Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
PETA probably will.kleep wrote:I am gonna start murdering kittens for 9 months, and I'll document it all and make my own website: http://www.kittenslaughter.com
You think 20/20 will wanna interview me?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
So, nearly everything that has to do with reproduction is not only creating life, but also destroying it. Depressing.spurgistan wrote:If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
I don't know what that means, I was just trying to make an oblique reference to God killing a kitten when we make knuckle children.Neoteny wrote:So, nearly everything that has to do with reproduction is not only creating life, but also destroying it. Depressing.spurgistan wrote:If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
There are less messy ways to kill a kitten, nappy.Napoleon Ier wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
It is art! Absurdism is an accepted and legitimate form of art, but this project can actually be seen as an extension of 19th century Naturalism. While it's not a description of "life as it is" on account of not being literature, it fulfills the main postulate of Georg Brandes because it draws attention to problems in society. It can serve to open up a new perspective on a sensitive topic and force people to rethink their previously dogmatically held positions. She has my full support, a pity there's a medium-sized ocean between me and the exhibition.Yaledailynews wrote:"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
with a name like Shvarts, I wouldn't be concerned with the repercussions either.She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
What masturbation?Neoteny wrote:There are less messy ways to kill a kitten, nappy.Napoleon Ier wrote:
You know, perhaps she should consult a doctor given her excessive condition.The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
just about anything today can be categorized as "art".MeDeFe wrote:But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?MeDeFe wrote:But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?MeDeFe wrote:But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?MeDeFe wrote:Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.Napoleon Ier wrote: Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.
You dogmatically adhere to a position that others have dictated for you but cannot offer any compelling arguments that might convince a non-believer? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?MeDeFe wrote:Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.Napoleon Ier wrote: Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
No, I believe that humans rather than sentience have an intrinsic worth that needs to be recogniseed.MeDeFe wrote:You dogmatically adhere to a position that others have dictated for you but cannot offer any compelling arguments that might convince a non-believer? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?MeDeFe wrote: Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.