Bonsai Kitty

by suzi mayhem 84 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  seven006

  DC,

  Come on now, who are you kidding. Waiting to get an animals skin after it has died of natural causes is pushing it a bit too far. Fist of all the leather from a cow is not widely used if it has died of old age. If it has died of disease the hides are burned. The leather is undesirable in both cases. The same goes for fur. Once the fur bearing animal reaches a certain age the hair begins to fall out, looses it's oils, stiffens, and also turns color. Just like humans the older they get the less hair they have and the rigidity of their skin diminishes. I myself would never buy a fur coat but I do admit that I use natural hair paint brushes for some of my art. I do check to make sure the sable has died in a car accident first.

  If you want to think that the leather shoes, jacket, or pants, (you wear leather pants?) you wear come from a cow that has reached it's golden years than you just do that. Personally I only eat the meat from animals that have committed suicide.

  Have you ever seen a cat chase down a poor defenseless little birdie? They catch it, play with it, play "how many times can I bite your head before it comes off" games and leave the majority of it for the bugs. Animals eat animals. Have you ever watched The Discovery Channel? I think asking a lion to wait until a gazelle drops dead from natural causes is not going to happen. The only difference between the animals and humans is we feed the animals we eat fairly well before we bop them on the head and grill them to juicy perfection. Yes, at that time we also use their skin. Once they are dead I'm sure they no longer mind.

  Your leather products come from young to middle aged cows. The medicine you take has been developed and tested on sweet little funny monkeys and rats and I hate to break this to you but the Jell-O you may or may not eat comes from the little cows hoofs. All young, all with bright futures.

  As far as people jumping on you goes, it wasn't your words about the kitty in a can, it was the attack you made on Alan that provoked my response. I saw he first called you a "dork brain" but
  "dork brain" is not near as harsh as "fat fuck wit" (I do admit fat fuck wit is much funnier). Actually I haven't seen Alan in person for a few years but looking at his picture I can tell you he has lost a good amount of weight since I last saw him (either that or he had a baby and didn't tell me). It must come from all the tasteless, textures, VEGETARIAN food his wife tries to shove down his throat. I'm still gagging from the damn VEGETARIAN dinner I had with he and his family three years ago. Humus tastes like air and looks like ground up maggots.

  Watching intelligent people argue is fun, educational, stimulating, and some times boring as hell. Watching them call each other names is hurtful and not necessary (for them, not for me). I think "fat fuck wit" and "Dork Brain" need to go stand in the corner until they can apologize to each other.

  Now I need a damn hamburger and a nice glass of scotch.

  Dave
• 

  seven006

  Venice,

  you haven't figured out who I am yet, have you?

  Dave
• 

  Seeker

  "People should take responsibility for the results of the things they write and publish, after all."

  expatbrit, do you believe this in all circumstances? What about personal responsibility? If someone, say Dostoevsky writing "Crime and Punishment," writes a book about the right of the individual to commit a crime and get away with it, and a reader reads this and decides to act it out, are you saying Dostoevsky should be punished for writing the novel?

  In the expressing of ideas, it's easy to confuse the character with the author. Just because an idea is presented by a character, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is an idea the author approves of. Heinlein wrote several books espousing political points of view that made people think this was his political point of view. As he kept saying, what a character says is not necessarily what the author believes, but only what the character believes. If a crazed fan tries to follow the example of the character, should the author be held responsible if he wrote a character who was mad and did bad things?

  Doesn't there come a point when people have to take responsibility for their own actions instead of saying, in effect, "he made me do it"?

  With Bonsai Kitty, this would be an elaborate operation in real life, far beyond the ability of a child. If a child owns a kitten, the parents have already explained the importance of treating it carefully. So why would a child do something like this when they have been trained? And if a child did ignore all their training, and crabbed the cat anyway and tried to stuff it in a jar, wouldn't the parent come running at the first screech made by the kitten? Could it be that this is why in the years that this site has been up there have been no cases in real life of people trying this? First of all, it's an awful thing to do, and most parents have taught their children not to do awful things. Secondly, it's a hard thing to attempt. Any child old enough to read the site will know that there's a whole lot more to this than just putting kitty in a jar. Any child old enough to read the site will know that he has to do complicated things. That should deter them. Finally, parental supervision will stop things before it gets out of hand anyway. The parents will be aware that their kids are reading the site and can talk to them about it. And they will certainly be around to prevent any action from occurring.

  Of course, if the parents don't know what sites their kids are reading, or they aren't around when their children are around the kittens, then we have a problem with parents shirking their responsibilities. That would be the real problem in this case, not that some adults made a parody for other adults.

  Blaming an author, or web site designer, for what your own children do is passing the blame.
• 

  AlanF

  Fat Fuck Wit to Dork Brain:

  You're a meany! A humorless, dumb meany! You need more soy protein in your veggies.

  Fat Fuck Wit to Seven006:

  When we come to Portland this summer, let's all get some kitten -- I mean chicken -- at Uncle Chen's. They call it General To's Chicken. Or is it General's Chicken Toes? Whatever. It's yummy! And afterwards we'll pig out on Jaegermeister. You know what that can lead to.

  FFW
• 

  expatbrit

  Seeker:

  do you believe this in all circumstances?

  Yes, people should take responsibility for what they say. However, the consequences vary. And, like so many areas in issues such as freedom of speech and moral responsibility, black and white absolutes simply don't work. My comments here were specifically related to this particular instance, and are my opinion only, like everyone else's comments.

  Each particular circumstance is unique and should be considered on it's own merits when deciding how much of a measure of responsibility/blame authors should take for the results of their work, and the consequences to them that result.

  For instance, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is a valuable piece of social analysis, the exploring of which benefits the reader and society in general. Someone may say "Dostoevsky influenced me do it" and this may indeed be the case. Yet the value of the work justifies the relatively small risk incurred of this happening, in the view of society in general. D. does share some responsibility (I know he's dead), but the judgement of society as to the value of his work prevents serious consequences to him (or his reputation, since he's dead).

  On the other hand, a person inclined to violent tendencies may read a piece of homophobic or anti-Semitic hate-literature and then, after beating up a few gay or Jewish people, use the defense of being influenced by the literature he read. This would certainly not be a valid defense for him, but would this mean that the authors of said hate-literature bore no responsibility for the results of their work? I think they do. Given that such hate literature is a crime in most enlightened countries, so does society in general. The consequences to the authors are therefore more severe.

  Bonsai Kitty, in my opinion, fits into the latter category rather than the former, since it has no value or benefit to society, but is merely an irresponsible indulgence in puerile humour. The consequences to them should also be more severe. Note that, in the case of a child copying the site in real life, responsibility is not limited just to one individual. The parents, the child, the website authors, all bear responsibility and should bear the consequences.

  Another example is the WT. Their writings on blood have caused the needless deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands. Are they free to say and write what they like? Yes and correctly so. Should they accept a measure of responsibility for the deaths of people influenced by their writings? Again yes, together with the consequences that follow.

  I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe in the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech not to abuse it.

  Society draws a subjective and judgemental line in the sand regarding these issues. In a specific circumstance close to the line, individuals will differ as to which side of the line they agree with. A good job too, since the conglomeration of all these differing viewpoints tends to result in a moderate society.

  Expatbrit.
• 

  VeniceIT

  Ya I knew it must be you!!! No one else is that CRAZY!!! those pics where GREAT HAHAHHAH!!!

  Ven
• 

  Seeker

  Expatbrit,

  That was an excellent response. I understand your point, and agree mostly. Where I disagree is in the value of the kitty site. I don't find the humor puerile at all; rather I find it very sophisticated for the type of societal trends they are parodying. It's not seeing fake pics of cats in jars I find amusing, but the stunt itself and the way people misinterpret the site. A typical MIT hack.

  So to me, there is great value in this site, and here we differ. That's the problem with free speech: one man's garbage can be another man's treasure. Therefore I am extremely hesitant to suggest something be silenced.
• 

  LostMyReligion

  Whew, this discussion was really creeping me out, until I finally got the guts to go look at the site. A few days ago when I first saw this topic, I thought," how utterly disgusting and depraved". I could not bring myself to face the possiblility of looking and having those images permanently in my mind. Today when I saw the growth in the thread, I read it again (the posted pics were great) and at last decided I had to look at what all the fuss was about.

  I must say, that I am a devoted lover of cats. I have 6 in my family, and one usually sits on my lap as I type or read on the computer. For the last 12 years, I have made a business of selling my cat based works of art at cat shows, and I have a house full of cat knick knacks. I love animals in general and cats in particular and I abhor seeing anything hurt or abused. That was my perspective as I apprehensively pulled up bonsaikitten.com. I started to read, saving a look at the picture gallery for last if I thought I could stomach it.

  As I read through the site, it soon became very apparent that it was unmistakeably a parody. The language, the silly testimonial letters, and the supposed world wide popularity of the "hobby" and more point hopelessly in that direction. I have to admit that I, even I, laughed a couple of times. Finally, I looked at the pictures of the "product". I seemed to me that in no way was the kitten harmed. It did not even look like photographic trickery. In one shot, it looks to me like the kitten went into the jar to nibble a tidbit of food placed therein.

  I do sympathize with the ones who were seriously offended and their sensitivity to any possible abuse by readers of the site. But I guess I do have an appreciation for some forms of offensive humor. But the point of that type of humor is sometimes to cause people to look at their own practices, prejudices, and preconcieved notions. Do they take themselves so seriously that they may have difficulty stepping back and looking at themselves or their culture and ask why they feel so offended. On the other hand, maybe it is not so deep, and the authors are just trying to play with our heads.
• 

  larc

  Hey Dark Cloud,

  I agree with Franciose, but I will state it more strongly. You are the morality Nazi, a hypocritical, hysterical, moralist. Censor humor because you don't like it, but don't censor art. I am surprised that you had the stupidity to bring up your double standard in back to back paragraphs in the same post.

  I love sick humor and have pretty good repetriore of jokes, most of them, not politicaly correct. I don't find this humor offensive at all. I find it to be great fun.

  No, I don't torture cats because I tell sick cat jokes. My wife and I used to have two cats. They were with us for a long time, until sadly enough, we ran out of groceries during a blizzard.

  In the art world, I find the smearing of shit on a sacred object to be highly offensive, much more offensive than cat jokes. This sacralige called art could lead to a lot more violence than the kittie in a jar parody. You could have Notre Dame fans killing innocent Protestant artists. The Catholic Italian Mafia may start blowing up art galleries. Don't you see the evils you support?

  You say you don't eat dead things. How about those poor, innocent carrots that were ruthlessly pulled from the ground. Have you no heart?

  Dark Clouds, I think your name bespeaks your somber nature. You ought to change your name and lighten up.

  PS

  Besides cats, I bet you think I hate children too. I don't hate children. I like them parboiled. (Stolen from WC Fields.)
• 

  AlanF

  Hey larc!:

  Dork Brain only eats live carrots. Eeeww!

  Wanna get some kitty -- I mean chicken -- at Uncle Chen's when me and Dave get together?

  AlanF