killing animals for art Options

[fameONE]

I don't eat cats. 

If anyone wants to argue that it's a double standard to eat cows and not cats, then I'll say that it is just as guilty if a person watches Family Guy but not the Simpsons.

I love Family Guy, damn it. I'm also a vegetarian.

[mysticbreeze]

right... so would you like to define killing horribly?

would that be with or without the tourture?

you see, when animals are killed, there are certain regulations. no animals are killed violently now a days. a bullet through the brain, a heart stopping injection, these are not horribly killings. these are not scaldings, nor are they 'let's just cut the throat and let it bleed out' killings.

where you see horriblly murdered animals, i see nature at work.

you might say, no other animal kills another for it's skin. this is where you are wrong.

wasps of a sort will lay thier eggs on tarantulas. the babies hatch, and eat into the tarantula, eating it alive. they eat unnecissary organs first, so their host will live longer.

you see, all the beasts and creatures of the world were given gifts. strenght. speed, fur, etc. the only two gifts afforded to man are the ability to walk upright, and the ability to use the other beasts and creatures.

and in this spirit, fur and animals for art is completely humane. it's human nature.

You have no sensitivity whatsoever do you? You think just because humans are the most intelligent creatures we have the right to kill and torture everything? Humans survive just fine without killing everything that moves. Oh, and please spare me your little theories please.

[fameONE]

You have no sensitivity whatsoever do you?  You think just because humans are the most intelligent creatures we have the right to kill and torture everything?    Humans survive just fine without killing everything that moves.  Oh, and please spare me your little theories please.

Although I don't agree with slaughterhouses, I do agree with his standpoint. We're at the top of the food change and thats pretty much how that argument ends.

[sadolakced acid]

The lady "artist" was reported to the Swedish Veterinary Association because she failed to have a veterinarian present while killing the animals in 2003. How can anyone be sure that they died a humane death except to to take her word for it?

ah, but not all fur, and stuffed animals, etc are horriblly murdered. those that aren't should surely be accepted. just because it was an animal once doesn't mean it should be shunned, and criticized. sure, if the animals were tourtured, then shun away. but only if.


and to all others:

sensitivity? the animals can't read this and understand. so who am i offending?

humans cannot survive without killing or enslaving other animals. it's impossible. one human can, but simply because they get others to do the killing.

i'd like to say slaughterhouses are much better.

previously, a hunter shot the deer, and hoped for an instant kill. if not, then he tracked it down and slit it's throat, to let it bleed out and die.

now, animals are lead into the slaughter house, and either shot in the head, or in some other 'humane' way, killed.

[Spirited Away]

ah, but not all fur, and stuffed animals, etc are horriblly murdered.  those that aren't should surely be accepted.  just because it was an animal once doesn't mean it should be shunned, and criticized.  sure, if the animals were tourtured, then shun away.  but only if.
and to all others:

There are animals bred with the sole intent to be killed for their fur and skin... etc. It's not as if some farmer dashes into my living room, steal my (imaginary) sheep and shears it. Sheeps are raised to be sheared. Livestock is raised to be food. Cats are raised to be house friends, not to be killed for "art"! 
http://www.wag.co.za/special_reports/inside_china.html
Not ALL horribly murdered animals are works of Nature. 

I don't know if you quoted the right part, but I was kind of confused. Anyway, that was my response to fur... and stuff.

humans cannot survive without killing or enslaving other animals.  it's impossible.  one human can, but simply because they get others to do the killing.

*nods*, this I can agree to, however, Man should have matured past the stage of torturing these animals. Kill them for survival, definitely. Kill them for simple pleasures... questionable. TORTURE them for simple pleasures... no-no.

[rOckThISshYt]

I don't know if you quoted the right part, but I was kind of confused. Anyway, that was my response to fur... and stuff.
*nods*, this I can agree to, however, Man should have matured past the stage of torturing these animals. Kill them for survival, definitely. Kill them for simple pleasures... questionable. TORTURE them for simple pleasures... no-no.

lol. Yeah. What she said. ^^

[yupimchuck]

i'm a vegetarian.
and i dont wear leather,fur, etc.
Why do you need an animal to make art? That's stupid.
We don't need meat to live. We don't need anything that has to do wth an animal tokeep s warm or just semthign retty to look at.
It's pointless.

&how can killing animals for fur be humane and human nature?

[XoJennaoX]

,May 21 2005, 7:26 PM]
i'm a vegetarian.
and i dont wear leather,fur, etc.
Why do you need an animal to make art? That's stupid.
We don't need meat to live. We don't need anything that has to do wth an animal tokeep s warm or just semthign retty to look at.
It's pointless.

&how can killing animals for fur be humane and human nature?

To answer you human nature question. How do you think human beings ever survived? What do you think the instinct of the caveman was? to eat veggies? i think not... We wouldn't even be around right now if animals were not hunted and killed for food, and yes also killed for fur as protection from the brutal winters and to protect body parts in general. They even used fur for fashion, but i guess that wasn't a big deal since you had to hunt and kill the animal yourself, and of course they ate the meat first.
In fact our appendix was believed to have been a second stomach made for digesting raw meat. That is also why we have eyes in the front of our face for hunting, unlike herbavours who have eyes to the side for protection from predators.
Yes, it is possible to live without meat and fur NOW, but only because now our environment is specially catered to our needs, unlike before. Still, killing animals in general has been in our nature for a long, long time... this has probably been said before. But i agree killing animals for art is stupid, i don't think that was ever in our nature.

[sadolakced acid]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

don't we all love PETA? wonderful source for information that's not at all misleading...

[ComradeRed]

If PETA wants to be taken seriously, it should change this page: http://www.peta.org/scae

[Spirited Away]

Ahhh, just as you've predicted Mr. Acid... the third coming of Minda.

[sadolakced acid]

Ahhh, just as you've predicted Mr. Acid... the third coming of Minda.

yup. :-D

PETA killes 80% of the animals they "liberate" or take from adoption agencys to "bring to a good home"

[mai_z]

Survival of the Fittest.

Just about everyone who's against the whole killing thing is a hypocrite. And at least they're being killed for a reason. Sure, killing fuzzy-wuzzy little animals may make you feel sick to your stomach, but a 10 year old wild boar is just as worthy of life as the 2 week old kitten. And with the whole PETA killing animals thing? Better dead then fed? Yea rite....at least being eaten would have served a purpose.... putting down an animal is no more humane than eating it.

The way our world works is natural. Everything is, and it is only the evolution of mankind that allows us to do crazy things with nature and with technology. Evolution is natural, and therefore everything we do is natural as well. (sry if that didn't make much sense...i'll come back and edit it when i'm awake)

[iiTsDAYNA]

It's not fair to kill any animal for any reason. Its cruel and wrong. Last night my dad was watching this show where this lady skinned a poor rabbit to sell it to people that make real fur coats. It almost made me throw up. It was horrible. There is also a website on the internet that takes kittens when their born and shoves them in shaped glasses. The website is www.bonsaikittens.com its horrible. I think everyone that kills animals for entertainment should be arrested and held in jail.

[sadolakced acid]

It's not fair to kill any animal for any reason. Its cruel and wrong. Last night my dad was watching this show where this lady skinned a poor rabbit to sell it to people that make real fur coats. It almost made me throw up. It was horrible. There is also a website on the internet that takes kittens when their born and shoves them in shaped glasses. The website is www.bonsaikittens.com its horrible. I think everyone that kills animals for entertainment should be arrested and held in jail.

wow.

it's hard to resist...

but i'll try to be nice about this.

1. all things die.
2. animals kill animals every day.
3. animals kill people every day.
4. anything you see on TV is propoganda.
5. that's a fake site.
6. read the thread.

thank you for your time.

[Spirited Away]

Survival of the Fittest.

Just about everyone who's against the whole killing thing is a hypocrite. And at least they're being killed for a reason. Sure, killing fuzzy-wuzzy little animals may make you feel sick to your stomach, but a 10 year old wild boar is just as worthy of life as the 2 week old kitten. And with the whole PETA killing animals thing? Better dead then fed? Yea rite....at least being eaten would have served a purpose.... putting down an animal is no more humane than eating it.

You've wrongly generalized the lot of us as hypocrites because you don't understand what's being said. A few of us are NOT saying that we're against the killing of animals, far from it, we ARE saying that in this case, killing cats for the sake of art DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SURVIVAL, now does it?

<edit>Killing an animal for food serves the purpose of SURVIVAL. What does displaying dead cats do for us but provoke disgust to some and simple pleasures to others?</edit>

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.

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?

What the heezy?

There are a lot of things that are not neccessary 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.

[zepfel]

It's not fair to kill any animal for any reason. Its cruel and wrong. Last night my dad was watching this show where this lady skinned a poor rabbit to sell it to people that make real fur coats. It almost made me throw up. It was horrible. There is also a website on the internet that takes kittens when their born and shoves them in shaped glasses. The website is www.bonsaikittens.com its horrible. I think everyone that kills animals for entertainment should be arrested and held in jail.

bwaahahhaaha. im sorry, but seriously? they even said that they sew their asses shut, and yet people in their masses still couldn't see the joke. the people behind it are wonderful.

The kitten may bounce under the furniture and be difficult to retrieve, as well as covered in unsightly household dust

[datass]

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.

we CAN live without meat, but it is important to eat meat. it has a lot of protiens, or we'll all look like little skelotons. (sp)

[sadolakced acid]

we CAN live without meat, but it is important to eat meat. it has a lot of protiens, or we'll all look like little skelotons. (sp)

on the contrary, if one is careful and eats a perfectly calculated diet, it is possible to get all the nutrients one needs from a combination of soy beans and various legumes and nuts. In fact, if a vegan diet is prepared by a college educated dietitian, then it in most cases is healthier than a meat inclusive diet.

even though meat eaters look healthy on the outside, and no matter how thin someone is, the cholesterol still hardens the arteries.

[mai_z]

You've wrongly generalized the lot of us as hypocrites because you don't understand what's being said. A few of us are NOT saying that we're against the killing of animals, far from it, we ARE saying that in this case, killing cats for the sake of art DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SURVIVAL, now does it?

<edit>Killing an animal for food serves the purpose of SURVIVAL. What does displaying dead cats do for us but provoke disgust to some and simple pleasures to others?</edit>

I don't believe I've misunderstood what's been said here. I did not say that everyone was a hypocrite, but that many people are. There are a few here who do make a good case, and bring up many good points. Perhaps I should have been more clear when I mean that those animals being killed were at least being killed for art, and not just uselessly killed and left in a heap to rot. That blurb was actually meant in response to the PETA article. My mention to the 'survival of the fittest' was more meant in the fact that those that are not capable of defending themselves against us or other predators are bound to be killed. It wasn't the survival of humans that I was referring to, but rather the survival of the cats and animals themselves.

even though meat eaters look healthy on the outside, and no matter how thin someone is, the cholesterol still hardens the arteries.

hey hey...don't make cholesterol out to be all bad now, it's still essential to our bodies, it's just that the body can produce needed cholesterol itself.

[Spirited Away]

I don't believe I've misunderstood what's been said here. I did not say that everyone was a hypocrite, but that many people are. There are a few here who do make a good case, and bring up many good points. Perhaps I should have been more clear when I mean that those animals being killed were at least being killed for art, and not just uselessly killed and left in a heap to rot. That blurb was actually meant in response to the PETA article.

I see what you mean, but about your pov, I disagree. You don't think that's killing animals for art is a useless, waste of life?

My mention to the 'survival of the fittest' was more meant in the fact that those that are not capable of defending themselves against us or other predators are bound to be killed. It wasn't the survival of humans that I was referring to, but rather the survival of the cats and animals themselves.

I know what survival of the fittest is, believe me, I just don't understand how anyone can say that lesser beings should just deal with it because of survival of the fittest. As I've said before, it is in human nature to be compassionate. What is so compassionate, so humane about killing animals for the sake of enterainment? If we become predators of domestic animals, that would make us sick, in the sense of disgust.

[cashmere deer]

be green.
go vegan.

[priyas]

i will only kill animals for food.

[magicfann]

i will only kill animals for food.

and ur not even killing them

[x2xmhpm]

to me..i don't think killing animals for art should be allowed because they are already ART!!..they already represent something in the natural beauty and killing them would be wrong...