[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually champ, the personal attacks started with you, here, when you opted to slam us all en-masse for not seeing your gloriously objective side of things.

Whoops, I said you guys were misinformed and needed to look past the bullshit petition and into slightly less biased sources so that you wouldn't say things like

Originally Posted by Chris

Chaining a scared, hungry, starving dog to a wall with no food or water to be gawked at in a museum

that have no grounding in reality. So looking past chain letters is a bad thing? I don't think you guys are all stupid, I 'slammed you all en-masse' for not giving any indication of looking at the bloody news articles, biographies, or anything else that wasn't sent around as a distorted chain message.

I felt the exact same way when I read the petition... so I looked further into it and that view is horribly jaded. Oh, well, though, apparently I would have been better off not going with anything but the popular viewpoint here at P&CE...

Again, you guys are assuming the worst (that he doesn't already help with animals, which is not grounded anywhere I can see, and that he's just a rich snob who sips champagne and left the dog out to die because he didn't want it to stain his couch) with no good reason for doing so. You've had your prejudices set by the goddamned sensationalist bullshit instead of looking at actual news articles and other (at least slightly credible) sources.

Originally Posted by Randy

I don't bother discussing anything with you, because you're overly opinionated, and you refuse to learn/listen when somebody has a viewpoint that contradicts your own.

There's a big difference between refusing to learn (which I don't do - seeing as how I'm the one quoting CREDIBLE sources here, that's a stretch) and not just instantly agreeing with you because you think I should. Apparently I'm not allowed to have any differing opinion at all about anything because then I'm an ignorant bastard who doesn't listen... way to go, double standards!

Originally Posted by xXxPriestessxXx

He wanted to make a point but he didn't follow throught with his responsibility IMO.

You guys, as well as countless other people making a stink about this, are all making points about how people should treat starving dogs, but I don't see a huge increase in stray adoptions... so you feed an animal for a while and you're responsible for every shit it takes ever again? Again, releasing the animal is just as much a part of the message because it's putting the responsibility for that stray dog, and thousands of others, in the hands of the people who responded to the event. (Oh, no, interpretation that doesn't request a petition to kill people for anally raping all 101 Dalmations! Run!)

Somehow the fact that none of you have caught onto the completely biased and ungrounded assumptions (rich artsy bastard who just did this for the money, doesn't want to actually take care of the dog because he thinks he's too good for that, whatever) is going completely unnoticed, and I don't see how... but I'm the bad guy for not believing every fucking thing I read in a chain letter or petition page, and actually responding to what I say doesn't count for as much as ignoring a great deal of what's going on and making completely unjustified assumptions.

Jeff

[xXxPriestessxXx]

You guys, as well as countless other people making a stink about this, are all making points about how people should treat starving dogs, but I don't see a huge increase in stray adoptions... so you feed an animal for a while and you're responsible for every shit it takes ever again? Again, releasing the animal is just as much a part of the message because it's putting the responsibility for that stray dog, and thousands of others, in the hands of the people who responded to the event. (Oh, no, interpretation that doesn't request a petition to kill people for anally raping all 101 Dalmations! Run!)

Somehow the fact that none of you have caught onto the completely biased and ungrounded assumptions (rich artsy bastard who just did this for the money, doesn't want to actually take care of the dog because he thinks he's too good for that, whatever) is going completely unnoticed, and I don't see how... but I'm the bad guy for not believing every fucking thing I read in a chain letter or petition page, and actually responding to what I say doesn't count for as much as ignoring a great deal of what's going on and making completely unjustified assumptions.

Jeff

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't I say that was my opinion?? And again IN MY OPINION I think if he is going to send out a message about taking care of animals he himself should practice it before he preaches. In my eyes his message is lost because he didn't follow through with it himself.

So that being said, what makes me wrong for believing this way? Nothing because this is an opinion not a fact. You are entitled to yours as well but just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean I am stupid, mindless, or misled. It just means that we don't agree. You keep preaching that people should respect your opinion so why can't you respect those that we all have as well??

[JBroll]

You missed an earlier part... you don't know that he doesn't care for animals. Just because he released this one doesn't mean he doesn't care for animals normally. What I had a problem with earlier was unfounded assumptions that only come about thanks to a biased view from those goddamned petitions that got sent around without actual facts behind them.

As far as opinions, you have every right to yours and I have every right to dislike it. I never called you guys stupid, the problem is 'misled' - which is fairly clear in other posts... and you'll find that I didn't call you misled, I just disagreed with your ideas of what his responsibilities should be and called you out on what I think is an ungrounded assumption.

Again, reading things that aren't there... you guys aren't even arguing things I actually SAID, yet I'M the one who doesn't listen to others. Right...

Jef

[xXxPriestessxXx]

If he is going to make an example of this dog then why not follow through and take care of it. Or at least find someone who will? My point was he seemed only to care about this particular dog for his own good. If you really want people to care more about animals make an example with your actions AFTER you make your statement. Honestly, nothing deserves to be displayed in the state of starvation and called "art". Instead of pointing out wrong why not point people in the direction of how to fix this. When the WSPA has to make sure that this exhibit is not repeated that means that this was in no way good for this animal.

As far as the reading into things, you read into the fact that we are all misinformed. You have no idea if any of us have done research beyond the posted references on this or not so it seems you yourself are also making assumptions. And disagreeing with my opinion is fine but assuming that I am "misinformed" on the subject is not.

[ohio_eric]

Jeff,

Are you assuming he does care for animals? Or are you stating this just to back up your argument?

The only facts in the case seem to be that this artist took a dog that looked emaciated and tied it up as part of some art exihibit. By most accounts from reputable sources the dog apparently didn't die and was fed at least enough to keep it alive for the duration of the exihibit.

Now here's what you seem to be missing Jeff. Why didn't this artist at least find this dog somewhere to live and get it back to a healthy state. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the artist made a few bucks on this exihibit and why he couldn't have spent a few for this animal is unimaginable to many on this forum, which is pretty heavy with animal lovers. If you're going to make money off of an animal you should at least treat it humanely whether it is for art or farm work or whatever. If that animal is filling your bank account then by all rights you should be humane to that animal.

No Jeff I'm not repeating what some animal rights activist told me to say or just blindly following ever petition or chain letter that comes along. I can think for myself.

Eric

[JBroll]

For the example... I don't know what exactly he was thinking, but if it's like what I think it is (as I said earlier, releasing the dog to give control of the situation to society - which, if anyone actually takes what he says seriously, is going to be better than what he could do on its own) he's making a good statement.

For assumptions... I'm talking about the original post, which contained the misleading petition in question and a reference to an article from a blog that backtracked after being misled once before, and "chained it to the wall for a week"... anyone informed would not have goofed like that.

Again... to quote myself in THE LAST POST,

Originally Posted by JBroll

You'll find that I didn't call you misled

...

Jeff

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

Jeff,

Are you assuming he does care for animals? Or are you stating this just to back up your argument?

Seeing as how the exhibit was displaying his concern with the lack of care for animals in his area, and if he really wanted actual controversy the dog would have died, I think it's much safer to come to the conclusion that he does care for animals.

Originally Posted by ohio_eric

The only facts in the case seem to be that this artist took a dog that looked emaciated and tied it up as part of some art exihibit. By most accounts from reputable sources the dog apparently didn't die and was fed at least enough to keep it alive for the duration of the exihibit.

Now here's what you seem to be missing Jeff. Why didn't this artist at least find this dog somewhere to live and get it back to a healthy state. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the artist made a few bucks on this exihibit and why he couldn't have spent a few for this animal is unimaginable to many on this forum, which is pretty heavy with animal lovers. If you're going to make money off of an animal you should at least treat it humanely whether it is for art or farm work or whatever. If that animal is filling your bank account then by all rights you should be humane to that animal.

No, I'm actually not missing there. Again, I can only speculate, but I did post why I thought he released the dog (maybe third... fourth... well, fifth time's a charm) - it could easily have been that he was placing responsibility for that animal in the hands of the people who so strongly objected to the exhibit, which grounds the point really well in my opinion. Also, it's very likely that he couldn't have taken care of the dog at all. Further, we don't know if he made money off of it, or, if he did, where it went, so AGAIN the posters in this thread ASSUME based on their original impression from LYING BASTARDS who make MISLEADING PETITIONS that the guy is a total bastard.

Jeff

[xXxPriestessxXx]

My problem there is that not all of us have gotten our information from here alone. This just happened to be a place where it was being discussed. So we aren't the only ones ASSUMING are we?? I for one am very capable of doing my homework and I have. I base my opinions on my OWN thoughts, and I read more than a few articles on the subject before doing so. I don't need said "lying bastards" to tell me that what this guy did wasn't right.

[shadowgenesis]

I do think it is unfortunate that this argument has gotten to the heated level that it has, because i feel that only builds a stronger resistance on both sides to really wanting to hear the other.


Noodles, I just wanted to say that i'm a bit disappointed in you for the way you commented. You've always come across to me as a reasonable person who doesn't let himself get carried away in honest discussion, but you just slammed Jeff in aggressive manner AND made a real ignorant stereotype about the artist - both actions which i had thought would be beneath you, man. You also came off as pretty self-righteous by having to cite all the things you've done for stray animals to make your argument.

Jeff, while i am for the most part in agreement with you - at least to the degree that i think people are making unfortunately uninformed assumptions - i think you could take further steps to be more articulate and less irate in what you write. I particularly would like to cite your references to biased media and talking about credible sources. I think, for discussions sake, you aren't making a clear enough point about what makes these sources credible or not, so that from a 3rd person perspective, you come across as one of those raving conspiracy theorist types that's always yelling about propaganda. While i myself may be very much of the same mindset, i think it's important to keep in mind how your communicating things because you're talking with people who don't all see the world through your eyes.


Once again, after all this discussion, i would like to try and re-emphasize that I believe all this discussion of Guillermo Vargas as a person is trivial. Whether or not he's an asshole or righteous - he STILL exposed a major double-standard in people's ethics and nobody is addressing that. You know what - if this guy is in fact just an asshole who doesn't really care about animals and he did just put that dog out on the street to die... It doesn't matter.

Guess what? There are assholes in the world. and plenty of selfish dirtbags. In all fairness, unless you plan on being a vigilante head-hunter and want to kill this guy, you're wasting your breath arguing about whether or not he's a douchebag. I think the more important factor in what Jeff has to offer in the conversation is that the media is making the whole situation about the short-comings of one man, rather than the short-comings of a society.

[TheMissing]

Originally Posted by noodles

If you want to help and animal, open a rescue, or volunteer with one. In America, this stupid art snob could have been arrested for cruelty to animals, since you are not permitted to tie up an animal without water and food. Hell, forget the food for a moment, since a few hours is not enough time in between feedings. He tied up the dog without water. I don't give a flying fuck if he watered the dog earlier in the day or not, because the dog was tied up without water for three fucking hours. How about I tie one of you guys up without food or water for three hours? How would you life that?

Fucking morons. I bet they all thought they were effecting positive change, when they were really just being a bunch of dickbag art snobs, walking around, thinking they were being animal crusaders. Morons.

Although I was at least a little relieved to read that the dog wasn't tied up until it died, as was blogged/reported, and that it escaped(at least that's what I read in a few different articles). The guy's a douche for sure, and I'm glad that dog managed to get the hell out of there.

I think this says it all - "If you want to help and animal, open a rescue, or volunteer with one."