August 29, 2001

6:56 AM

Stile has hit the fan.His "Kitten - It's what's for dinner" video has finally attracted the attention of PETA, et al. Oddly enough, they seem non-plussed. Unlike much of MeFi's response, PETA is seeking to censor and prosecute.
posted by NortonDC (80 comments total)

Stile is just in it for the money. That's why I have no respect for him. I don't care what he says on his page about the video. The bottom line is, he puts that stuff up because he knows it will make him MONEY. And that is one of the many reasons that that site has sucked for so long.
posted by kingmissile at 7:10 AM on August 29, 2001

I still don't think the video is that bad. It looks foreign, like from some sort of 3rd world cooking show. The cat isn't writhing in pain or being attacked, it's all very, well, culinary. I wasn't bothered one bit.
posted by Zebulun at 7:19 AM on August 29, 2001

This seems overboard to me. The video itself depicts a practice thats common in nearly every outside of the Western world. Now, I agree with what Stile said in his defense of posting it, but I think it's just a bullshit argument to make himself look like less of a creep. I don't really belive he posted it as a "social experiment", he posted it because he gets off on the shock value of it.
I'm not offended by the video per se, I'm offended by the context it was posted in. Floating in a sea of especially degrading pornography, violence, disease, and whatever else appeals to his most base instincts, any social commentary on the video is basically nullified.
Should he be shamed and humiliated (not like that will do anything but add fuel to his fire)? Yes. Sued and proescuted? No.
posted by skwm at 7:19 AM on August 29, 2001

BTW - I couldn't watch that video, it made me ill. As soon as they showed the close up of the kittens face, I shut my eyes and groped for the Alt and F4 keys. I'm a long-time vegetarian, and violence against any creatures makes me ill. That said, I have no problem with anyone eating meat, wearing leather, etc, I just don't want to see the process of it being done.
posted by skwm at 7:21 AM on August 29, 2001

Doing something shocking act for no purpose other than to gain attention. Sounds like a juvenile show off to me. I send my kids to their rooms for crap like that.

Why are we giving Stile and his loathesome antics any more discussion? If he's ignored, his antics will cease. No band plays for an audience of none.
posted by Dreama at 7:52 AM on August 29, 2001

If he's ignored, his antics will cease.

Yes, but how are you going to convince the people who visit his site every day to start ignoring him?

Given that you can't, you might as well join in the gawking...
posted by kindall at 7:58 AM on August 29, 2001

Yet again, PETA is barking up the wrong tree. For the StilesProject site, negative publicity is good publicity. PETA won't be able to censor the video and alot more people will end up seeing it.

This follows other bizarre PETA publicity-seeking schemes like sending a letter to Timothy McVeigh asking him to make his last meal a vegan one. Even more offensive (no matter what you think of him) was the "Got Milk?" spoof featuring a picture of NY Mayor Rudy Guliani with the milk moustache and the caption "Got Prostate Cancer?" He was indeed dealing with prostate cancer at the time.

These things detract from some of PETA's more successful (and easier to sell) publicity campaigns, such as their hilarious commercial encouraging people to fix their cats.
posted by Beefheart at 7:58 AM on August 29, 2001

i like stileproject. he named his site after piers anthony's adept series, which is cool in my book :) check out the reader mail. also isn't he hosted in canada?
posted by kliuless at 8:07 AM on August 29, 2001

If he should be prosecuted for anything, it is for putting his URL on top of every god damn video clip that he hosts on his site. I'm sure that Fox News wouldn't be happy about his modification of copywritten material, as was the case with a clip I saw on FilePile yesterday. I don't go to his site anymore.
posted by machaus at 8:14 AM on August 29, 2001

I just wonder how is it that PETA can have horrifically graphic images and videos of animal slaughter and that's a "political statement", but Stile is just a "vile and repulsive individual".

I was deeply shocked and appalled by the video, don't get me wrong, but what's the difference?
posted by briank at 8:24 AM on August 29, 2001

Er. I would think that the difference is that PETA is making a political statement with its imagery, whereas Stile is not.
posted by Marquis at 8:44 AM on August 29, 2001

Where is the "Everything is political" crowd when you need them?
posted by NortonDC at 8:46 AM on August 29, 2001

I would think that the difference is that PETA is making a political statement with its imagery, whereas Stile is not.

Sounds like the old "I know art when I see it" argument.
posted by skallas at 8:51 AM on August 29, 2001

I would think that the difference is that PETA is making a political statement with its imagery, whereas Stile is not.

Sounds like the old "I know art when I see it" argument.

Sounds like selective perception on PETA's part, if you ask me.
posted by briank at 8:53 AM on August 29, 2001

Ha. Ha. PETA is as good at making PR waves as Stile is. By condemning Stile as loudly as possible, they get a free coattail ride. PETA has been tiresomely good at this tactic for some time.
posted by Skot at 8:54 AM on August 29, 2001

Um. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Granted, what's "a statement" and "what's not" is often a realm for philosophers, but in this context...

PETA shows violence against animals in order to educate the masses about the torture that they argue animals go through. They say "Look - this is horrible. Let us do something about it."

Stile is just going: "Dude! This is whack!" with no associated message, statement or context.

I do not support PETA's actions in this. Seems to me like freedom of speech (but then, I'm a cold, callous man who didn't find the video particularly disturbing). But I can certainly see why PETA's use of such content is political, whereas Stile's is not.
posted by Marquis at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2001

Freedom of speech???????? Wow, I bet the cat's really happy about that.
posted by Option1 at 9:24 AM on August 29, 2001

Stile posting that video has reverberated in the political dimension. I don't think that can even be debated. It has fostered discourse and enhanced the spread of ideas on intensely political topics. Isn't that enough to label it political speech?
posted by NortonDC at 9:37 AM on August 29, 2001

I think that's reading too much into it. As you have said, it "fostered discourse and enhanced the spread of ideas on intensely political topics," but this was inadvertent. The posting of the video was not political, was not couched in politics, and in fact, Stile has gone public claiming he wanted no outcry or particular attention on it. He wanted it to be a nothing video, with no ramifications or effect. His intention was apolitical. (And, to respond to those who will inevitably point out that the -result- has been political, well I say Yeah, but that doesn't alter the nature of the original statement, which is what is being debated.)
posted by Marquis at 9:51 AM on August 29, 2001

I just wonder how is it that PETA can have horrifically graphic images and videos of animal slaughter and that's a "political statement", but Stile is just a "vile and repulsive individual".

The difference is the context that the video is posted in, which was my point above. PETA posts the video as a means of education (i.e., countless animals die in horrific ways every day) within the context of a political/philosophical site.
Stile posts the video solely for its shock value, regardless of what he says to justify it afterwards.
posted by skwm at 9:56 AM on August 29, 2001

I think the original statement was "dinner," then you want to know the motives of the guy that filmed it, and finally the motives of Stile.

skwm-you think PETA isn't interested in shock value?
posted by NortonDC at 9:58 AM on August 29, 2001

[S]he didn't say that, NortonDC. What he said was that "Stile posts the video solely for its shock value". (Emphasis added.) Take a breath before you balk.
posted by Marquis at 10:03 AM on August 29, 2001

Stile's audience is motivated by shock value. Driven by the uncertainty of what lies behind the next link, viewers crave it. Stile delivers.

Having said that... let Stile do anything he wants with human subjects/candidates for the next round of Darwins... but that went way too far.
posted by steveb at 10:10 AM on August 29, 2001

NortonDC - Well, I've never really thought about it. But with the examples mentioned (esp. the Got Prostate Cancer ad), I'd have to say that, yes, they are. But their motives are entirely different - PETAs purpose is to educate, Stile purpose is to titilate.
posted by skwm at 10:17 AM on August 29, 2001

But I can certainly see why PETA's use of such content is political, whereas Stile's is not.

Even if this was true, this matters because? I'd rather not see a private organization start legislating speech on the web.

Anyone who has seen the video can plainly see that its about cooking a cat. There's no close up of guts and kids giggling or jokes about Garfield. I can't see how you can make the argument that this falls under "a depiction of animal cruelty" for prosecution and censorship attempts.

Break down the rhetoric and all you really get is that cute kitties are the US's sacred cows. PETA and its supporters lack of knowledge and tolerance of foreign culture is just embarrassing.
posted by skallas at 10:20 AM on August 29, 2001

Here here.
posted by Marquis at 10:23 AM on August 29, 2001

stile is canadian. how can he be charged and prosecuted under an american law that "probably violates the First Amendment"?
posted by deftone at 10:33 AM on August 29, 2001

Skallas, I've always wanted to know how to cook a cat - I guess we can thank Stile for that invaluable instructional video.
posted by johnny novak at 10:37 AM on August 29, 2001

Yeah, saying PETA is in it for education is awfully tough to reconcile with the act of attempting to suppress the video. There's a lot more educational value in Stile posting the video than PETA's response.
posted by NortonDC at 11:03 AM on August 29, 2001

Unfortunately, stile fills a niche in the internet social order - the shocker. I've gone to his sight a few times a week for about a year now, just to grab freaky videos to email friends. It's a great shock sight, athough you defintely have to be weary of what you might find under the video links.

If stileproject does fold, which it won't, someone else will quickly step up and assume the role of shocker. It's definitely the lowest common denominator, but it is one of the best "$hits and giggles" websites that I've come across.
posted by skechada at 11:05 AM on August 29, 2001

The PETA people need to shut up and have a few assesment meetings. They are seriously screwed up. All of their antics have already been mentioned, so I won't go into it. And they do go away if ignored. I know this from a previous job. Stile doesn't have much to worry about from them.

Beefheart mentioned PETA's attempt to get McVeigh to make his last meal Vegan. Has anybody seen his response? The July Harpers reprinted it. It was beautiful. I was impressed. He managed to politely answer the question, define its problems, AND tell them to fuck off, all at at the same time.

Willing to type in, if anyone cares to see it; it's short.
posted by Su at 11:15 AM on August 29, 2001

There is very little difference between "Look - this is horrible. Let us do something about it" and "Dude! This is whack!"

PETA shocks then offers their point of view, while Stile shocks and doesn't offer a point of view. The only difference is that Stile lacks sanctimony and allows people to react as they will.

Personally, I watched the video and haven't been able to eat meat since.
posted by thebigpoop at 11:16 AM on August 29, 2001

I used to defend him, but now I am just suspicious of everything he does. This all sounds like just another publicity stunt dreamed up by Stile.
posted by crunchland at 11:24 AM on August 29, 2001

Yeah... didn't he pack it in a couple months ago?
posted by Marquis at 11:29 AM on August 29, 2001

I seem to remember during a high school lesson seeing footage of a terrified screaming cow being sent down a conveyor belt with a rotating saw blade down the centre. I think Stile's main defence is the origin of the clip. If the clip had been made by someone with the purpose of having it available through Stile, then that's pretty gross (hence Stile's non-posting of the 'Stile Sux' cat). If, as seems to be the consensus, the clip was obtained from a previously existing source, then that argument is invalid. Because hey, people kill animals. Every day. Some don't even kill them for food, which is still to a meat-eating hypocrite like me, slightly scarier, because it shows the bloodlust side of people, which is a far more objectionable trait than hunger.
posted by boneybaloney at 11:53 AM on August 29, 2001

Again, Stile is doing it for the MONEY. It's not a social experiment or anything like that. He knew it would enrage a bunch of people and they would all link to it and he'd make an assload of money. I would say ignore stile and don't go to his site, but that's pointless cuz not enough people would listen and follow-through to make a difference.
posted by kingmissile at 12:05 PM on August 29, 2001

If you think streaming mpegs for ad impressions is the way to make money in 2001, you've got some surprises coming. I'm sure Stile doesn't think it's the road to riches. I'd be really surprised if Stile is out smoking Cubans on his yacht and laughing at the suckers who downloaded his cooking show.
posted by NortonDC at 12:24 PM on August 29, 2001

I applaud PETA's actions. All of them.

This degrading and contemptible little video is "protected speech" or "just a part of someone's culture"? No. Those who find it to be so should immediately begin phoning congressfolk to lobby for the legalization of child pornography, forced female circumcision, and wife-beating.

There are victims in all these cases, regardless of whether the victim is a powerless child, a powerless woman, or, as at the Stiles site, a powerless animal.

Oh, it's about "culture"? American slaveholders once screamed that emancipation was destroying a "culture". There appears to be a remnant "culture" set on denying equal rights and opportunities to minorities and women. Masses of people victimizing other beings for generations falls somewhat short as an ethical argument.

Multiculturalism is an enormous good, yet there are those who fear and condemn it, saying "You advocate all this culture-mixing? You poor misguided liberal, that culture kills and eats kittens right? You hate that, right? Well, wake up and join our simpleminded, slippery-sloped demand for a uniform language, a uniform religion, and uniform gray pavement. That'll keep those kitten killers outa here....and should keep the cash flow high as well. "

Nonsense. Each "culture", like each being, flourishes with more and more light shone on it. In the light, surrounded by so many different ideas, we find good and bad in each. Choose. Let us minimize the creation of pain, fear, and suffering where ever we find it...in Asian, in American, and at make-a-buck-because-we-stopped-learning-when-we-learned-to-count.com.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:30 PM on August 29, 2001

Each "culture", like each being, flourishes with more and more light shone on it.

Putting up the video does shine light on it.
posted by NortonDC at 12:39 PM on August 29, 2001

There are victims in all these cases, regardless of whether the victim is a powerless child, a powerless woman, or, as at the Stiles site, a powerless animal.

Red Lobster is having a special on powerless lobster this week. You should picket.
posted by rcade at 1:08 PM on August 29, 2001

Putting up the video does shine light on it.

Does it. Then I must assume that the best way to "shine light" on child pornography is to "put it up" more. I mean, more mpegs of child rape posted without comment to Stiles is just bound to bring child pornography to its knees, right?

Just curious...if Stiles purpose is to "shine light" on the topic, I'm sure he won't mind if we get in touch with the "actors" or the "culture" that took part, right? More and more light, right? He won't mind giving ALL the details surrounding his "putting up" the video, right?

I mean, Stiles is well known for activism, right?

Red Lobster is having a special on powerless lobster this week. You should picket.

So should you. So should we all. But oh, that's right. They "taste good". Compelling argument. I imagine those ethicists at NMBLA say something about young boys "feeling good" too. Compelling argument.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:15 PM on August 29, 2001

I didn't say it was his purpose to shine light on the culture by posting. I merely said that it does shine light on the culture.

And I still do.
posted by NortonDC at 1:23 PM on August 29, 2001

I wouldn't be surprised if Stile tipped off PETA in the first place.
posted by gimli at 1:26 PM on August 29, 2001

From what I've heard, Stiles is a jackass. Who cares what he puts up, if you don't like it, don't look at it. I haven't seen the offending video and don't plan to. I have better things to do, but if you get off on that stuff, fine. Of course, I have no respect for PETA either (really stupid shameful self link most people on Metafilter won't really find amusing)
posted by fuq at 1:40 PM on August 29, 2001

In the light, surrounded by so many different ideas, we find good and bad in each. Choose.

This sort of cultural absolutism doesn't work in your own culture, let alone foreign ones. Or have you found a lot of support for your efforts to make meat-eating illegal?

Also, it's disingenuous to compare cat-killing with child pornography or slavery. Or do you consider pet ownership a form of slavery? Should animals be considered citizens? If I trap a mouse, should I go to jail?
posted by D at 1:49 PM on August 29, 2001

Hopefully, people who watched the clip will a) have been kind to animals and b) not eaten meat since. If this is so, is this clip a positive thing? Are extreme images necessary nowadays - to make people more aware of what goes on - because we become unshocked by the atrocities we see on the 6 O'Clock News everyday and mentally switch off?
posted by boneybaloney at 1:51 PM on August 29, 2001

NortonDC seems to be articulating my opinions on this issue, and likely better than I could.
I make no claims to know anyone's intentions, but maybe Stile did a good thing in spite of himself. I couldn't watch the video which is part of the reason I have returned to a meatless diet.
posted by spandex at 2:01 PM on August 29, 2001

What would have happened had Stile posted a video of cattle being slaughtered, cooked and eaten?

Whether it's moral to kill and eat other animals is a different question, but as long as it's ok to be carnivore at all, I say that what's sauce for the cow is sauce for the kitten.

Down with the tyranny of the cute and furry!
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:24 PM on August 29, 2001

lol. this thread rules. RULES!

everyone looks silly. except me. i learned not to join discussions like this anymore.

it's not a debate, it's two people standing on opposite sides of the room screaming 'fuck you!'

has anyone changed anyone's minds yet?
posted by jcterminal at 2:33 PM on August 29, 2001

Hopefully, people who watched the clip will a) have been kind to animals and b) not eaten meat since.

While I've eaten meat every day for the past week, I've got to admit that I have refrained from eating kitten ever since I saw that video.
posted by kindall at 2:48 PM on August 29, 2001

has anyone changed anyone's minds yet?

I couldn't watch the video which is part of the reason I have returned to a meatless diet.

Clearly the answer is "Yes." The interest, attention and discourse sparked by the posting of the video has had a noteworthy impact on some people.

And I think that folks have been remarkably civil, not at all like your characterization. So screw you!
posted by NortonDC at 2:51 PM on August 29, 2001

Fuck you, JC!

...someone had to do it.
posted by Su at 2:53 PM on August 29, 2001

Moving away from the cat mutilation for a moment to the arguably more pertinent human mutilation/death/dismemberment (sorry to all the kittens reading this thread) on sites like StileProject and Rotten.com ...
If I were the relative of someone who had died with gruesome result and someone like this Stiles guy posted graphic images on their website, I'd take a weekend, get in my car and drive to his/her location. Then I'd kick and punch them around a parking lot for 10 or 15 minutes, or until I felt better.
But perhaps I'm just one of those idiots who doesn't understand freedom of expression, political speech, and so on.
posted by daragh at 3:32 PM on August 29, 2001

If I were the relative of someone who had died with gruesome result and someone like this Stiles guy posted graphic images on their website, I'd take a weekend, get in my car and drive to his/her location. Then I'd kick and punch them around a parking lot for 10 or 15 minutes, or until I felt better.

And you'd be arrested, as well you should be, for behaving in such an assinine manner.

But perhaps I'm just one of those idiots who doesn't understand freedom of expression, political speech, and so on.

Perhaps? Why is that sentence worded to make it a questionable statement?
posted by RevGreg at 4:12 PM on August 29, 2001

Dropping a skinned fucking cow from a helicopter is art.

Eating an animal since we (the humans) are at the top of the fucking food chain is bad.

Make up your fucking minds, you leftist shitheads...
posted by Spanktacular at 4:16 PM on August 29, 2001

Make up your fucking minds, you leftist shitheads...

Those aren't mutually exclusive arguments, Spanktacular. Lose the false fucking dilemma, you illogical shithead...
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:26 PM on August 29, 2001

What? Dropping a fucking cow in a stupid German attempt at performance art was defended by quite a few here on MeFi a while back.

You show a pic of a guy not wasting a fine bit of meat, but eating a cute and fuzzy kitten and everybody gets all woogey...

Fuck it, obi. It's all just liberalism...only when it's convenient.
posted by Spanktacular at 4:34 PM on August 29, 2001

Well here's the way I see it. More than 10 million children in 3rd world countries die of starvation and malnutrition each year, while we Americans exterminate and dispose of millions upon millions of unwanted cats and dogs each year. A more humane approach would be to harvest those millions upon millions of pounds of meat and ship them off to 3rd world countries. Who are the real criminals? People who kill a kitty cat to eat it, or people who waste millions of tons of edible meat...
posted by wdeep at 4:46 PM on August 29, 2001

Perspective:

http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/9156

http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/9135
posted by Spanktacular at 4:52 PM on August 29, 2001

This degrading and contemptible little video is "protected speech" or "just a part of someone's culture"? No. Those who find it to be so should immediately begin phoning congressfolk to lobby for the legalization of child pornography, forced female circumcision, and wife-beating.



fold_and_mutilate: that's ridiculous. There is a huge difference between cooking an animal and raping children (in one, the victim is human, in the other, it is not). To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Do you eat meat? How is what happened to the cat any different then what happens to a chicken? Do you believe that all consumption of meat is wrong? If not, does that mean you're all for Child molestation, as long as it isn't videotaped?
posted by delmoi at 5:54 PM on August 29, 2001

I've read this whole thread, and the last one about his kitten video, and I have only one comment...

What's will all you people who are calling him "Stiles"? I mean, where did that come from? There's only one S there, and his name is all over these threads and the link...

I don't know why it bothers me, but it does.
posted by CrayDrygu at 6:04 PM on August 29, 2001

Cray--

maybe they're just confusing him with the guy from Teen Wolf
posted by cell divide at 6:12 PM on August 29, 2001

for those that think he's doing it for the money: a little reality - he hosts massive amounts of movie files, some of them quite large, not to mention the probably thousands of pictures. he also gets massive amounts of traffic. the porn business is lucritive, but when you're giving away that much for free, the money left after paying bills would be fairly slim i'd wager.

i'd say the reason why he does it, is because he started one day, and hasn't come up with any better ideas for what else to do.

oh, and peta are over reacting. i didn't have a great deal of respect for them before, and now i have none.
posted by titboy at 6:16 PM on August 29, 2001

Spanktacular--I read those, and they don't support your assertion. Those links do not yield bunches of MeFi'ers defending the bovine bombing.

(nice bit of crossposting, too)
posted by NortonDC at 6:20 PM on August 29, 2001

"And I think that folks have been remarkably civil, not at all like your characterization. So screw you!"

heh. really? read the rest of this thread.

"Fuck you, JC!"

heh (again).

so let me get this straight, i point out why i refuse to join in on this discussion, then 2 people verbal attack me, then a whole bunch of people prove me right.

excellent work guys. :D
posted by jcterminal at 6:22 PM on August 29, 2001

I swear I posted that before Spanktacular showed up.

Really.
posted by NortonDC at 6:26 PM on August 29, 2001

For my own part, JC, I wasn't trying to disprove you in the least. Quote properly if you're going to at all:

Fuck you, JC!
...someone had to do it.

Hardly an attack.
In fact, I agree with you. My comment prior to that had only tangential connection to the real topic, but I thought(wrong) some people might have been interested in the McVeigh response.
posted by Su at 7:56 PM on August 29, 2001

Norton, you must be right. How silly I was to think that linking to two stories, one involving MeFi posters joking about a guy who catapults bovine carcasses and talked about how much the children enjoy paddling in the stray guts and a jokes about a teen offing himself over the German "perfomance artist" who dropped a cow carcass full of explosives.

You're so right. That in no way is demonstrative of a convenient double standard for animal rights. You're right because it's ok to mutilate cows because they're not cute like itty bitty kitten yummikins...

Once again, ideals only seem to matter and apply here when they are convenient.

For the record: I loathe PETA and their tactics. I'd have popped the tasty tabby bits in my waiting mouth and relished every bite, just as much as I enjoy sashimi, fried chicken and porter house steaks. Meat is meat, people. Get over yourselves.
posted by Spanktacular at 7:59 PM on August 29, 2001

So Stile's in it for the money? I really wouldn't count .05 - .10 per clickthru from a porn banner raking in the big cash. If anything, he's gaining more notoreity from this than anything else.

I'd like to know just what is 'illegal' about his posting the video - and who really cares what his motives were? I applaud anyone who does as he/she sees fit and doesn't become swayed by someone else's morals or ethics. It's not as though he was posting child pornography - which is illegal. Free will, folks....we were all born with it and whether or not we choose to exercise that basic principle is well....free will in itself.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
posted by soynuts at 8:11 PM on August 29, 2001

Spanktacular: you, me, and some fava beans. say Saturday night?

I've got this excellent steak marinade that would be just *fabulous* on you. mmmm.
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:37 PM on August 29, 2001

If you haven't seen the vid, you have no right to speak
posted by ^SynAse^ at 11:16 PM on August 29, 2001

I have seen it, I've seen the rabbit sequence from Roger and Me and I just don't feel anything other than a tummy rumble and a watering mouth.

Animals are food.
posted by Spanktacular at 3:41 AM on August 30, 2001

he also gets massive amounts of traffic. the porn business is lucritive, but when you're giving away that much for free, the money left after paying bills would be fairly slim i'd wager.

I've been told by someone who knows Stile that he was making around $10,000 a month last year.

They "taste good". Compelling argument. I imagine those ethicists at NMBLA say something about young boys "feeling good" too.

I can't imagine a less persuasive argument for vegetarianism than to compare meat-eaters to child molesters. Congratulations.
posted by rcade at 4:00 AM on August 30, 2001

Dropping a fucking cow in a stupid German attempt at performance art was defended by quite a few here on MeFi a while back.

I'm still waiting for you to show "quite a few here on MeFi" defending the guy, Spanktacular.

Once again, ideals only seem to matter and apply here when they are convenient.

I'd worry about truth first; then talk to me about ideals.
posted by NortonDC at 4:00 AM on August 30, 2001

10k a month? I'm in the wrong business.

Regardless of whether or not Stile's making 10 bucks or 10,000, he's still got every right to post whatever he wants - the whole 'taste' issue is subjective and debatable. It's just like with any other media - you don't like what you see, you turn it off.

Those self-righteous, and dare I say fundamentalist people at PETA are not above the tactics they accuse others of. A few years ago, they threatened Ted Nugent's children and wife's lives, saying they'd have someone kill them if he didn't stop producing his hunting show. Pot/Kettle/Black.

I've been vegetarian for nearly half of my life - I don't force my values on anyone. My reasons for not eating animal products is not a political statement - my body simply can't handle it. I wear fur and leather. I've been bow hunting with my dad, and I love fishing. I also respect a culture whose economic circumstances force them to consume what we may call a household pet. Cubans eat horses, Americans eat cows - there's no difference. Anything that sustains life is not, to me anyway, up for moral or legal question. If that were the case, don't you think that the survivors of the Donner Party would have been brought to trial for canniablism?
posted by soynuts at 6:02 AM on August 30, 2001

Following up, Stile is reporting that the source of the video is from a Faces of Death tape and reportedly available at Amazon. Also, PBS has aired the same video in the past.
posted by mischief at 7:34 AM on August 30, 2001

After hearing so much about this video this week I couldn't help myself but to go to the site and watch it. To tell you the truth, its kind of lame. I hunt and have gutted/butchered many dear in my time. I might as well have yawned at the end.
Like it or not, it was nothing more than a receipe on video. Somebody's lunch...

I'll try (almost) anything once, maybe twice. I have no interest in frying my cat, but if I was in Korea and given the opportunity, I would probably try a prepared dish.
posted by Dr Gonzo at 10:11 AM on August 30, 2001

If I were the relative of someone who had died with gruesome result and someone like this Stiles guy posted graphic images on their website, I'd take a weekend, get in my car and drive to his/her location. Then I'd kick and punch them around a parking lot for 10 or 15 minutes, or until I felt better.

And you'd be arrested, as well you should be, for behaving in such an assinine manner.

But perhaps I'm just one of those idiots who doesn't understand freedom of expression, political speech, and so on.

Perhaps? Why is that sentence worded to make it a questionable statement?
posted by RevGreg at 4:12 PM PST on August 29

---------snip----------------
You're right RevGreg, anyone who would take violent objection to a picture of their dismembered relative being posted on a site like Rotten.com or StileProject is a 100% guaranteed idiot. I can't imagine why anyone would find that objectionable.

By the way, it's asinine rather than ASSinine. Your ass insertion was in error.
posted by daragh at 10:21 AM on August 30, 2001

You're right RevGreg, anyone who would take violent objection to a picture of their dismembered relative being posted on a site like Rotten.com or StileProject is a 100% guaranteed idiot. I can't imagine why anyone would find that objectionable.

Uh, exactly where did I state that it was not objectionable? I'm sorry if I don't believe that interpersonal violence is an acceptable way to "deal" with the situation, as was suggested by the comment I was replying to. And that comes from somebody who has a concealed weapons permit and collects assualt rifles...

By the way, it's asinine rather than ASSinine. Your ass insertion was in error.

Gotta love keybounce when you're in a hurry! That's these cheapass Wintel heaps of crap I have to deal with at work for ya!
posted by RevGreg at 2:00 PM on August 30, 2001

Norton, I have searched and searched and I just don't seem to be entering the correct terms to find the story that was posted here about that German freak. The closest I came was the story about the suicidal teen (the one everyone thought was so funny...so much more so than a cat...cats are cute and only a few people are, I guess).

So, I may have to concede that I am wrong about the story showing up here. The thing is, I KNOW I saw the pic at file pile and then a link to a story here...I just can't find the blasted thing!
posted by Spanktacular at 3:50 PM on August 30, 2001