TheAgitator.com
More Shitty Art
Friday, April 18th, 2008So how does this one grab ya’?
Translation, courtesy of the Agitatrix:
In 2007, the ‘artist’ Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.
For several days, the ‘artist’ and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful ‘masterpiece’ based on the dog’s agony, until eventually he died.
But this is not all… the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of Central America decided that the ‘installation’ was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.
More photos here.
He also apparently spelled out words with dog food just beyond the dog’s reach. Genius!
There’s a petition you can sign aimed at preventing this guy from repeating the trick later this year.
For the life of me, I can’t view these pictures. I am going home and cooking my english mastiff a steak.
But…but…it’s art, because he says it’s art.
I wonder if I let him starve to death within sight of food, would it be considered art?
You have to wonder where PETA is ? I know! Picketing KFC!
Probable hoax. http://harmonicminor.com/2008/04/07/the-guillermo-habacuc-vargas-hoax/
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
How gullible you all are.
I can’t attest to the veracity of the claim, but that art show was also allegedly a hoax. The gallery administrator claims that the dog escaped one night and did not actually die.
http://thepetextraordinarium.blogspot.com/2008/03/starving-dog-exhibit-reported-as-hoax.html
Whether it actually died or not, that dog certainly doesn’t look healthy.
“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”.”
This is a good measure of what passes for reasoning these days. A stray dog on the streets at least has a fighting chance at survival. It can rely on the kindness of a random stranger or the ever ubiquitous garbage scraps left about in an urban environment. Though I may feel a pull on my heart-strings at the sight of a stray, it is in no way my moral responsibility to care for it.
A dog tied to a post just out of reach of food and water is another matter completely. The outrage is not turned upon ourselves. We do not have an inner monologue that whispers, “if only I paid attention to this poor dog when it was starving on the streets”. Our outrage is at the douche bag “artist” who serves up this crap. Though animals have no natural rights, we recognize that people who abuse them are, well…people to be shunned, or spat upon.
Make no mistake; even though this exhibit was a hoax, it was never about the dog or some treatise on the human condition. It was always about the “artist”. Like I said, just yelling, “Look at me! Look at me!” is not art. Petulance, maybe; but certainly not art.
This is all fine and good, but the most important question is: What does Skip Oliva think?
Your dog wants… anything that resembles food.
Agent Smith may have been right: Humans are a disease.
interesting from the snopes article:
“The artist’s point was supposedly to highlight the hypocrisy demonstrated by people’s making an apparently sick and ill-fed dog the center of attention when it was presented as an art exhibit, even though many of them would ignore the same dog if they encountered it roaming the streets.”
While it is pretty sick ‘art’, he raises a sorta good point.
After pointedly scrolling past the first horrifying references I saw yesterday — was it just yesterday? — to the Yalie’s abortion antics, I *made* myself go back and hit the links and read about it.
I’m not doing that today — or tomorrow or the next day — for this story or for the others that are apt to follow.
When the so-called artists, liars, whatever begin to get the sort of attention they’re really bidding on, I may tune back in.
A bit more info at http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/artnetnews4-17-08.asp as well.
At least this time you’re getting worked up about something that (if it weren’t a hoax) would have an actual victim.
[...] of Radley Balko: In 2007, the ‘artist’ Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope [...]
Ken, do you tell your kid that the man wearing an Easter Bunny suit isn’t real? The man in the costume is, in fact, real, and not your child’s hallucination. He just isn’t a rabbit.
In this case, an unborn child doesn’t have a soul (that’s an imaginary concept), and has not yet become sentient in the first month, but that doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t exist, as you seem to be suggesting with the “actual victim” remark.
Ken is exactly right. Assuming this is legit, it’s the only case with a real victim. In the case of the month-old fetus, sure something exists there, but it’s has no more rights than a fistful of dirt. The dog, on the other hand, is a real victim.
To say otherwise is simply speciesism. J’Accuse!
Wow Ken and Henry, I guess we can’t expect much better from a site full of Atheists right? Gotta love that liberalized mindset:
An innocent life being terminated is ok (abortion), but a (most of the time) guilty person being terminated (death penalty) is just so WRONG!
Guess I can’t expect much more out of a group of people who think the whole Universe was just a big accident and we were just apes a few million years ago …..
The sad thing is, after was evidenced by the Michael Vick affair, is that you ARE probably going to see more outrage with this than any ‘abortion’ art or anything bad happening to human beings.
Meant ‘after WHAT was evidenced’ …. we really need a ‘Preview’ button …..
James, I turn the question around on you, how can you recouncile making a huge deal about what may or may nor be a person (something there is legitimate debate about) dying, but not caring about the execution of fully formed human beings with experiences and emotions and families especially when the system has been shown to be faulty (in that innocent people have been on death row many times)?
Somehow, your rejection of science is just the perfect topper on that ignorance sundae.
James:
“An innocent life being terminated is ok (abortion), but a (most of the time) guilty person being terminated (death penalty) is just so WRONG!”
So I guess the times where the government executes an innocent person is A OK (you know, since sometimes they are actually innocent — oops!). People appose the death penalty not necessarily because they want serial killers to live in jail the rest of their lives, but because they don’t trust the government (who can’t even shorten the lines at the DMV) to be in charge of determining if someone is guilty and should die.
And you are going into the subjectiveness of the term ‘life’.
As a libertarian I believe that rights are a human creation and therefore they aren’t applicable to animals, so I don’t consider what the guy did to be an actual crime (technically speaking)…but as somebody who has owned dogs throughout his life and has loved all of his dogs like family, what this “artist” did is sick, and twisted, and cruel and if I ever saw this douchebag in the act I don’t know that I’d be able to stop myself from pummeling the fucking guy until he was unconscious, even though that would be a crime. I second what Troy said…I just can’t look at these pictures because they make me want to cry. If I actually came across something like this I’d have cut that poor dog loose and taken him home. That animal was tricked into leaving a tough life on the streets so he could starve to death in some sociopathic shitbird’s show for the amusement of his degenerate clientele.
There are very few things in the world that could make me regret or hate being a libertarian…but this is one of them.
Sorry for the profanity, Radley…had to say it.
Actually, I scanned through the comments after I made my own and I see that the gallery said it was a hoax. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction as well.
Crawford,
Sounds like you need to go back through your copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia once more. Or, if you don’t have a copy handy, you can check out the argument here: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/nozick01.htm
Or you could check out Justin Logan’s effective demolition of Tibor Machan’s case against animal rights (which itself touches on Nozick’s arguments) here: http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/010583.php
Of course, you can still reject animal rights, but as these essays show, you shouldn’t feel the need to preface that rejection with “as a libertarian,” because there’s nothing intrinsically anti-libertarian (whatever that’s worth) about animal rights/welfare.
There are nonreligious morons and religious morons, but James D manages to show us that the religious morons are far more moronic.
What does “a (most of the time) guilty person” mean? Is James suggesting that it’s OK when innocent people are executed? Yes? Then what’s the problem with abortion? No? Then what the hell does he think people who oppose the death penalty are objecting to?
The rest of us may have stopped being apes “a few million years ago” but James is a pretty good example of how some of us haven’t come all that far.
ags:
well said my friend
The whole point of this piece of art was that, while everyone whined and complained about the treatment of the dog, no one actually helped the dog.
Says who? How far along does the unborn child need to develop before you consider him or her worthy of rights? If you kick a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause that child to die, but only temporary physical injury to the mother, is your action no different than a thug you kicks a woman who isn’t pregnant in the stomach? If not, why not?
Pretending that an unborn child is no different than dirt or a polyp is simply not an honest argument, no more than appealing to the imagined authority of religion or government (both of which I wholeheartedly reject).
How much do you know about the principles of liberty?
Rights are not a human creation. Otherwise, we could all vote and give me the right to run over you with a steam roller, and you’d have no moral recourse to complain. That, of course, is nonsense. No matter what humans “created”, it would be wrong for me to do that.
Human rights derive from our nature as rational beings. They aren’t created.
Steve,
Yes…we, as rational beings, created them. And we recognize certain rights as inalienable because it’s generally understood that without those rights human society will struggle to function or survive
If you’re going from the whole “God-given” rights angle…I should probably tell you that I’m an atheist so I don’t accept that our rights derive from anything other than ourselves, which is why they don’t apply to anything outside our species. If you don’t believe me, by all means feel free to find a hungry bear in the woods and have a discourse with him over how he doesn’t have a right to eat you or use physical violence against you without your consent.
Robert,
If I’d been in Costa Rica at the time and seen it, I would have tried to help the dog.
Greg,
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’ve had this argument before and the only instance in which I’m willing to concede that animals have “rights” (or, more accurately, protections) is as property…which isn’t a right for them but for the owner. If I own a dog, and you kill my dog, I should have a right to recourse under the law because you’ve caused harm to me by depriving me of my property. What people do with their own animals is, ideally, their own affair. But, as I said earlier, I probably wouldn’t stand by (and haven’t, in the past) if I saw someone beating a dog or trying to set a cat on fire or doing any number of things of that nature…whether it was their animal or not. That would make me wrong, and probably something of a hypocrite, but I’m okay with that and I’m willing to accept the consequences of my actions in that regard. There are no moral absolutes in a complex world.
But the idea of giving animals “rights” in any kind of sense that humans generally mean them is insane, because animals can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others. When humans have rights and animals have rights, those rights will inevitably come into conflict and human rights will be degraded as a result, which is unacceptable even if the goal (preventing animal cruelty) is, on the surface, appealing.
http://www.atlassociety.org/cth–391-FAQ_Animal_Rights.aspx
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
To whom do you refer when you say “we”? Because I wasn’t at that meeting, so you don’t get to speak for me, nor for anyone else. You use the ambiguous collective to mask the absurdity of such a claim, though I suspect you’re ignorantly just mouthing what you’ve heard from others.
It isn’t wrong for me to run you over just because some people at some point in history (which you don’t specify) decided it was. It’s wrong because you have an inherent right to your life, despite what anyone claims to the contrary. I’m an atheist, too, and I have no need for any religious argument to recognize that you have exclusive ownership of your life. I see no rational reason why anyone else would.
Get it? Reason. Not imaginary deities. Not imaginary collective consensus.
someone should jusy put a bullet in that asshole “artist” and be done with it
A Real Dilemma for Libertarians…
This is a question that comes up from time to time in libertarian circles, and to which I have yet to see a truly satisfactory answer: are animal rights reconcilable with libertarianism in a way which permits humans to act freely? To be sure, in the …..
I’m waiting for Balko to acknowledge the finding that the dog was actually fed. Either refute it with evidence, or at least persuasive argument — or apologize and correct your post.
“That dog didn’t look healthy” is a cop-out.
If you check the link at comment #13, it looks as if no one’s really sure if the dog died or not. Read up. Make up your own mind.
Steve,
You’re doing what a lot of zealots do…you’re confusing morality with legality. Rights are a legal creation by humans to set up basic protections for individuals. They don’t naturally exist because human rights are only respected within human society, as I was trying to illustrate with the bear metaphor. Animals don’t recognize a right to life simply because they don’t automatically try to kill you…the only recognition of human life/rights animals have appears to be out of either affection or self-interest. And nothing else in nature recognizes a right to life, human or otherwise. Tornados don’t recognize a right to life. Typhoons don’t recognize a right to life. Giant asteroids don’t recognize a right to life. Humans don’t even recognize a right to life in animals, considering that we kill them frequently for food and sport (which is usually fine by me), or an absolute right to life in other humans (considering how often we go to war). So, by all means explain to me how your argument about the existence of a natural right to life is not religious in nature and how it extends beyond human society.
And if your rebuttal to this question is to throw out another personal attack against what you perceive as my “ignorance” don’t bother wasting your time with a response because you don’t know me, I don’t know you, and I’m not interested in hearing it. There are plenty of people on the Net who can discuss topics rationally without resorting to ad hominum attacks and troll tactics to cover the holes in their arguments. And those are the only people I’m interested in getting into a discussion with.
Radley,
With all due respect, it appears that a) the museum curator has stated for the record that the dog was neither mistreated nor killed and b) the link in comment 13 says that it appears the artist you named didn’t even participate in that exhibit so the story appears to be unsubstantiated.
The dog didn’t look healthy to me either, but then that shouldn’t be unexpected if they picked up a stray off the street. Doesn’t mean they were responsible for its appearance, or that they killed it or even mistreated it.
Crawford,
You wrote, “I probably wouldn’t stand by (and haven’t, in the past) if I saw someone beating a dog or trying to set a cat on fire or doing any number of things of that nature…whether it was their animal or not.”
You’re right not to stand by in situations like those. And you’re right to do so because, whether you admit it or not, you recognize that animals, as Nozick writes, “count for something.” Does that mean they should be given the full range of human rights? Should we flip a coin to decide whether to save a human or an animal?
Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t grant SOME rights to animals (e.g., the right not to be tortured). We don’t give children all the rights we give adults, but that doesn’t mean we can do to them what we will.
You say it’s “insane” to grant animals rights because they “can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others.”
Surely all of those things apply to infants as well (and to some other sets: advanced Alzheimer’s patients, say?). Unless you’re willing to strip infants and those already unfortunate folks with Alzheimer’s of their rights, you have to come up with some other standard than the ones you listed for who (or what) should be given rights. In fact, there’s almost no question that an adult chimpanzee experiences the world in a much deeper way than does a human newborn. Which, then, should have rights? Either? Both? What argument, other than bald-faced speciesism, could justify giving the newborn robust rights, but denying even the most basic right to humane treatment to the chimpanzee?
You need to do more reading before you continue to call yourself a libertarian. I am speaking of nothing BUT morality when I use that word. I don’t give a damn about the product of government, i.e., legal system.
Off you go.
Radley Balko, you’ve read the linked story you directed me to. Have you made up your mind? So far, you haven’t said one way or another.
The controversy in the linked article is whether the exhibit is real at all, or instead a hoax. It ends, “no dead animals were in evidence”. So far, not one source confirms that a dog was abused, but many deny it.
None of this uncertainty occurs in your post, which is all most of your readers will see. Instead, you have a link to a picture of a dog, framed by a story about horrific abuse of that dog.
Steve,
Rights (or at least their recognition) can be a human creation without begin a grant from government. That is, unless you think all human activity is necessarily government activity, in which case perhaps you ought to dust off the ol’ libertarian books as well.
Greg,
I recognize that I, personally, empathize with animals and that I, personally, cannot stomach standing by while an animal is abused or tortured. That is, however, a moral choice and should not be confused with what should be considered legal. I sympathize with animals who are abused, I despise the people who abuse them and personally choose to shun such people, but I do not support granting animals any kind of rights under the law (aside from property) to prevent that because I also believe that doing so will inevitably bring human rights and animal rights into conflict and devalue human rights in the eyes of the law. Beyond protections as property I don’t think you can grant animals rights without endangering human rights.
Children are still humans and will eventually develop the ability to recognize and exercise human rights. Animals never will. And people with developmental disabilities, Alzheimer’s, etc. still merit considerations as they are human beings (although their rights are more abridged than people without disabilities, so there’s probably room to argue about what rights for them are alienable or inalienable). I recognize that some people would probably think that an argument about animal rights could also be extended to humans with incapacities, but honestly I think the redline’s more simple than that…human rights should end at the species reproductive barrier. Any creature that has not demonstrated a capacity for human reason, whose progeny will also not develop that capacity, and who cannot interbreed with humans are not deserving of human rights.
Greg,
In all honesty, I probably am a speciesist (sp?). But given my beliefs on the nature of human rights I think that’s probably necessary.
Greg, recognition is not creation.
Now, if you’re talking about actual creation, could you please explain to me just who creates these so-called rights, and how they do so? If they don’t bother to do it before you and I are born, would that mean there was nothing morally wrong with me smashing your head with a rock?
Whenever one subgroup presumes to have the authority to decide for everyone else what is right and wrong, and imposes that through force, rather than reason—and, furthermore, claims a monopoly on the use of force—they are, for the purposes of this discussion, indistinguishable from government in every pertinent aspect.
Steve,
Even if one grants that individuals have rights by virtue of their existence, it’s nonsense to say that the concept of rights isn’t a human creation. If humans didn’t come up with the idea, who did? Perhaps rights are like the principles of mathematics, and have always existed “out there” somewhere, but merely had to be discovered. Ok, but until the idea of rights was “discovered” (and I think that idea is dubious), rights didn’t exist in any meaningful way; certainly not in any way that would allow for their enforcement.
I think you’re confused about what rights are. They’re not a real thing, you know. You can’t order “rights” down at the local Wendy’s and have the workers wrap your rights up to go. Instead, “right” is just a linguistic device used to indicate some claim you have against government interference with your private life. And the idea that such spheres of privacy exist, and that government shouldn’t be able to touch them, is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. Those principles were discovered, recognized, and made worthwhile by humans, struggling against arbitrary political authority (or protecting their status and property).
In other words, rights don’t exist until humans recognize that they exist, which in turn creates a moral claim for their enforcement (note: rights don’t depend on the actual enforcement, only on the moral claim for recognition).
You seem to think that the recognition of “natural rights” is a prerequisite to call oneself a libertarian. Not true. Mises didn’t find “natural rights” persuasive, and Liberty magazine dubbed him the “libertarian of the century.” Of course, that doesn’t mean Mises really cared about liberty, but I think a prima facie case can be made that he did.
Finally, a few comments above you wrote that you didn’t give a damn about “the product of government, i.e., legal system”). Of course, the well-read libertarian understands that legal systems are not the product of government. Would you like me to recommend a few books to catch you up?
Crawford,
You’ve moved the goalpost. A few comments above, you wrote that “the idea of giving animals “rights” in any kind of sense that humans generally mean them is insane, because animals can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others.” That’s a legitimate standard for rights.
But when I pointed out that those same characteristics apply to Alzheimer’s patients and infants, you changed the standard, saying that those latter two groups still deserve rights by virtue of their being human. But isn’t that begging the question? Isn’t the point of this to discuss the standard by which we judge whether to recognize that something has rights? It’s possible that only humans do, and it’s possible that animals do, too. But merely claiming that only humans have rights, and then denying animals rights for the sole reason that they aren’t human is not a very compelling argument.
Greg,
Respectfully, I haven’t moved the goalposts…my position has always been that rights are a human creation, exercised and enforced only within human society, and as such only humans actually have rights. Animals don’t recognize human rights, animals don’t enforce human rights, animals don’t participate in arbitration or court cases or civil suits themselves, they aren’t capable of articulating their rights and likely never will be, and we don’t even recognize a fundamental right to life for animals (which all other rights stem from) because they’re still a source of food for us. If the situation changed, and animals suddenly were capable of consciously articulating and exercising their rights, I’d re-evaluate and my opinion on it would probably change. But they are not, and as such I don’t think they belong in a discussion about rights, so much as a discussion about how they may be protected under property laws.
As for people, I don’t differentiate between different groups of humans as to who has rights and who doesn’t. I believe the only argument to be had with regards to the groups you’ve named, is what rights we should consider “alienable” vs. “inalienable”. And those distinctions obviously wouldn’t be the same for all groups, nor can you come to an absolute agreement about rights, because the situation of an Alzheimer’s patient (whose incapacities are currently permanent) is clearly different from that of a normal child (whose incapacities are not).
Greg,
And I completely agree with your assessment of rights in your response to Steve’s position…our disagreements about their applicability to animals aside.
Well now you’ve moved the goalpost back, but of course by doing so, you re-open yourself up to the same objections. If the standard is that, to have renforceable rights, a being must be able to recognize them, articulate them, participate in their enforcement, or bring suit on behalf of them, then clearly infants, advanced Alzheimer’s patients, and comatose patients cannot have enforceable rights. If the standard for having enforceable rights is “being human,” then of course all of those categories would have them, but an adult chimpanzee would not. However, if the latter standard is what you want to use,then you have to come up with some principled bright line between the set of all humans, and the set of all animals. And as of yet, I haven’t seen that bright line proposed.
As a thought experiment, imagine if extraterrestrials find our planet, and co-habitate with us. Obviously to get here they would need technology as yet unimagined by humans, which would indicate they could reason on a level at least as impressive as the human level. Would those beings fail to qualify for enforceable rights because they weren’t human? If they would qualify, why would they?
Perhaps the answer is that it isn’t anything uniquely “human” that we want to protect, but rather a set of characteristics that we think are worthy of respect. And to the degree that an animal shows those characteristics, we recognize and enforce its rights.
Greg,
My bright line would be the reproductive barrier for species. Currently humans can only reproduce with other humans so I don’t consider that to be a vague or arbitrary line for cutting off human rights at all…in fact, I think it’s the only non-arbitrary line in the entire “animal rights” debate. Granted that technology is evolving to the point where hybrid species may eventually develop and at the point those species emerge the debate over animal rights should, and very likely will, be brought to the foreground. But until those instances occur and those hybrids become a reality instead of just a hypothetical fantasy it seems a waste of time to debate it because we don’t know what characteristics those creatures would possess. Same with extraterrestrials. If they were someday to arrive on our planet, I’m probably going to be open to a discussion about what rights they should or shouldn’t possess in human society. Until then, it’s just science fiction, so what’s the point (beyond maybe coming up with a premise for an interesting novel)?
As things currently stand, animals should not be granted rights because, as you mentioned and as the entire animal rights debate clearly illustrates, they can’t even participate in the discussion. The debate for animal rights right now is based entirely in human empathy for animals…not on any actual stated desire by animals themselves for what rights they should possess. Dogs and cats aren’t asking for liberation from being pets/slaves. If I were to seriously ask my dog if he was happy being my slave he’d probably stare at me, wag his tail and jump up and down for joy, especially if there were a Schnausage attached to the question. As long as I treat him well (and sadly, probably even if I didn’t) he’s not going to try and escape or start a revolution because he’s content with the current arrangement which is not based on equality (at all). The call for animal rights is based on what animal lovers think animals want. And that’s not solid ground for a system of law, particularly since (as I mentioned before) the majority of people aren’t even willing to accept a universal right to life for animals (because it would lead to human starvation and human suffering).
What’s more, granting rights to animals also gives government ample ground to infiltrate even more into our lives. Do you think, once animals are granted life, some group like PETA isn’t going to immediately claim that killing cattle for food is cruelty and a violation of their lives? If the government is one that accepts animal rights, what do you think their response is going to be? What about euthanizing pets with crippling injuries? Do you think it’s going to be of benefit to humans to have to hire a lawyer and go through a court of law to get an okay to put their arthritic, incontinent dog to sleep because we have to respect the dog’s “rights”, even though we have no possible way of knowing what the dog does or doesn’t want in that situation?
When people talk about “rights” for animals, they aren’t really talking about rights, they’re talking about protections, which is different. And that’s something that can be better provided under property laws than anything else, by putting the power in the hands of the animals’ owners…not by granting rights to animals themselves that those animals can neither fully comprehend nor exercise.
Greg,
Also…
All of those examples you list are humans, none of whom are necessarily in a permanent state of incapacitation. Infants eventually become adults. A cure for Alzheimer’s may eventually be found. Comatose patients may one day wake up. All of these people also are recognized to have some rights…that’s why the hospital’s not allowed to just yank their feeding tubes because they feel like it. They have to consult with the families and courts, to insure that the rights and wishes of the patient are being represented as best possible under the individual circumstances. That’s why people set up living wills. That’s why courts set up conservatorships to care for people incapable of caring for themselves. Incapacitated humans are still, rightly, seen as having rights despite their inability to represent themselves because a) the situation is not always permanent, and b) stripping rights from incapacitated humans also makes it easier to strip rights from everyone else. The second reason, by the way, is why I don’t exclude people like those in your examples from the rights debate. Denying rights to animals does not endanger human rights…only giving them rights can do that.
I love when someone who can’t even conceive of their being a ‘higher power’ calls me an ape. Many of you are actually proving my point. Not that anyone will read this anyways, but I wasn’t explicitly saying that the death penalty is right in all cases either. I was just pointing out the absurdity about how that is SO wrong yet an unborn (innocent) child can be killed without issue.
And I’m the ‘ape’ … classic.