Didn't read many replies to this thread. I am against this so called "work of art". But nobody would have cared about this animal if the "artist" didn't kill him. The only good out of this, is that maybe people will start taking animals into shelters or something. Same with the poor. Does someone need to starve a person to death before the average citizen takes steps to get people off the streets?
Originally posted by jewpinthethird
Sex kills time and it's free.
Instead of taking her out to a movie and buying her popcorn, bend her over the arm of a couch. It's very economical. Just make sure you are using the proper protection, because then it can become VERY, VERY GOD DAMN UNECONOMICAL if she pops a baby 9 months down the road.
Didn't read many replies to this thread. I am against this so called "work of art". But nobody would have cared about this animal if the "artist" didn't kill him. The only good out of this, is that maybe people will start taking animals into shelters or something. Same with the poor. Does someone need to starve a person to death before the average citizen takes steps to get people off the streets?
As someone stated earlier the dog died after about a day of display. Assume he hadn't put the dog on display. What would be different? One thing. One thing would be different. NOONE WOULD HAVE CARED. Noone would have heard, there would be no petition, we would not be discussing it and the dog would have died in obsurity. Even if we assume the dog would have lived slightly longer the extra 5min or 5hrs, like the previous time, would have cosisted of the dog wandering, tormented by the pains of it's hunger all the way to it's completly unnoticed death and still noone would care. In short the man did not "kill" the dog, he simply brought it's inevitable death to attention.
Also I thing I heard someone say that the dog deserved the same rights as a human or something to that effect. B.S. Imagine a puppy with a bomb straped to it unnable to move. Your the only one around and all you have to do is unstrap it before it blows and of course carry the pup to safty. Now imagine a human child in the same predicament exactly the same distance but in the other direction at the same time. You don't have time to save them both. Which do you save? I can tell you with full honesty that I wouldn't think twice about it. I'd save the kid and escape completly ignoring the death of the puppy because, and this is my oppinion, the kids life is simply more important.
Anyway I won't say that I'm not at all empathetic about the dogs death, I'm only saying that the man's actions, weather they can be considered art or not, were not nearly as cruel as some of you are making them out to be.
=__=' My sig was 22 pixels too tall, so this is here instead...
Sorry, but I think all the people who came in and watched the dog and didn't do anything are even more sick than the artist. At least you can say the artist was deranged, insane, or whatever. Either all of these people who watched it were insane or there's just this small chance that "normal" doesn't mean "balanced" or "good". Apparently to watch a dog die just because it isn't you who's imprisoning the dog is perfectly "normal". Now THAT is sick.
.
Originally Posted byjewpinthethird[link]: "If you get stung by enough bees you turn into a bee,
because the venom gets into the blood stream which
spreads bee DNA throughout your entire body...
changing your genetic structure into a bee's.
Every year roughly 125 people in America are turned into bees this way."
Originally Posted byMrRubix[link]: "Do you basically bukkake-paint your walls every time you jack it?" Originally Posted byAll_That_Chaz[link]: "My pity-sex depreciates at a rate of 5% annually."
Comment