killing animals for art Options

[ghjgfkgfk]

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/n...thalia_main.htm
http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/newsletter/newsletter.htm

do you think it's okay to kill animals for art?

i do not support it, but it's not different than what society already does. people kill animals for fashion. shoes, belts, coats, ect. people kill animals for meat. these things are 'okay'. not only okay, but something people want. people hunt for sport then go stuffing the bodies and heads of animals to hang them on a wall.

we don't need meat to live. we don't have to wear real fur, you could wear faux fur...none of them are necessary. you could live without meat. art isn't necessary to live. however, she could of used a different way to get her point across, such as painting,

if she killed any animal but 'cute fluffy things' would anyone even care? if she used spiders, ants, roaches, i doubt anyone would think there was even an issue.

[pandamonium]

i know its wrong but probably in the future they will have something to produce w/o killing animals..... Its just too late now ... so many people are used to everything and if we did change it there would be choas cause there are more meat eaters than vegetarians and also there are rich people who buy those wearable animals lol.... and they also would get mad if they couldnt buy those clothes anymore......

its wrong ... but for me i like meat... and i think it is alittle too late to stop this from happening, but in its own ways it helps people survive.

But that cat in the vase is nasty i dont think that is right casue its just sick..... but if the cat was dead or hit by a car i guess it wouldnt be that bad. but that vase is disgusting ..... i wonder who would buy it.

[.kyan]

i dont think its okay to kill animals for whatever purpose be it fashion, entertainment (the bloody bonsai kitten?? inhumane!), art, experimentation etc but hell its been happening for centuries.

my point now is that we can all find substitutes for these like faux fur and all.

one day all the animals are gonna get extinct if we continue to kill them.

im not that against killing for food but i agree we can do with the vegetarian diet. its also more healthy for the human body.

for those erm, art thingy, its okay if the animal's already dead but you DONT kill it just to make art outta it.

and i will just barf if i look long enough at those pictures supposedly to be art.
so am i supposed to kill my hamsters, gucci and prada, and take a picture of it, frame it and call it art?

baaah the mention of a moral crime. i wonder if its acceptable if i kill that woman in a MOST HUMANELY way possible to take a photo of her and call it art?

it bothers me to see animals sacrificed in a most needless manner to please the human's need for "art".

as for using roaches and stuff, its okay (to me at least) cuz its considered pests. but now why would anyone wanna hang a picture of a few cockroaches in their room??? baffles me.

[pandamonium]

woah i just showed my friends and i didnt know you scroll to the right but i saw the hand with the little mice on it ..... thats disgusting really repulsive.

ohh and your name airam does that stand for maria backwards lol just wondering cause thats my moms nickname also lol.

[Spirited Away]

But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose.

According to the newsletter, it is shallow for people to eat meat in order to live a healthy life...

"Art is of vital importance", but obviously to them, life isn't.

(Sarcasm) You know, someone can just kill a baby and display it as art. After all, we go to wars and have capital punishment, abortions, and those are considered as double standards. Why not just kill humans and use them for art, too? (/Sarcasm).

[ghjgfkgfk]

ohh and your name airam does that stand for maria backwards lol just wondering cause thats my moms nickname also lol.

yeah, my name is maria.

as for using roaches and stuff, its okay (to me at least) cuz its considered pests. but now why would anyone wanna hang a picture of a few cockroaches in their room??? baffles me.

it's the bunny or cute factor. cockroaches, ants and other 'pests' are living things too, no?

[*Statistik*]

Hmm isn't it illegal? well i dont think its right because its just like saying ur killing humans for art..no ORGANISM should be killed for any art..i suggest people to ILLUSTRATE the animal their own. not kill the real ones. >_<

[iheartjohn]

It's not illegal, because killing animals for fashion purposes isn't and fashion is consider a form of artistic expression.

I do enjoy wearing fur and I find it attractive, but only faux fur. I think it's totally wrong to kill innocent animals for artistic purposes.

[shortvi3tlaydee]

omg thats so wrong

[sadolakced acid]

could i ask all you who think we can live without meat to look at thier teeth? what are those sharp teeth at the very front for? in case you didn't know, there are essensial amino acids that you get from meat, and although other types of protien can supplament, it requires a RIGID diet to get adequete nutrition, sans meat.

[Rachel]

ohh god thats horrible. animals should not be sacrificed for "art" or for fashion. its just wrong...and reall gross

[hiromi]

Hmm... *thinks* I think killing animals for art purposes is pretty inhumane. It's just.... wrong. I mean, I myself do not particularly like animals, but I find that just awful, if not a bit sickening. As for animal meat, its fine, as long as we do not consume too much, and we do not waste it at all. Taking away its own life just to be in some art museum, or to be worn by some old lady who wears tons of perfume... how sad.

If they really want to be artistic, why don't they make the head out of... plaster or clay w.e, attach faux fur, add eyes, and -BAM!- an exact replica of a cat or some other furry animal! whoo...! um... >.>

haha *feels stupid for saying above* but my point is, don't kill the animal (unless you're going to eat it, and use ALL of the body parts, not just the furs/meats) >_>

[Gypsy Eyes]

could i ask all you who think we can live without meat to look at thier teeth? what are those sharp teeth at the very front for? in case you didn't know, there are essensial amino acids that you get from meat, and although other types of protien can supplament, it requires a RIGID diet to get adequete nutrition, sans meat.

could i ask you if you have any idea what you are talking about? Oh wait i already did. Being a vegan for 2 years, i know what I am talking about. It does not require a rigid diet to eliminate meat, actually its much healthier. OK stopping my rant now..

anyway, as for the using animals for art, I am completely against it. Like someone said above (i forgot who sorry) it is the same concept as killing a baby or a human and using it for art. Our society would consider that immoral and horribly indecent. The same should apply to animals. They are the same thing as us! (Acctually the difference between us and animals is only a few chromosomes, but lets not get into that)

[gothicvengeance]

That is the most sickening, repulsive, disgusting, repugnant, horrible, hideous, terrible thing I have ever heard of. At least one of them.

How can someone even THINK of destroying a living creature's life just to "brighten" up their living room or to use as decor?!! If I took a woman, shot her, then hung her up in my kitchen, would most people approve!? I think not! Whoever had the nerve to consider this vomit-inducing idea deserves to be euthanized and propped up on my coffee table as decor, the sick bastard. I agree that it should be okay to use dead animals in art if they were already dead in the first place, but taking a living animal and killing it for this "art" is just wrong. I didn't even know about this.

[ghjgfkgfk]

How can someone even THINK of destroying a living creature's life just to "brighten" up their living room or to use as decor?!!

art can (GASP) can be made and used for other things besides making a room look 'pretty'.

[gothicvengeance]

That was (GASP) sarcasm. -.-''

[Sumiaki]

Meat does contain amino acids that we cannot get anywhere else. I believe that all of the arts should not be censored at all.

[ghjgfkgfk]

That was (GASP) sarcasm. -.-''

oh. it's hard to (GASP) show emotion over the internet.

[gothicvengeance]

Sorry if it's (GASP) too much information for your brain to handle.

||edit||

Okay, I don't want to get into an enormous fight or anything. I really did mean it as sarcasm, though. ._.

[*kryogenix*]

How beautiful!

This should be allowed though. We wouldn't want to infringe on the artist's freedom of expression, now would we?

[.kyan]

and if the artist chooses to kill some random human being based on the reason art, we should then not infringe on the artist's freedom of expression?

[*kryogenix*]

and if the artist chooses to kill some random human being based on the reason art, we should then not infringe on the artist's freedom of expression?

It's not illegal to kill animals is it?

[xtremeliquid]

I don't think killing animal is right...but it is extremely hard to turn into a vegetarian just like that but then again...we should try.

[.kyan]

and its okay to take a life just because its not illegal?

[sunissed14127]

i think it completely wrong. I dont wanna sound like a tree hugger or anything, but you know, animals feel things too. what if it was the other way around, where the animals were killing us?? and people should learn to use faux fur. it feels the same, and it looks the same, so why should people kill an innocent animal if your getting the samething with faux fur?

[*kryogenix*]

what if it was the other way around, where the animals were killing us??

Then it would be hunting season all year round we'd make them extinct.

[mysticbreeze]

I don't think killing animal is right...but it is extremely hard to turn into a vegetarian just like that but then again...we should try.

Actually no it's not. I became one in like two weeks and I eat delicious healthy meat-free meals everyday.

Well I'm a vegetarian so I obviously don't support killing animals. I believe it is wrong to kill animals, especially for art. There is nothing to justify this sadistic crap. How the hell can "artistic expression" be a reason to KILL LIVING THINGS? My opinion is she should be thrown in jail. I don't know why she isn't already.

[ghjgfkgfk]

are these deaths really that much of a waste if it's cleary making us think that much? it obviously provoked this topic. it's making us think about animal cruelty for the people who wear real fur and skin. what she did was no different than eating a whopper.
remember the bonazi kitten? when people found out it was fake, no one cared. imagine what it be like if it was true and what an impact it would have on people. she'sdoind a better job at killing then meat/leather producers.

I don't think killing animal is right...but it is extremely hard to turn into a vegetarian just like that but then again...we should try.

what would this world be like if more than half of the people were vegan/vegetarians, there would be a surplus amout of animals that no one could handle, so we would end up killing them anyway. but instend of doing that, we could eat them. meat may not be need to live in america, but what about people across the world when it's the only thing they can eat.

[pandamonium]

are these deaths really that much of a waste if it's cleary making us think that much? it obviously provoked this topic. it's making us think about animal cruelty for the people who wear real fur and skin. what she did was no different than eating a whopper.
remember the bonazi kitten? when people found out it was fake, no one cared. imagine what it be like if it was true and what an impact it would have on people. she'sdoind a better job at killing then meat/leather producers.


what would this world be like if more than half of the people were vegan/vegetarians, there would be a surplus amout of animals that no one could handle, so we would end up killing them anyway. but instend of doing that, we could eat them. meat may not be need to live in america, but what about people across the world when it's the only thing they can eat.

what would this world be like if more than half of the people were vegan/vegetarians, there would be a surplus amout of animals that no one could handle, so we would end up killing them anyway. but instend of doing that, we could eat them. meat may not be need to live in america, but what about people across the world when it's the only thing they can eat.

thats a good point ... i think if there was more animals more people would be wearing it rather than eating it and sales in animal clothes shoes etc.. would go up.

[Spirited Away]

are these deaths really that much of a waste if it's cleary making us think that much? it obviously provoked this topic. it's making us think about animal cruelty for the people who wear real fur and skin. what she did was no different than eating a whopper.
remember the bonazi kitten? when people found out it was fake, no one cared. imagine what it be like if it was true and what an impact it would have on people. she'sdoind a better job at killing then meat/leather producers.

Eating meat and displaying dead animals are quite different, in my opinion.

Sure, there are people who wear real fur and animal skin, but I do not speak for them. They are, most likely, the ones who would purchase her art.

I eat meat because it's part of my regular diet, however, the type of meats I consume is limited and do not extend to cats/dogs/snakes... etc.

Eating livestock isn't the same as killing a cat and displaying it. I'm sure to many of you, there isn't much of a difference, but to me, flaunting that as art is inhumane.

[*wind&fire*]

its art...thats what its supose to do...catalyse an emotion

[Spirited Away]

its art...thats what its supose to do...catalyse an emotion

If art were that simple, displaying a dead baby for show can be called art, too. It depends on taste, then, I suppose? Kind of morbid if you ask me.

[sadolakced acid]

my my... where to start.

1- just because there is no law that says you can't kill animals is excatly why this shouldn't be stopped.

2. on the topic of vegitarianism-
- yes, eating a completely vegan diet can be healthy, if done right
- this requires eating a lot of various plants, which is where the rigid diet comes in. you could eat multivitamins for some vitamins, but for others and for certain amino acids, you have to eat a lot of certain plants.
- this should not be done for moral reasons, as the morality of killing animals is that they are animals and not HUMANS so they don't have HUMAN rights.

3. on the art-

art should not be censored. this is art. taxadermists stuff animals all the time. mice and cats are quite common... they'll be killed anyways in shelters. (don't mention no-kill shelters, those are terrible. they're streched too thin and all the animals suffer... )

[Spirited Away]

- this should not be done for moral reasons, as the morality of killing animals is that they are animals and not HUMANS so they don't have HUMAN rights.

"Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal."

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"

- John Stuart Mill

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."

-- Peter Singer

3. on the art-

art should not be censored. this is art. taxadermists stuff animals all the time. mice and cats are quite common... they'll be killed anyways in shelters. (don't mention no-kill shelters, those are terrible. they're streched too thin and all the animals suffer... )

Art should not be censored? What about the case of displaying dead babies?

[*wind&fire*]

If art were that simple, displaying a dead baby for show can be called art, too. It depends on taste, then, I suppose? Kind of morbid if you ask me.

yes anything can be art...a museam in australia showed a rotting cow cut in half... in germany there are preseved humans with their internal organs spilling out of their abdomen... and then art can be simple like a can of soup or abstract

[Spirited Away]

yes anything can be art...a museam in australia showed a rotting cow cut in half... in germany there are preseved humans with their internal organs spilling out of their abdomen... and then art can be simple like a can of soup or abstract

It depends on taste, then, I suppose?  Kind of morbid if you ask me. 

So, you can go ahead and call it art, I'll call it morbid.

[sadolakced acid]

1. on dead babys

don't they sometimes leave the coffins open at a funeral home so you can look at the deceaced? i know it's not the same, but you still can't ban it. if the mother decided to show her dead baby, you can't stop it. and although it should be stopped, to stop this would be to stop other art and too much... it is the sacrafice.


2. on animal rights

animals have animal rights.... they should be treated well, but not equal to humans. we should still use them for labaratory animals, we should still keep pets, eat them, use them for labor, etc.

however, thier treatment should be in a HUMANE maner- which means the person should act human.

[Spirited Away]

1. on dead babys

don't they sometimes leave the coffins open at a funeral home so you can look at the deceaced?   i know it's not the same, but you still can't ban it.  if the mother decided to show her dead baby, you can't stop it.  and although it should be stopped, to stop this would be to stop other art and too much...  it is the sacrafice. 

"Look"/Marvel/Criticize (as you do art) at the dead, or pay respect to them? The two are different.

Art is open for criticism. There are people who views "art" differently than others. In our case with killing animals to display them, that's not art in my opinion.

When you die, you don't really want someone to display your head on top of a vase and your butt at the bottom of the vase do you? I don't know, I wouldn't even want to look at it. Once again, it depends on taste. Hey, if people are into that kind of thing then fine, but I'm just not feeling it.

2.  on animal rights

animals have animal rights.... they should be treated well, but not equal to humans.  we should still use them for labaratory animals, we should still keep pets, eat them, use them for labor, etc. 

however, thier treatment should be in a HUMANE maner-  which means the person should act human.

Here's something to chew on. Remember to note the man I'm quoting.

The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.

                "There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"

-- Charles Darwin

And as for animals not having the same rights as humans, sure:

We are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with respect. 

  "It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed."

-- Albert Schweitzer

By the way, I think animal rights and animal welfare are two different things. We should really be talking about animal welfare.

[sporadic]

That's pretty gross. Killing animals for clothes, I can understand. Maybe even just for fashion. But for art? Well, that doesn't serve much of a purpose other than decoration. Food and clothes are necessary. Cat heads on pedestals are not.

[*wind&fire*]

^ do you have leather shoes?!?!... well wow! killing animals for clothing!

[sporadic]

^ I do have leather shoes and I love them.

What's wrong with killing animals for clothing? Leather keeps you warm. Granted, I wouldn't wear bunny skin, but all the same, animal hide is useful in clothing.

[mysticalazxn]

very bad
totally no NO
the picture look so cruel!

[*wind&fire*]

that site is bs... i dont think its real

[pandamonium]

^ I do have leather shoes and I love them.

What's wrong with killing animals for clothing? Leather keeps you warm. Granted, I wouldn't wear bunny skin, but all the same, animal hide is useful in clothing.

and why were you arguing before that its gross to kill animals for art ????

in art you are only critizing and looking at but clothes you have the dead animals on you ... i dont see how you see it as "gross" if your wearing the same animals on your feet.

[sadolakced acid]

animals should be treated with respect, etc. etc.

but my gripe is with people (namely PETA) who belive that pets are immoral, NO laboratory animals should be used, and who belive that fish should be anethietized before they are gutted on fishing ships. (new PETA campaign)

there are limits, and i belive certain animal activist groups are crossing them, and that's my gripe.


as for the art:

i don't like it either. cat and mouse heads? it's not what i would want to see. but you can't censor it without censoring other stuff, and then you'd censor too much. so you must live with the bad ideas of the 'artist' in a sacrafice for the freedom of expresson. because to censor this would be violation of fundamental rights.

[karrar]

" we can live without meat "

ARE YOU FUKin Crazy?

[Spirited Away]

animals should be treated with respect, etc. etc. 

but my gripe is with people (namely PETA)  who belive that pets are immoral, NO laboratory animals should be used, and who belive that fish should be anethietized before they are gutted on fishing ships.  (new PETA campaign) 

there are limits, and i belive certain animal activist groups are crossing them, and that's my gripe.

Sure, I think PETA is crazy sometimes, but it's because of their efforts that a lot of things the average person wouldn't know about are brought to the surface. They're like the third party candidates in presidential elections. Third party let people know what are things that the major party have conveniently forgetten to mention or have not made note to speak about. Similarly, PETA let people know things that people have forgotten about or do not know about.

I do believe that there are limits and that survival of the fittest demands that we must use whatever means possible to keep our kind on top of the food chain, in good health.. etc, but people like Nathalia Edenmont and those who support her "art" do not seem to care much for anything else but their own pleasures.

as for the art:

i don't like it either. cat and mouse heads? it's not what i would want to see. but you can't censor it without censoring other stuff, and then you'd censor too much. so you must live with the bad ideas of the 'artist' in a sacrafice for the freedom of expresson. because to censor this would be violation of fundamental rights.

We censor music, those played on most stations, and public television (not cable), so why not art?

Self-expression is one thing, but killing an animal for the purpose of expressing oneself is sickening.

Lest we forget our place in this world, humans are considered to be animals. If we can kill an animal for the pleasure of gazing at it, calling it art, what is there to say that we can't stop someone from getting an aborted fetus (something killed) and displaying it as art. Next thing we know, people will be killing, murdering, raping other people and calling those acts "art".

There are limits set by the law and there are limits set by the human heart. Like in homosexuality, the law says it's illegal for them to marry, but in some of our hearts, we feel compassion towards their cause and want it to be legalized. So why would wanting the killing of animals for the sake of "art" to cease because our compassion ask so of us be any different?

[sporadic]

and why were you arguing before that its gross to kill animals for art ????

in art you are only critizing and looking at but clothes you have the dead animals on you ... i dont see how you see it as "gross" if your wearing the same animals on your feet.

It's gross because it's obviously an animal. But that's not why I'm AGAINST it.

I'm against it because killing animals for art serves no purpose, other than decoration. Clothes and food are NECESSARY. Art is not.

[*wind&fire*]

^ is it necessary to have 5 pairs of shoes?

[pandamonium]

It's gross because it's obviously an animal. But that's not why I'm AGAINST it.

I'm against it because killing animals for art serves no purpose, other than decoration. Clothes and food are NECESSARY. Art is not.

ART is definately NOT a "DECORATION"

art is self expression.

let me ask you this why did you buy those leather boots?
........ its because you like them right?.. its because they look pretty right? its because it fits your style right?....

you express yourself in clothes so what you wear can also can be considered art. So the point is you bought those leather boots because they express what "you" like and who you are and those boots make "you" who you are, they make "you" unique .

so you also express art.

so that person who made those peices of art may not have done the right thing by killing those animals but they were expressing themselves.....

[Spirited Away]

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.

[pandamonium]

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

[weirdness]

I believe that killing animals for certain purposes is alright. However, art isn't one of them >.<

agreed.

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

[picaso_smile]

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.

[ComradeRed]

http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/n...thalia_main.htm

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.

[*wind&fire*]

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.

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!!

[mysticbreeze]

yes anything can be art...a museam in australia showed a rotting cow cut in half... in germany there are preseved humans with their internal organs spilling out of their abdomen... and then art can be simple like a can of soup or abstract

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.

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

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.

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.

Exactly.

[xHalf nHalf]

all i hafta say is thats sick..

[sporadic]

^ is it necessary to have 5 pairs of shoes?

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.

[pandamonium]

^ is it necessary to have 5 pairs of shoes?

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

No, but I don't have 5 pairs of leather shoes. 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.

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

[sporadic]

I didn't, PANDAMONIUM.

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

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

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

[pandamonium]

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...

[sporadic]

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.

[mysticbreeze]

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.

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.

[Arsenal]

so that person who made those peices of art may not have done the right thing by killing those animals but they were expressing themselves.....

You think that's an excuse?

[sadolakced acid]

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...

[heyyfrankie]

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.

[sporadic]

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.

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..?

[.kyan]

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

[pandamonium]

You think that's an excuse?

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.

[pandamonium]

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...

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.

[*wind&fire*]

They do look nice.

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

[sporadic]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

[sporadic]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[*wind&fire*]

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

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

[sporadic]

^ 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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[aznxdreamer]

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???

[ComradeRed]

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

[waccoon]

we don't need meat to live. we don't have to wear real fur, you could wear faux fur...none of them are necessary. you could live without meat. art isn't necessary to live. however, she could of used a different way to get her point across, such as painting,

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[ComradeRed]

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

[sporadic]

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.

[mizzlem0nade]

I believe that killing animals for certain purposes is alright. However, art isn't one of them >.<

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

[ComradeRed]

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.

99% of species go extinct.

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[jennyjenny]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

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

[Spirited Away]

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

[sadolakced acid]

it's called the art of war

[Spirited Away]

sure and it does evoke emotion

what about "art of murdering"?

[Mireh]

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

Oh. my. god.

*faints*

[smthngcrprategrl...]

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

[xj_liana_tx]

that is HORRIBLE!

[Kriegsgefangene]

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.

[Kriegsgefangene]

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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

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 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.

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

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!!'

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.

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

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)

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

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

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??

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

[Kriegsgefangene]

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