last I checked, that wasn't protection against the art world appealing to hyperbole to get a point across. I mean, basically every abortion out there is justifiable under the rule of law, that doesn't stop the posters of baby-skull crushing or whatever have you (which is inflammatory, and avoids the issue, and appeals to hyperbole---exactly). People are free, barring certain very specified limitations, to bring whatever they think is right or wrong to the court of public opinion. if you guys are upset about that, commission a piece that has Trayvon killing baby bunnies or something before.
Are you the artist's spokesperson? When did he say he was appealing to hyperbole? So you do agree that abortion is homicide? I have never posted posters of any such thing. I also don't believe the people who do believe them to be art but a depiction of what happens when I child is aborted in some instances. Why is this person free to show this disgusting imagery at the state capital when some others don't want the Ten Commandments portrayed? You really have no real argument, so you should just give it a rest.
people don't want the Ten Commandments portrayed in certain contexts because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They are of course, free to have that opinion and express it because of that very same Amendment. As for the rest of your random, spray-shot questions, even if abortion were anything you deigned to label them---most would be justifiable under the rule of law. If you're not comfortable with that notion, I'd suggest you re-examine your defense of justifiable homicide in this instance. The person is free to display this art because it fits within the confines of the First Amendment, and you're just gonna have to deal with it if you like your notion of fitting in the rule of law. Tough. But, right and wrong in the world can go beyond court rulings, and art can go beyond realism to symbolism. The artist has chosen not to portray the situation as it was loosely determined in a court of law (which has much more different standards then the artistic world). It is his right and privilege to do so. If you find it objectionable, like I said, commission another piece.
Why is it funny that I made a mistake and literally mistyped 19? Wow, how revealing it is that B-Bob types with great alacrity and didn't enthrall himself to the TM court case. But the fact remains, I think's it's pretty offensive to compare any random 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 19 year old to the import and impact of Dr. MLK Junior. But maybe that's just me.
well, really, the Constitution is. You're free to find it objectionable of course, I am merely encouraging you to do something about it, if you really think it is as grave of a situation as you are painting it.
I'm talking about you saying it is all hyperbole. Unfortunately, there are many low info people, yourself included, that seem to believe GZ murdered a helpless kid, not defend his own life.
right. and you got that I was low information because I said, all along, that the artist was being, well an artist, and not applying the court ruling? If you want, like I said, commission a piece that hews exactly to the line determined by lack of solid evidence in a trial, and let it stand as your monument. As it is, I don't find this objectionable. I can understand why others might. But I certainly find where your line of thinking would be objectionable--- the constitution. Case closed. you can rant and rave about that all you want, but the artist has the right, and privilege to make that piece.
"Huong also joined the Dream Defenders, a group holding a sit-in protest outside Gov. Rick Scott's office for the past four weeks. The group plans on taking the artwork on a nationwide tour, although the exact locations are not yet known. The Dream Defenders want Florida's Stand Your Ground law repealed, but Scott said he will not call a special session over the matter." Quoted from the article. It looks like he cares more about the case then the art to me. This was painted not as art but as a large picket sign for a person who wants a law changed because he believes GZ killed TM without reason.
that is their right. In fact, I would encourage citizens like them to get involved. If you have contrary views, please make your views known through action, if you think this is so grave. And they can choose to deploy artwork however they wish, short of some very narrow limitations, to amplify their message. That is their right as well. Like I keep on saying, if you don't like it, go and deploy your own message. or, I mean, gripe about it in an internet forum. whatever works for you.
Yeah, like posting in an internet forum is sooooo beneath you. Just roughly 8,000 posts later, you realized it. Congrats!
on issues that I've been very passionate about, I've made sure to also act (either volunteering, or donating money). I'm merely suggesting the same for bob if he feels so outraged, and reminding him of why the artist has the right to do what he is doing (and why bob also has the right to do this as well). As for myself, griping on the forum is all good and cool, and I love it, and will not hide the fact that I do, but I should note I'm not usually one to start threads about very limited local phenomena, or isolated instances. But if one is truly disgusted by said local instance, well, do something about it then.
That is not art. It is a really bad painting. It is superficial (artistically, technically, intellectually, whatever) and an exercise for bad/obvious gimmickry. Booyah!
He didn't? You should have brought this information to the Sanford PD or the prosecutor. They could have used some evidence that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, because everything they presented pointed toward the conclusion that he was.
Really can't say for sure if it was or was not. There was just only one side to the story. This is what's frightening about the case. As long as there are no witnesses, and if done right...anyone can pretty much get away with murder and claim self defense.
Well, the attention the media has given it gives bad people, bad ideas. I'm also a fairly new dad so I see things as a parent now. The fact that we are discussing Travon Martin in a thread about 3 kids unrelated to his case is distributing too. It just shows me, that as a Hispanic parent I have to prepare my children for the high chance that they will face some sort of discrimination because of how they look. I have to be cautious about the things I buy them to wear because the combination off their ethnicity and clothing makes them bigger targets to discrimination than a Caucasian kid. People like to dismiss the sentiment and vilify people like myself that feel this way but it's the sad truth. I wish didn't have to worry about people judging my kids because of how they look, but I do. I've never really posted in the D&D but, the way people kept trashing on Trayvon, even after his death, really hit home as a parent. My son just turned teen this year and I couldn't even imagine how it would feel to have him killed and then vilified, in order to somehow, make his death okay, even if he did have the troubled past like Trayvon.
