Self-expression by means of killing an animal=sick/insane/morbid/physchotic/unstable/evil/loony... need I go on? Then again, opinions hardly matter anymore. Loonies will be loonies.

There's the healthy way of expressing ourselves and then there is the sick, unhealthy way.

i kno you can do many things without killing an animal with art. its sick how they did that with the mice and cats... you can make your own figures without killing them like making fake ones.its like taking you skin and making a costume with that lol (buffalo bill). nasty

agreed.

killing animals for art is... crazy. sick n crazy.
i dont think killing animals for anyother purpose cept for food is ok, tho. -__-''

Killing animals for food: This is fine. It's part of survival. Humans were meant to be omnivores, hence the canine teeth and molars (sp)

Killing animals for clothing: This is fine. Clothing is a necessity. We need it for warmth.

Killing animals for art: This is not ok, if you ask me. Possibly if the animal dies of natural causes... But to kill something just for you entertainment. I think that's disgusting.

HAHA. "Begemot" is a Satanic cat in the book, The Master and the Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. It's a very good book, one of my favorites.

what is the freaking difference?!?! in clothes and food you dont see the animals face... thus you are detached from it .. but onc you see its lifeless face then you care?!?! wtf?!?!? its all animals!!

In the "art" you mentioned...if that's what you want to call it ... The animals/humans were dead already (I am still against it), this artist's work is horrible because she KILLED the animals for it. There is nothing to justify the murder she committed.



There are synthetic animal materials such as "pleather" and "faux fur" that are exactly like the real thing...without all of the murder of course....it is hypocritical to say it's okay to kill animals for clothing and not for art.



Exactly.

all i hafta say is thats sick..

No, but I don't have 5 pairs of leather shoes. (Look, here's where I stopped talking about the 5 pairs of shoes. Pardon me for not putting in a paragraph. *paragraphs*)

(Hey! Now I'm speaking to you in general. Isn't reading fun?) Are you saying that we shouldn't kill animals? That we should survive on tofu-burgers and soy milk until the animal population eventually and inevitably overwhelms us?

Humans were born without fur. We don't have any natural protection against harsh weather. Animals protect us from that. I wear my leather shoes because they keep my feet warm, and yes. They do look nice.

Would you rather that no one buys any leather shoes? That would be a waste of that animal. A pointless death. At least if the animal dies and its body serves a useful purpose in death, I don't see what's wrong with that.

As for the art, well. It might be okay if the animal died of natural causes. Not if it died just for the sake of something gruesome to be on display. It's better than leaving a dead cat on the side of the highway.

where in that 9 worded question do you get all of that SPORADIC ?





We do have have things to keep us warm like one of our biggest organs. the epidermis and fat ... just like otters.

I didn't, PANDAMONIUM.

All of that response wasn't directed entirely at that "9 sentence question"




Okay, let's go romp around naked in the snow.

LMAO ahah you made a funny. i didnt say that it was wrong killing animals for clothes...

No, but you said that we have things to keep us warm and protect us. What we do have is uneffective against snow and the like.. I'm just making a point. Animal hide protects our feet.

Though I am against killing animals in general, I agree that leather is not AS bad (though I am still totally against it) if the animal was killed for food (I am a vegetarian so I am against this as well), but many animal materials (i.e. fur, shearling, Indian leather, etc.) are not always collected because the animal was going to be killed for food anyway. For example: here

Get it straight.

You think that's an excuse?

pandominium: human skin is not made to insulate. it's made to loose heat, and suited to african grasslands.

i'd like to see you try to walk around naked in new york this winter...

i don't think that it is right to kill animals at all. but we do have to eat. but def. not for art! that is just not right.

Wait, wait. I'm not sure exactly what you're proving me wrong about. I didn't say that all parts of animals were used. I said that killing animals is more forgiveable when it's done for clothing or food than when it's done to be put on display. When did I say that when animals are killed they're used for eating AND made into clothes?

What didn't I get straight..?

and i wonder why we have faux fur in the first place.

i was trying to prove that they were expressing themselves through art. but i JUST said before that, that it wasnt right.... so no i didnt think that was an excuse.

hey hey hey now, you can walk around naked in new york. there are several people who walk around in weather that bad and still survive...

example.

David Blane. when he stuck himself in an ice cube. lol even though he didnt complete the time.

there are also people who try to climb mount everest. being up there is more cold than being naked in NY plus the people on mount everest have like 20 layers of protective clothing.

an i beleive that to someone out there those animal head on sticks look nice too... then arent they serving a purpose?

The purpose of looking nice? Sure. To some people. But they don't serve a purpose that is vital to our survival.

your life is not nessicary for my survival, therefore you should be illegal and baned.

Your mom isn't necessary for my survival. No one in your family is. Let's kill them all while we're at it.

Hey, we're not necessary for the animals' survival. The human race should mass suicide.

What the heezy?

There are a lot of things that are not necessary for our own survial such as saving someone from drowning or getting help for someone who needs it. But is there anyone in the world who only live on necessities? There is more to life than that. We have morals and, with this situation, I would like to emphasize the fact that mankind has compassion. Should that compassion be limitted to love for other humans or should it covered love for nature and those who share this world with us?

Spiderman's uncle Ben said "with great powers come great responsibility". Do you not agree? Compared to animals, we have much power over them, therefore, it makes sense to say that we have some kind of responsibility towards them. Killing them and displaying their mulitated bodies for the sake of "art", or "self-expression" doesn't seem a to fit our compassionate, responsible nature.

then lets get rid of t.vs, cars, radios, high heels... and much more then shall we?

^ Sure, why not. Technology is screwing us over anyway.

fae, I love how you quoted spiderman XD

And, as usual, you make very good points.

sporadic, you're logic is flawed, so when confronted with logic you appear to be retreating to insults...

yet you just proved my point, and negated your own.

i dont like the idea of killing animals. i watched a lamb get slaughtered once outside of this beachhouse we rented. from then on, i havent ate a single bite of lamb. and its been about 4 years since i saw that slaughter. poor lamb, they were sknning it and it was still kicking.

how would you feel if some giant killed you so they can use your skin as decoration???

That's why I hae rifles stocked up...

Are you proposing worldwide vegetarianism?
Worldwide vegeterianism would cause more animals to be killed. If nobody needed meat, there would be an excess of pigs, cows, chicken and the sort. What would we do with them? Pigs don't have any use other than food. We can't get milk from them, can we? No. Cows, cows have no other use than for food, the same goes for chickens. If worldwide vegetarianism was established, then where would all the unneeded animals go? They would be exterminated.

meat eating has ensure the survival of animals-

note in fact:

food animals are raised.

cows are tasty. they would have died out, but they were tasty so we raised them. turkeys are taste. we've raised them too.

dodo birds are not tasty. they were hunted for sport, and thus died out.

the american buffalo was not tastly (too stringy) they died out.

the passenger pigeon was not tasty, they died out.

pigs are tasty. they are alive.

Good point, SA. That's Chicken Soup for the Vegetarian Soul...

Armadillos aren't too tasty.
Skunks aren't all that tasty, either.
And the last time I checked, squirrels weren't so delicious.

As a matter of fact, I think that there are less extinct animals than animals that aren't extinct. And not all of them are part of the human food industry.

But if no one ate deer, they would start multiplying until we would have to start killing them because they'd be such a nuisance.

yeah, i agree, i mean i think it's o.k. for more worthy reasons(which also i agree aren't necessary, though) but for art? that's evil

99% of species go extinct.

Usually, they are the more exotic species... so we don't hear about them muhc.

armadillos, skunks, squirrels, will eventually go extint.

this is a world where 5 years ago everyone said the population was at 6 billion, and now it's 8 billion.

the forests will be torn up. the world will destory the habitats of these animals.


those that do not go extinct will live off of us, like rats and pigeons. don't get me wrong, there probably will be zoos and nature reserves, but they won't be enough.

we are in the middle of the 6th mass extinction. the first five were caused by things like particularyly large volcanos, asteroids, etc. the sixth is cause by habitat distruction.

all animals habitats will become destoryed. and then, only the ones we need will be saved. and those are food animals.

Well,
I mean... art is just art...

And if they are killing something living and brreathing just so things can look nice, that's dumb.

I mean, yeah, people eat animals, but that's because there are benefits. Like, protein. And if they use it for fur, at least it won't freeze their butts' off.

If they're just using it for art, it would probably just get a " Oh look, that's pretty. "

So, does a compliment really deserve a living thing dying?

art is designed to evoke emotion, and this one certainly suceeded, didn't it?

Then next thing we'll know, "the art of killing" will become real art because it evokes emotion.

it's called the art of war

sure and it does evoke emotion

what about "art of murdering"?

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/bilder/nathalia/Star.jpg

Oh. my. god.

*faints*

no i don't think it's okay. it's cruel and there is no reason to do it.

that is HORRIBLE!

I know it may sound cruel to kill off animals.

But, that is part of the food chain. Wolves go off and eat other animals.

Spiders eat insects. You don't fight for a cause agains't spiders to do so.

We eat cows, and no one wants to defend them.

So what? We are on one of the biggest mass extinctions in history. We are humans. We are more 'Self indulged' and want more for the good of human kind.

It isn't going to change as long as there is a damned human on earth.

Even if it is only one.

You just need to think more 'What if I was the animal, wanting food. If there was a human there, and it was edible, and I was hungry, and I could eat it, would I? Of COURSE!!'

Animals can't think the way we do. I know that. We feel things as well.

Why don't we ban ourselves from killing off other people?

Who would you rather mourn, your father who got shot in Iraq or you pet dog who died because some man came and fed it shards of glass because he is an animal hater??

Ehh.

We aren't close to 8 billion people.

We might reach 9 billion, in the predicted.. what, 300 years, I think it was..

We aren't at 8 billion, I know that for sure.

I eat cows but I don't eat dogs/cats/etc. Even if a person display a dead cow as art, that would still be considered as sick in my eyes. Would you want someone to display your dead carcass and call it art? If YOU do want that to happen, I sure as hell don't want to see it.




So because we're "on one of the biggest mass extincitons in history" we should just go with the flow?



What if I was the animal wanting to carve you up for art. There was a human (you) there, and it has potentials to be art. I wanted to carve you for art, would I? NOOOOO, OF COURSE!!!! Because I CAN'T f**kING DO IT.

If YOU had really thinkg about it then you would have asked the question would a cat kill a human for food or for art?


Out of fairness, if an animal can't kill a human for art, humans shouldn't do it either, in my opinion.



Though they do not have the mental capacity that we have, does that mean they suffer any less than we do in pain?

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"
-- Jeremy Bentham (If you don't know, he's a philosopher)


We have laws by government, and we have laws by human standard.




How about not mourning at all? Or mourning for ONE thing instead of TWO things?

What you also need to think is-

Will the world ever have the standard of no wars.

Most of that shit is going to happen one way or another.

Sort of useless arguing about it.

We can't not mourn at all.

People die, Animals die, Everything dies sometime. Why the f**k should anyone care?

I mean, come on. So what if we are killing damn animals for art. That is who ever's doings personal way to show themselves, whether you think sick or not.

Hell, we go over seas, and start bombing the hell out of civilians because some damned man wants to stop trading oil with us, be we are supposed to be 'liberating' them.


Ehh. You really have to sit down and think 'When the hell is the world going to live in peace.'

It is a damn endless waltz, the three never ending steps of War, Peace, and Evolution.

Just oppinions.

Oh.. and we should go with the flow. Wait, we already are! Bombing each other, we will destroy the world in no time