May 19th, 2003
Comments on "Liquidising goldfish ‘not
Comments on "Liquidising goldfish ‘not a crime’":
A. Animals don’t have rights.
B. Fish are not capable of neither suffering nor caring whether their death is "cruel" or "humane."
C. Putting goldfish in a blender does not constitute art.
D. Neither does it "force people to do battle with their conscience" or "protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live."
E. In fact, it does exactly the opposite — it’s a nihilistic and idiotic muddling of the distinction between (a) rational entities that have rights and non-rational entities that do not and (b) the immoral versus the disgusting and wasteful.
F. Primary responsibility for a crime goes to the perpetrator, not the creator of the weapon (if anyone, the guy that pushed that button rather than the museum director should have been fined.)
G. A college frat induction would have been a far more productive use for the goldfish. Fortunately for the goldfish, their brains are not capable of caring whether they are slowly eaten away by stomach acids or instantly made into chop suey.