Artist starves dog to death for "art," and he's been invited to do it again

[Cassius]

Well thats a huge part of what is wrong with the world today. If you substituted the dog with a child would they have still done nothing wrong?

I think you misunderstand me; I feel that they did something wrong, and I'm not trying to make excuses for them. I was only stating that they feel that they did nothing wrong and that it is unfortunate. It's not considered as callous and cruel over there as it is here, which, like I said, is no excuse, just like it's no excuse for stoning women or for abusing children.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I've just seen so many cases of humans doing something like this to other humans that it doesn't suprise me that it's happened to a dog, an animal that many people consider trivial, althought it doesn't sicken me any less.

I have never, in all my experience of extreme entertainment, seen one person slowly torture another person to death in a public place (although Celine Dion does her best ).

Seriously though, I've never seen such a thing. Human death as spectacle went out of fashion eons ago, if you don't count public executions, and even then it was quick and supposedly served the purpose of "justice."

 

[Cassius]

I have never, in all my experience of extreme entertainment, seen one person slowly torture another person to death in a public place (although Celine Dion does her best ).

I've read of cases where people were raped, tortured, and eventually murdered by groups of people for their own entertainment. Sometimes it was for as long as several days. All of these cases took place in a home and not in public, but it's still exploitation and humiliation for the sake of other's entertainment, albeit on not as large a scale as this "art show".

As for public places, there's the case of Cheryl Araujo. She was gang-raped in a bar full of people. No one stopped to help her; they just watched. She might not have been murdered (although she tragically died in a car accident a few years after her trial), but she was tortured for entertainment.

 

[MadameChaos]

I think you misunderstand me; I feel that they did something wrong, and I'm not trying to make excuses for them. I was only stating that they feel that they did nothing wrong and that it is unfortunate. It's not considered as callous and cruel over there as it is here, which, like I said, is no excuse, just like it's no excuse for stoning women or for abusing children.

That wasn't aimed at you, I was just questioning their apathy and the idea that simply not directly taking part in it somehow meant that they were not in some way responsable for it going on.

I'm not sure where it is but in some parts of the world it is a fellony to witness a car accident and not try to help the victims.

 

[prisoner77]

Sick and cruel with no artistic worth...

 

[Anaesthesine]

I've read of cases where people were raped, tortured, and eventually murdered by groups of people for their own entertainment. Sometimes it was for as long as several days. All of these cases took place in a home and not in public, but it's still exploitation and humiliation for the sake of other's entertainment, albeit on not as large a scale as this "art show".

As for public places, there's the case of Cheryl Araujo. She was gang-raped in a bar full of people. No one stopped to help her; they just watched. She might not have been murdered (although she tragically died in a car accident a few years after her trial), but she was tortured for entertainment.

This is a depressing conversation, isn't it?

It is the public, state-sanctioning of this that is reprehensible. People do horrendous things in private, of course, and the gang-rape situation is not unique, but all these things are ILLEGAL. No state sanctions rape, torture or murder for entertainment (Abu Ghraib is a national disgrace, for some of us at least), and if you attempted to do this in an art gallery you would be properly arrested and put away. Apparently the torture and death of an animal is considered morally acceptable, however, and this is so barbarous and morally depraved that it amazes me.

I just checked the petition, and someone is reporting online that the exhibition will go on as planned. I hope this is not true. Tragic.

 

[Cassius]

This is a depressing conversation, isn't it?

It is the public, state-sanctioning of this that is reprehensible. People do horrendous things in private, of course, and the gang-rape situation is not unique, but all these things are ILLEGAL. No state sanctions rape, torture or murder for entertainment (Abu Ghraib is a national disgrace, for some of us at least), and if you attempted to do this in an art gallery you would be properly arrested and put away. Apparently the torture and death of an animal is considered morally acceptable, however, and this is so barbarous and morally depraved that it amazes me.

I just checked the petition, and someone is reporting online that the exhibition will go on as planned. I hope this is not true. Tragic.

I was thinking about how depressing it was as well while I was typing my response. It's a shame people commit such atrocities on one another, as well as animals.

I'll be saddened if the exhibition will go on. I figured it would. I signed ithe petition anyway.

 

[Sharron Needles]

Human being are so flawed, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that we commit such heinous against each other. Even when a dog has been tortured or abused, often it will still come to a human looking for affection and help. I hate seeing dogs loose on the street. I've been late to work more than a few times because I always have to turn around and try and get the dog into the back of my car to get safely away from any traffic that is nearby. I did this one time near my house when I saw two smaller mutts running down the side of the road, at a place in the hills where people often come to drive as fast and idiotic as they can for thrills. I got them in to my car and checked their tags and phoned the number several times over an hour before I got in touch with someone. They didn't seem bothered by it at all, and they weren't home so they told me just to go let them out at the top of their driveway, that they would be fine!?! I was thinking, what the f*** is wrong with you?? They were just running around the middle of a curvy, steep road in the middle of the afternoon, and now you want me to just leave them unattended at the top of the driveway until someone gets home five hours later? People never cease to amaze me how f***ing stupid they can be, but this exhibition makes my skin literally crawl, and yes, the people that run this exhibit are just as much to blame. I am working on letting them know what I think.

 

[MadameChaos]

Do we have anyone who posts on here in Costa Rica? If they really are going to go ahead I think someone should do something.

 

[Dave]

Yes, and what they should do is burn down the gallery before the show. Now that would be art.

 

[Buzzetta]

Power 105 DJ Star fired for racist and violent threats

I missed the point about this person not realizing that they had been fired. The recourse here has nothing to do with free speech. We value property more than speech and the people that own Power 105 own the slice of the airwaves that this person was heard on. They have the right to fire an employee, and it sounds like they should have done it sooner. This person has the right to say what they want, but just not on the air, unless they can find some company that wishes to play the controversy game.

Same thing with Don Imus. He can say what he wants to, but if he does it on air he risks being fired and I don't see that as a blow to his first amendment rights.

There's another side to that, though. As companies merge less viewpoints are available, and it's not so much the problem that a person my lose the right to speak, but that the public may lose the right to hear other views, and may come to forget the possibility of other viewpoints.

In a gallery, an artist can express themselves, and the government should not interfere, but people may protest. They have freedom of speech, too.

The difference with the man that let the dog starve is that, if it happened here, he would be breaking laws not protected by the first amendment, and again, some very leftist people might call it free speech, but a lot of very leftist people would believe the dog was cruelly killed. The point is that you can't blame this on the "ultra left".

Ok - Since you seemingly tested the boundaries for me I can go into more detail and perhaps everything I wrote will make a bit more sense.

Star from Hot 97 screamed obscenities and called for violence against "whitey" for years on his show. He claimed that he was doing it as a representation of a repressed black male in a white dominated field. His words were inflammatory at the minimum and offensive and violent towards many. Whenever he was called on it he hid behind first amendment protection as many "shock jocks do" but when called into question what it would be like had the race roles been reversed he would claim once again that he was representing a repressed black male listener that was eager for their slice of the pie and retaliation for supposed oppression by whites.

The public was okay with this because "Hey - blacks cannot be racist can they?- only white people can be racist."

Star was never fired for his remarks against white people. He was fired for advocating violence against the wife and daughter of a rival black DJ. I guess the public has a color line after all.

 

[Dave]

Ok - Since you seemingly tested the boundaries for me I can go into more detail and perhaps everything I wrote will make a bit more sense.

Star from Hot 97 screamed obscenities and called for violence against "whitey" for years on his show. He claimed that he was doing it as a representation of a repressed black male in a white dominated field. His words were inflammatory at the minimum and offensive and violent towards many. Whenever he was called on it he hid behind first amendment protection as many "shock jocks do" but when called into question what it would be like had the race roles been reversed he would claim once again that he was representing a repressed black male listener that was eager for their slice of the pie and retaliation for supposed oppression by whites.

The public was okay with this because "Hey - blacks cannot be racist can they?- only white people can be racist."

Star was never fired for his remarks against white people. He was fired for advocating violence against the wife and daughter of a rival black DJ. I guess the public has a color line after all.

Yes, of course. I held back on my views about what "should" happen to this artist, because there's no point in advocating illegal action in a public forum, simply to make myself feel some false sense of power.

I am/was a big fan of Public Enemy. (Preferring to forget the lost years and trying to ignore these things I keep seeing about Flavor Flav's reality shows.) professor Griff aside though, I believe that Chuck D did support the view that blacks can not be racist, because racism is equivalent to white supremacy. (letting that sink in)

This was sad, because apart from the rumors that his persona was basically a marketing device, and that could be debated, I found him to be a powerful voice. It was the beats that got me. I loved the music on "It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back" and "Fear Of A Black Planet". But, did Chuck D talk some bullshit? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

I can still get a huge rush from those two records though.

I used to try to read hip hop magazines occasionally, too. The Source and Vibe, in particular, because the others were just too "ghetto". (Is that incorrect?) Anyway, they did have some good information on some of the rappers whose music I like. (For years now, my favorite is RZA.) But I can't read that nonsense because it's extremely irritating to me, the purposeful ignorance, misspellings, and grammar. Now that is racist, marketing a magazine to fans of a predominantly black artform, and then writing it as if the readers were morons.

 

[mauve21]

That is so revolting. The artist should have the same thing done to him, except just be taken to the edge of death and then
asked how he feels....
What a total bastard.

 

[Hellie]

I hope someone tops him.Its what he deserves.He is a waste of air.Why should he breathe free air the same as decent people?

 

[neonmad]

I don't really know why i need to be aware of this.What can anyone do about it?If it were here the RSPCA would do something.

there surely isn't anybody who would condone it......i am crying now as i adore dogs.

This is a depressing conversation, isn't it?

It is the public, state-sanctioning of this that is reprehensible. People do horrendous things in private, of course, and the gang-rape situation is not unique, but all these things are ILLEGAL. No state sanctions rape, torture or murder for entertainment (Abu Ghraib is a national disgrace, for some of us at least), and if you attempted to do this in an art gallery you would be properly arrested and put away. Apparently the torture and death of an animal is considered morally acceptable, however, and this is so barbarous and morally depraved that it amazes me.

I just checked the petition, and someone is reporting online that the exhibition will go on as planned. I hope this is not true. Tragic.

Do we have anyone who posts on here in Costa Rica? If they really are going to go ahead I think someone should do something.

Can we do something? Or help someone else do something? Shit like this freaks me out and makes me ill - I thought to myself, maybe I could go there and do something (before I even knew exactly where "there" was)!
This is obviously crazy because it would be much more efficient to use the money required for that on saving dogs locally; it was a naive thought, I guess you could say...but the evil and urgency of the situation elicited an extreme reaction.
Anyway...would "we" be willing to contribute to some sort of attempt to intervene (vs. just add our names to a long list of people who are ignored - which I did)? I don't know what/who that might involve - probably nothing/no one... I don't recall seeing anyone here from Costa Rica or Honduras...

 

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

Not cool