Cat/Dog - Art? (in Off-topic)

Link: Only click if you wanna see dead stuff

The "artist" who created this masterpiece formerly owned a cat and a dog, before turning them into this reversable...purse?

The guy who posted on this in the forums I found the image in stated: "The reason it's gross is because we consider dogs and cats pets. There's no difference between a dog pelt purse and a fox pelt purse for example. It's just that one is more acceptable."

What do -YOU- think?

wth is that?!? that is just plain creepy...

It is, she claims, "art."

Her website is www.tinkebell.com if you want more info...so far she's managed to generate quite a bit of controversy/criticism.

Can't edit my own post, but this is a quote from the 'artist': "I get quite a few angry emails but I think that most people are just being hypocritical. To me killing a cow is just as bad as killing a cat. And people who oppose my cat bag have no problem wearing leather shoes. That just doesn't add up. Just because it is a pet, people are outraged. It's the exact kind of hypocrisy that I want to highlight."

Just to be clear, this woman (real name: Katinka Simonse) killed the cat and dog herself before her little experiment.

She has a good point regarding killing of animals. The people sending her angry e-mails have a good point too.


It's definitely not pretty art :P. Who wants all those limbs dangling from their purse anyway?

I know the difference! I know the difference!

One we kill to eat the meat, pets we don't eat the meat. Its why the dog meat market in Korea is allowed. Because they raise the dogs specifically for the purpose of slaughter and their meat to be sold.

That is the difference.

I bet the people who send angry emails also have fur coats and an ivory chess set.

The artist is Dutch, and she's quite the controversy around here. She also made an installation with hamsters running around in balls. We buy those balls to give hamsters more 'freedom', but according to her that's a hypocrite notion. We still keep the hamsters contained in our controlled environment. I do think she's making a point here.












The cat/dog-thingy is just weird though.

dude i already asked one admin to remove this crap, i take real offense from this. I find this stuff disgusting art or not.

Sounds to me like she a retarded sadist using other human's hypocracies to justify her own desire to cause harm.

Points can be made without recreating the horror.


Atom bombs are bad *drops one on New York* See!?

Murder is wrong! *slits a babies throat* See!?

This lady is sick. I'm with Henk. It would be just... GRAND.... if an admin would at least turn the pictures into a link so people don't have to look at that crap without warning.


Out of sight, out of mind. I can't slap the heck out of this lady so that she knows how sick she is. But I can try and make sure she doesn't spread her sickness to others in the form of social definitions and "art". The Mona lisa is art. This is a depravity.

lol @ GW.

@Henk: I'm not going to comment on whether it is or isn't offensive; (@ EPIP: art is in the eye of the beholder, and in the ideas. Presentation in the end isn't always the art-form. IMO)

What I will say, we all have a censorship button; it's called 'Don't Look'.

"Atom bombs are bad *drops one on New York* See!? "

Your entire post was incredibly well said, but this line tops it all. She reminds me of Kevin Spacey's character from Seven, as he thoroughly enjoyed his "artwork".

art should elicit an emotional response. i tend to gravitate to the pieces that do this through beauty and inspiration rather than shock value. in the 80's there was a major controversy regarding the photography of andres serrano. freedom of expression for artists versus offensive visual elements has been an issue since humankind has first made art i would guess.

while i may not agree with the shock art, i also think that we shouldn't censor artists...or really anyone for that matter. it is really up to the individual as to whether we are offended by images, words, or other media. in effect you cannot change other people, the only thing you have control over is your reaction to them. when we ask a higher authority to censor something, it is basically us admitting that we are too weak to control our own reaction and we need the authority to step in and control someone else. i strongly believe in the empowerment of the individual...not the authority figures!

W00ts for Dudemus!

I think that if I ever met this woman in real life I would punch her face in.

That's quite an interesting piece of work. I like it.

I think he's making a good point

I find it annoying that we're so bent on protecting things that are cute, as we turn around and slaughter other animals

That's one thing I don't like, I don't like how people can't take things for what they really are. People can't eat a chicken if it's head is still on it. What does it make a difference? It shows that the chicken is a real living thing, that it doesn't grow off a tree, it reminds us that we're eating an animal. It's not desecrating the animal, it's showing respect for what it really is.

That's kinda what this is making a statement about, when we can recognize what we're killing it's suddenly murder, no one complains about leather, unless the head is still on it.

Lol? I don't see any purses made out of chickens with HEADS on them.


That's gross.

Better yet, since you're all whining about other animals being slaughtered too, lets make a purse out of her? After all, all other living things are treated the same, so why not humans?

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

"I find it annoying that we're so bent on protecting things that are cute, as we turn around and slaughter other animals "

You don't correct that by slaughtering the protected animals -- you fight for more protection across the board. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to justify your own desire for wrongdoing. Again, I think the parallel to Seven fits.

The craftsmanship is outstanding, at least. That really is a masterpiece, well done.
Offensive? Well, I don't think cats and dogs serve any purpose on Earth, and I sure don't care if someone wants to turn them into purses.
Controversial? Of course! She knew what she was doing, and that was creating controversy on a topic that she deems as underdiscussed. She wins, good job.

cute animals gotta die sometime. how come no one flames a taxidermist for his art

Well said Nightstrike. And it's pretty lame how a lot of the people here think this is a funny thing. It isn't.

"Well, I don't think cats and dogs serve any purpose on Earth, and I sure don't care if someone wants to turn them into purses."

....you are the virus Agent Smith talked about in The Matrix.

Do you even know what an "ecosystem" is? Have you ever even *glanced* at an ecology book?

But domesticated animals, through the couple thousand years of human artificial selection, are no longer "wild" - like duh.

Point is, turn a house cat/dog/whatever loose, and a couple of days later... it's dead. To the rest of the ecosystem, this animal is a biologically crappy animal. Its "function", if at all, is to get eaten, if in the wild.

And since only 10% of bioenergy passes through each food chain level, 90% of the energy invested in the animal is wasted. Thus, if there were no domesticated animals at all, that link in the food chain doesn't exist and the energy is saved (ie the rats the cats eat are now eaten by real cats like lions - well maybe).

Domestication turns these sort of pets (non-working) into "cute" things that really serve the purpose of... looking nice. Cows can be used for milk, oxen for work, but cats and dogs, really, nothing but meat - that most people ban that.

Oh right, if anyone cares about this at all, and this sewing is rather good. I have absolutely no objection to the art, and like some others, censorship should be limited to your own senses, and nothing else. If you don't like it, ignore it and move on.

That's for expression, not action, so if she tries to kill *your* dog, stop her by all means, but if its her dog you can do naught. Human society proclaims that these animals fall under the umbrella of "property", and PETA sort of has very low political power. Similarly, saying A-bombs are bad, fine, dropping one... you don't have one.

Well, if you look at the fact that meat is a much more concentrated (human digestive system speaking) source of energy, we have long evolved, even though we can tolerate vegetables, to prefer meat. Of course, in terms of ratio of total energy from ecosystem taken to energy we take up, vegetables win. But you need to haul about thrice as much veggies.

Nosebleed: the point is... we are humans. We are a social animal, and we have this massive case of xenophobia. Anything that is *not* human is "inferior" in some sense - any major religion. Eating most animals BUT humans is fine; one's called... eating, the other's called cannibalism. Point is, humans ARE special by egotism.

Art is already a societal convention. Some military guy might say artillery shell bombings are art. Certainly wartime photographs of them are. Sculptures are art, ivory sculptures are art, fur capes are art, what's wrong with having the head attached? You know, some capes actually hollow out the head and use it for a head covering.

"Human society proclaims that these animals fall under the umbrella of "property","

Not all societies. If you mistreat your animals in some countries (England, included), you will be brought up on serious charges.

Even in America, if you were to have done what she did, you would be facing criminal charges. Look at the recent football player for a good example..

To clarify -- being an artist does not put you above the law.

But the "law" is invariably made by humans, even if "in reference to holy texts" by interpretation, and laws can be changed. Actually no, if the dog and cat died naturally, she's allowed to dispose of the corpses in any way she wants, including stuffing (quite a few do), burial (mostly), incineration or purse-making.

I agree. However, the animals did not die naturally. She killed them for the purpose of making the purse, as I mentioned in a post up above. She claimed it was a mercy killing, since her cat was depressed.

Ah, then if by the courts she broke the law, she did; but in any case it's the law alone that arbitrates if it was unacceptable. The laws usually favour the "domesticated" animals, and I guess any meat industry and quite a good number of common people would revolt if any meat was banned, for example.

It boils down to compromise; most don't eat cats and not enough of them do, and enough of them think cats are cute, so now cats are protected. On the other hand, not enough people think chickens (alive) are cute and most eat them, so not only is killing them allowed, but that's an entire poultry industry.

Censorship sort of violates both internet neutrality and freedom of speech, the latter protected in (most) countries, notably not the US. And suppose things are allowed to be censored. Should it be some guy who is now elevated to the state of "I can b& anything I wants", plurality - "tyranny by majority" and how will you ascertain it (common vote on every new published movie?), somewhere in between (aristocratic organisations behave as one given enough time to bond), or what? It falls down to being completely impractical.

"Not all societies. If you mistreat your animals in some countries (England, included), you will be brought up on serious charges. "

The irony saddens me.

I'm fine with it. Sure domestic animals are protected by the law... but why? Because they are cute we can't kill them? Not that I'm advocating killing animals, but I don't think it's something that should be legislated. Important issues should be legislated.. not imposing governmental control over something that a person owns. If I found a lizard in the wild and killed it, some might object, but none of you would say "That's just plain wrong".

I just don't believe in arbitrary legislation. You can't legislate cuteness.

When one of you BUYS one of these purses, THEN tell me you support it. Until then , just shut up.

Actually pet protection is legislated for the same reason that parent's can't beat their kids and teachers can't sleep with students. To prevent the abuse by people in authority. Theoretically hunting a wild animal gives them a 'fighting chance' at survival... shooting your loyal and obedient dog in the head, not so much. Similarly if I were to go to a bar and ended up punching another drink idiot in the face there is not guarantee I would be charged.... punching my 6yr old son in the face repeatedly?
Democratic rule is to some degree a societal response to tyranny and laws will tend to continue that fight... thus protecting children, students, the poor, pets (not in all cases, particularly for the poor).


As far as the art work in question:
It does not particularly offend me.
I love cats and dogs and generally maintain an exceedingly low opinion of those who mistreat them. But to my mind this instance is far less shameful than the neglect and beatings many pets endure.

My question to those who find this objectionable is:
If the two animals had been diseased strays euthanized by a local shelter would your opinion change?

N0sebleed, I don't think they are endorsing what she has done as right, but rather pointing out that a law protecting certain animals over others (on the basis of cuteness?) is kind of silly.

There's a big difference between "I think this looks like good stitching" and "I feel the need to cough up dough to own one". It's almost as big as "this is fine by me" and "this should be banned".

I think the artisanship is good, I do not think that killing the cat/dog for this is such a good idea and I certainly think this should NOT be banned. There, I "support" it by not calling for a witchhunt.

Loch, actually democracy slowly turns back into tyranny, but now it's tyranny by majority which... sounds better to the incumbent majority. Abuse of authority... PETA calls for any animal killing to be labelled murder but nobody really listens (aka nobody in power). As for mercy killings go I know that dog won't stand "a fighting chance" if left to the wild, and any animal shelter would just give them a shot... from a needle. No-win for the dog, and perhaps less painful with a gun (shoot the brainstem aiming up, that basically both instantly kills and removes sensory perception). People usually don't shoot their own dogs out of spite. And that I equate with hunting "wild"animals.

Booty, that's fair enough.

But everyone seems so quick to stick up for the lady, doesn't seem moral to me.

uh wow...
"Loch, actually democracy slowly turns back into tyranny, but now it's tyranny by majority which... sounds better to the incumbent majority."
Alright, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and doesn't in anyway address the point I was making. Since I feel inclined to defend democratic government I offer the following.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947


"Abuse of authority... PETA calls for any animal killing to be labelled murder but nobody really listens (aka nobody in power)."

Again, sensational but unrelated comments are not exactly constructive to the discussion. Not to mention that the farm community would vehemently oppose this (as would those of us who enjoy steak).

"As for mercy killings go I know that dog won't stand "a fighting chance" if left to the wild, and any animal shelter would just give them a shot... from a needle. No-win for the dog, and perhaps less painful with a gun (shoot the brainstem aiming up, that basically both instantly kills and removes sensory perception). People usually don't shoot their own dogs out of spite. And that I equate with hunting "wild"animals."

What on earth are you trying to say here? Seriously, I have absolutely no response due to a punishing lack of coherence. Spend some time on clarity and organization in the future. You may be making a valid point but unless people can understand it you are doing yourself no favours.

Could you please reformat the last paragraph and resubmit?

It's all part of God's plan.

I think he's trying to say that even though people might view a killing of a pet dog as bad, it's not illegal as long as the dog/cat/bird/fly doesn't suffer.

It may not be "moral," but I have a serious problem with legislating morality.

Cows are sacred animals in India and are never harmed; only worshiped. Cows here in the U.S. are slaughtered at an enormous rate to be ground up and packed for selling.

Who cares about cows?

And again, I don't see any cow-purses around. Not with the heads still on them at least.

"Who cares about cows?"

Apparently Indians do. But obviously you don't :).

I believe the artist has created a very excellent example, and I think OB expressed it very well in his post, explaining the hypocrisy of our society. I don't agree with the means - if what NS said is true (about her killing them herself), I wouldn't want to do it myself anyway ;x - but the message stands out loud and clear.

People are going to do crazy things that don't fit in with what others consider "morally correct" - and I mean "morally correct" as in what the media says. Popular opinion changes over time. Heck, if you look at most anything you will find that at one point in history it has been deemed as "wrong" and repulsive.

Although she's fighting for the fact that "freedom" of animals is hypocritical by our standards, I look at it a different way. I don't think we should be looking into this in terms of whether it's art or not. I don't even think we should be looking at it in terms of a ecosystem, or any other scientific approach. It's the morals and values instilled by our society, by the media, by others, which influence our opinions. She is merely illustrating that what is "right" is a completely subjective idea.

I doubt you'd change her mind on the matter, and I doubt she's changed yours one bit either.

being stubborn sounds fun!

"I think OB expressed it very well in his post, explaining the hypocrisy of our society. "

"Although she's fighting for the fact that "freedom" of animals is hypocritical by our standards"

"but rather pointing out that a law protecting certain animals over others (on the basis of cuteness?) is kind of silly."


....


Again, I point you to the movie, Seven. The movie was identical to exactly what is transpiring here. You watch that movie again, and you tell me that Kevin Spacey's character was perfectly in the right.

What he was doing was artwork. He took great pride in his work (and said so, comparing himself to the police taking pride in busting criminals). But the reality is that if he really wanted to achieve the end he claimed, just like if Katinka really wanted to show that the law is wrong as it stands and should be changed, there are other, better ways to go about it. If Katinka's motive is to change the law for the better -- to outlaw the conversion of ANY animal into a purse -- than her actions defined by that motive are completely contradictory.

You wouldn't go and say, "Pollution is harmful, and we need to stop destroying our atmosphere. Let me prove it by scorching the sky Matrix-style (Ani-matrix, really) and blocking out the sun for the next 200 years."

You wouldn't say, "We need to protect ALL forests, not just those in national parks. Let me prove it by destroying the entire Amazon rainforest."


I'm telling you... watch Seven. The movie was based on this exact line of thinking.

LOL Nightstrike,
Give me a break! - 95% of all the domesticated dogs would die without the human race, no cats could possibly survive. Yeah, I am a biology major, and I most certainly have looked at a textbook recently. They are called 'pets' for a reason. They have evolved since we started treating them as pets, and they are no longer useful to our planet. Let's make some freaking purses already, WOOO!

"According to the Humane Society of the United States, 3-4 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the United States and many more are confined to cages in shelters because there are many more animals than there are homes. Spaying or castrating dogs helps keep overpopulation down."
Think of all the purses, hah.

Loch, sorry for that, somehow I got my linefeeds stripped from the (now large) paragraph.

My point is, an overwhelming percentage of "abandoned" pets just die, if not from "mercy killing" by gun or needle, then starvation or predation - or run over by a car. People that own pets do not suddenly decide "that dog's good for target practice" and shoot it. That's left for the "wild" animals that are now "fair game". Most of the time killing your own pet has some reason, and I'm ignoring the occasional psychopath. Killing "wild" animals called a sport, on the other hand.

Sometimes people expose hypocrisy and don't actually care for it to be corrected. Check out the (a week or so old) report on how Bush's administration issued over 1000 false statements (saw it on Reuters or something) - add that to the warrantless surveilance thing, deportation to torture thing and nobody "really" wants to impeach him as in not half the Democratic house. And Clinton got bashed over an... affair?

Maybe she wants to show that NO animals should be protected OR all, and protecting all is impossible, so don't prefer any animal? I shouldn't second-guess other's motives though. It's still a good stitching.

Patty, ever heard of a feral cat? There are hundreds of thousands of them. Dogs too. They survive, as all animals do. Most will die. Some will survive. Sure, every pomeranian will die. But my cats? I don't know. One my cats once killed a raccoon. Hmm... Maybe the raccoon was domesticated? nah...

I have a variety of things I want to say:

1) Don't censor art. I agree, I find censorship wrong. But don't say the best way to avoid something is to ignore it. I can point at time and time and TIME when something horrible was seen by somebody, and somebody said "If you don't like it, don't look". So they didn't. If you're SO blind you need examples, let me know. Oh, and just for starts, *points at World War 2*. Censorship is a touchy issue. But from the nazi's who parade down jewish neighborhoods to KKK members who burn the cross into a black families' lawn, doesn't always mean freedom of speech is pleasant. Don't expect me to say it is. Freedom of speech has so often been used to commit great evils, as has censorship. I'd rather have freedom than chains, but... Well, you know. Bittersweet.

2) I want to make this clear. This lady is -sick-. See, so many of you made SUCH convincing arguments to her moral and philosophical point of view. You -wrote- about it. You discussed it. What does she do? She takes two dead animals and sews them together. Ya know what, I think a FREAKING pamphlet would have been nice for starters.

3) Also, I would like to state my complete -hatred- of the fur trade. No part of it is decent or necessary. I wouldn't treat a beetle like that (and I don't).

And of course it's more difficult for someone to see a dog or cat like that. Just like it's more difficult to see your own child hurt, or have your car stolen. It's just a human thing. It's hard to feel such empathy for things further from you than closer. She acts like it's some great human failing, and perhaps it is, but I don't see it changing. And making me wince and angry by her -abomination- (don't deceive yourself, it is, and it would be if it was a cow and a alligator skin wallet) damn sure won't change anything.

She enjoyed doing it. She enjoyed making people upset. And, honestly, I think it's just... Sick. Sick sick sick.

P.S.: Whoever made it a link, I thank you.

"LOL Nightstrike,
Give me a break! - 95% of all the domesticated dogs would die without the human race, no cats could possibly survive. Yeah, I am a biology major, and I most certainly have looked at a textbook recently. They are called 'pets' for a reason. They have evolved since we started treating them as pets, and they are no longer useful to our planet. Let's make some freaking purses already, WOOO!"

Excuse me? dogs and cats seem to be doing a rather good job of taking care of themselves in the while, if you know anything about owning an "outdoor" cat or the fact that there are "wild" domestic dogs all over the place in rural and urban areas. If they were left to the wild, I'm sure they'd do a rather fine job of making a niche for themselves. They can take care of themselves, believe you me. And they have no true predator to keep their population down, so they wouldn't be in too much danger.

Thinking all household animals are stupid and completely dependant on people is stereotypical. Some may not survive, but god knows most of them would be fine. We wouldn't be having an overpopulation of animals in shelters if we didn't have an abundance of "wild" domesticated animals running around... thnx.

lol no cats would survive
What about those thousands of wild house cats in the cities?

Couple of things.

Forsaken;

"Apparently Indians do"

That's Hindus. And it's only 'mostly' a sacred animal. ;) Following Hinduism isn't restricted to, nor does it encompass all Indians. Sorry, just a pet peve of mine!

Obscurans;

"To the rest of the ecosystem, this animal is a biologically crappy animal. Its "function", if at all, is to get eaten, if in the wild."

There is actually reason behind domesticaing animals. They do provide a tangible use, other than just looking cute.

The origins for taming Cats (in Europe) for example was for odent Hunting. Much the same for Dogs.

That's also ignoring 'sacred' cats as well (Hello Bast!). ;)

Odent. Sounds like GL for rats and other rodents ;P

Gah... Fat fingers clashing with dodgey keyboard.

I swear my shift key hates me... ;)

Epiphany, yes, the cat killed a racoon, but what you didn't count was the *number* of times it *tried* to kill one. Given enough time lucky things happen.

GL, yes cats were used for killing rodents, but now most cat breeds aren't particularly better at killing them and are actually to look cute. The original purpose is mostly lost now.

Oh thanks. Ancient Egyptians thought the cat was sacred and mummified it if it died. And anecdotally, some invader just gathered up cats, killed them and threw them into some Egyptian city. They sort of surrendered rather than seeing the sacrilege continue. Now that's cruelty.

Oh lol, and in the religion of Mithras, the sun god who died and was reborn Dec 25th (sometime ~50 years BC), the bull is sacred.

And the worshipped it with bullfighting.

Lol, Obscurans, ever seen what happens to most animals after a fight with a raccoon? No second chances ;P

Secondly, of COURSE most cats would die. All humans have done is keep the weak alive. The strong are still strong, and would live without us. Feral cats exist. You can deny it all you want. They survive and are completely brutal. Same with dogs.

They considered it honorable. Show me someone who considers a cat/dog purse honorable.

Then "killing for sport" is justified as long as your current mental state says that "that is honourable"? You then support game hunting by that same token.

I never said completely feral cats are weak, I'm saying most human beings would NOT like a feral cat as a pet, and as such most abandoned pets are of the weakling mull-around-and-look-cute variety. Lions are felines, for whoever's sake you like. Repeat for dogs, and wolves are canines.

That just means releasing the weak into the wild is still tantamount to a death sentence, but "they had a chance" - a fat chance at that. Plus, is killing a pig for pork and "honourable" killing?

"GL, yes cats were used for killing rodents, but now most cat breeds aren't particularly better at killing them and are actually to look cute. The original purpose is mostly lost now."

;)

Better than what? The orignal purpose hasn't been lost, even if people are attracted to thier looks. It's the smell. It's drives the rodents away, they know it's no longer safe.

If you're infested with mice, borrow someones Cat. It doens't have to catch and kill them all to get them to move on.

And in any case, my cats are better mousers than I am. ;)

Now Mainecoons, that's a different matter entirely... ;)

"Plus, is killing a pig for pork and "honourable" killing?"

Honourable in what sense?

Be it other creatures or plants, we have to kill to survive. We can do it humanely, or not. But the end result is still the same.

Wait. I hate to make such distinctions, but I believe them to be sound. Bull fighting and game hunting are NOT the same. Hitting a buck from a quarter of a mile away with a piece of metal traveling at high speeds and super heated is NOT honorable. The deer was not fighting.


A bullfight though, in -theory-, is honorable. Two beings, both seeing each other. Both engaging and both using the tool available to it. A human has a spear, granted, but that's just giving him/her a chance. BOTH have a chance to die. How often are hunters killed by the things they're hunting? Yes... Yes... I know some poor guy died from a deer or something... And another got killed by a mountain lion. But those are more stupidity of the hunter than a fair fight.


Also, you seem to misunderstand what a feral cat is. A feral cat is a cat either A) Born in the wild, descending from a domesticated cat (you seem to get this). OR B) A domesticated cat that is released in to the while and becomes wild so to survive.

No one owns a feral cat. Or, most don't. My family once tried to tame a feral cat. I believe most of us still have some small scars ;P

Wow. Off-topic much? We're discussing the 'honor' in bullfighting v. hunting...

Still talking about animals ^.^

Now, the pig in the slaughterhouse is not even remotely fighting, its hung upside-down in some moving belt and either shocked or skull-bashed. That's far from honourable I hope.

And why is honour any mitigating factor to killing an animal? Duels are "honourable" explicitly, but most current courts don't accept that as defence, and quite a few consider that to be an aggravating factor instead - you were involved in some ritual homicide. And somehow that same argument should work for animals?

If you read on how bullfighting is done, first a guy on a horse charges the bull and sticks a lance on its shoulder, then two or more helpers sticks spears as close to that wound as possible, then the matador comes out, plays with the bull a while, then closes in and stabs the bull in the aorta. The cape is red only because they don't want blood to show on it - bulls are colourblind.

You could say the deer has a fighting chance because they had the opportunity to spot a rifle butt in the bushes a couple yards down - they can see cheetahs on that range, why not butts? Or is a cheetah ambush dishonourable?

I said in theory, lol. Stop building straw men. In practice, it's not a bull fighting a man. It's a man fighting a near dead bull. And did I -ever- say the slaughter of pigs was honorable?

Then again, NO form of mass death is honorable.

I am all in favor of killing every antbed in my yard, and I -will- mass slaughter the ants to achieve my end.

Don't make it honorable. Don't make it wrong either.

LittleRed]Calynne,
No, you're absolutely wrong. The point I made has already been researched, look it up. 8D

Yeah, your point has been researched. Dogs have evolved. Doesn't mean they're worthless meatbags. MANY species of dogs are still considered working class breeds.


And before you go on and on and on about how all dogs are DOOMED TO DIE WITHOUT HUMAN AID, I bet more humans would die without external aid than dogs die without human aid.

Well, er if it's in theory only, why... use it in the argument? And there are more humans than dogs, so moot point. I'm also damn sure more ants will die each second, even if every human suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth.

The point still holds, that the pets, while still marginally survivable in the wild, have been specifically selected for reasons otherwise, mostly cuteness nowadays, and purely biologically suck compared to wild animals.

The artist only killed one cat and one dog, and that's not mass killing, if not "dishonourable killing" what's your objection? Or do you think she should have left them out to be run over by a car?

And it's a straw man only if I extremize your argument, then knock it down, while the refutation of the extremized argument does not extend to your original.

If you ever said that killing "with honour" was justifiable, then I can take that to any case of killing that can be connected to "honour". If you ever said that's the main reason of justifying killing, I can take that to any case of killing.