Plain cruel, please sign

Interesting idea, but should have stayed as an idea. Stupid ****er for doing that, I'd hang him. That dog looked in so much distress in the pictures too. And shame on the museum for allowing that.
 
I think this piece of art shows what sort of society we live in, whether you like it or not. Today people are up in arms shaking their fists from behind their keyboards and tommorrow they'll forget about it. They'll knowingly buy their clothes produced by children, buy food that they know has caused suffering, yet just ignore it. It's not really a dig, we all do it. It's just interesting to take a step back and look at the blanket of ignorance most people choose to live under these days.
 
Gackt said:
That's because Hitler wasn't doing it to make a point.

Arguably, it's a small sacrifice to make if it gets people to take notice of the fact that people will take notice when it is paraded around as art, but not when it needs the help most, on the streets, starving and dying.

What's the sacrifice of one dog to the salvation of hundreds? The dog, if this were actually true, and he did starve, would be a martyr.
Click to expand...

No it would be a victim. Martyrs choose to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. This guy murdered a dog, claimed it was art, and got away with it.
 
JBuk said:
apart from her being an artist in what way are the stories similar?
Click to expand...

a) both artists

b) both trying to make a point about the nature of humanity


c) both slightly unorthodox methodology used (e.g. going to extreme lengths)
 
Last edited:
ishiamaru said:
This guy murdered a dog, claimed it was art, and got away with it.
Click to expand...


in order for it to be murder wouldnt it have to be illegal in the first place?


this took place in Managua where i doubt there is any law as prohibiting the torture or killing of a dog
 
JBuk said:
in order for it to be murder wouldnt it have to be illegal in the first place?


this took place in Managua where i doubt there is any law as prohibiting the torture or killing of a dog
Click to expand...

yeh if your gonna be taking the legal route. Morally though, he tortured and murdered a dog.

just cause your leader says its ok dosnt mean it is. Tbh hes being a bit of a sheep himself by following that law.
 
ishiamaru said:
yeh if your gonna be taking the legal route. Morally though, he tortured and murdered a dog.

just cause your leader says its ok dosnt mean it is. Tbh hes being a bit of a sheep himself by following that law.
Click to expand...


Morally to us modern civilized people then he mistreated an animal and the result was its death. i dont see any evidence of it being tortured though although you could maybe class its poor treatment as a form of torture

It wasnt murdered, you can only murder humans, even if you could murder an animal then in order for it to be a murder then it has to be first be illegal

It has nothing to do with following a leader or being a sheep, this countries culture and history and many others around the world for example China ,Korea, Vietnam dont think of animals the same way we do, therefore what we see as morally wrong probably doesnt even cross their minds as wrong, for instance in some countries they will beat a dog to death and then eat it - they dont view that as anything other than getting flavour into their meat
 
JBuk said:
Morally to us modern civilized people then he mistreated an animal and the result was its death. i dont see any evidence of it being tortured though although you could maybe class its poor treatment as a form of torture
Click to expand...

Depriving someone or something of food and water is pretty much going to come under the banner of torture.

JBuk said:
It wasnt murdered, you can only murder humans, even if you could murder an animal then in order for it to be a murder then it has to be first be illegal
Click to expand...

We can play at semantics or we can accept that his (in)actions and those of all visitors to the museum who ignored the dog killed it, they are complicit in it's death. Murder is simply a common term for an unlawful killing, sure in the strict legal definition you can only murder humans but you know the point that was being made irrespective of the terms used.
 
Worst thing is, it may have been a stray on the street (he got some kids to catch one) but it had a chance to do its own thing. It might have ended up starving it might have been hit by a car, who knows. What the guy did was take away any chance of it surviving, you could say he wasnt responsible for its death in the big picture but he sure as hell didnt let it live.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Depriving someone or something of food and water is pretty much going to come under the banner of torture.
Click to expand...

yes, that is why i said it could be a form of torture, but origionally i meant torture in the sense of it being beaten and such


semi-pro waster said:
We can play at semantics or we can accept that his (in)actions and those of all visitors to the museum who ignored the dog killed it, they are complicit in it's death. Murder is simply a common term for an unlawful killing, sure in the strict legal definition you can only murder humans but you know the point that was being made irrespective of the terms used.
Click to expand...


I do accept his actions and that of the visitors also the management of the museum/gallery led to the death of the dog , ive not said otherwise
 
Samione said:
I think this piece of art shows what sort of society we live in, whether you like it or not. Today people are up in arms shaking their fists from behind their keyboards and tommorrow they'll forget about it. They'll knowingly buy their clothes produced by children, buy food that they know has caused suffering, yet just ignore it. It's not really a dig, we all do it. It's just interesting to take a step back and look at the blanket of ignorance most people choose to live under these days.
Click to expand...

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom