# Guillermo Vargas is a titanic fucking asshole.



## Chris (May 4, 2008)

PalmAire: Petition to Prevent Death Spectacle

Are you fucking kidding me?



> Some of you may have received some devastating photos and a link to sign a petition to save another dog's life from the art world which seems to be racing thru the internet like wildfire, thankfully.
> 
> But if you haven't, you might want to read the contents this petition and consider adding your name to the list:
> 
> ...



He then goes on to say that it was a hoax:

The Extraordinary Pet Blog: Starving dog exhibit reported as a hoax



> It has now emerged, however, that artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas intended the work to be a stunt to show how a starving dog suddenly becomes the centre of attention when it is in a gallery, but not when it is on the street. The work was intended to expose people for what they really are - "hyprocritical sheep". He said that in order for the work to be valid, he and the gallery had to give the impression that the dog was genuinely starving to death and that it died.



Justified by this:



> uanita Bermúdez, director of the Codex Gallery, stated that she would not have allowed the dog to be mistreated, that it ate and drank regularly, and that it was allowed to escape back to the streets from where it was taken at the end of the exhibit. "It is conceptual art and a work that leaves a social message", she said.









Hi, the dog in those pictures is obviously ematiated. How about you TAKE CARE OF THE FUCKING THING INSTEAD OF LETTING IT "FREE"? 

Fucking people these days.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 4, 2008)

Straving dogs are apparently art in some douche bags' eyes.


----------



## DelfinoPie (May 4, 2008)

If that's "Art" then I don't get it.

So he proved his point about people not caring unless the dog is put on display, then what? He should have set an example to rectify the situation and take care of it instead of releasing it back into the world of not knowing where it's next meal is coming from.

How much money would he have earned from this? If he had a shred of decency he would donate any proceeds of this 'stunt' (and thats all it is, fuck calling it art) to an animal rehoming shelter. If not I'm sure he could've afforded to keep it.

I remember signing a petition against this, I guess that makes me a fool for falling for it but on the other hand I'm not the fool who has to hire 5 children to kidnap a dog for my 'work'.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (May 4, 2008)

is what this is.


----------



## Groff (May 4, 2008)

We should tie this fucker up and do the same thing to him, as example of a "Starving Artist"


----------



## JBroll (May 4, 2008)

Okay, a stray dog is emaciated... and who the fuck is surprised? They fed the fucking animal. It wound up better off after the exhibit because it was actually getting a meal in their hands.

If you're pissed about this, you've missed a very important message - nobody did anything for the dog at the exhibit, and yet everyone gets excited and involved when they think signing a misleading petition will make a difference in the world and they don't have to do something USEFUL like volunteering at an animal shelter or feeding stray animals and accomplishing ten times as much.

A South American stray not being fed well is not a surprise. What surprised me was that so many people were so easily - and happily - misled when they got to condemn someone without actually knowing what was going on and then remaining blissfully ignorant about a real and powerful statement. Nobody helped the dog, but after the fact everyone is doing their best to be all high-and-fucking-mighty and condemn someone. If you aren't feeding strays or helping out at animal shelters, you have no right to be pissed. If you haven't actually looked into what happened - no, they didn't kill the dog... yes, they fed the dog... et cetera - you're in no place to say anything.

How many of you could actually tell someone what happened without a gigantic bias? How many of you looked into the matter and saw that the dog survived, and was actually fed more than it would have gotten if it hadn't been shown at the exhibit? It's a starving dog in a third world country, for fuck's sake! They didn't emaciate the thing, they got it that way! People 'adopt' dogs, and they're wonderful, but some miserable fuckhead wants to mislead and drag people's names through the dirt and it's 'kidnapping'... ignore the fact that he fed the thing and treated it no worse than most American dog owners, he's a bastard!

This is like the shit that happened with the DDT ban - faulty 'science' claiming that animals were hurt by a pesticide, the science is shown to be a fraud, the mass hysteria doesn't give a fuck and keeps dragging it down, and its ban kills MILLIONS who got sick from mosquito bites that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for THE SAME FUCKING FRAUDSTERS AND ALARMISTS... this is positively fucking disgusting.

You all fail. Please, think before regurgitating what random-assed two-faced 'animal-rights activists' try to get you sign...

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 4, 2008)

No, Jeff, you fail, both at comprehending my point and, as usual, with your bullshit politically charged crusading. Have you ever been to a third world country? Did you go to the fucking art gallery there? Where was it, between the 4x4 disease infested hovel that houses the family of 12 and the outhouse? Do the people in those pictures look like starving third-world citizens to you?



> and that it was allowed to escape back to the streets from where it was taken at the end of the exhibit.



They took that dog, already emaciated, then chained it to a wall for a week to "make a statement", and when they were done with it, they discarded it back to the streets for it to continue starving to death. And you're basically applauding them for it.

If you think there's any merit whatsoever to what this "artist" did, you can flatly go fuck yourself. It's people like you who come up with sick shit like this in the first place. Please take your own advice before you presume to lecture us all, because last I checked you aren't exactly a beacon of selflessness, you hypocrite.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 4, 2008)

Poor Puppy. It is sad that this has to happen to any animal whether is is in an art exhibit in a third world country or a posh appartment. Nothing living deserves to be put on display in that condition.


----------



## Se7enMeister (May 5, 2008)

TheMissing said:


> We should tie this fucker up and do the same thing to him, as example of a "Starving Artist"


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, Jeff, you fail, both at comprehending my point and, as usual, with your bullshit politically charged crusading. Have you ever been to a third world country? Did you go to the fucking art gallery there? Where was it, between the 4x4 disease infested hovel that houses the family of 12 and the outhouse? Do the people in those pictures look like starving third-world citizens to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except for that part where they actually fed the thing. It's emaciated - implying that as a street dog it wasn't being fed. It was BETTER OFF with them. 

If the art had actually been taken as it was supposed to, the dog would have no problem surviving when released, and if he had kept it then they would have accused him of torturing it further just because he's a sick bastard.

And you mistook me by saying that I thought the people were starving. No, the stray dog is clearly starving, that's all I said, and you're overlooking that they helped it survive. It lived a week longer with them than it would have on the street. I don't need to magically float down there and see the exhibit to know that a starved dog doesn't live as long as a fed dog, and that that dog became a fed dog while in there care. You're still going with sensationalism over substance, as well as misreading me completely to keep your view up.

I think he should be applauded for showing off massive hypocrisy among the audience. He pulled it off quite well, and when actual facts start getting reported instead of the original "He starved a dog! He chained it to a wall! He raped it with a Nissan! He eats Jew babies!" that went around and that completely ruined everyone's view of the event you'll all see it much better.

He treated the dog better in his care than it would have been on the streets. Do you bash American dog owners for leashing their pets? No. The dog was emaciated when they got it, so obviously it was better-fed with him, and you're bashing that? He kept it in his care longer than many of the organizations that are trying to bash him would have. 

Another organization 'releases' an animal when they can't care for it, but he 'lets it escape'... here, leave your hat and coat on that Orwell statue, nobody knows what he was blathering on about anyway.

So now, rather than having a changed view of how to help strays, you're already assuming the dog was going to die on the streets. Rightly so, it seems, seeing as how a very good display of public stupidity was seen as blatant mistreatment with no real purpose instead of a call for action. He was calling attention to strays so that they would be treated better! 

He treated the dog well, so that argument is out; his point, if actually taken, would save that dog on the streets, so the fact that nobody listens to him is clearly more harmful to the dog than him releasing it.

So, back to the personal attacks, where's my 'political charge' here? Am I now an anti-animal bastard who masturbates by anally raping kittens? And as for my 'hypocrisy'... as one of the guys who takes care of strays in his area, one who tries to convince other people to do so, and one who looks for the actual message in this display rather than being misled by PETA and related fanatics, I think you're making an unqualified statement about how I'm a sick bastard and a hypocrite. You don't see me tutoring people for free just because they ask, helping out at charities, feeding animals that come by my house when I'm outside, so... it never happens and I'm a selfish prick? Now you're just attacking me personally and not even knowing who you're trying to slam.

You fail at comprehending my point; I do understand yours, and I just think it's misinformed thanks to hypocritical crusaders who would rather judge that guy over there than do more themselves. Much of what was reported about this, including anything that in my opinion would qualify him as a dog-killing sociopath, has been false, and now you're trying to invalidate his point with half-truths and personal attacks on him and anyone who doesn't see exactly as you do. 

So basically you're trying to accuse me of saying things I didn't say, attacking the guy for feeding and sheltering the dog and then attacking him again for letting it go, and telling me to go fuck myself and calling me a hypocrite based on false premises.

And I fail.

Jeff


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 5, 2008)

EVEN IF the dog was better off with this guy for a week (which I really don't think he was. If he's cruel enough to do this to an animal then I doubt he's going to feed the dog as much as he had said), the guy could have brought him back up to health, or done SOMETHING to redeem himself by keeping the dog. But instead, he let the dog go to starve again. If he wanted to prove this message to the people, he could have done something else rather than to publicly display himself as someone that will starve another living thing for 'art'. 

This was not right in any way.


----------



## shadowgenesis (May 5, 2008)

I think the reality is that everybody made this guy into a demon and a monster, and when he pulled a fast one and turned the tables around, the response is to rationalize that he's STILL an asshole and divert the attention from our own wrongs.

dude. seriously. How are you gonna judge the guy for letting it go? The whole point of this stunt was to draw attention to the misgivings of all the people who acted like they give a damn when signing a petition is all the effort they had to put in. I don't necessarily condone what he did (i don't know the details or trust the media to present them to me accurately), but i don't think that's what's really relevant.
Forget the fucking guy who was behind all this - people are only grilling him to divert from the fact that his point was still completely truthful and revealed something that we as an affluent nation would rather keep hidden.

fuck that. It's just a bunch of self-righteous bull from a collective people who can't admit they're not perfect. If you'd rather make the issue about one man's actions rather than the lack of action by the rest of the world, then I think you fail miserably.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

OrsusMetal said:


> EVEN IF the dog was better off with this guy for a week (which I really don't think he was. If he's cruel enough to do this to an animal then I doubt he's going to feed the dog as much as he had said), the guy could have brought him back up to health, or done SOMETHING to redeem himself by keeping the dog. But instead, he let the dog go to starve again. If he wanted to prove this message to the people, he could have done something else rather than to publicly display himself as someone that will starve another living thing for 'art'.
> 
> This was not right in any way.



Okay, you're assuming cruelty to prove cruelty. "If he's cruel enough to do this to an animal"... tying it up is no worse than what most well-off dog lovers do, and people put their dogs in kennels when they go out of town and the dog gets even less room to move around (for days straight!) than this dog did for the time it was chained up.

"Done something to redeem himself"... I don't know, like make a statement about how people are completely indifferent about the world around them until they can get some sense of outrage from a faraway place they can blame without consequences? If he kept the dog you'd be slamming him for continuing to be cruel to it.

So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Great. And because of a bunch of misleading propaganda and sensationalist bullshit. So rather than campaigning to help feed strays (if nothing else then so he won't have any more work down that line), we're just going to attack the guy who's showing our problems rather than fixing them.

And again, I'll be the bad guy for taking a step back and looking at all the sources in addition to the ones by the groups that would bomb an orphanage to save a kitten. Oops, I'm sorry, I should have said 'carrying on with my bullshit politically charged crusading', like he 'let the dog escape' instead of 'releasing' it and 'fed a stray in a week more than it would have gotten in a month on the streets' instead of 'starving it brutally to satisfy his own sick, twisted desires for attention and masochism'... because I'm an asshole if I don't use the kind of double-speak that the White House creams over to make everyone but the holier-than-thou liars look like Satan.

If it wasn't for shit like this, I'd be spending time with the animal-rights groups and shelters, but thanks to people who would rather sign petitions than face their own condemnation I can't trust a bloody one of them.

Jeff


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 5, 2008)

I personally think he pulled this 'I did it to send a message' shit out of his ass just to save his own image.

Yes, I understand the message that he's trying to send now. But boo-fucking-hoo. He still tortured a living thing that didn't deserve it. And while the message sent is an eye-opener, there are still other ways this guy could have sent it.

Just because a bunch of people signed a petition and felt that's all they had to do, doesn't mean that everyone that did sign it is just going to sit back and hope it gets better. It raises awareness of the situation. And petitions help people to get on the boat to do something. 

He can say whatever he wants, you can say whatever you want. This kind of act isn't making the world a better place. It will only make others feel it's alright to send their own fucked up messages. And you fail for agreeing that this kind of thing is okay. 



JBroll said:


> "Done something to redeem himself"... I don't know, like make a statement about how people are completely indifferent about the world around them until they can get some sense of outrage from a faraway place they can blame without consequences? If he kept the dog you'd be slamming him for continuing to be cruel to it.


 
Done something to redeem himself by, you know, keeping the dog and ACTUALLY feeding it, taking care of it, bringing it to health, just like I said. If he wanted to send this kind of message, he should have set the example and gave the dog a better life, rather than to send it back to the streets.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Save his own image? The guy also had an exhibit where he burned rocks of crack cocaine and played the Sandinista anthem backwards. 

You're assuming cruelty, thanks to a misleading first impression, and not owning up to it. You're assuming that he tortured it, and not explaining how. All you have is first impressions and gut reactions. And while you defend the petitions, you neglect that things like this also get people on the boat to do something - the petition is just a feel-good trinket with no real legal power. 

You'd rather keep slamming the guy, though, just because it's easier to rest on those assumptions, and making a slippery-slope argument that's just absurd - "Well, that guy chained a dog up and made people think it was starving to death... that makes anything I can do all right!" - anyone who would go with that logic is fucked already.

I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying it's a wake-up call and a very important event. I honestly think this will be read about in textbooks years down the road, so long as people actually get the real message and not the lies spread by people who had no objection to make unqualified statements and sticking to them to save face. The director of the show said that the dog was unchained for all but the three hours of the exhibit, and he's torturing it. He feeds it, but he's a bastard for not adopting a pet he (as an artist who obviously goes around) wouldn't be able to take care of anyway.

You fail for making unsubstantiated claims and holding inconsistent standards. How many bloody times does one goddamned faulty assumption have to be contested before people stop believing everything they read in chain letters?

Jeff


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Save his own image? The guy also had an exhibit where he burned rocks of crack cocaine and played the Sandinista anthem backwards.
> 
> You're assuming cruelty, thanks to a misleading first impression, and not owning up to it. You're assuming that he tortured it, and not explaining how. All you have is first impressions and gut reactions. And while you defend the petitions, you neglect that things like this also get people on the boat to do something - the petition is just a feel-good trinket with no real legal power.
> 
> ...


 
We live in a society where somethings are just not right to do. This was one of them, no matter what the message was or how he went about doing it. You justifying his actions in this matter is completely ridiculous. You admit you don't think it's okay, but you defend him.

You can say what you'd like about him. Praise him for sending this so called message all you'd like. But it still will not change my, or many others opinion of him.

I have not made any sort of claim in my statements of disgust with him. I have only put across my point that his message was sent in the wrong way and that what he did was cruel, no matter how little cruelty you say was involved.


----------



## DelfinoPie (May 5, 2008)

OrsusMetal said:


> Done something to redeem himself by, you know, keeping the dog and ACTUALLY feeding it, taking care of it, bringing it to health, just like I said. If he wanted to send this kind of message, he should have set the example and gave the dog a better life, rather than to send it back to the streets.





Chris said:


> They took that dog, already emaciated, then chained it to a wall for a week to "make a statement", and when they were done with it, they discarded it back to the streets for it to continue starving to death.



I agree with both of these points because if his overall aim was to show the hypocrisy of people then as a by-product of that wouldn't he be implying that there be some kind of change as a result of their realisation? He stated that he wanted people to have a better attitude towards strays, to feed them and to generally stop ignoring them or mistreating them and tackle the problem head on. IMO I think the best way to make his point resound a little clearer would have been to adopt the dog or attempt to rehome the dog with someone who could care for it and give it a better quality of life permanently.



shadowgenesis said:


> I think the reality is that everybody made this guy into a demon and a monster, and when he pulled a fast one and turned the tables around, the response is to rationalize that he's STILL an asshole and divert the attention from our own wrongs.



I think a lot of people will have bad feelings towards him because he made them feel like fools because they fell into the category of people he was trying to provoke with his 'art'. Others will still see it as the cruel exploitation of an obviously unhealthy animal with no long-term consideration for what will become of it after he has finished using it for _his_ purpose. Either way I think he could have got his point across through a different method.



OrsusMetal said:


> Just because a bunch of people signed a petition and felt that's all they had to do, doesn't mean that everyone that did sign it is just going to sit back and hope it gets better. It raises awareness of the situation. And petitions help people to get on the boat to do something.



On the same note, there shouldn't be the assumption that the people who signed the petition don't donate to animal related charities or give up their time to help out at animal shelters and just sit back feeling fulfilled and that they have done their bit. I expect there are a a number of people who signed the petition and do one or both of the aforementioned things.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

You still aren't saying WHAT HE DID WRONG explicitly. According to the people who were THERE, he fed the thing and it was only tied up for a matter of hours. Any dog owner has done the same.

Also, this has clearly gotten a reaction out of you and many others. What I'm trying to do is turn the force of this reaction in the direction it SHOULD go - improving the world, not just attacking some guy based on faulty information. As cynical and pessimistic as I'm known to be, this can be a very useful move if people actually care to find out what actually happen.

As far as 'not saying it's okay'... you have me wrong. I went FURTHER than saying I think it's okay, I think it can be very effective at changing things and displaying how fucked up people can be when it comes to separating how people vote and speak and how they act. You don't seem to be reading my posts very well if you've missed that - "a wake-up call and a very important event" tends to be a step up from "okay", and if you'd like I'll rephrase it as "I don't think it's JUST okay, I think it's a wake-up call and a very important event" just to get rid of whatever ambiguity you may have lost before.

Again... what is cruel here? I'm discussing this with a LOT of people (college towns, that whole sort of thing) and answers to that seem to be lacking...

EDIT: Because people LOVE misquotations and already-refuted claims, here's a Wikipedia article that links some better-informed sources and articles from people actually involved.

Guillermo Vargas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chained up for a week, starved to death, tortured in a Satanic empowerment ritual... not the case. This is why people fail.

END EDIT

Jeff


----------



## OrsusMetal (May 5, 2008)

Everything cruel about the situation has been posted already. If you re-read what I have said you will see that. You can go ahead and re-read what all the others have posted before me as well.

No matter how light hearted you take this, it's still wrong, and almost everyone will agree with me here. Just like I said before, it may raise awareness, but it's being raised in a fucked up way. And just like I said before, he could have done it in a better way. Even you (no matter how pessimistic you are) have to agree on that. 

My part in this discussion maynot be done, but I'm done with this discussion with you. I don't understand why anyone would defend such an act.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Okay, but a lot of the 'cruel' things were misconstrued or outright false. Again, the dog was fed and only tied for three hours (fucking DOG SHOWS are more straining than that) before released.

You're forgetting that people DO this in the 'better' ways and get MUCH less attention. People are always holding demonstrations and trying to get people interested in helping animals... and it isn't working quickly enough. This guy went steps further, and got blasted for it by lies and gullibility. He didn't hurt the dog, but you would all rather believe inaccurate and often outright false reports than look at what actually happened.

So we've gone from attacking me to citing atrocities that didn't happen to taking our ball and going home. Lovely. With sheep like this, who needs wolves?

Jeff


----------



## dpm (May 5, 2008)

I'm with Jeff on this. There's nothing here I can see as particularly cruel, given the dog was fed and simply leashed for 3 hours. As Jeff said, dog shows are far more repressive to canine freedom than that, as are kennels used by holidaying dog owners. I'd also argue that if he were to attempt to keep the dog any veterinarian would likely recommend euthanasia given the animal's health and probable parasite infestations.


----------



## Groff (May 5, 2008)

Well, the humane society and the WSPA investigated it and found that the animal was treated properly. 

I guess it just got blown out of proportion. I too was misled.
(I'm not saying it's right, but it made me re-think the whole situation.)


----------



## noodles (May 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

No water for three hours? I call that having shit to do... but I'm sure a STRAY BLOODY DOG IN SOUTH BLOODY AMERICA is really going to be able to complain. Again, the guy fed a dog that wasn't going to get fed, no merit to that? Let's back up for a moment and look at a bit more than the gut reaction that seems to be so much more common than actual thinking... without actually harming the dog, this guy makes a serious statement about double-standards and general stupidity and gets a hell of a lot of attention for it. What's more useful, relying on faulty information and demonizing the guy, or taking a valid point and running with it?

Jeff


----------



## noodles (May 5, 2008)

Jeff, stop being an opinionated dickbag for just long enough to realize that these morons want to _look_ like they are doing something, rather than actually doing something. An animal lover would have taken this dog into their home after the exhibition. A rich snobby art fag throws it back out onto the street, since the thing might pee on his ten thousand dollar couch. Stop reading your Free Market for Dummies book and join the rest of the real world.

Dave


----------



## Randy (May 5, 2008)

^


BEST.POST.EVER


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 5, 2008)

Randy said:


> ^
> 
> 
> BEST.POST.EVER



+1


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Yeah, this kinda has nothing to do with the free market or me not looking at what actually happened, and calling me an opinionated dickbag is a personal insult and a bit of a double-standard - I have a different opinion, sue me. If having opinions makes people dickbags, you get to wear that nametag just as proudly as I do.

Artists have this odd tendency to not be home for extended periods of time, which makes pet ownership a bit of a problem for owner and pet alike. You might also notice that I posted above a comment on how, by not keeping the dog, he's placing responsibility on the same people he showed to be neglecting the animal to actually make the difference. 

In any case, while I suppose I could bitch about what I think the artist should have done (and comment that you should 'put down the Complete Idiot's Guide to Whiny Liberalism and Double Standards' since when things become emotional knee-jerk responses the personal attacks fly like fleas around a fed dog don't), I'm going to actually try to look for some good that could come of this.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Randy said:


> ^
> 
> 
> BEST.POST.EVER



So rather than an actual discussion you'd like to see personal attacks? So much for that whole 'not starting flame wars' thing that makes this part of the board occasionally worth coming to...

Jeff


----------



## Leon (May 5, 2008)

noodles said:


> An animal lover would have taken this dog into their home after the exhibition. A rich snobby art fag throws it back out onto the street, since the thing might pee on his ten thousand dollar couch.



my best friend ran an animal rescue for about 6 years, and saved a bit over 700 animals from being euthanized. she didn't do it for fame or glory like some of these artsy types ('some', not all artsy people are like this, as this same friend of mine has a degree in art history) who tend to try the shock-factor to prove a point, or make an example. and that, really, is the easy way out. "oh, i changed the world, and all it took was a week of my time. hurray for me! look at me! i'm so great."

if you want to change the world, don't sit there and point out all the bad things. most of us already know they are there. just go fucking change it.


----------



## Randy (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So rather than an actual discussion you'd like to see personal attacks? So much for that whole 'not starting flame wars' thing that makes this part of the board occasionally worth coming to...
> 
> Jeff



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. Dave totally called you on your indignant behavior, and I commend him for doing so.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So rather than an actual discussion you'd like to see personal attacks? So much for that whole 'not starting flame wars' thing that makes this part of the board occasionally worth coming to...
> 
> Jeff



Not personal attacks but he made a valid point about not taking care of the dog. Yes this guy may be away from home for long periods of time but why not try to help find a home for the dog? He wanted to make a point but he didn't follow throught with his responsibility IMO. Making an example is no good if he doesn't follow through with it himself.


----------



## noodles (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Yeah, this kinda has nothing to do with the free market or me not looking at what actually happened, and calling me an opinionated dickbag is a personal insult and a bit of a double-standard - I have a different opinion, sue me. If having opinions makes people dickbags, you get to wear that nametag just as proudly as I do.



No, being insensitive and standing up for other dickbags makes you a dickbag. Come on, man, he tied up a fucking starving stray dog for the purpose of putting it on display. You want to make a statement? Gather up forty starving stray dogs, give them food and water, and then invite all your artsy fartsy friends over for an adoption day.

I've fostered kittens. I've taken in strays off the street. My fiance often runs a 60 mile leg of the adoption transports that come through our way. We're members of the American Humane society. Don't lecture me on what it means to help animals, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The dude wanted to feel good about himself, so he did the minimum amount required to accomplish that. He didn't sacrifice anything to make himself look better, and neither did any of his buddies. I wonder what Champagne they were sipping while stoically contemplating the plight of the noble canine? Fuckers.


----------



## MetalJordan (May 5, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, Jeff, you fail, both at comprehending my point and, as usual, with your bullshit politically charged crusading. Have you ever been to a third world country? Did you go to the fucking art gallery there? Where was it, between the 4x4 disease infested hovel that houses the family of 12 and the outhouse? Do the people in those pictures look like starving third-world citizens to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DDDorian (May 5, 2008)

I can see both sides of the argument. In some ways I equate it to the imprisonment of exotic animals in zoos; if you don't allow people to actually witness and experience an endangered species they'll feel far less motivated to preserve them. The main difference is, of course, is that while they might not be free, most animals in zoos are healthy and well looked after. Whatever statement this guy was trying to make (or tried to retroactively apply to his stunt) would be infinitely more credible had he not released the dog to die in an alleyway somewhere. He can hang all the lampshades he likes, when it comes down to it he's just as neglectful as "everyone" else.


----------



## BigM555 (May 5, 2008)

I agree this is far from a "noble" act.

If he really wanted to make a statement (and that's something I'm assuming he didn't just pull out of his arse for damage control) he perhaps should have considered how his own message would be diluted by his own actions.

This is kind of like proving your patriotism by burning the flag. Ain't nobody gonna get your message.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 5, 2008)

noodles said:


> No, being insensitive and standing up for other dickbags makes you a dickbag. Come on, man, he tied up a fucking starving stray dog for the purpose of putting it on display. You want to make a statement? Gather up forty starving stray dogs, give them food and water, and then invite all your artsy fartsy friends over for an adoption day.





Simply keeping the animal alive long enough for you to get your fat paycheck does not qualify as humane treatment by any measure.


----------



## Chris (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So rather than an actual discussion you'd like to see personal attacks? So much for that whole 'not starting flame wars' thing that makes this part of the board occasionally worth coming to...
> 
> Jeff



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.



JBroll said:


> You all fail. Please, think before regurgitating what random-assed two-faced 'animal-rights activists' try to get you sign...
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 5, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Save his own image? The guy also had an exhibit where he burned rocks of crack cocaine and played the Sandinista anthem backwards.
> 
> You're assuming cruelty, thanks to a misleading first impression, and not owning up to it. You're assuming that he tortured it, and not explaining how.



Chaining a scared, hungry, starving dog to a wall with no food or water to be gawked at in a museum isn't cruel to you? Would you mind if I did that to your dog sometime?


----------



## noodles (May 5, 2008)

Chris said:


> Chaining a scared, hungry, starving dog to a wall with no food or water to be gawked at in a museum isn't cruel to you? Would you mind if I did that to you sometime?



Fixed.


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 



Chris said:


> 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.



Randy said:


> 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!



xXxPriestessxXx said:


> 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 (May 5, 2008)

> 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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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, 



JBroll said:


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



...

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (May 5, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> 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.



ohio_eric said:


> 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 (May 5, 2008)

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 (May 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Groff (May 5, 2008)

noodles said:


> 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."


----------



## Mastodon (May 6, 2008)

Meh, I think it's interstesting no matter how you look at it. It's interesting to ponder over, but it's nothing to get riled up about.


----------



## noodles (May 6, 2008)

shadowgenesis said:


> INoodles, 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.





JBroll said:


> You all fail. Please, think before regurgitating what random-assed two-faced 'animal-rights activists' try to get you sign...
> 
> Jeff



Maybe that makes it a bit clearer to you. Since Jeff made it a point of coming in and insulting everyone, I called a spade a spade. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to come off as self-righteous by listing a bunch of volunteer work I've done. I've tried to outline the differences between productive ways to volunteer, and unproductive ways. Kind of like the difference between the American Human Society and PETA.

Frankly, I don't appreciate you trying to lecture me or accuse me of being self-righteous. I was not the one who set the tone for this thread, and when someone simply dismisses a cause that is near and dear to my heart as the regurgitation of two-faced animal activist, I get a bit perturbed. Royally pissed off would be a better way of putting it.



> 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.



So, are you just going to be taking over mod duties for the rest of the day?


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2008)

shadowgenesis said:


> 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.



My point has always been the following: Chaining a scared, starving dog to a wall to be gawked at in a fucking museum/art gallery with no food or water makes you an asshole. 

It's not a major double standard in anything. It's a dickbag being controversial for the sake of being controversial, and going about it the wrong way.



> 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.



It's a discussion forum full of my friends. I'm not wasting my time or my breath, I'm discussing something with people I know. I don't care what the media, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about the guy. I think he's a fucking asshole. Jeff assumes that any post relating to anything is a private crusade to garner attention and change the world. In reality, I'm just expressing my opinion that this guy sucks, and should be clubbed in the balls.


----------



## JBroll (May 6, 2008)

There's a big difference between 'dickbag' and 'there's more to the story than the petition wants you to think' but if I was out of line with 'you fail' (which I, being the total nerd I am, don't take as an insult myself) then I apologize.

As far as my political agenda and how everything is a private crusade... I think the guy is doing something new and potentially very effective, therefore I'm Karl Rove? I'm not following why you had to bring in my 'politically charged crusading' or why Dave decided to make some reference to a nonexistent book on the free market.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (May 6, 2008)

Here's the way I see it: 

Activism starts at home. If you think it's wrong that people ignore dogs starving on the street, then what sort of moral authority do you have to preach to others about how no one is doing anything about the plight of these animals unless you do something yourself? Now, of course you can say that "but he did do something! He brought this dog inside and gave it just enough food and water to survive!" To which I'd counter, one, that he didn't give it enough of either to _not look like it wasn't still starving to death,_ and two, at the end of the exhibit period, he "allowed the dog to escape." Not fed it and nursed it back into help and put it in the hands of a foster family, but let it go back to the same evils that his exhibit was originally intended to fight. 

So, effectively he's saying, "it's wrong and we're bad people because we ignore starving dogs. To prove this point, I'll take a starving dog off the streets, feed it just enough so it won't die, and then put it back out on the streets when I'm done so that it can go back to being a starving dog that everyone can ignore, and enjoy the fat royalty check I got from this exhibition." 

I'd be less inclined to call him a self-serving jackass if he took care of the dog at the end of the period, but instead he just perpetrated the very same evil he was allledgedly fighting. Fuck him.


----------



## noodles (May 6, 2008)

Ask yourself if it would be any different if you saw this chained inside of the museum:







It's not any different. It is still a living thing, starving to death.


----------



## shadowgenesis (May 6, 2008)

noodles said:


> I'm not trying to come off as self-righteous by listing a bunch of volunteer work I've done.



i don't think anyone *tries* to appear self righteous.  I was just saying that's how it could easily perceived. I was just trying to be objective.



noodles said:


> So, are you just going to be taking over mod duties for the rest of the day?





i was just trying to offer some constructive commentary to turn the conversation away from just being people throwing insults at eachother. It had nothing to do with forum rules and regulations. It's just what i had to offer to the discussion.




As for the argument that there are better ways of accomplishing what he wanted to do, I would be hard-pressed to believe that. There are always people out there doing their part in public service to try and get the public to notice the kinds of problems we have in the world, whether it be the AIDS epidemic or the suffering of stray animals on the streets. There is merit in that, and I would never say that traditional methods aren't worth trying, but I think the amount of public attention this incident has gotten alone stands to show it's effectiveness.

For me the question is whether or not the ends justified the means. I guess everybody else doesn't think so, but I'm not really sure how I feel about it.


----------



## Leon (May 6, 2008)

as it turns out, i went to Chipotle today for lunch. as i sat there, i started reading the text on the cup. it was one of those "people we're proud to know" things. anyways, it was all about this guy Bernie Rollin. apparently, he was a front-runner for the ethical treatment of animals, and one of his seminars inspired the Chipotle founder (who started his biz in Colorado) to only buy meat from family farms that treat their animals well, feeding them a vegetarian diet with no hormones or antibiotics.

read about him for yourself:
Colorado State University - News & Information


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> There's a big difference between 'dickbag' and 'there's more to the story than the petition wants you to think' but if I was out of line with 'you fail' (which I, being the total nerd I am, don't take as an insult myself) then I apologize.
> 
> As far as my political agenda and how everything is a private crusade... I think the guy is doing something new and potentially very effective, therefore I'm Karl Rove? I'm not following why you had to bring in my 'politically charged crusading' or why Dave decided to make some reference to a nonexistent book on the free market.
> 
> Jeff




Because you're being a dickbag, dickbag.


----------



## JBroll (May 6, 2008)

So THAT's why I post in P&CE once in a blue moon in hopes that maybe I can have an opinion and not be the bastard child of Dick Cheney and Pol Pot...

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So THAT's why I post in P&CE once in a blue moon in hopes that maybe I can have an opinion and not be the bastard child of Dick Cheney and Pol Pot...
> 
> Jeff



Yep. So you can grandstand and act all persecuted like a 12 year old when you get called out for being a pompous ass. That's correct.

Edit: Dickbag.


----------



## JBroll (May 6, 2008)

So I can grandstand? I'm not persecuted, I'm annoyed, and as far as grandstanding I'm hardly the only one who's trying to act high-and-mighty about anything. I'm the one who didn't check his facts, and who quoted clearly biased sources rather than spending five seconds on Google. I don't know where you're getting 'persecution complex', I'm really just getting more disappointed at how some people who I thought were at least mostly rational (even if a little too closed to dirty communists) are resorting to 'dickbag' and not actually addressing things I said.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So I can grandstand? I'm not persecuted, I'm annoyed, and as far as grandstanding I'm hardly the only one who's trying to act high-and-mighty about anything. I'm the one who didn't check his facts, and who quoted clearly biased sources rather than spending five seconds on Google. I don't know where you're getting 'persecution complex', I'm really just getting more disappointed at how some people who I thought were at least mostly rational (even if a little too closed to dirty communists) are resorting to 'dickbag' and not actually addressing things I said.
> 
> Jeff



Blah de fucking blah dude. I've already debated with you enough in this thread. I posted both sides of it. The scam, and the revealing of the scam, in my first post. If that's not checking the facts, I'm sorry but I'm not going to cite 19 different sources in every post I make in here so that you and your inferiority complex will feel better about yourself without namedropping political icons in every reference that you make in order to try and sound like you know what you're talking about. 

I addressed you enough, and your whining isn't worth me bothering to quote you time and time again to show you where you're wrong. It gets nowhere, because you're hard-headed and refuse to believe that anyone's viewpoint other than your own on the issue is correct, and furthermore that anyone who doesn't share your view "fails".

I really don't give a fuck what you think at this point, and judging by the rest of this thread, nobody else does either.


----------



## JBroll (May 6, 2008)

And yet again you think that I said people 'failed' because they disagreed and not because they had biased bullshit sources and couldn't get their facts straight. Chained up for a week... oh, but really it was just a few hours... yeah, deliberately misleading, but still you're a dickbag because you say I'm a dickbag. Now you're just attacking things that aren't there (namedropping? inferiority complex?)... maybe if you actually had any idea what I think (and not just clawing at strawmen and making assumptions that made no sense) you'd be getting somewhere, but while other people are actually trying to post meaningfully you just post idiotic insults that wouldn't even win a six-year-old an argument. 

If you disagreed with me on things I actually said and believed it would be one thing, but I don't see too many indications that you are doing that anytime soon.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> And yet again you think that I said people 'failed' because they disagreed and not because they had biased bullshit sources and couldn't get their facts straight. Chained up for a week... oh, but really it was just a few hours... yeah, deliberately misleading, but still you're a dickbag because you say I'm a dickbag. Now you're just attacking things that aren't there (namedropping? inferiority complex?)... maybe if you actually had any idea what I think (and not just clawing at strawmen and making assumptions that made no sense) you'd be getting somewhere, but while other people are actually trying to post meaningfully you just post idiotic insults that wouldn't even win a six-year-old an argument.
> 
> If you disagreed with me on things I actually said and believed it would be one thing, but I don't see too many indications that you are doing that anytime soon.
> 
> Jeff



Sigh.

Indication #1: here

Indication #2: here

Indication #3: here

Indication #4: here

You can't win this argument by sticking your hands in your ears and screaming LA LA LA YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING like a five year old. I'm resorting to calling you a dickbag because despite my already shitting all over your opinions in this thread, you still don't get the point. You can conveniently ignore the entire rest of this thread and say bullshit like:



JBTroll said:


> but while other people are actually trying to post meaningfully you just post idiotic insults that wouldn't even win a six-year-old an argument.



After several pages of me trying to help you understand that *CHAINING A FRIGHTENED, STARVING DOG TO A WALL IN AN ART GALLERY TO BE GAWKED AT IS A FUCKING DICK THING TO DO REGARDLESS OF WHAT MESSAGE YOU ARE TRYING TO SEND.*

Now, let's play the "Memorable Jeff quotes in this thread that show him as a full of shit blowhard with no leg to stand on who makes shit up to solidify the ground he stands on" game!

*Look, here's you being wrong, because nobody "believed everything they read in a chain letter" because I POSTED BOTH OF THEM IN THE VERY FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD.*


> 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.



*Here's you being wrong again, because CHAINING A DOG TO A WALL IN AN ART GALLERY IS CRUEL.*



> You're assuming cruelty, thanks to a misleading first impression, and not owning up to it.



*And again, 15 posts in. Did I mention that it's all in the first post? That nobody "fell for the chain letter" BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH POSTED AT THE ONSET OF THIS DEBATE. I guess I should mention it again because you keep going to that argument and you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. *



> You fail for making unsubstantiated claims and holding inconsistent standards. How many bloody times does one goddamned faulty assumption have to be contested before people stop believing everything they read in chain letters?



*Here you are apparently having a hard time reading what I type. See the whole "chaining dog to wall" thing, referenced above.*



> You still aren't saying WHAT HE DID WRONG explicitly



*Now, here's the part where you leave out that he just let it go again. I mean, the dog served it's purpose, being terrified and chained to a wall so that people can stare at his "art", right? Fuck it, why adopt it, or send it to a humane society, or try to find it an owner, when you can just DISCARD IT BACK TO THE STREET.*



> You're forgetting that people DO this in the 'better' ways and get MUCH less attention. People are always holding demonstrations and trying to get people interested in helping animals... and it isn't working quickly enough. This guy went steps further, and got blasted for it by lies and gullibility. He didn't hurt the dog, but you would all rather believe inaccurate and often outright false reports than look at what actually happened.



*Here's you trying to reverse things. The "things that didn't happen" include EVERYONE HERE FALLING FOR THE CHAIN LETTER, which you seem to keep bringing up. The correct version of the following quote would be "So Jeff has gone from attacking everyone else.."*



> So we've gone from attacking me to citing atrocities that didn't happen to taking our ball and going home



*Here's you not seeing the point again. I'm "demonizing" him because I think he's a fucking asshole. If I took your dog and chained it to a wall with no food or water for any length of time, and then added the stress on top of it of letting onlookers come in and stare at it when it had no place to hide, nowhere to run and no recourse but to sit and be afraid, the average person would be pissed off. This isn't some domestic dog. This is a stray animal that's already fucked mentally enough as it is. The extra emotional stress on the dog to be part of this guy's "art" is absolutely unnecessary, and makes him a fucking asshole. And you backing it up as though he did something positive - well that makes you a fucking asshole too.*



> without actually harming the dog, this guy makes a serious statement about double-standards and general stupidity and gets a hell of a lot of attention for it. What's more useful, relying on faulty information and demonizing the guy, or taking a valid point and running with it?



*Moving on, here you are, wrong again, because once again, both the scam and the "reveal" are in the first post. Once again, in order for you to have some leg to stand on with your absurd argument, you conveniently ignore this, again, and, again, call us out on something that NOBODY DID.*



> Whoops, I said you guys were misinformed and needed to look past the bullshit petition and into slightly less biased sources



*And again.*



> So looking past chain letters is a bad thing



*Here's you claiming to quote "CREDIBLE SOURCES", which is ... yourself. Bravo*.



> (which I don't do - seeing as how I'm the one quoting CREDIBLE sources here, that's a stretch)



*And again with the chain letter argument:*



> but I'm the bad guy for not believing every fucking thing I read in a chain letter or petition page,



*Here's you saying basically that it's ok to mistreat one animal, as long as you treat another one well. Great policy you have there.*



> Just because he released this one doesn't mean he doesn't care for animals normally



*This quote is awesome, because you're taking a shot at us and describing your own actions in this thread perfectly.*



> 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...



*Here's you lumping us in with the "LYING BASTARDS". Now, the guy put this shit out there, people made a petition because he was full of shit, and yet somehow THEY become the liars for taking this guy on his word. And they're bastards, no less. The guy's own website had him saying "I am letting this dog starve to death". Yet everyone who believed him is not only a liar, but a bastard, because he later came out and said "A-ha! I am full of shit!". *

Seriously, do you even read the shit you blather out?



> 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.



You win the fucking prize dude, seriously.


----------



## JBroll (May 6, 2008)

#1 -


> Have you ever been to a third world country? Did you go to the fucking art gallery there? Where was it, between the 4x4 disease infested hovel that houses the family of 12 and the outhouse? Do the people in those pictures look like starving third-world citizens to you?



Straw man, not something I said or implied.



> They took that dog, already emaciated, then chained it to a wall for a week



As was said before, they didn't emaciate the thing, they actually fed it. Also, as said before, not a week...

As for cruelty, tying a dog to the tree on the front lawn has the same effect as tying the dog in an exhibition.

#2


> 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.



Straw man, you completely misread the actual statement to feed your own persecution complex. The problem isn't with disagreement, it's about simply being wrong left and right. Also, you'll notice I pulled that back after it was taken in a way I didn't intend for it to be taken.



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



Again, they fed the thing... oops.



> 'm resorting to calling you a dickbag because despite my already shitting all over your opinions in this thread, you still don't get the point.



You were throwing names around from the start, and you haven't exactly had a bulletproof case by any stretch. You're just jumping around saying you win and you win and you win and I'm a dickbag, that's no substitute for an argument - especially when you're so frequently wrong on important details.



> And again, 15 posts in. Did I mention that it's all in the first post? That nobody "fell for the chain letter" BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH POSTED AT THE ONSET OF THIS DEBATE. I guess I should mention it again because you keep going to that argument and you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.



Most people I know have seen this petition, and it has led just about everyone (for a while, myself included) to a much different view of what happened. You've gotten the time the dog was tied wrong and implied that it wasn't fed a few times, not correcting yourself or admitting a mistake once, and now you're insisting that you weren't misinformed?



> Here's you claiming to quote "CREDIBLE SOURCES", which is ... yourself. Bravo.



And the Wikipedia article's links to credible news sources.



> Here's you lumping us in with the "LYING BASTARDS". Now, the guy put this shit out there, people made a petition because he was full of shit, and yet somehow THEY become the liars for taking this guy on his word. And they're bastards, no less. The guy's own website had him saying "I am letting this dog starve to death". Yet everyone who believed him is not only a liar, but a bastard, because he later came out and said "A-ha! I am full of shit!".



I'm not lumping you in with lying bastards. I'd like to see where you're sourcing his personal website, as that's one of the first things I looked for but I have yet to see that one... what I will say is that if you willingly repeat things you know to be false, you're lying, and that's happened a few times here.



> Seriously, do you even read the shit you blather out?



One of us has to, and it doesn't seem to be you.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (May 6, 2008)

Jeff, shut up.


----------

