So now it's "chained in his basement"?!! My goodness. I heard he launched it into orbit in a capsule with no food. The man should be hung!

It was tied with a rope to an exhibit in an art gallery. Just prior to that it was tied by a rope to a post on the corner of a street.

I mean "not murder" in the sense that he didn't kill the animal. Did anyone feed the dog? On the street? I mean a dog does not die from lack of food in one day, right?

So, the dog's death was its own fault, or the fault of the environment that spawned it. I can agree with that. But is it art? Animals are animals, we kill and eat them every day, but tying one up, just to watch it starve seems...inclement. I can see the message that the author is trying to send, but i think he might have been a tad wiser when choosing his medium.

That is the question, right? Not whether the death was justified, but whether it was art.

Edit; Oh and I might have been ovverreacting with that "chain" part. It was there for emphasis, as opposed to accuracy.

entspeak

The disposition of the dog prior is in dispute. Some stories say the child caught the dog, one says it was already tied up.

Here's what we can agree on:

The dog was brought to Vargas
The dog was alive
The dog could have been fed
The dog did not kill Canada
The dog was tied by Vargas and left to starve to death with food nearby but out of the dog's reach

Assuming you're not going to argue those points. Vargas would be criminally negligent in the US. So, for those of us in the US, who have warm fuzzy feelings towards dogs and other animals, we are correct to feel rage towards Vargas.

You were overreacting with the whole accusation, chain and basement. I don't know how not being accurate has anything to do with emphasis - it's more exaggeration than emphasis.

Wiser in choosing his medium... I see. So, I'll ask the same question - as yet unaswered - that I've asked the others:

What if Vargas took a video camera down to the post this dog was tied to on the street corner and taped the dog's death as it was tied to that post, would that be just as bad?



Really, which stories would those be? How many of those stories that say the children caught the dog do not also base their story on the one story that says it was tied up? Much like the "chained in the basement" thing, I think it's safe to argue that some people are changing that word or attributing that word to mean something different for "emphasis" - as akalae calls it.

So, would Vargas be criminally negligent if he'd gone to a street corner in the US where a dog was tied up and filmed it starving to death?

If there was a possibility that someone else actually would have rescued the dog from a death by starvation had Vargas not changed the venue of the dog's death, then he did prolong the dog's agony. Vargas removed that possibility when he decided to use the final suffering of the animal for his "art."

I wonder if we would have heard of this guy if he had actually decided to splash some paint on a canvas or sculpt something rather than sensationalize a needless death. As it is, he will not be remembered for his talent but for letting an animal die.

Willful negligence happens every day, and it isn't called art. Why would having it happen inside an art gallery make it something different from what it is?

Paladin, isn't art all about sending a message? Regardless of how, this event still contained all the necessary characteristics; an artist, and a meaning. What it lacks, is humanity, and humanity is not a required artistic trait. Its a nice one, yes, but unfortunately, it is by no means common.

And anyways, isn't art all in the eye of th beholder? Does not a demolitions expert take some pride when he destroys a bridge, or a building? Couldn't the Iraq war be considered the "artistry" of a few clever, morally bankrupt politicians?

Trace any piece of great artwork back to its source, and you'll find suffering along the way. Recently, a solid platinum skull, encrusted with diamonds, was exhibited as art. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God_%28artwork%29) How many died for those diamonds? how could the money used in its making have been utilized if it had been sent to charity? the questions are endless.

You may find Vargas despicable, yes. But condemning him, is condemning that which makes art...art; a deeply rooted, and heart-rending core of anguish, human or otherwise.

Given your empathetic nature, you probably disagree with this viewpoint quite strongly. Please tell me, what do you define as art?

And if some sick teenager was on his way back from his home with a knife and a can if gasoline to begin torturing the dog, Vargas was its savior.

You sounded pretty certain before.



I very much doubt we would have heard about an artist sculpting, and we never would have heard of the actual event had the animal activist community not gone into a frenzy. That was part of the message, since those same people were apparently unmoved by the Natividad Canda tragedy. I would submit that Vargas would say that, as long as word got out about what happened to Natividad Canda, being demonized and ruined over this would be well worth it. Artists are funny that way. Some of them milk that integrity thing pretty hard.

Putting it in an art gallery, and confronting the presumably well-to-do art gawkers to such misery, succeeded in delivering a harsh, sharp message about reality that a painting or sculpture simply could not produce. The dog perhaps had an outside chance of survival without Vargas' interference, but now, it has a chance to help prevent uncounted future tragedies.

What happened to the dog was unfortunate. What happened to Natividad Canda was wrong. It could and should have been stopped. You still haven't acknowledged that particular tragedy. I personally would kill every dog in Costa Rica with an ax, if it meant that never again would a man be mauled to death by dogs while police and the media stood there watching it for ~90 minutes. He might have been a criminal, but no one deserves that fate.

What if, through the media firestorm caused by this exhibit, the laws and/or procedures that allowed the Natividad Canda tragedy were changed, and it never was an issue again? Would not that dog have died for a better reason than it was facing before Vargas put it on display? Would not a dying dog's last day have been granted some extra meaning?

Two wrongs can make a right. In this case, it remains to be seen whether Vargas' efforts were in vain.

Tell me--Did any of the people involved in witnessing the death of Canda express any remorse because Vargas' so-called artwork raised their level of awareness?

The dog that was starved to death was not at fault in the death of Canda. Why should dogs OR people that had nothing to do with the situation be made to suffer to make a statement?

It's not as if the dog had a choice in the situation.

The "two wrongs can make a right" argument is specious. How can it be demonstrated that in the future some photographers or law enforcement officials won't be bystanders while witnessing violence? By a dog being made to starve to death in an art gallery? Come on.

I am still certain of the wrongness of what Vargas did. And by virtue of the fact that your saying that two wrongs can make a right, it is clear to you as well that what Vargas did was wrong. But we have yet to see evidence of this "statement" doing anything to make up for what happened to Canda.

How about acts of kindness to make up for wrongful acts? Or does the fact that everyday kindness doesn't make the headlines make it worthless?

What's more important--consistently good behavior on the part of an individual, or an act of cruelty that makes a "statement"?

So would it have been better if Vargas had left the dog tied to the post on the street corner and took a camera and filmed it starving to death? Would that have been alright?

No just morally reprehensible.

So, would you say that people who shoot TV shows like Meerkat Manor are morally reprehensible?

the dog died after 1 day...

it was then well past the point where feeding it would have brought it back ....


at a certain point the body is no longer capable of taking in food... this dog would have died either way.

all the artist did was change where it died, he did not cause it's death.

if that brings to the forefront something important than he gave the dogs death meaning.


i guess you would have felt better if he just let it die in the corner and then brought it to the gallery.

Could he not have taken the dog to a vet?

There was another meerkat thing on years ago. They chronicled a meerkat family that got wiped out by predators. While terribly sad at no point did I expect the film crew to go wrestle with the jackals to save the meerkats.

I would say if you you are physically where someone/thing is starving to death and you can stop it - you should in most instances.


Well think of all the time and money we waste feeding Ethiopians and the like. You're right. Screw them We can't save them either.

Dying in the road is preferable to being tied up as art to die for a cause you have no stake in.

Well, in one episode of Meerkat Manor, one of the meerkat's was received multiple bites from a viper. The venom rots the surrounding flesh. They followed the meerkat around as it shuffled about in extreme pain and did nothing to help it. Would you call that morally reprehensible?



I'm sure the dog thought the very same thing.

I'd have probably put it out of it's misery. Much like I'm doing to this idiotic premise you're on.

You think what Vargas did was OK. I think it wasn't.

Simply by doing what he has, Baphomet, Vargas has succeeded.

Do you think anyone at all would know of him, if had taken a series of pictures about a happy, well-fed dog? Would anyone care about the issue he is trying to raise?

Art stems from hurt, and and at times, outrage. Morally, what Vargas did was reprehensible. But it was successful.

Well, dodging the question doesn't help. I understand your hesitance; answering the question honestly destroys your argument. Meerkat Manor is shown for entertainment value, yet nobody is outraged when one of those animals is allowed to die and someone does nothing to save its life. Why then the outrage about Vargas?



If the dog died on the street, that'd be okay in your book. Because it died as a part of an art exhibit in a gallery, it's somehow morally reprehensible.

And, no, I don't think what Vargas did was "OK". I would've freed the dog, had I been there, and taken it to a vet. It probably still would've died. I would've done the same thing if I saw it on the street. But I don't understand the condemnation of Vargas... especially from people who have no problem when other animals are allowed to die and filmed doing so for entertainment purposes.

I didn't dodge the question. You keep attempting to frame this debate in ways that have nothing to do with what happened.

Meerkat Manor has nothing. Absolutely nothing to do with this. At what point do the producers of Meerkat Manor grab a meerkat tie it up and let snakes attack it?

The dog was alive
The dog was brought to Vargas
The dog was tied up by Vargas
The dog was kept from food by Vargas
The dog died

How the Hell does that even remotely compare to a film crew filming meerkats crappy lives? It doesn't. It's not remotely similar. People don't have meerkats as pets. Meerkats are not domesticated and trained to rely on humans.

It's not similar in anyway shape or form.

Vargas is a scumbag, not an artist.


Art stems from a lot of things. I don't deny his one off show gave him 8 minutes of fame. However he's failed with a lot of people who don't consider him an artist of gove a whit about what he was trying to say.

There is a difference between animals in the wild and your local pooch. Documentarians never interfere with the wildlife they are documenting (e.g. March of the Penguins, many, many shows on National Geographic and Animal Planet). A couple of the most disturbing ones I saw were a male lion killing a cub and eventually eating it and a polar bear cub orphaned when his mother died. Nature is cruel - but man is even more so.

And a plea - here are some art sites and artists who are making a positive contribution to the welfare of animals, who are far more deserving of attention than a cretin like Vargas:

Cyrus Mejia 575 Project
Art for the Animals
Art Helping Animals

In that scenario, Vargas didn't grab a dog and tie it up and starve it to death. That's quite similar to what occurs on Meerkat Manor. Yet, to you, one is morally reprehensible, the other is not.



But you stated that even if Vargas did not have the dog brought to him, even if he did not tie it up, it would still be morally reprehensible.



I see. So animals are only worth the moral outrage if their domesticated and trained to rely on humans?

Yes it is morally reprehensible to set up a camera on a TIED UP dog and film it starving to death. I don't understand how you can not understand that. I seriously fear for the neighborhood cats near you. You have odd ideas about how animals may be treated.

And Yes, abused/killed domesticated animals get moral outrage and meerkats bitten by snakes don't. Should I start an anti-abuse campaign against snakes?

Are you having this debate just to take up space?

The guy tied a dog up and let it starve to death. Read that out loud maybe it'll help.

Yes, in the scenario Vargas could've untied the dog and taken it to a vet and gotten it some food. In the Meerkat scenario, they could've taken the meerkat and gotten it medical attention rather than videotaping the progress of the rotting flesh on its leg and face.

Once as a kid, on the way to Junior High School, I came across a cat lying near a fence. It did not look okay. I went back home, got a box and carried it a mile to the nearest Vet. It had been hit by a car. The vet said there was no hope. I left it with the vet, who euthanized it. So, you don't know the first thing about me, BA.



No, BA, if you had any concept of the subtleties of the argument, you would recognize that the anti-abuse campaign would be against the people documenting the event. Just as you appear to have no problem the virus or bacteria that made the dog sick, you should, likewise have no problem with the snake. Your inability to grasp that concept might be part of the problem with your argument.



Nope.



One would hope that you would become aware that its not so simple a situation as that. But, it appears that the complexities have escaped you.

no, you've simply muddied things up by pretending that Vargas simply changed the venue of death. That's not what happened. He took the dog from where it was, tied it up, and purposely kept it from food with the intent that it should die. That's the difference YOU can seem to grasp. He intended to starve the dog to death. The cameraman for Meerkat Manor has no intentions past getting a good shot. Further Meerkat Manor shows the difficulty of being prey IN THE WILD. In the wild is different than a an Art Studio.

The situation is very simple. Vargas tied a dog up to have it starve to death.

What you fail to grasp is that this was a dog that was on the verge of dying and would not eat. This is common for very sick dogs; they refuse to eat.



So, it's okay to refuse to help a wounded animal and watch it suffer so long as your intention is to get a good shot?

And in the situation of the dog tied up on a street corner in the US that you called morally reprehensible, the same could be said and yet you called that morally reprehensible.



Nope. Simplifying it only allows you to justify your own outrage whether its warranted or not. It's a common problem - making a situation black and white when it's not so that one can express one's outrage and feel superior.

You have no idea whether or not the dog would have eaten. None. I do know, with complete certainty that Vargas tied a dog up with the intention that it starve. It may make you feel better to believe that the dog wouldn't eat but you don't know for sure.

What about TIED UP don't you understand? ONCE YOU TIE AN ANIMAL UP YOU HAVE TILTED THE PLAYING FIELD. The animal's chances pf survival go way down. ESPECIALLY if you don't FEED IT.

I'm using CAP letters because you're being intentionally dense.

So for clairity filming wild animals doing what wild animals will is completely different than tying up a domesticated animal to starve to death. The fact that you're not getting this makes me think something horrible has changed you since your teen years of intended cat rescue.

I have the statements made by Vargas that the dog was very sick and wouldn't eat. Considering the fact that the dog died after one day, that is credible. Dogs who are extremely sick tend to refuse food, this is a fact. So, I wasn't there, I don't know for sure, but I know that it is highly likely considering the condition of the dog.

entspeak, are you being intentionally obtuse? Wild animals and domestic animals are two different things. Canis lupus familiaris
is not Canis latrans or any other wild dog of the canid genus. Filming a documentary in the wild is different than human interaction with domestic animals. Meerkat Manor, for all its entertainment value, is a study on meerkats by an academic group. How valid would the study be if they interfered in the animals' lives? Do you think a documentarian of lions should rush in to save the wildebeest before the lion kills and eats it? Come on.

This question, my friend, is what is called an "non-sequitur," and it does nothing for your argument.

I said absolutely nothing about anyone filming the dog starving to death while tied to a post. That is your hypothetical construct. I am talking about not doing something wrong, but trying to rectify a bad situation.

Try answering the question I posed where you quoted me.


You raised a key point, and you answered it when you said, "Couldn't the Iraq war be considered the 'artistry' of a few clever, morally bankrupt politicians?" Just what type of person considers it art when s/he realizes that it represents the suffering of individuals who could have been helped?

When the artist becomes complicit in inflicting or at least refusing to alleviate the suffering of the subject of his artwork when he could do something.

I am not going to acknowledge the "artwork" of such a person if I know the circumstances.

Vargas could indeed have photographed the plight of the dog and then taken measures to save it. Intravenous fluids can be administered to an animal if the animal cannot eat, and a veterinarian, when given the chance, can determine whether the fluids will help or whether the animal is so far gone that it should be euthanized so that suffering is not prolonged. Did Vargas say at any point that he had had the dog checked to see if it could have been helped?

That would have been the right thing to do.

No, I'm not being obtuse. An animal is an animal regardless of where it resides, is it not? And the study is for whose benefit, the meerkat's?

And no, I don't think a documentarian should rush in to save the wildebeest; but then, I'm not the one expressing the moral outrage, am I?

BA

starvation is a very long very slow process...

he found a dog that was dying, and let it die, not the same thing,

contrary to most americans opinions you cannot starve to death in 1 day.

How is that a non-sequitur? People have been arguing that what makes Vargas complicit in the death of the dog is the fact that he moved it to the gallery. The outrage seems only to be based on the location of the death (the gallery vs. the street) and the medium (live vs. taped) and not based on the fact that the dog died.



I never said you did, but that doesn't make the question a non-sequitur. The question illustrates the hypocrisy that Vargas was trying to illuminate.


Your question, "my friend", is the non-sequitur. I could just as easily ask - What's more important: consistently good behavior on the part of an individual, or not cutting in front of someone in line. Obviously, consistently good behavior on the part of an individual is important, but that is an ideal that nobody comes close to. Therefore, the question is irrelevant and has no real meaning.

The difference being that good people try to be consistently good; so-so or bad people do not. If you feel that you are justified in doing wrong because nobody's perfect, that's a cop-out. Think of Mother Teresa and how much good she did for the poorest dying out on the streets. She felt a lot of despair, but she kept on. She didn't photograph a dying man and let him just die in order to make a point; she did what she could to either get him better or at least ease his suffering.

(If you do not want to consider me a friend because you disagree with me, that is your prerogative. However, I mean no hostility towards you; hence I called you "my friend" rather than some epithet that would reflect my perception of your lack of understanding in some negative way, which would have been unnecessary and unwelcome.)

As far as not cutting in line in front of somebody, that is irrelevant to this discussion. It is one thing to temporarily inconvenience a person, another thing altogether to contribute to his demise, directly or indirectly. However, if consistently trying to do the right thing means trying to save a dog's life rather than changing where it was and withholding care to make a "statement" and gain notoriety for oneself, then it is relevant to this thread and is not a non-sequitur.

"To him that [sic] knoweth to do good and doeth it not, it is sin."--Jesus

Irrelevant. I did not, nor will I, claim that Vargas is comparable to Mother Teresa. Nor will I claim that Vargas was consistently good. Nor will I claim he was being good in this situation.



No, I do not consider you a friend because I don't know you. Being that you don't know me... or anything about me, your "my friend" read as facetious - especially in light of your "perception of my lack of understanding."



One can save a dog's life rather than gain notoriety for oneself and not be consistently good. That is why the question is a non-sequitur.



Okay.

But you won't claim that he was wrong?

I don't know that this IS irrelevant. Considering the injustice, the cold indifference of the Indian countrymen toward the "poorest of the poor" in Calcutta, Mother Teresa did not decide to try to shame anyone by some sensationalistic display. She worked quietly to bring about positive change.

I am not suggesting that Vargas is anything like Mother Teresa. I am suggesting, though, that it isn't necessary to return evil for evil to effect change.

You are a friend insofar as I don't have any reason not to consider you one. I do think you're stubborn, though.

I usually find most next gen bio-art ridiculous to begin with, but if the artist gave sequestered a sick or dying dog and then gave specific instructions to not feed or render aid to the dog, then that is abuse, not some new form of performance art. Not enough of the detail of the event was presented here to conclude the worst case scenario, however.

Admittedly, bio-art has taken some bizarre turns of late, such as the artist Eduardo Kac who recently exhibited a glow-in-the-dark, genetically engineered rabbit. Perhaps bio-art should confine itself to flower arrangements, or perhaps let the artists themselves put their own bodies on display, and leave sentient creatures out of it.

The emperor Nero, who considered himself a great artist, had Christians put to death for public entertainment. “Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals’ skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowd - or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer.” Tacitus, Annals, XV:44. No doubt some would put a blessing on such brutality in the name of “life imitating art.”

It isn't what I would've done.

I am only responding to the hypocrisy exhibited on this board - hypocrisy that Vargas was attempting to highlight with the exhibit. I've read that this dog's life is more important because it was domesticated; I've read that it would've not been wrong had he not changed the location of the dog's death; I've read that because the medium is different (live in front of people vs. on camera) it is worse.

Vargas was callous and insensitive, but I've seen far worse from news reporters and paparazzi, certainly far more worthy of the moral outrage exhibited by people in this thread and on the internet in general.

But the fact is, the dog wouldn't eat, it was going to die. Vargas is guilty of using this dog to make a point. I wouldn't have done it, I would've taken the dog to the vet, but... what he did was not worse than leaving it on the street corner tied to a post to die. He is no worse than every individual who walked by the dog on the street and who did nothing in the gallery.



It is irrelevant.



Yes, not unlike taking blood money, corrupt money from a Haitian dictator to feed the poor. Money out of the mouth's of poor people in another country to feed the poor person in front of you. Not unlike taking money from Charles Keating. But you call that being consistently good. If you wish to make Mother Teresa relevant to this conversation, there you have it.



Stubborn? No. Just because I disagree with you and stand by my opinion does not make me stubborn. The implication you make with that statement is that you're right and I'm wrong and that's that - when it's obvious to me that it isn't so cut and dry. So, it's not that I'm stubborn.

I do not fault Mother Teresa for using blood money to feed the poor. What else would you have done with it? Burned it? Isn't it better than having the money used for drugs, prostitution, or arms after it has already been involved in something bad? The sin is the Haitian dictator's, not Mother Teresa's. If a drowning person needs a boat to be rescued, do we stop to check whether the boat we have to rescue him belongs to a bad man?

Same with the money from Charles Keating, I would think. God, whether you believe in the existence of one or not, can sort out who is doing what, and those of us whose belief system includes the Almighty also believe that there will be a day of reckoning, even for those things done in secret.

In addition, can you or I honestly say we know where the money we handle actually comes from?

And yes, I do think I'm right and you're less right in this argument (), although I do agree that the callous indifference and insensitivity demonstrated by the paparazzi and news reporters is deplorable. The difference with Vargas is basically the exploitation of an already tragic situation, in this case, of an innocent animal that was not reputed to have attacked anybody.

“What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? . . .Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? . . . The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.”
- Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

Well, when someone like Mother Teresa writes the Judge on Charles Keating's behalf to inform him of how generous Keating has been (with ill gotten gains at the expense of thousands of elderly people who lost their life savings), I'd say she knew where that money came from.

When she goes to Haiti and visits the Duvaliers, I'd say she knew where that money came from.

When she found out that this money was being taken from the mouths of the poor and elderly in other countries did she make any effort to help them? No. She endorsed the people who gave her the money.

But, hey, sure, no fault there.



That's obvious and the hypocrisy is almost blinding.



And Mother Teresa exploited already tragic situations, refused to acknowledge the evil of the perpetrators and even went so far as to endorse them.

I find that to be infinitely more morally reprehensible than what Vargas did and you consider her actions to be consistently good behavior.

I mean here is a woman who does not assist thousands of suffering people in order to use their money for her mission. She doesn't even acknowledge their suffering. She goes and visits the plunderers and endorses the criminals.

Here is a man who does not help a dying dog and uses it for an art exhibit.

Nemo, your empathy is admirable. Does it extend to the animals that you eat as well?

They are fuzzy. They are cute. But what we can not--must not forget, is that they are not human. We cannot ascribe to these creatures, any faculties that they do not have.

Vargas let the dog die. It starved, slowly, while he recorded every moment of its pain. Had he done this to a human, he would have been arrested, perhaps sent to one of the nicer Sanitariums in his country. But he did not. He did it to a dog, one of hundreds that no doubt die equally painful deaths in his city every day.

Here, we must draw the line at how human animals are allowed to be. No doubt the dog suffered. But, as has already been said, this is not the fault of Vargas. It was the fault of every pedestrian that walked by, blind to this animal's plight. Vargas used a condemned creature for his art--he killed nothing.

If we accept that this dog was going to die of starvation regardless of anyones action or inaction (I do), and we accept that Vargas was attempting to make a point about indifference to suffering in general and human vs. animal suffering in particular (I do), with the intention of aiding the greater good, then what he has done is very similar to Mother Teresa's action of taking blood money in oder to assist the poor in another country.

There was nothing realistic that Mother Teresa could do to help the poor in Haiti, but she could use the money to help the poor elsewhere.

There was nothing realistic Vargas could do to save the starving dog, but he could use the dog's death to point out mankind's indifference to human suffering.

If you tack on the concepts that the Church got a cut of that money, and that Mother Teresa later acted on the behalf of the people who gave this money, even though they were responsible for the suffering in Haiti, then Vargas' action were much less hypocritical. They had functionally the same intentions, but Vargas AFAIK hasn't compromised his principle (whatever we individually may think of his principle.)

is it possible that from this tragedy something good can happen,

sometimes the only way to get people into action is to shock them into action.

it seems crazy to me but people here seem to think that just because he did not try some super extrordinary measures that in the long run would not have changed anything (this animal would have died on the street without so much as the fleas on his back to mourn him.) Do you people feel so little for what happened that he was trying to spotlight?

no, that gets lost because he was "Mean to a fuzzy puppy" well eat your chicken suppers and wear your stylish italian leather shoes, and go on ignorant of the world. I am by no means an animal rights type, ( if the were not meant to be eaten they wouldnt be made of meat.) but you lose the big picture here.

he was addressing the idea of a cold and heartless society that watches a man be mauled to death, if not for entertainment, at least out of apathy.

so much love for a mangy, flea infested mutt, but not an ounce of care for a man. sad really

I would like to see the sources you are drawing from to say that Mother Teresa did not help thousands of people through her efforts. Perhaps you can serve as "devil's advocate" to block her canonization.

Obviously this woman was doing something right and good that contributed to peace or she would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, neither would the Catholic Church name her "Blessed." You can say what you like about her, but there might be literally millions of people who disagree with you.

She DID assist thousands of suffering people by rolling up her sleeves herself and by attracting to her cause women of similar minds to the cause WITHOUT seeking recognition. I call that good behavior. The fact that she, like the rest of us, did some things that drew criticism only makes her probably incapable of walking on water or being directly assumed into Heaven.

However, she did not leave a starving creature in an art gallery just a few feet away from food to call attention to the suffering outside of the art gallery as did Vargas.

Mother Teresa, while acknowledging that Keating had committed bad acts ("All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" comes to mind), spoke on his behalf. If you check, I doubt that she argued that he should go without punishment, but that the punishment be tempered with some mercy in view of some good that he had done.

You can say to a dictator, "Thank you for providing food (or whatever) to the hungry; that was a good thing to do and God is aware of it" without being a hypocrite. A kind act, even when done by a tyrant, is a kind act nonetheless. It is the balance of the dictator/tyrant's behavior and his relationship with his deity that will determinine his ultimate destiny, not whether Mother Teresa said he did a good deed or not. The woman was smart enough to know that when you can't get the assistance you need from the "good" people, the "bad" people might chip in. I do not see how trying to appeal to someone else's humanity in the alleviation of suffering is a bad thing. Does it really matter to a starving man where the bread comes from if it is good and he can stop the hunger pangs in his belly? Will it matter to him if the giver is a Communist, or a Socialist, an anarchist, or a Democratist? Maybe for a second or two, but then the relief of receiving food kicks in.

Additionally, Christian teaching states that no one is going to go to Heaven on their own merits alone, not even Mother Teresa. Nobody's qualified to do that according to the doctrine of grace, i.e., unmerited favor. What kind of person would Mother Teresa have been to refuse assistance for "the poorest of the poor" on the grounds that the donors were miserable sinners? She would have been looking down on them from a pedestal of her own making in that case, and that certainly would not have been charitable or Christian.

And thank you so much for implying that I am a hypocrite. That's all right; I forgive you.

I never stated that Mother Teresa did not help thousands of people through her efforts. You are the one using her as an example of consistently good behavior, "my friend". I just stated that she did not engage in consistently good behavior




Yes, she shares that honor with Yassar Arafat. Therefore, a Nobel Peace Prize is not an indicator of consistently good behavior.



Let's see, who else did John Paul II beatify?

José María Escrivá de Balaguer (beatified in 1992) - supporter of fascist regimes in Spain
Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac (beatified in 1998) - supported the Nazi and fascist Ustashi takeover of Croatia during World War II.

So, it appears beatification is also not an indicator of consistently good behavior.



Did some things that drew criticism?

Okay.

So, Vargas uses this starving, dying dog and he's a monster who deserves condemnation. You know nothing about this man apart from this one act. He may be a saint apart from this one act. But you don't know, you don't care, he hurt a dog, he's a monster. Mother Teresa refuses to return stolen money to its rightful owners (the elderly who lost their life savings thanks to Charles Keating - and she was asked to return it, but she didn't - and this is merely an act that drew criticism?



No, she assisted in the creation of thousands of poor people in the name of helping the poor... you see, hypocrisy can have an ironic bent to it as well.



She was asked to return the gift because it was stolen money. She didn't.



Did she tell this dictator that it were better to spend this money and help the poor in his own country?! No!



So, it is a kind act for a dictator to plunder his own country and use that money to help make God aware of this "good thing"?



Oh, please. You sit here and condemn a man for using a starving dog; but, when a man uses thousands of starving people, it's a good thing. The ends justify the means?

Puh and lease. That is patently absurd and disgusting.



No, but I'm sure it matters to a starving man where his bread has gone and who took it from him and who enabled that theft and gained from it. Sure, it makes no difference to the receiver where the food comes from, but it makes a hell of a lot of difference to the people who were stolen from and who had to starve so that this dictator could feel good about himself... and I'm sure Mother Teresa had no problem (as you show in your examples) in making them feel good about stealing. That's consistently good behavior?

Sure, it's a good thing to send the message "If you steal from people and give the ill gotten gains to me to feed the poor, God will recognize your kind act."

That's a good message?



Well, she would've been the kind of person that recognized that easing the suffering of some is not best attained on the backs of those who did not ask to give, but, rather are suffering because they have been taken from.



I'm not implying anything, "my friend". If what you write is what you believe, then I believe - as regards this issue - you are being hypocritical. So, I need no forgiveness, thanks. There's your .

One man uses a starving dog that would've died anyway as part of an art exhibit to highlight the plight of the dogs and to point up the plight of some people in his country. Him, you know nothing more about, but you condemn him as a monster.

A woman uses money stolen from the poor, refuses to return it, endorses the perpetrators, but helps thousands of others with these ill gotten gains thereby making a name for herself. Her, she just did some things that drew criticism, but she was consistently good in her behavior.

If this is art, then video recording two dogs fighting to the death to signify the violence in today's culture should be allowed as well. What say you entspeak?

And I don't know how we got on the tangent of Mother Theresa... Her name should come no where near this abomination's.

You mean like the documentary, Dog-fighting Undercover?

I didn't see much outrage about that documentary.



Ask Paladin Elspeth.

She used her as an example of consistently good behavior vs. doing a bad thing in order to do some good. Of course, Mother Teresa fits into the latter category and not the first.

Yes, she's beatified and he's an abomination. Gotcha