Bullying censors get what they want again

Post Reply New Topic

Well when no one fed the dog the artist could have freaking fed it before it starved to death...

Powerful statement or not its no justification for starving a dog to death, I hope that artist starves to death.

"Acceptable censorship". Interesting words, dangerous concept. Let me guess, once the precedent of "acceptable censorship" is established, the definition of what make censorship "acceptable" drifts towards the things you don't believe that others do. Then we can't express our political views as banning them isn't censorship, it's "acceptable censorship".

Your argument is based on a fallacy anyway, who says this is banning cruelty? This is taking place in New York, I assume there are animal protection laws in place so I doubt there is any "cruelty" involved. It's just left-wing liberals jumping at yet another opportunity to shut down and silence things they don't agree with.

Protesting an exhibit with potential unethical treatment of animals due to concerns about that, is hardly the same thing as trying to shut down and silence speech out of simple disagreement.

Is it? Who is the arbiter about what is ethical? Some people think killing animals for food or clothing at all is unethical. Some people think that as long as the animal is killed as quickly and painless as possible it's ok. Some people who subscribe to barbaric religions insist the animal dies as horribly as possible. People protesting are basically saying that their opinion of what is ethical is right and all that matters and anyone who disagrees should be denied a voice. It's no different from any other form of censorship.

Don't get me wrong, if the protest actually stopped cruelty then I'd be all for it, but given it's been allowed in a civilised country like America I doubt that any cruelty has been stopped. It's just the latest instance where people have kow towed to screeching lefties. First it was statues, then this....what's next? What is the next thing we're not allowed to think? That's the road you're sleepwalking down.

Interseting and often dangerous concept which is why I choose those words. A terrorist act (arguing what is a terrorist act is the topic for another thread) is a political statement, criminalizing it is “acceptable censorship”. If you look at the title I created for this thread I am agreeing with you. In this case the musuem is displaying activities of others that possibly was criminal that occurred in 2003. So I do not see how displaying this would run afoul of the law.

I made this thread with the Confederate statue controversy in mind. A common argument made by those favoring removing those statues is that is it wrong to display it in a park but a museum is the proper place to display it. In that thread I stated that I thought the removal of Confederate statues was only beginning that the censors having been emboldened by succuss would go after the museums. Here we are. They succeeded in getting one of the most prestigious musuums in the world to cave. A massive and another defeat for free expression. I will say it again, this is only the beginning.

Yes, it actually does.

For Goddess's sake, this is the same exact argument I hear from dog-fighting apologists. "They fight all the time in nature, lol so what's the big deal?"

That's just not true of dogs. They would only fight rarely in nature. A lot of human understanding of dogs comes from some false premises developed due to scientific error. The scientists studied artificial groups of wolves, not the way they occur in nature, for years, and those theories persist to some extent.

However, people feed their pet lizards every day. In aggregate. It's exciting to watch them pounce on a cricket. If you want to consider me twisted for enjoying watching a lizard eat a cricket, I'll literally laugh in your face.

I don't. I wish I'd seen the exhibit, and fed the dog. I would have made it a better work of art, and knowing me, I'd have lectured the whole room full of people. Ask our mutual friends, MP.