Destroying artwork

kai · 18th May 2016, 04:22 AM

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Alan!

Just a minor quibble:

Quote:

Equally, penalties for the killing of elephants must be as Draconian as it is possible to make them. The penalties must deter any prospective elephant killer. I would envisage something along the lines of the death penalty, not only for the killer, but for his entire extended family, and for any person who had any involvement in the killing, both before and after the fact.

If my attitude seems just a little too harsh, then perhaps we should take a long step back and ask exactly what is important to us.

If it is the preservation of The Elephant, then no measures taken to ensure this can be considered to be unreasonable

Here again it is important to establish and continue to monitor which measures really work and which don't. For example, the death penalty has a bad track record to avoid murder - I rather doubt it will work any better in this context (actually, rangers already need to shoot encountered poachers to avoid being killed themselves).

Also keep in mind that poaching nowadays often takes place in the form of raids/operations by militia forces (including forced conscription of kids and teens).

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2016, 05:16 AM

Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.

Penalties just marginally more severe than a fine which equates to the cost a meal in a decent restaurant in a major city of a developed country.

That is of course only one way of looking at the problem.

As I wrote in my earlier post:-

"This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us."

If the supposed problem is really serious, then we must act in such a way that the risk of the problem becoming reality is forever avoided. This will cost enormous amounts of money, as well as immense human suffering.

However, if what we are looking at is something less than the End of the World, then let us consider what can be done about those people who want to rob us of those things which most of us cherish.

These people are the same ones who have generated this over-reaction to ivory.

Tim Simmons · 18th May 2016, 06:15 AM

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2016, 07:06 AM

I tend to disagree with you Tim.

At the beginning of my previous rather lengthy post I acknowledged that I was out of step with everybody else.

In my opinion this is not about art, nor ivory, its preservation or destruction.

It is about the destruction of core values of western society, and I only mention western society because that society is what most of the people here are members of.

This ivory thing is only a symptom of the illness that is affecting us all, but because the effect is cumulative, it goes unnoticed until some time that it affects something that one of us personally holds dear.

Clearly a lot of people in this discussion group are deeply affected by the attack on ivory, which some see as an attack on art. But the people who have generated this attack on ivory are the same ones who are attacking our very way of life and the core values of our society.

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.

ALEX · 18th May 2016, 08:51 AM

Robert Shapiro, former O.J. Simpson lawyer, in a recent interview said: "There's two types of justice that we deal with in America: There's moral justice and there's legal justice". Simply put, legal justice is used here to stop the trend and ban the illegal substance. That said, I am with Alan in that it becomes witch hunt that affects innocent and items of historical significance. I hope more thoughtful and senseless controls will form in near future before people get hurt for owning camel bone pens and ivory colored ties.

Kubur · 18th May 2016, 11:12 AM

I agree but it's not only about moral justice.
It's about society.
These people give moral lessons, they are ecologists, vegetarians and whatever...
They are against fur and they pretend to protect wildlife...
But they are also the same who wear fashonable leather shoes without thinking that leather comes from animal
or they are the same who wear trendy clothes made by little childrens in India or China...
as I said... disgusting...

Tim Simmons · 18th May 2016, 11:26 AM

What ever

just make sure however you deal with it, do not go through people who are vandal. The art must remain whole.

ariel · 18th May 2016, 11:31 AM

I suspect Alan's suggestion of death penalty for the perpetrators, their families, friends, neighbors, sheep and oxen was tongue in cheek:-)

On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is a pussification of Western societies.
It is incredibly gratifying to protect "weak and miserable", such as whales, elephants, owls and exotic fish. Just as much as granting asylums, vaporizing about genital mutilation, circumcisions, firearms, bladed objects, sugary drinks, carbon prints, halal slaughter of animals and electronic cigarettes.

Interestingly, all these governmental decisions come from people who are not going to be affected by the fruits of their bureaucratic frenzy.

Governments acquired unlimited and unchecked powers. Education of children became a province of ex-hippies of the lunatic left fringe. Future generations will be even more supine, because they were brainwashed from diaper age ( environmentally safe diapers, mind you!) and never ever asked themselves why fascist regimes always put the word "socialist" at the head of their party manifestos.

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

estcrh · 18th May 2016, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?

estcrh · 18th May 2016, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.

Change the things you can not accept and accept the things you can not change......knowing which situation you are in is the hard part.

drac2k · 18th May 2016, 01:06 PM

The banning of ivory by the government has less to do with the saving of the elephant, but more to do with them exerting their control over people, without the " just consent of the governed."
The ivory question will allow them to obtain search warrants to enter your house, and if you have a gun, or more than one(because who would collect more than one), even though they may be pre-1898, seize them.It might be legal to own them, and with due process and thousands of dollars spent, you may even get them back and yourself out of jail before you are bankrupt !
Do not think that the government enforcers will be happy to stop at ivory ;horn handles are next, as well as bone weapons.Heaven forbid that in the raid, they find a Paleo point thousands of years old, that some tribe that has been on the land less than 300 years, claims.
The EPA and the IRS are two examples of government regulatory bodies that have never been accused of restraint and as such I see no reason to trust any government regulatory agency making a determination between old and new ivory.
Maybe governments should concentrate on saving the lives of their people and improving their quality of life with the same enthusiasm as that of endangered animals ; maybe start with something like the homicide rate in Chicago !

estcrh · 18th May 2016, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

Tim, I see a new market opening up for hilt and inlay replacement specialists, they will remove (hopefully undamaged) the offending "ivory" and "horn" and skillfully install new and legal high quality hilt and inlay material, life will go on for those that can afford it.

kai · 19th May 2016, 04:08 AM

Hello Alan,

I fully agree that preventive control is paramount and that one needs to stomp in strongly to prevent the extinction of rhinos, tigers, and - to a slightly lesser or more local extent - elephants.

Much easier to talk about than implement, of course. And we need to talk honestly about poverty and failing elites, for sure.

Quote:

Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.

I did get the gist of your well-balanced proposal.

I don't argue that it would have *some* deterrent effect...

However, I do hold that even severe penalties are a very inefficient tool: Even in the middle ages when the penalties mentioned by you were liberally applied (at least to the lower strata of society) it certainly did not *prevent* major offences from being perpetrated. While we certainly also need to talk about penalties if deemed too weak, I'd posit that we can have humane penalties and still achieve needed preventive measures (i. e. let's keep them mostly in the non-preventive realm - what you call detective control). IMNSHO penalties (as well as laws/legislation in general) need to be continuously monitored/evaluated if they really achieve their intended goals. As we have argued here, it's too easy to go overboard, even with good intentions!

Regards,
Kai

estcrh · 19th May 2016, 05:19 AM

http://www.internationalivorysociety.org/
Godfrey Harris, chair of the International Ivory Society formed to challenge strict laws on ivory moving through the Californian legislature, has taken exception to the language used in the proposal.

“USFWS has made ivory sound like a toxic substance requiring special handling by bomb disposal squads. If you didn’t know better, you would think that the next generation of IEDs are being disguised in old ivory billiard balls.”

http://www.ivoryeducationinstitute.org/
IVORY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAST AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FUTURE ECLIPSE ANY UNREASONABLE OR INEFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS ON ITS TRADE OR MOVEMENT.

A. G. Maisey · 19th May 2016, 06:12 AM

Thank you for your ideas on crime and punishment Kai.

I've already used far too much space in this thread, so I'm going to make this post as direct as possible.

1) if elephants are truly in danger of extinction, and if it has been determined that this should not be permitted to occur under any circumstances, then the measures taken to prevent the extinction of elephants should be absolute measures. If this means removing all human presence from , let us say, Kenya, then so be it. Give Kenya back to the elephants.

2) however, if this supposed extinction of elephants is merely the quasi political invention of those people who treasure the "rights" of animals, the "rights" of trees, and the "rights" those human beings who behave in a manner contrary to nature and to the established belief systems that form the foundations of Western Societies, and of many other societies, then the measures taken to remove this plague, this very visitation of Satan Himself from our presence must be absolute. If this requires a mass extinction of these minions of the Evil One, then so be it.

3) but if the truth of the matter lays somewhere between these two extremes then those who most strongly support the concept of elephant preservation must contribute the vast sums of money, and the armies of adequately trained personnel to ensure this preservation.

4) perhaps after the elephants have been saved, we may be able to give some thought to how we can save our own societies, and our long established traditional values from the perversion of the Grand Corruptors who hide in our midst.

drac2k · 19th May 2016, 12:09 PM

So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals.
Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?

kronckew · 19th May 2016, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drac2k

So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals.
Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?

but it DOES work. i've not heard of a single murderer who was executed ever doing it again. sure deters him & saves the state having to support him for decades at huge costs to us. i have however heard of murderers released on parole from life sentences who did kill, and soon after he was released. one who killed someone, a stranger at a bus stop, while waiting for the bus to take him away from the prison comes to mind. there are degrees of murder, some justified, some crimes of passion by basically good people, but there are some people who are just evil and eliminating them is best. does it deter others from copying - maybe not. we never hear about the ones it did deter based on someone else's execution, only the ones it did not. kinda skews the stats. and the liberals forcing the state thru endless apeals to make those who are on death row suffer for decades before executing them is cruel and unusual. arrest them on a monday, try them on tues., appeals on wed. and/or thu. and public execution on friday at noon works for me. justice must be swift and must be seen to have been done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Though interesting to some ...may I suggest that this thread be moved to Miscellaneous since the so called Destruction of Artwork is not an ethnographic weapon...but is allowable in terms of that Forum...not this one.

sounds like a plan. i agree. too generic and emotive.

18th May 2016, 05:16 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder. However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear. My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet. Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators. Penalties just marginally more severe than a fine which equates to the cost a meal in a decent restaurant in a major city of a developed country. That is of course only one way of looking at the problem. As I wrote in my earlier post:- "This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us." If the supposed problem is really serious, then we must act in such a way that the risk of the problem becoming reality is forever avoided. This will cost enormous amounts of money, as well as immense human suffering. However, if what we are looking at is something less than the End of the World, then let us consider what can be done about those people who want to rob us of those things which most of us cherish. These people are the same ones who have generated this over-reaction to ivory.

18th May 2016, 06:15 AM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

18th May 2016, 07:06 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I tend to disagree with you Tim. At the beginning of my previous rather lengthy post I acknowledged that I was out of step with everybody else. In my opinion this is not about art, nor ivory, its preservation or destruction. It is about the destruction of core values of western society, and I only mention western society because that society is what most of the people here are members of. This ivory thing is only a symptom of the illness that is affecting us all, but because the effect is cumulative, it goes unnoticed until some time that it affects something that one of us personally holds dear. Clearly a lot of people in this discussion group are deeply affected by the attack on ivory, which some see as an attack on art. But the people who have generated this attack on ivory are the same ones who are attacking our very way of life and the core values of our society. We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them. Learn to live with it? No thank you. I've read too many history books.

18th May 2016, 08:51 AM	#5
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Robert Shapiro, former O.J. Simpson lawyer, in a recent interview said: "There's two types of justice that we deal with in America: There's moral justice and there's legal justice". Simply put, legal justice is used here to stop the trend and ban the illegal substance. That said, I am with Alan in that it becomes witch hunt that affects innocent and items of historical significance. I hope more thoughtful and senseless controls will form in near future before people get hurt for owning camel bone pens and ivory colored ties.

18th May 2016, 11:12 AM	#6
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	I agree but it's not only about moral justice. It's about society. These people give moral lessons, they are ecologists, vegetarians and whatever... They are against fur and they pretend to protect wildlife... But they are also the same who wear fashonable leather shoes without thinking that leather comes from animal or they are the same who wear trendy clothes made by little childrens in India or China... as I said... disgusting...

18th May 2016, 11:26 AM	#7
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	What ever just make sure however you deal with it, do not go through people who are vandal. The art must remain whole.

18th May 2016, 11:31 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I suspect Alan's suggestion of death penalty for the perpetrators, their families, friends, neighbors, sheep and oxen was tongue in cheek:-) On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is a pussification of Western societies. It is incredibly gratifying to protect "weak and miserable", such as whales, elephants, owls and exotic fish. Just as much as granting asylums, vaporizing about genital mutilation, circumcisions, firearms, bladed objects, sugary drinks, carbon prints, halal slaughter of animals and electronic cigarettes. Interestingly, all these governmental decisions come from people who are not going to be affected by the fruits of their bureaucratic frenzy. Governments acquired unlimited and unchecked powers. Education of children became a province of ex-hippies of the lunatic left fringe. Future generations will be even more supine, because they were brainwashed from diaper age ( environmentally safe diapers, mind you!) and never ever asked themselves why fascist regimes always put the word "socialist" at the head of their party manifestos. Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

18th May 2016, 01:06 PM	#11
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,269	The banning of ivory by the government has less to do with the saving of the elephant, but more to do with them exerting their control over people, without the " just consent of the governed." The ivory question will allow them to obtain search warrants to enter your house, and if you have a gun, or more than one(because who would collect more than one), even though they may be pre-1898, seize them.It might be legal to own them, and with due process and thousands of dollars spent, you may even get them back and yourself out of jail before you are bankrupt ! Do not think that the government enforcers will be happy to stop at ivory ;horn handles are next, as well as bone weapons.Heaven forbid that in the raid, they find a Paleo point thousands of years old, that some tribe that has been on the land less than 300 years, claims. The EPA and the IRS are two examples of government regulatory bodies that have never been accused of restraint and as such I see no reason to trust any government regulatory agency making a determination between old and new ivory. Maybe governments should concentrate on saving the lives of their people and improving their quality of life with the same enthusiasm as that of endangered animals ; maybe start with something like the homicide rate in Chicago !

19th May 2016, 05:19 AM	#14
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	http://www.internationalivorysociety.org/ Godfrey Harris, chair of the International Ivory Society formed to challenge strict laws on ivory moving through the Californian legislature, has taken exception to the language used in the proposal. “USFWS has made ivory sound like a toxic substance requiring special handling by bomb disposal squads. If you didn’t know better, you would think that the next generation of IEDs are being disguised in old ivory billiard balls.” http://www.ivoryeducationinstitute.org/ IVORY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAST AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FUTURE ECLIPSE ANY UNREASONABLE OR INEFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS ON ITS TRADE OR MOVEMENT.

19th May 2016, 06:12 AM	#15
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Thank you for your ideas on crime and punishment Kai. I've already used far too much space in this thread, so I'm going to make this post as direct as possible. 1) if elephants are truly in danger of extinction, and if it has been determined that this should not be permitted to occur under any circumstances, then the measures taken to prevent the extinction of elephants should be absolute measures. If this means removing all human presence from , let us say, Kenya, then so be it. Give Kenya back to the elephants. 2) however, if this supposed extinction of elephants is merely the quasi political invention of those people who treasure the "rights" of animals, the "rights" of trees, and the "rights" those human beings who behave in a manner contrary to nature and to the established belief systems that form the foundations of Western Societies, and of many other societies, then the measures taken to remove this plague, this very visitation of Satan Himself from our presence must be absolute. If this requires a mass extinction of these minions of the Evil One, then so be it. 3) but if the truth of the matter lays somewhere between these two extremes then those who most strongly support the concept of elephant preservation must contribute the vast sums of money, and the armies of adequately trained personnel to ensure this preservation. 4) perhaps after the elephants have been saved, we may be able to give some thought to how we can save our own societies, and our long established traditional values from the perversion of the Grand Corruptors who hide in our midst.

19th May 2016, 12:09 PM	#16
drac2k Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 1,269	So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals. Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?