"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6385ddda-744b-455a-8ce0-d38de6a9e0c4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 27, 7:26 pm, "pearl" <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:d04cfa13-caf5-4408-bc9d-ccf8d54b99e2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On 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.
> >
>
> I think it's interesting how I keep making the mistake of ascribing
> some level of intellectual credibility to Ball. When he said it's a
> "pro-AR statement", I immedately think "Oh, so it must be something
> like 'Earthlings'."
"The notion of rational man, capable of thinking and living according
to reason, of controlling his passions and living according to scientific
patterns, of choosing freely between good and evil -- all this seems
opposed to the secret influences, the mobilizations of myths, the swift
appeals to the irrational, so characteristic of propaganda." - Jacques
Ellul
http://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/propaganda.html
"As to who pays me, that's not something you need to know." - JB
|
