"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d04cfa13-caf5-4408-bc9d-ccf8d54b99e2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 26, 10:46 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:13ul17psre2f671@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:13uko92f2dt7p29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>http://ga0.org/campaign/sfai?rk=jpaSdSS1ls6AE
>
> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! This is great!
>
> >>>> First, the "ar" weenies just /love/ it when other
> >>>> inflammatory and intentionally offensive "art" comes
> >>> False.
> >> No, true. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
>
> > Nothing about ARAs.
>
> "aras" are cultural/moral-relativist leftists. They
> applaud that kind of art, especially if it offends
> those they view as complacent bourgeoisie. But when
> their sensibilities are offended, then they become
> typically small-minded cultural fascists looking to
> impose censor****p.
>
There's no correlation between animal rights and "cultural/moral
relativism", and any correlation with "leftism" is neither here nor
there. I'm a member of a Yahoo Group called "Libertarians for Animal
Rights". There is nothing "cultaural/moral-relativist" or "leftist"
about being opposed to censor****p. Liberals and libertarians alike are
opposed to censor****p. It is nothing to do with a desire to offend the
sensibilities of the bourgeoisie, that is a silly distraction on your
part from the main issue. If the animals were killed for the purpose
of making the exhibit, then it is not a free-speech issue. Opposition
to child ****ography or snuff films is not based on sup****t of
"censor****p", it is based on concern about how the material in
question was made. There is room for argument about whether such
concerns should generalise to animals, but talking about "censor****p"
is a red herring, as any sensible person can see. Get a brain and
start making a decent argument.
I would like clarification on whether the animals were killed for the
purpose of making the exhibit, by the way.
----
It's videos of the "artist" bludgeoning animals to death.
> >> But why did you snip the other part, lesley? You know
> >> - the part that demonstrates you and the other "ar"
> >> weenies don't understand that the exhibit is a pro-"ar"
> >> statement?
>
> > A psycho seeking profit and fame via sensationalism.
>
> A pro-"ar" leftist. His message is pro-"ar", and you
> and the other "ar" weenies are too stupid to get it.
>
> I'm still laughing over your violation of your own
> pledge not to respond to me again.
>
Good to know you're getting a few laughs too. We've been having a lot
of good laughs at you lately. :)
> lesley the foot-rubbing whore:
> Flame on. liar. I've wasted too much time on you
> already.
>
> Rudy the scholar:
.... who critiques a maths paper by consulting an online dictionary. An
eminent scholar indeed. :)
|
