced on a mouse or a rat that found it’s way indoors when you weren’t looking. Heck, I used to have an indoor cat too, but I was always pulling little claws from its’ fur on its’ belly.
Note above comment re: toying with mice. They don’t need them for food, either. You are feeding them a nice healthy meal of preground animal…
Why, because spiders aren’t cute? Many people have spiders as pets. This is the hypocrisy that I’m talking about. Just because you think a cat is cute and a spider is ugly doesn’t give you the right to say one is better than the other. If you are going to be non-hypocritical, you have to say all animals shouldn’t be killed, and go completely vegan. Otherwise, you are playing favorites – I would argue virtually arbitrarily.
And this justifies the behavior of those men, and their defense in this thread, in some way?
I thought the whole point of the ‘it’s just a cat’ contingent was that humans are superior to cats - that they are ‘men’, not animals. Is this ‘superiority’ based on their willingness to be consciously and intentionally cruel, as compared to the instinctive, unintentional cruelty of an inferior, non-sentient animal?
I think we can rule out any claims to moral superiority.