Napalm Riot

When I first saw this, I had to leave my desk in order to not vomit. I am actually a very non-violent person, except when it comes to anyone abusing a defenseless entity of any sort (child, animal, etc) I can become quite homicidal.

So, I did the one thing I know can calm me. I went out to kill myself slowly with a cigarette.

Thinking about this further, my mind immediately went into 'Community Understanding' mode where I try to shelve all my assumptions, and emotional reactions to something and really dig to find another reason for whatever it is I'm concerned with. What, if anything, could be another point of view which I have not considered.

I came to thinking that when Josh was doing research for a deviantART project about the beginnings of Shock Art, he found interesting things, and how what most people (especially on dA) term 'shock art' is not actually. Shock Art is any kind of art which is completely unexpected and shocking. Just because something is gross, does not make it shocking if it's expected.

Shock art originally began to appear during WWII (it might have been WWI) as simply a way to get people to be shocked into thinking outside of their normal 'path' or 'manner' to which they had settled. One example that was given was in a major park in London, over night someone welded randomly slanted urinals in random places. The point is to hit you with something that jars your complacency.

Therefore, thinking about this, I tried to look at it from that point of view. To try to see it as something which was required, or needed.

The conclusion I came to was that while it is (obviously) quite effective on a large part of the population, there is no manner in which that animal could submit willingly to such treatment. He did not volunteer to put his welfare and life on the line to help make a point.

So the next question, is do we have the right to take an animals life, in probably the most horrific way possible (which starving to death most likely is), even if it is to do a greater good and hopefully make some people take action.

After thinking further, I would have to say 'No, we do not.' The reason is that the outcome is not guaranteed. I am the first person to step up if a decision has to be made to kill a thousand people if it is the only way to save a million. The logic there is very simple and any decision to the contrary is simply stupid. However in this situation, as thespook said, this is most likely going to freak people out, and then they are going to go back to their funny pictures.

Therefore, because the subject in question (this dog) has no say in it's horrible suffering, and the 'good' intended is far from being sure, I do not believe this is remotely justified.

That being said, myself as a huge animal lover (more so than people in most cases), would tie up an animal and let it starve to death, if it would, without doubt, save thousands others. There is no chance of that kind of situation occurring, so it's easy for me to say. However my point is that there would be justification if the results were locked in.

Here they are not, and considering that as an artist, who plays with emotion often, he should (and probably does) know that, I still think he deserves a bullet. A very slow moving bullet, so there is much room for lots of pain and suffering.


This is only my personal opinion of course, and does not reflect what-so-ever on the official opinion of Napalm Riot, Inc. or it's partners.