Quote Originally Posted by birdgirl73
That's unconscionable, too. No disagreement from me on that. The starving animals near where I live, however, have an advantage, which is the SPCA and local animal rescue groups. This community is vigilant about their care. And hungry people (most indications are that in America the problem is hunger rather than starvation) have a number of agencies ready to help, too, from food banks to our food stamp programs. I donate time and money to both causes.

I read the article. I still don't believe anything justifies the artist's actions. There were other more constructive ways to draw attention to the problem of starvation, both animal and human, in his county. I feel like you somehow wanted some of us to draw a different conclusion from the story.
I am expressing my point of view. I'm sorry that I don't see this as truly abhorrent. He did not kill something, he let something die. Just like every person who saw the exhibit and did nothing to help. Just like we do every day when people die of starvation in all parts of the world. The only thing that made him so crazy is that if we were to see a dog dying in the streets of Costa Rica, we probably wouldn't touch it.

What would have been the alternative? Should he have left the dog in the street to be eaten half-alive by hungry dogs? Or should he have given it a tin of food to prolong its inevitable suffering? Or maybe adopted the dog and taken it to the vet and gave it a bath so the dog could live 7 more years? Or put this dog in a museum where the patrons will be forced to see the atrocity they've ignored in their streets, where his death might mean something?

When was the last time you thought about the starving dogs in Costa Rica before this exhibit?