On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM, John Francis <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, by that logic, I assume you support all the bans on photography > in public places? Nice try, but it won't work. > After all, that's imposing something (the act of > being photographed) on the subjects - something in which they have > no say, and which they apparently often feel is annoying and unfair. This is a rather clever ploy to divert our attention onto another unrelated topic, but it won't work. There's no connection between imposing something on an animal in which he has no say (whether it's mistreatment or not) and taking people's photos in public places. Each issue must be argued on its own merits. The ethics of so-called street photography have been discussed here many times and I don't particularly want to get into it now, do you? > In the spectrum of human mistreatment of animals, I really have to > feel that applying colouring (probably tested on humans :-) to an > apparently healthy and well-fed dog, who appears to be enjoying > the attention he gets, just doesn't even register as a real issue. I agree that in the spectrum of human mistreatment of animals, dying them then putting them on exhibit during a parade is not the most serious of "abuses", however the fact that this dog appears healthy and well-fed is (once again) beside the point. The issue is the colouring of the dog. I don't know how you can tell if he's enjoying the process or not. To me he's just standing there, and it's hard to tell how he feels about it. The fact that it's not the most serious of mistreatments doesn't make it any more right. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
