Artist starves dog for exhibit

[Capt Caveman]

Animal cruelty. I hope he dies a horrible death.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how this is worse than killing animals for food. Humans are the only animals who can feel emotions and suffering right? What a bunch of bleeding hearts. How many of you hypocrites have even donated one cent to HUMANS undergoing equal or worse suffering?

Are you really that dense? Starving an animal to death isn't even in the same ballpark as killing one. One is quick and one isn't. Would you rather be chained to a wall for 5-7 days and die of starvation or be shot in the head? That's what I thought. :roll:

Are you saying that an animal raised in a stall or in a crate is not suffering? You don't think chickens with broken limbs in a cage are feeling pain? How about having its neck slit and bleeding to death for kosher preparation?

Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

Your first post was either trolling or complete ignorance. You're just digging yourself in deeper.


Additionally, to show you how false the claim is that animals in stalls are suffering: if they were suffering, they'd be under stress, which isn't good for their health or the bottom line of the farmer. No farmer wants their animals suffering - it's not as profitable.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

I think you need to work on your logic skills. You ARE a hypocrite if you whine about this dog suffering and call for execution of this guy, yet eat animals that you know suffer their whole lives in order to be put on your plate. The only people who can justly criticize this dog's suffering are
a) Vegans
b) Hunters who only eat wild game
c) People who consume humanely raised livestock and dairy

If someone posted a thread like this about veal calfs being raised in crates, or humans starving, he'd get called a "bleeding heart wussie" by the majority of ATOTers. But a dog gets sympathy. That's what makes you hypocrites.

I don't recall calling for the artist to be executed. I said the punishment should be the same as the crime in terms of being tethered to a wall and having food and water withheld. Let them starve and see how it feels. I don't advocate killing the person as human life is obviously more valuable than an animal life. Nice try though, and good job on being a dumbass.

Good job missing my point. Change "executed" to whatever punishment you think he deserves and then reply to my post.

I didn't miss the point. Your statement that I am a hypocrite was conditional based upon whether or not I called for the artist to be executed in the same fashion. I didn't do that, which means I am not a hypocrite.

Raising a veal calf isn't much better, but the animals are not left to die of starvation. That is a much more painful way to die than simply not being allowed to run around at will. They are killed relatively quickly whereas this dog suffered for days. There is no parallel unless you are a moron. Based on your logic, it is hard to imply that you have any sort of conceptual grasp on how your proposed situations are vastly different.

No, me calling posters in this thread hypocrites (and not you specifically actually) was based on the fact that you condemn the artist for causing the suffering of this dog, while we ourselves cause the suffering of many animals. I'd say spending a whole lifetime in a stall or a crate is just as bad as starving to death. If you don't think that constitutes suffering, fine, you aren't a hypocrite. If you are one of those people who says that animals don't suffer, then it's clear that you are a hypocrite.

The other thing is that if this was anything but a dog suffering, the opinion of the thread would be in the other direction. Look what happens when people post about PETA campaigning for animal rights, or about diamonds, or sweatshops.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how this is worse than killing animals for food. Humans are the only animals who can feel emotions and suffering right? What a bunch of bleeding hearts. How many of you hypocrites have even donated one cent to HUMANS undergoing equal or worse suffering?

Are you really that dense? Starving an animal to death isn't even in the same ballpark as killing one. One is quick and one isn't. Would you rather be chained to a wall for 5-7 days and die of starvation or be shot in the head? That's what I thought. :roll:

Are you saying that an animal raised in a stall or in a crate is not suffering? You don't think chickens with broken limbs in a cage are feeling pain? How about having its neck slit and bleeding to death for kosher preparation?

Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

Your first post was either trolling or complete ignorance. You're just digging yourself in deeper.


Additionally, to show you how false the claim is that animals in stalls are suffering: if they were suffering, they'd be under stress, which isn't good for their health or the bottom line of the farmer. No farmer wants their animals suffering - it's not as profitable.

Woot! :thumbsup:

 

[MotionMan]

I just realized how big of idiots we are:

Some artists do not care about the art, just that people talk about it. That, to some extent, is what performance art and, its cousin, shock art, is all about.

ATOT FTL

MotionMan

 

[mattocs]

Wow. That is awful. I would be OK if he was starving himself, because he made that choice. But a poor dog? This really upsets me. Poor dog.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I didn't miss the point. Your statement that I am a hypocrite was conditional based upon whether or not I called for the artist to be executed in the same fashion. I didn't do that, which means I am not a hypocrite.

Raising a veal calf isn't much better, but the animals are not left to die of starvation. That is a much more painful way to die than simply not being allowed to run around at will. They are killed relatively quickly whereas this dog suffered for days. There is no parallel unless you are a moron. Based on your logic, it is hard to imply that you have any sort of conceptual grasp on how your proposed situations are vastly different.

He's calling you a hypocrite because you are justifying animal suffering in one sense, yet getting fuming pissed enough to ask that a person be starved because of the suffering he inflicted on an animal in another case. Your only counter argument is that, by your definition, one isn't as bad as the other.

basically, you are missing his point.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

who are you to say when an animal is suffering or not? Sure, you've raised some chickens and slit their throats. So now you can decide if they are happy or not? What standard are you even comparing their life to, to know that they are not suffering. In both situations (the dog and the chicken) it's man imposing his will on the animal. The animal isn't free to decide to live or die. It is basically a prisoner.

That's pretty arrogent to decide that an animal isn't suffering just because you said so.

(i'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but Throckmorton is making a valid point)

 

[Henrythewound]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how this is worse than killing animals for food. Humans are the only animals who can feel emotions and suffering right? What a bunch of bleeding hearts. How many of you hypocrites have even donated one cent to HUMANS undergoing equal or worse suffering?

Are you really that dense? Starving an animal to death isn't even in the same ballpark as killing one. One is quick and one isn't. Would you rather be chained to a wall for 5-7 days and die of starvation or be shot in the head? That's what I thought. :roll:

Are you saying that an animal raised in a stall or in a crate is not suffering? You don't think chickens with broken limbs in a cage are feeling pain? How about having its neck slit and bleeding to death for kosher preparation?

Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

Your first post was either trolling or complete ignorance. You're just digging yourself in deeper.


Additionally, to show you how false the claim is that animals in stalls are suffering: if they were suffering, they'd be under stress, which isn't good for their health or the bottom line of the farmer. No farmer wants their animals suffering - it's not as profitable.

NO way , are you serious? How is having your throat slit "relatively painless"? I'd wager most animals raised for food are not happy and do suffer their whole lives. I'm not a vegetarian (yet) but I certainly relize my own hypocrisy with regard to my habit of fueling the meat industry

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
That is sickening.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: dugweb

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I didn't miss the point. Your statement that I am a hypocrite was conditional based upon whether or not I called for the artist to be executed in the same fashion. I didn't do that, which means I am not a hypocrite.

Raising a veal calf isn't much better, but the animals are not left to die of starvation. That is a much more painful way to die than simply not being allowed to run around at will. They are killed relatively quickly whereas this dog suffered for days. There is no parallel unless you are a moron. Based on your logic, it is hard to imply that you have any sort of conceptual grasp on how your proposed situations are vastly different.

He's calling you a hypocrite because you are justifying animal suffering in one sense, yet getting fuming pissed enough to ask that a person be starved because of the suffering he inflicted on an animal in another case. Your only counter argument is that, by your definition, one isn't as bad as the other.

basically, you are missing his point.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

who are you to say when an animal is suffering or not? Sure, you've raised some chickens and slit their throats. So now you can decide if they are happy or not? What standard are you even comparing their life to, to know that they are not suffering. In both situations (the dog and the chicken) it's man imposing his will on the animal. The animal isn't free to decide to live or die. It is basically a prisoner.

That's pretty arrogent to decide that an animal isn't suffering just because you said so.

(i'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but Throckmorton is making a valid point)

No he's not making a valid point.

He's twisting an issue to address something he feels strongly about.

Killing an animal for food is justifiable on many levels.

Starving it just for the spectacle of starving it (which is what this arse did) is just reprehensible. If he was a child you'd think about getting a psychologist involved.

 

[MotionMan]

How does one determine that a cow is happy?

How many generations of cows have lived in captivity? Maybe, like a longtime prison inmate upon his release, cows would be unhappy outside of their captivity.

Are we sure that cows feel "pain" when they are slaughtered? Maybe, like with humans and the dentist, all they are responding to is the "pressure".

Are chickens emotionally attached to their eggs? Do you eat eggs?

Do cows have emotions like humans? Love, hate, joy? Or do they simply have their hardwired, natural reactions to things (eat, drink, sleep, scratch an itch, move away from sharp and fire)?

I think that some animals can feel "pain" and have "emotions" similar to humans - dogs, dolphins and horses to name a few. I do not include cows and chickens. Most animals either mimic humans or we pretend (mostly subconsciously) that they have emotions.

I feel better now.

MotionMan

 

[randay]

You realize by giving a shit, the artist achieved his goal. Therefore the proper response is, "Who cares, its just a freaking DOG."

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: randay
You realize by giving a shit, the artist achieved his goal. Therefore the proper response is, "Who cares, its just a freaking DOG."

The proper response is 'thats not art, your a wanker'

 

[NanoStuff]

I do not include cows and chickens.

You're just choosing not to because you eat them.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

I do not include cows and chickens.

You're just choosing not to because you eat them.

I think that is a circular argument because I believe that, in general, people of our culture divide the line between animals we believe it is OK to eat versus those that are not OK to eat along the line of whether we think that those animals can feel "pain" and have "emotions" similar to humans.

I am sure someone can come up with the exception to the rule: An animal we believe can feel "pain" and have "emotions" similar to humans, but our culture thinks is OK to eat.

MotionMan

 

[hzl eyed grl]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
:| it's people like that that should be starved to death just so they can feel how horrible it is.

I agree. I have no words. Honestly.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Henrythewound

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how this is worse than killing animals for food. Humans are the only animals who can feel emotions and suffering right? What a bunch of bleeding hearts. How many of you hypocrites have even donated one cent to HUMANS undergoing equal or worse suffering?

Are you really that dense? Starving an animal to death isn't even in the same ballpark as killing one. One is quick and one isn't. Would you rather be chained to a wall for 5-7 days and die of starvation or be shot in the head? That's what I thought. :roll:

Are you saying that an animal raised in a stall or in a crate is not suffering? You don't think chickens with broken limbs in a cage are feeling pain? How about having its neck slit and bleeding to death for kosher preparation?

Sure, I'll say it: animals raised in a stall or in a crate are not suffering. Also, chickens in cages very very very rarely suffer broken limbs. Furthermore (and I'm the one who slits their necks at our house) chickens don't suffer when their necks are slit. It's no different than if you went to the red cross to donate 1 pint of blood (relatively painless), but they never stopped at one pint. Eventually, you go unconscious, then dead.

Your first post was either trolling or complete ignorance. You're just digging yourself in deeper.


Additionally, to show you how false the claim is that animals in stalls are suffering: if they were suffering, they'd be under stress, which isn't good for their health or the bottom line of the farmer. No farmer wants their animals suffering - it's not as profitable.

NO way , are you serious? How is having your throat slit "relatively painless"? I'd wager most animals raised for food are not happy and do suffer their whole lives. I'm not a vegetarian (yet) but I certainly relize my own hypocrisy with regard to my habit of fueling the meat industry

Did you ever notice that with a really sharp knife, you can cut yourself pretty good and it barely hurts? We're talking razor sharp. Their throats aren't slit side to side, OJ style, rather, just a small nick is made where the artery (vein?) is on the side of the neck.

I'm going to assume that you, like 98% of the population, really have no clue what goes into raising your food. Allow me to describe how I kill a chicken: I pick up a chicken and take it away from the rest of the flock. I hold it upside down by its feet and stroke it a little to help keep it calm. I hang it, by its feet, from a tree. I very carefully slit the vein/artery in its neck. It hangs there very calmly, with blood running out in a continuous stream, onto the ground. Eventually, it starts closing its eyes, as if going to sleep. From slit to dead is a relatively short amount of time. I quickly cut off the head of one of the chickens once, to show my son and his friends what happens. It's a bloody freaking mess with an animal flopping around all over the place, blood spattering everywhere. And, I'd imagine, if I used a dull, rusty knife, it would struggle after/while being cut, again, resulting in a huge freaking mess. I don't know about you, but I don't want chicken blood all over me. However, even if it was painful, pain is often part of dying. When humans die, they often feel pain. It's not possible to kill things perfectly painlessly 100% of the time. Get over it.

Furthermore, unhappy animals are stressed animals. Stressed animals tend to have more severe problems with parasites, etc. This directly results in more costs to the farmer and lower profits. Perhaps if you spent a few hours learning about animal husbandry (the science of raising animals), you'd know better. Furthermore, most pet owners would argue that they know when their dog is happy or when their dog is sad. It's not too difficult to extend those observations to most domesticated animals. (I will however admit that I believe chickens are too stupid/lack the brain development to really experience joy or sadness.) Within 2 or 3 minutes in my barn, I can tell you what's going on with all of my animals. Observing their behavior is incredibly important - in cases of sickness, spotting a problem early can save a relative fortune in costs. (Imagine if a pet dog caught something that required vet care, with aggressive treatment of antibiotics. Now, take that cost and multiply it by a lot of animals.)

Simply by listening to my animals, I can tell how they're feeling. The sound they make is distinctly different when they're upset/frightened, content, horny, or anxious/hungry. (The neighbors must have hated them the other night - at 4am, one of the females was ready and wanted a male. I had to go out and lock the female inside with the rest of the females in order to shut up the 7 extremely horny and vocal males.

 

[mattocs]

Originally posted by: DrPizza


Simply by listening to my animals, I can tell how they're feeling. The sound they make is distinctly different when they're upset/frightened, content, horny, or anxious/hungry. (The neighbors must have hated them the other night - at 4am, one of the females was ready and wanted a male. I had to go out and lock the female inside with the rest of the females in order to shut up the 7 extremely horny and vocal males.

Why would you want to know that, sicko. o_0

 

[rh71]

"Just because nobody understands you doesn't make you an artist."

He must die.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: mattocs

Originally posted by: DrPizza


Simply by listening to my animals, I can tell how they're feeling. The sound they make is distinctly different when they're upset/frightened, content, horny, or anxious/hungry. (The neighbors must have hated them the other night - at 4am, one of the females was ready and wanted a male. I had to go out and lock the female inside with the rest of the females in order to shut up the 7 extremely horny and vocal males.

Why would you want to know that, sicko. o_0

Because we have to keep our males and females separated. All of our animals are registered. We need to control who breeds with who. Any "unauthorized breeding" could result in us needing to do DNA testing to determine who the father is. Plus, if the myotonic buck were to get to the does, that would result in a sizeable loss of income. We have 2 separate areas for breeding. If a doe goes into heat, it goes to the area and the appropriate buck is brought in to do his thing. We select the buck based on characteristics that we're hoping for in the offspring (size, eye color, length of hair, etc.)

We watch. Sometimes, especially with first time does, we help. (Hold the does still so they're not running forward with the buck attempts to mount them.) Just to be certain that we're going to have kids 5 months later.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: LoKe
...
And no one stepped in?

Unfortunately people do well at these kinds of things on paper, talking, and electronically...in person they fail.

I have called the police when drivers decide to leave their pets in their cars ignoring my request to not do so.

Cars here in Florida get over 100 quickly. Even with the window 'cracked' it becomes impossible to breathe. I have worked inside cars with even a door fully open and had to step out of it to cool down pretty regularly.

If you can't take your pet in where you are going, leave them at home. Even with a cracked window and it being cool there are tons of assholes that will try to poison / hurt an animal.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I don't understand how this is worse than killing animals for food. Humans are the only animals who can feel emotions and suffering right? What a bunch of bleeding hearts. How many of you hypocrites have even donated one cent to HUMANS undergoing equal or worse suffering?

Are you really that dense? Starving an animal to death isn't even in the same ballpark as killing one. One is quick and one isn't. Would you rather be chained to a wall for 5-7 days and die of starvation or be shot in the head? That's what I thought. :roll:

Are you saying that an animal raised in a stall or in a crate is not suffering? You don't think chickens with broken limbs in a cage are feeling pain? How about having its neck slit and bleeding to death for kosher preparation?

Unfortunately for your debate dogs and cats as pets are considered a different class of animal than livestock.

Even when dogs/cats are used for food they are not brought up the same way as a pet.

I have donated money to both people and animal charities, but your point is so moronic as another wrong doesn't make the other wrong right.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If someone posted a thread like this about veal calfs being raised in crates, humans starving, kids losing limbs in the diamond industry, or child laborers working 17 hours a day to make Nikes, he'd get called a "bleeding heart wussie" by the majority of ATOTers. But a dog gets sympathy. That's what makes you hypocrites.

Most of those ATOT'er you should ignore to begin with....most are either stupid and/or just angry with the pathetic lives they ended up with or are still sucking at their mom's tit and posting with no knowledge of anything.

I don't know why people insist that if someone is acting on the mistreatment of an animal all of a sudden they don't care about humans or are eating veal, buying sweat shop items and diamonds.

There are a good portion of people avoiding all these things. Also some of them are in different schools of thought. You may as well call out anyone that's stepped on an ant a murdered with your logic.

You sound like a raving madman.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

No he's not making a valid point.

He's twisting an issue to address something he feels strongly about.

Killing an animal for food is justifiable on many levels.

Starving it just for the spectacle of starving it (which is what this arse did) is just reprehensible. If he was a child you'd think about getting a psychologist involved.

also based on Dugweb's logic we should just be happy I guess and carry on when someone wrongs us.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
How does one determine that a cow is happy?

How many generations of cows have lived in captivity? Maybe, like a longtime prison inmate upon his release, cows would be unhappy outside of their captivity.

Are we sure that cows feel "pain" when they are slaughtered? Maybe, like with humans and the dentist, all they are responding to is the "pressure".

Are chickens emotionally attached to their eggs? Do you eat eggs?

Do cows have emotions like humans? Love, hate, joy? Or do they simply have their hardwired, natural reactions to things (eat, drink, sleep, scratch an itch, move away from sharp and fire)?

I think that some animals can feel "pain" and have "emotions" similar to humans - dogs, dolphins and horses to name a few. I do not include cows and chickens. Most animals either mimic humans or we pretend (mostly subconsciously) that they have emotions.

I feel better now.

MotionMan

Tuscan cows are always happy. Kobe cows as well.

Cows stress levels are monitored by the meat quality and their weight. Cows can show emotion, but they are also relatively devoid of complex thought...that is the difference.

Most mammals can show emotions. Most also forget what the f they were happy about a few moments later.

Creatures like dogs and cats (dolphins, elephants and the like as well) operate on a higher level. They remember things well and react at a much higher level to things.

Chickens are attached to their eggs by instinct mainly not really knowing what happens.

All higher forms of animals can feel pain. This is why most slaughter places are under scrutiny if their methods aren't providing clean and quick kills. Most use the captive bolt on cows which is pretty effective, but occasionally a misfire or failure happens and an animal suffers too much.

Most people though aren't qualified for these debates nor really care to begin with and are just playing the devil's advocate. The study of animals (along with conspiracy another area where people that have no clue act as if they were actually 'there') requires a lot of biology, a lot of behavioral science, a lot of knowledge in general.

Too many think that because people like something/do something a dog is the same....it's no where near the same. A dog can lose a leg and be totally active the next day. Even if a person had the same pain threshold the dog had; a typical human is going to be in a bit of trama for quite a few days....possibly never recovering. Many animals are like this.

Also people here tend to focus on one part of an issue and not look at the whole picture or acknowledge the alternatives. You have people making statements as if everything is all or nothing: If you believe in animal rights, you don't believe in human rights is a typical one.