Log in

No account? Create an account
Lord Yupa

February 2010

Powered by LiveJournal.com

"There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possib

Found on jwz's journal.

I can't help but find this rather disturbing for some reason:


I'm not one who is easily bothered with this kind of thing, and I find it somewhat odd that it. . . annoys me, as much as it does. I have no issue with hunting in general, and in fact I have been out hunting more than once. I think PETA is generally moronic, and I find vegetarians who "do it for the animals" to be silly.

Maybe it's the senselessness to it. She can call it "art" if she wants, but I don't see anything artistic about it. It's all just too sensationalistic, like in the same way that Marilyn Manson says and does things just to get attention.

Oh, well.


Funnily enough, I disagree. I've seen this link pop up in all sorts of different places, and the incredible thing is that it's having precisely the effect that the newsletter says it should. People are being disturbed by the art, and it's forcing them to face up to the unstated law of our carnivorous nature, which is it's fine to kill animals so long as (a) they're not 'cute', and (b) we don't have to watch.

Hrm. . .

I don't know if I agree with that, though.

Whether or not an animal is cute or whether I have to watch isn't what bothers me. . .

I've hunted rabbits before. I've killed rabbits myself, and I've then cooked and eaten them. It didn't bother me much, despite the fact that it was 'cute', and I not only watched, but participated.

There's a difference between killing to eat, and killing for so called 'art', though. Maybe that's the reason I don't care for this 'art'.

Re: Hrm. . .

The continued existence of vegetarians proves that killing animals for meat is just as unnecessary as killing them for art.