> Kerr's remarks sound so similar to arguments for the death penalty. i.e,
> eliminate the bastard and all of his works for his sins. No redemption
> permitted. I personally find this position equally, if not more abusive.
Really? *Equally*? You think that putting a knife through a painting is an
*equivalent* act to...well, you know what act?
Gill's "sins" were acts of violence against *people*. His daughters were
*people*. He tortured *people*. Not works of art, not ideas. Works of art
and ideas, however cherishable, are not the same as people. Given a choice
between watching the destruction of a painting and the rape of a human
being, which would you choose? (n.b. this is not an argument for the
destruction of paintings in retaliation for the rape of human beings; my
point is simply that to posit a moral equivalence between the two is, well,
*weird*. Wouldn't Gill's daughters have to be somewhat *unreal* to you in
order for you to think that destroying Gill's art was as bad as raping
them?).
Putting Gill to death might perhaps have been an act to compare to his
torture of his children, although I would have acquitted any one of them who
had done the deed herself. But Gill is already dead. What do you do with the
art of a torturer?
- Dom
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|