Petition Against Murdering Artist

Yes but that is the first step in learning more about what we are testing i believe, I think we start with mice and work up the chain till we get too chimpanzees which are genetically similar to humans. Not saying its great but it beats testing directly on humans and having them die.

 

What a load of twat. With a crap view like that the human race deserves to die out!!!

 

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not. (is the little blue face the sarcasm face?) If not, very elegant response. That is what happens isnt it? I belive that is how testing goes on in all countries, by all companies who deal with testing.

 

Aploogies I have been on the razz.

If people are more important than animals in the west it's not suprising that the west treats people in the east no better than animals is it??

If you need help deciphering that opinion I will oblidge but I'm sure you can do it by yourself!

 

Its a no harm in anyway to animals whatever/whenever mentality duckandmiss .. un-negotiable attitude i am afraid...i have questioned (the attitude myself) and can't quite see it from their point of view to be honest (even though i am a vegeterian) . I see medical research as more important 'at the end of the day' but i guess its a thought that why make any concessions on the treatment of animals whatever the reason ? .. still not my attitude, even thinking long and hard about it. anaimal testing has given the medical proffesion endless good results ... and saved millions of lives imho .. we must agree to disagree ... a bit dull that though.

 

Uhhhh..... how's that answering my point? Sounds to me like you're agreeing with it!

 

Again, i was making the point, not how I feel about it, though i do have a particular opionon that i am not trying to force upon you, I am just saying how it is. That is how testing is done in all countries.
(If people are more important than animals in the west it's not suprising that the west treats people in the east no better than animals is it??) All people have instances of treating people badly, what about China and the slaughter of girls? Thats as far east as you can get.Dont make this a country issue its already a world issue right?

As far as my personal opinion, 40 mice, a cat, and a chimp are worth the life of a 4 year old boy dying of aids from a blood transfusion mishap. (as an extreme example)

 

Because I agree with you, I think they are seperate issues and that is obvious, whether something is art or not is seperate from whether or not something is morally objectionable to an individual.


Are you trying to argue something? I thought I have have been pretty clear about things, and thourough as well.

 

earlier post from myself..

sorry if i am wrong Dok' ... you can debate away duckandmiss , sorry to intrude .

 

what?

 

simple response ... don't argue with Dok on this ...

 

please dont get personal.....lets keep the debate open fine, but lets not start focussing on individuals...peacexxx

 

You make less sense than him, did anyone read the posts i left? the question posed was this,

So, back to my question: with such a broad definition, what's to stop images of child abuse being considered as 'art'? And again: the issue isn't whether it's 'art' (since the definiton of 'art' appears to be so broad as to be meaningless), but rather whether we wish to promote a society in which images of butchery and slaughter are consider aesthetically pleasing.

I spent most of time answering that first question, about what is art. I dont see the defenition as being broad at all, and I in fact gave the defenition and some links.

then Dok said this,

towhich I said,


In this thread you have explained your point, my answer to this is, no we do not have a conversation of whether or not this is art, because yes it is. It was created as to communicate some message to another human. That defines it as art. End of case.

Ethically, now we can get into something that is just opinion based. I personally do not enjoy some of her work, I keep cats as pets in this country and feel a personality bond to them, so I do not like seeing cats and dogs dead, I feel they have a soul. Mice, rabbits, I do not feel as being so offensive. We learn alot from these animals in their deaths, weather that be through medical research, the exploration of art, or feeding your pet snake. I personally do not kill them, nor like to see them dead, but a few of her works are pleasing to me, like the egg yolk in the flower, and some of the mice ones. But that is a personal opinion.

Dok then said this,

Uhhhh..... how's that answering my point? Sounds to me like you're agreeing with it!

 

we can read thanks

 

I am trying to not make it personal (me and Dok have a bit of a history good and bad) duckandmiss ...

if you read this and did not understand ... i realy can't say it any easier .. i don't wish to intrude in your conversation with him .. just wanted to save you some time and effort.. but like i said you can debate away if you want .

And if i am wrong Dok i apologise .

 

hahahahahaha

 

Prick.

 

I wasn't too clear about what point you were trying to make. I think we're actually in agreement on the substance of the issue though. The image in question may or may not be art (you believe it is - I don't care whether it is or isn't), but that's entirely removed from the issue of whether it is or isn't morally acceptable to produce such an image.

 

but matthew, me and Dok were not arguing about animal testing, that was a seperate point regarding the ethics of the use of the animals and my personal opinion about it, in fact we werent even really argueing I wont try to change others opinions I jsut want to hear tem and also say my side so that I can find some new information that makes me ponder a subject. , I was trying to figure out exactly what his point was because it was unclear to me. I will fight for the what is art? portion of his question, because I am very interested in Art and studied Duchamp and Warhol and some of the others who challenged the ideas of art for us.

But I agree that that is a seperate issue from whether or not the art itself is ethically right, and I cannot say because different people find different things ethically different!

 

I am more concerned about people seeing something as not being art because they don't like it, and the what is art? question is more important to me, so I was going on that for bit and hadn't answer your second question about ethics yet.