NationStates Jolt Archive

A militant animal rights group claims to have poisoned bottles of POM Wonderful juices in several retail chains on the East Coast to protest animal testing.

A a communiqué from the Animal Rights Militia (ARM), which was posted on the North American Animal Liberation Press Office Web site, reads: “Those who drink the contaminated juice won’t die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches will hopefully send a strong message that people will no longer allow innocent defenseless animals to be tormented and killed for a health juice.” The validity of the claim has not been verified.

The communiqué goes on to say, “more and more activists like us will choose to retreat into the shadows and fight for the animals underground since the government is making it impossible to do the kinds of things that those who came before us did to oppose injustice, oppression and exploitation.”

POM Wonderful, based in Santa Monica, California, has been a target for animal rights groups becasue the company uses animals to test its juice. POM employees have received threats and have been harassed by protesters during demonstrations at their homes. A California State Court has even issued a preliminary injunction barring protesters from harassing POM employees, although the injunction has apparently had little effect.

ARM, which surfaced in Britian in the 1980s, has previously claimed credit for contaminated products, causing companies financial losses. For example, in 1984, ARM said it poisoned Mars Bars (candy bars) in Britain because the Mars Company had performed tooth decay experiments on animals. ARM acknowledged the alleged poisoning was a hoax after the company withdrew the candy from shelves.

ARM has also claimed responsibility for similar activity in North America. In 1992, a new food bar was pulled from store shelves across Canada after ARM claimed it had injected the bars with oven cleaning fluid. A bar sent to a news organizations in Edmonton contained an alkaline substance, according to police. In 1994, two supermarkets in Canada receiving an message from ARM saying that it had injected rat poison into turkeys at several stores. “The holidays have finally arrived and so has the Animal Rights Militia,” the message said. “We are here to avenge the mass murder of millions of Christmas turkeys.”

ARM has also claimed credit for for other criminal acts, inlcuding letter bombings. For example, in 1982, the group claimed repsosnisibilty for sending letter bombs to British politicians, including then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The letter bomb exploded inside the Prime Minister’s London residence, slightly burning one staff member.

In 1998, ARM threatened to kill 10 scientists if Barry Horne, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for waging a 1994 firebombing campaign that caused £3 million in damage to stores in England, died while on a hunger strike. Horne, who eventually discontinued the strike after 68 days, died of liver failure in prison in 2001.

While ARM claims to be a separate organization from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), its goals and tactics are similar. ALF’s UK press officer, Robin Webb, has said that if “someone wishes to act as the Animal Rights Militia,” ALF’s policy of taking every reasonable precaution not to harm or endanger life “no longer applies.”

Source. (http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_america_updates/movements/ecoterrorism/animal_rights_militia.htm)

How can they have such little regard for human life while they claim to care so much about animals? I guess murder is ok as long its for animal protection... :rolleyes:

Has ARM been added to the list of terrorist organizations yet?

Same old noise. I'll have to pick up a can of that juice next time I'm out.

Has ARM been added to the list of terrorist organizations yet?

According to Wiki, not in the U.S.

Probably in the UK though, as they were quite active there in the 80's

Drunk commies beat you to this yesterday (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511824), I'm afraid.

Drunk commies beat you to this yesterday (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511824), I'm afraid.

Ah. Sorry bout' that.

Source. (http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_america_updates/movements/ecoterrorism/animal_rights_militia.htm)

How can they have such little regard for human life while they claim to care so much about animals? I guess murder is ok as long its for animal protection... :rolleyes:

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

They're right. I think we should stop animal testing and start animal rights testing.

I say we pump the head of PETA full of hydrochloric acid to see if it's a viable person-dissolver.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.
Because poisoning fruit juice (hells, even claiming to have poisoned fruit juice) is a valid means of protest.
They're right. I think we should stop animal testing and start animal rights testing.

I say we pump the head of PETA full of hydrochloric acid to see if it's a viable person-dissolver.
Is this sarcasm?

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

Theres a difference between poisoning fruit juice and raising awareness.

While ARM claims to be a separate organization from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), its goals and tactics are similar. ALF’s UK press officer, Robin Webb, has said that if “someone wishes to act as the Animal Rights Militia,” ALF’s policy of taking every reasonable precaution not to harm or endanger life “no longer applies.”

those two statements seem contradictory

Is this sarcasm?

It's half satiric and half me just being pissed off that these people are so vile they would do such a thing.

Did you hear the head of PETA wants to be made into shoes when she dies? I'm thinking of buying a pair.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

I don't like the ARM. They're ******* maniacs. Human life is infinitely more important to me than animals. God has given Man dominion on Earth.

I think the American Government should list the ARM as an official terrorist organization.

~ Romandeos.

God has given Man dominion on Earth.

evidence?

edit: also, what sort of madman would believe that, for example, it would be worthwhile to destroy all other life in the universe to save one human life? 'cause that's what saying that human life is infinitely more important gets you.

evidence?

'Cause he said so.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.


Well if humans lives aren't worth anything, lets commit massive genocide and whipe the animals off the earth, and then I modestly propose that we start eating the children born to families bellow the poverty line. We can pay them for their children, they keep them and fatten them up for a year and then the government purchases them and ships them out for sale to be eaten all around the country. That way we help bring empoverished people out of poverty, don't have to worry about poor children, fill our bellies with delicious food and end spousal abuse as the husband won't beat the wife because she'll be carrying money in her womb for 9 months. Yay!

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.


I'm all for humane treatment of animals but animals are there for us to exploit, we're predators that's we do. We only need to be smart enough to responsibly manage the animal population.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

So you would rather harm humans to increase the chances of protecting animals by 0%, probably decreasing the likelyhood due to hatred towards animal rights groups, but at the same time you would be against harming animals to save humans?

ca-razzy

Let's eat their flesh!

I'm all for humane treatment of animals but animals are there for us to exploit, we're predators that's we do. We only need to be smart enough to responsibly manage the animal population.

Technically we're omnivores.

Pomegranate juice already gives me the runs, so how the hell would I know if it got poisoned? They should poison something that people actually consume, like doughnuts.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

Yeah, I hear that.

I'm all for humane treatment of animals but animals are there for us to exploit

People like this make me sick. The humankind is a disease in this planet, and it has been that way ever since we decided that we are 'superior'. Honestly, i'd rather be a dolphin than a fucking cancer.

God, I hate the middle classes. Especially their lackwit children.

People like this make me sick. The humankind is a disease in this planet, and it has been that way ever since we decided that we are 'superior'. Honestly, i'd rather be a dolphin than a fucking cancer.I quite enjoy being a vicious, deadly cancer.

People like this make me sick. The humankind is a disease in this planet, and it has been that way ever since we decided that we are 'superior'. Honestly, i'd rather be a dolphin than a fucking cancer.

Dolphins exploit the environment as well. Ever seen them hunt a school of fish? They used similar tactics as the old "run the herd of buffalo off the cliff" tactic that humans used. Then there's orcas.

So they kill (possibly) people to save the animals. Okay, so I know that man is animal's worst enemy in many ways, but do these activists realise that threat doesn't work? I hate animal mistreatment, but this kind of action just makes people who care about animals look like a bunch of nut jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people were buying piles of meat and stokcing up on products that are probably tested on animals, just to spite them.

People like this make me sick. The humankind is a disease in this planet, and it has been that way ever since we decided that we are 'superior'. Honestly, i'd rather be a dolphin than a fucking cancer.

Human beings are part of the fucking ecosystem, we can eat plants and animals like we please. No one gives a fuck if a lion eats its prey alive (probably not too fucking pleasant), but holy shit, if a human decides to fucking eat some meat, it's a fucking sin.

Human beings are part of the fucking ecosystem, we can eat plants and animals like we please. No one gives a fuck if a lion eats its prey alive, but holy shit, if a human decides to fucking eat some meat, it's a fucking sin.

And ending the cow's life instantly by driving a steel bolt through its skull at extremely high speeds? Monstrous! A cat literally torturing a mouse until it dies from heart failure? That's just playing.

Dolphins exploit the environment as well. Ever seen them hunt a school of fish? They used similar tactics as the old "run the herd of buffalo off the cliff" tactic that humans used. Then there's orcas.

You see, there's a difference. Dolphins kill for food, it's not wrong, they eat what they kill, and only kill what they eat. We kill for pleasure, not just animals, but our own kind! Not to mention that their killings have little to no impact on the balance of the environment. Now if you look at the humans, we're always FUBARing ecosystems around the world just because of our greed. In other words, dolphins kill fish for food, we kill fish for pieces of paper (a.k.a. money).

You see, there's a difference. Dolphins kill for food, it's not wrong, they eat what they kill, and only kill what they eat. We kill for pleasure, not just animals, but our own kind! Not to mention that their killings have little to no impact on the balance of the environment. Now if you look at the humans, we're always FUBARing ecosystems around the world just because of our greed. In other words, dolphins kill fish for food, we kill fish for pieces of paper (a.k.a. money).

Dolphins don't eat all the fish that they kill. That's why I likened their tactics to the "buffalo over the cliff" one. And orcas are known to kill for fun, as are dogs and cats.

Source. (http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_america_updates/movements/ecoterrorism/animal_rights_militia.htm)

How can they have such little regard for human life while they claim to care so much about animals? I guess murder is ok as long its for animal protection... :rolleyes:


did you read the article past the first sentence?

“Those who drink the contaminated juice won’t die like the animals in pom labs, but the diarrhea, vomiting and headaches..."

did you read the article past the first sentence?

oh, so let's just torture people instead, that's so much better!

Human beings are part of the fucking ecosystem, we can eat plants and animals like we please. No one gives a fuck if a lion eats its prey alive, but holy shit, if a human decides to fucking eat some meat, it's a fucking sin.

No, you're not getting my point here. We are a part of the ecosystem alright, the problem is that we're killing way too much stuff. There's no need for those big ass trawlers with their big ass fish nets, you see? It's like the dolphin thing. They kill the fish, but they never kill so much as to wipe out an entire species of an area, are you following me?

did you read the article past the first sentence?

It depends on the dosage. And I honestly don't trust them to have enough knowledge to know what would kill and what wouldn't. And keep in mind that poisons work by body weight. A poison that would do that to an adult would most likely kill a child.

So they kill (possibly) people to save the animals. Okay, so I know that man is animal's worst enemy in many ways, but do these activists realise that threat doesn't work? I hate animal mistreatment, but this kind of action just makes people who care about animals look like a bunch of nut jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people were buying piles of meat and stokcing up on products that are probably tested on animals, just to spite them.

It's terrorism. ARM are no different than any other terrorist as they use terror as a weapon. And like any other terrorist attack, the intended victims of the attack will be just as determined to resist it as the terrorists are to inflict it.

You see, there's a difference. Dolphins kill for food, it's not wrong, they eat what they kill, and only kill what they eat. We kill for pleasure, not just animals, but our own kind! Not to mention that their killings have little to no impact on the balance of the environment. Now if you look at the humans, we're always FUBARing ecosystems around the world just because of our greed. In other words, dolphins kill fish for food, we kill fish for pieces of paper (a.k.a. money).

And what about cannibalistic animals? Or animals that abandon their young after birth? Or animals that will eat their young? The natural world isn't all flowery and happy. Get over it. Human beings should be grateful that we even have the capacity to mull over this crap. No other species does.

No, you're not getting my point here. We are a part of the ecosystem alright, the problem is that we're killing way too much stuff. There's no need for those big ass trawlers with their big ass fish nets, you see? It's like the dolphin thing. They kill the fish, but they never kill so much as to wipe out an entire species of an area, are you following me?

I think you're ascribing a position to New Genoa that he does not hold. I doubt that anyone here thinks that trawling doesn't fuck up the environment.

You see, there's a difference. Dolphins kill for food, it's not wrong, they eat what they kill, and only kill what they eat. We kill for pleasure, not just animals, but our own kind! Not to mention that their killings have little to no impact on the balance of the environment. Now if you look at the humans, we're always FUBARing ecosystems around the world just because of our greed. In other words, dolphins kill fish for food, we kill fish for pieces of paper (a.k.a. money).

Nope. Dolphins kill harbor porpoises frequently and they don't eat them.

No, you're not getting my point here. We are a part of the ecosystem alright, the problem is that we're killing way too much stuff. There's no need for those big ass trawlers with their big ass fish nets, you see? It's like the dolphin thing. They kill the fish, but they never kill so much as to wipe out an entire species of an area, are you following me?

Dolphins don't have 6 billion people to feed. And I doubt the dolphins in Area A care if the dolphins in Area B die from starvation. Humans, on the other hand, tend to care about our fellow man, even if we don't act like it sometimes.

And what about cannibalistic animals? Or animals that abandon their young after birth? Or animals that will eat their young? The natural world isn't all flowery and happy. Get over it. Human beings should be grateful that we even have the capacity to mull over this crap. No other species does.

Oh, cheese. I'm not saying that nature is all flowery and stuff, mate. What i'm saying is that we are fucking up the environment, and you can't say that that ain't true. My point is that we belong to nature, not the other way around.

oh, so let's just torture people instead, that's so much better!

giving someone diarreah and a headache better than killing that someone? I'd say so.

Nope. Dolphins kill harbor porpoises frequently and they don't eat them.

And of course, the dolphins are making them extinct...

giving someone diarreah and a headache better than killing that someone? I'd say so.

Would you mind if I decided to poison some of your food for the explicit purpose of giving you diarrhea and vomiting because of my f'ed up political views?

It depends on the dosage. And I honestly don't trust them to have enough knowledge to know what would kill and what wouldn't. And keep in mind that poisons work by body weight. A poison that would do that to an adult would most likely kill a child.

What poison did they put in there?

And did they actually poison that stuff or is it a ploy to get people to not buy the drink as a way to cause financial harm?

As much as I hate to admit it, I think I like this Animal Rights Militia. They are raising awareness with a pro-active approach. I must say though that I like animals a lot more than I like people.

They aren't going to win any support by making people sick (if indeed they are telling the truth about poisoning these drinks). This is a simple attempt to use fear to manipulate people, which is the very definition of terrorism in my book. This is an illegal and immoral action. No one has given them the authority to judge what is unacceptable treatment of animals, and no one has given them authority to punish those they hold responsible for what they deem to be cruelty to said animals. If they don't like the status quo they should be working, through legal means, to rectify the situation, and not by taking 'justice' into their own hands.

Even if I agreed with their position on POM drinks (and I haven't done enough research to form an opinion on the subject) I would be in favor of every member of this 'Animal Rights Militia', who had anything to do with this incident, being jailed.

And of course, the dolphins are making them extinct...

I don't know, nor do I care. Let those sea mammals kill each other off. It'll leave more fish for me to eat. I love seafood. Hey, I wonder how dolphin tastes?

And of course, the dolphins are making them extinct...

How do you think the thousands of species before mankind became extinct? Other species...environmental changes...evolutionary change...

Would you mind if I decided to poison some of your food for the explicit purpose of giving you diarrhea and vomiting because of my f'ed up political views?

Of course I'd mind. Did I say that its good to give people diarreah and headaches?

No I dont think I did. I believe I said that it is actually much better than killing someone (when you seemed to imply that it wasn't). You dont agree? Would you find both offenses equal in thier terribleness?

hrm, well I'm never buying that juice again. shame...they had cool little glasses and bottles.

Of course I'd mind. Did I say that its good to give people diarreah and headaches?

No I dont think I did. I believe I said that it is actually much better than killing someone (when you seemed to imply that it wasn't). You dont agree? Would you find both offenses equal in thier terribleness?

It's not much better is what I'm saying. I don't know why we're arguing anyway.

What poison did they put in there?

And did they actually poison that stuff or is it a ploy to get people to not buy the drink as a way to cause financial harm?

Beats me. But if they did poison it, and it causes those effects in adults, it'd be quite capable of killing children.

How do you think the thousands of species before mankind became extinct? Other species...environmental changes...evolutionary change...

The Cambrian-Ordovician extinction events - 488 million years ago
Species affected: Brachiopods, Conodonts, and severely reduced the number of trilobite species.
Possible causes: Glaciation, depletion of oxygen in marine waters

Ordovician-Silurian extinction event - 444-447 million years ago
Species affected: The brachiopods and bryozoans were decimated, along with many of the trilobite, conodont and graptolite families.
Possible causes: The most commonly accepted theory is that they were triggered by the onset of a long ice age, perhaps the most severe glacial age of the Phanerozoic

Late Devonian extinction - 365 million years ago
Species affected: The most important group to be affected by this extinction event were the reef-builders of the great Devonian reef-systems, including the stromatoporoids, and the rugose and tabulate corals. Also brachiopods, trilobites, ammonites, conodonts, and acritarchs, as well as jawless fish, and all placoderms.
Possible causes: Canadian paleontologist Digby McLaren suggested that an asteroid impact was the prime cause of this faunal turnover, supported by McGhee (1996).

Permian-Triassic extinction event - 251 million years ago
Earth's most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct
Possible Causes: Many theories have been presented for the cause of the extinction, including plate tectonics, an impact event, a supernova, extreme volcanism, the release of frozen methane hydrate from the ocean beds to cause a greenhouse effect, or some combination of factors.

Triassic-Jurassic extinction event - 200 million years ago
20% of all marine families and all large Crurotarsi (non-dinosaurian archosaurs), some remaining therapsids, and many of the large amphibians were wiped out. At least half of the species now known to have been living on Earth at that time went extinct.
Possible causes: Climate change, asteroid impact, Massive volcanic eruptions

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event - 65 million years ago
See Wikipedia

As you can see, none of these had anything to do with 'other species'. Period.

If they said they poisoned the juices in the name of Allah instead of animal rights, there'd be a SWAT team surrounding them by now.

In the final equation, the only thing that matters in this universe is humanity.

Ecology is important only to keep humans alive. The planet we are standing on only has importance because humans live there. Our sun's only purpose is to ensure human survival.

Humanity is the only known fully conscious and self-aware species. We alnoe have rights, because we alone can understand the concept of rights - or even the concept of concepts.

If we choose not to cause harm to other creatures, it is because we choose not to distress other humans, not because of any inherent property of those creatures. To equate any animal with human feelings, rights or privileges is the realm of fools.

In the final equation, the only thing that matters in this universe is humanity.

I seriously hope that you are kidding.

It's not much better is what I'm saying. I don't know why we're arguing anyway.

I disagree becauce I think that the two things are way different and killing someone is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse.

because I took issue witht he OP acting like this animal rights group is taking human lives with this act.

Once someone dies from it, I will join in the outrage. As it is... they warned people of somethign they may or may not have done in a effort to cause financial harm to a company that tests on animals. I aint so worried about it right now and think the OP is going overboard, personally.

Humanity is the only known fully conscious and self-aware species. We alnoe have rights, because we alone can understand the concept of rights - or even the concept of concepts.


Currently, the only test to determine consciousness and the state of being self-aware is the mirror test. And humans aren't the only ones to pass it.

I seriously hope that you are kidding.

Why? The only reason we value nature is because it's useful to us and it pleases us. It's ours to do with as we wish.

Beats me. But if they did poison it, and it causes those effects in adults, it'd be quite capable of killing children.


HOw do you know if it is capable if killing children when you dont know what they used or the amount they used?


Did someone buy you a "Jump to Conclusions Matt" for Xmas?:p

HOw do you know if it is capable if killing children when you dont know what they used or the amount they used?


Did someone buy you a "Jump to Conclusions Matt" for Xmas?:p

If it causes reactions that severe in an adult it would kill someone who weighs far less, because they take proportionally far more of the poison. There's no such thing as a nonlethal poison.

As you can see, none of these had anything to do with 'other species'. Period.

do you seriously believe that extinctions only occur in "events"? introduce a new population into an area and if it outcompetes the species in that niche, the other species goes poof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

Human beings are just another species being introduced into the ecosystem. If other species can't deal with it, then they haven't adapted. I think it's more a matter of aesthetics that we preserve these species than anything else. Our primary staples of food (beef, pork, chicken, veggies, and fruits) are pretty well populated. If anything, preservation of species and the environment should benefit humanity first, rather than some lofty goal about nature being some type of supernatural force that needs to be protected.

It's ours to do with as we wish.

Mate, if you think so, i'm pretty sure i won't be the one to change your mind. I can only hope that some day you will change your mind.

And no, i'm not a tree hugging vegan hippie (for fuck's sake, we're omnivorous). I just think that we should not 'exploit' nature as we currently do, it is wrong to do that and hope it to be here forever, you know?

Mate, if you think so, i'm pretty sure i won't be the one to change your mind. I can only hope that some day you will change your mind.

And no, i'm not a tree hugging vegan hippie (for fuck's sake, we're omnivorous). I just think that we should not 'exploit' nature as we currently do, it is wrong to do that and hope it to be here forever, you know?

The only obligation we have isn't toward nature, but to future generations. We have to make sure that there will be something there for them to exploit.

The only obligation we have isn't toward nature, but to future generations. We have to make sure that there will be something there for them to exploit.

And it just so happens that the best way to do that is to make sure that species don't go extinct.

If it causes reactions that severe in an adult it would kill someone who weighs far less, because they take proportionally far more of the poison. There's no such thing as a nonlethal poison.

so it's impossible for a substance that with the same dose, could cause headaches and diarreah in adults or children?

really? You know this beyond all doubt?

Are you a toxicologist or extreemely knowledgable in the field?

And it just so happens that the best way to do that is to make sure that species don't go extinct.

Yeah. Well, at least not too many species.

And it just so happens that the best way to do that is to make sure that species don't go extinct.

That's fine, but I don't like have these holier than thou organizations telling me that it's cruel to eat meat, wear fur, or what have you. If we can find a way to benefit humans and the rest of the species, then that's fine.

FUCK! I have nothing against eating pigs and cows and shit, guys! You're confusing stuff.

introduce a new population into an area and if it outcompetes the species in that niche, the other species goes poof.

If you think that way, soon we will be the only species in this planet.

If anything, preservation of species and the environment should benefit humanity first

Yeah, so taking down all trees and killing every other species of wild animals are no bad for humanity? Ok, like i said to someone else, i won't try to change your mind there, mate. After all, we can believe in whatever we want.

so it's impossible for a substance that with the same dose, could cause headaches and diarreah in adults or children?

really? You know this beyond all doubt?

Are you a toxicologist or extreemely knowledgable in the field?

I'm not saying that it would definitely kill children. I'm saying that it would cause more severe effects in children. Since diarreah is already a rather severe effect, it is not unreasonable to suspect that children could die.

Yeah. Well, at least not too many species.

Yeah. At this point, it's better off not to lose any more, though. We've pretty much done all the damage that the ecosystem can be reasonably expected to recover from already. It's like Jenga.

FUCK! I have nothing against eating pigs and cows and shit, guys! You're confusing stuff.

Alright, granted, I'll get off that.

If you think that way, soon we will be the only species in this planet.

Unlikely. You may not like the aesthetics of the species that were able to adapt to humanity, but they'll be around nonetheless.

Yeah, so taking down all trees and killing every other species of wild animals are no bad for humanity? Ok, like i said to someone else, i won't try to change your mind there, mate. After all, we can believe in whatever we want.

Fine, preserve the trees, but then what do we use in the meantime while we're searching for alternatives? Where will the ever expanding human population go? We can't just "destroy" poverty and cut the birth rates in these third world nations in an instant; there needs to be room for humans, and resources as well (and with more humans, more resources need to be consumed). Where are these resources going to come from? How do we plan on facilitating such a large conservation effort? We're hardly cutting down all the trees, either. Perhaps in POORER nations where the governments need money, but in first world nations, we're regrowing the ones we cut down.

That's fine, but I don't like have these holier than thou organizations telling me that it's cruel to eat meat, wear fur, or what have you. If we can find a way to benefit humans and the rest of the species, then that's fine.
I couldn't agree more with you here, mate.

Fine, preserve the trees, but then what do we use in the meantime while we're searching for alternatives? Where will the ever expanding human population go? We can't just "destroy" poverty and cut the birth rates in these third world nations in an instant; there needs to be room for humans, and resources as well (and with more humans, more resources need to be consumed). Where are these resources going to come from? How do we plan on facilitating such a large conservation effort? We're hardly cutting down all the trees, either. Perhaps in POORER nations where the governments need money, but in first world nations, we're regrowing the ones we cut down.

The problem is that there's way too much people in the world. For fuck's sake, i'm not saying that we should go around killing people...That would be fun, but the damage is done already.

I'm not saying that it would definitely kill children. I'm saying that it would cause more severe effects in children. Since diarreah is already a rather severe effect, it is not unreasonable to suspect that children could die.

IMHO, it's still jumping to conclusions when you have no idea what they used, or how much much they used. That is, if they even did anything at all beyond making the claim. Have any bottles been found with poison in them yet?

I don't think it's alright that they did it, if they did it, but it seems kinda silly to me to suggest that they are putting human lives at risk (at least on purpose). If they are working with a poison and they know how much it takes to cause a certain reaction, perhaps they used an amount small enough not to kill a kid since they don't seem to wait to cause death in anyone. Perhaps the reaction would be more severe in a kid than in an adult. How do you kow that they didnt use just enough where it might give a small person diarreah while a lerger person might just get an upset stomach? You don't. I don't.

Driving a car potentially puts someones life at risk and an accident can easily kill or disable someone for life. School administrators allowing peanuts on campus, puts lives at risk. Someone with a severe peanut allergy can die from merely getting peanut matter on their skin. Someone smoking a ciggarette near someone with asthma, especially a child, puts a life at risk.

Does that make any of those people murderers or terrorists?

The only obligation we have isn't toward nature, but to future generations.

that entails some fairly monstrous ethical consequences. such as entitling the last human to destroy the planet on her way out.

anthropocentric ethics are dead.

I seriously hope that you are kidding.

Not in the least. The only other thing that COULD have value in this universe is a hypothetical non-human sapience - either one we created or of alien derivation.

We are, at least so far, unique. We understand and comprehend, we seek knowledge for it's own sake, and we manipulate environments for our own purposes. It is not a matter of nothing else being as important as we are. It is a matter of nothing else having any value at all save what we give it.

We are, at least so far, unique. We understand and comprehend, we seek knowledge for it's own sake, and we manipulate environments for our own purposes. It is not a matter of nothing else being as important as we are. It is a matter of nothing else having any value at all save what we give it.

So, i take that you also think that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that dinosaurs did not existed, right?

So, i take that you also think that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that dinosaurs did not existed, right?

Huh? Humans are unique. We have attributes and abilities that do not exist in any comparable form in any other species on Earth. I've never seen any other species launch others in to space, or discover the laws of the universe, or develop beautiful works of art and music, or cure diseases, or achieve any other accomplishment.

Huh? Humans are unique. We have attributes and abilities that do not exist in any comparable form in any other species on Earth. I've never seen any other species launch others in to space, or discover the laws of the universe, or develop beautiful works of art and music, or cure diseases, or achieve any other accomplishment.

Might want to remove the art bit. Chimps and elephants both do it. And birds sing. The space one is a bit iffy as well. There are several animals that get into the earth's upper atmosphere with some frequency.

Edit: And anyways, there are better arguments than the unique one, since there are plenty of species that can do things that we can't. Sapience is a better argument, but it opens up problems as to where one draws the line.

that entails some fairly monstrous ethical consequences. such as entitling the last human to destroy the planet on her way out.

anthropocentric ethics are dead.

How is that a monstrous consequence? I'd say reducing our population to one surviving individual is much more monstrous than that one individual somehow destroying the planet. Shit, after we're gone who's left to care that the planet's been destroyed?

Anthropocentric ethics aren't dead, and can be a good motivator for managing the planet for maximum resource yield with minimum long term degredation of the environment. After all, you want to make sure you'll have enough resources not just for your generation but also for you kids or grandkids to be able to continue to thrive.

Going off topic, should i eat at McD's? I can't decided wether to buy something there, or just grab some grilled chicken and vegetables. :confused:

Might want to remove the art bit. Chimps and elephants both do it. And birds sing. The space one is a bit iffy as well. There are several animals that get into the earth's upper atmosphere with some frequency.

Yeah, but they haven't produced anywhere near the kind of work that humans have. Their music is born in to them and it has nowhere near the kinds of changes or varieties that humans have made. Not only did we write the music, but we also designed and built the instruments and constructed the mathematical notation for songs. In 10,000 years, our music has evolved and changed so fast that the number of styles and works worldwide is easily in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. And art is the same way; we have developed thousands of different styles and media to make it, and it has changed almost immediately thanks to individuals with new ideas. Other animals haven't shown the ability to produce the kinds of changes or ideas that we can.

And the organisms that got in to space didn't do it by developing an entire field of mathematics, engineering a ship, developing rocket propellants through chemical engineering, construct it using advanced manufacturing techniques, or understanding the physics behind space travel. We had to discover all of that using our brains...no animal has ever done that. And not only that, but humans improve themselves and their physical situation very quickly. Our cultural evolution and adaptation to environments has occurred at rates thousands of times faster than biological evolution. A bird or a chimpanzee today is nearly identical to one that lived 10,000 years ago, while a human today is vastly different technologically and culturally from his Bronze Age ancestor.

Edit: And anyways, there are better arguments than the unique one, since there are plenty of species that can do things that we can't. Sapience is a better argument, but it opens up problems as to where one draws the line.

I'd say that language is the best one, because no other species has linguistic capabilities like we do. Consciousness is very poorly understood; personally, I feel that there are uniquely human aspects to it that will never be truly measured because it is a product of a system more vastly complex and smaller even than the trillions of synapses and neurons in our brains.

Sapience may exist to a degree in any animal with a nervous system; I'd say that language is the best one, because no other species has linguistic capabilities like we do.

well parrots can use words and understand their meaning. They can even do math and give the answer in whatever language you teach them. They just cant form sentences without mimicry.

Parrots are mean. They bite!

Sapience may exist to a degree in any animal with a nervous system; I'd say that language is the best one, because no other species has linguistic capabilities like we do.
Language opens up dolphins, though, which are known to have complex methods of communication. So do elephants, in fact. One of the difficulties is that they can learn to understand us, even in an extremely basic fashion, but we can't do the same with them, so we can't use more surefire methods of testing.

You'll get a problem like this in pretty much any method of testing for sapience. Something besides humans will register on it. They won't necessarily register on our level, but they'll still register. Chimpanzees are about as intelligent as a four-year old child. Are they sapient?

Another difficulty has to do with how different animals are from humans. The further away an animal is from human, the harder it is to accept it as sapient, even if it passes one or more of the tests. It's easy for people to accept chimpanzees as sapient. Gorillas, a bit harder. Dolphins are rather easy, but that likely has to do with the whole notion of dolphins as sapients being popularlised for the past few decades. Elephants are even harder. I don't think anyone can truly wrap their mind around the possibility of cuttlefish being sentient, even though that possibility exists.

So, i take that you also think that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that dinosaurs did not existed, right?

Actually, as a strongly anti-religious Atheist, I'd say that was about as far from my beliefs as it is possible to get.

Oh, and CthulhuFtaghn (Ia! Ia! Yog-Sothoth!), Delphine communications is still conjectural. Oh, I have no doubt they're communicating something, but whether it's any more informative than birdsong is anyone's guess at this point.

If I were poisoned like this I'd seek a member of their organization out, tie them up, force their mouth open, and let the poison run its course using their mouths as depository, preferably including some means to force them to swallow. If I had to poison myself again in order to do it, I would.

Nobody uses me as collateral damage to make a point and comes unharmed.

Oh, and CthulhuFtaghn (Ia! Ia! Yog-Sothoth!), Delphine communications is still conjectural. Oh, I have no doubt they're communicating something, but whether it's any more informative than birdsong is anyone's guess at this point.

It's a pity that they don't have hands. If they did, we could try and teach them sign language. It's pretty easy to figure out the level of something's intelligence if you can do that. Easier than teaching them to speak, for some reason. I guess sign language is more abstract or something.

How is that a monstrous consequence?

how isn't it?

Shit, after we're gone who's left to care that the planet's been destroyed?

if the population was divided up into nazis and jews, and the nazis succeeded in killing all the jews, it would still be wrong despite the lack of people that care.

if the population was divided up into nazis and jews, and the nazis succeeded in killing all the jews, it would still be wrong despite the lack of people that care.

Godwin would come, but he's in the toilet after drinking some juice.

if the population was divided up into nazis and jews, and the nazis succeeded in killing all the jews, it would still be wrong despite the lack of people that care.

Like how people still condemn the french for wiping out the cathars?

Right and wrong are subjective.

Like how people still condemn the french for wiping out the cathars?

I do. Specifically, I condemn the ones who did it. They just happen to be all dead, so I rarely need to do so.

I do. Specifically, I condemn the ones who did it. They just happen to be all dead, so I rarely need to do so.

Trust me, if they were still ALIVE, you'd have a bigger issue than condemning them to deal with. :p

Typical animal "rights" tripe... And the worst part is that none of the fuckers responsible for this shit will ever be punished.

How, again, did this degenerate from discussing the insanities of Animal rights to the prevention of extinction? Other than being associated with hippie-leftist movements, species preservation and animal rights really have nothing in common. ALF-types tend to focus on the use of domesticated animals, who are in no danger of disspearing at all. In fact, the majority of extinctions are not caused directly by human action, but mostly by animals we have introduced (cats, rats, mongooses, and don't forget the Brown tree snake that single-handedly wiped out the majority of the Guam's birds, bats, and lizards). In quite a few cases, we could probably save more species by killing off animals than by leaving them alone.

In any case, only humans deserve rights because humans created the concept of rights. It is not as though animals intentionally treat each other 'humanely'.

The people who did this should be jailed and be forced to pay the company back for every dollar they lost as a result. Honestly why on earth would you want to subordinate human interests to animal ones? I blame watching to many cutesy disney movies.

In any case, only humans deserve rights because humans created the concept of rights. It is not as though animals intentionally treat each other 'humanely'.So because animals don't treat eachother humanely, humans should treat them inhumanely?

Right and wrong are subjective.

this does not undermine my argument in the slightest

In any case, only humans deserve rights because humans created the concept of rights.

and likewise only european male humans deserve rights because european male humans created the concept, yes?

Huh? Humans are unique. We have attributes and abilities that do not exist in any comparable form in any other species on Earth. I've never seen any other species launch others in to space, or discover the laws of the universe, or develop beautiful works of art and music, or cure diseases, or achieve any other accomplishment.

Yeah, so? Every species is unique. The relevant question is whether that uniqueness entitles us to moral superiority.

did you read the article past the first sentence?

I guess you didn't read the article at all then. They can only hope nobody dies from drinking the contaminated juice. What if someone that is allergic to what they used drank some?

ARM has also claimed responsibility for similar activity in North America. In 1992, a new food bar was pulled from store shelves across Canada after ARM claimed it had injected the bars with oven cleaning fluid. A bar sent to a news organizations in Edmonton contained an alkaline substance, according to police. In 1994, two supermarkets in Canada receiving an message from ARM saying that it had injected rat poison into turkeys at several stores. “The holidays have finally arrived and so has the Animal Rights Militia,” the message said. “We are here to avenge the mass murder of millions of Christmas turkeys.”

ARM has also claimed credit for for other criminal acts, inlcuding letter bombings. For example, in 1982, the group claimed repsosnisibilty for sending letter bombs to British politicians, including then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The letter bomb exploded inside the Prime Minister’s London residence, slightly burning one staff member.

In 1998, ARM threatened to kill 10 scientists if Barry Horne, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for waging a 1994 firebombing campaign that caused £3 million in damage to stores in England, died while on a hunger strike. Horne, who eventually discontinued the strike after 68 days, died of liver failure in prison in 2001.

While ARM claims to be a separate organization from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), its goals and tactics are similar. ALF’s UK press officer, Robin Webb, has said that if “someone wishes to act as the Animal Rights Militia,” ALF’s policy of taking every reasonable precaution not to harm or endanger life “no longer applies.”

Poisoning, letter bombs, threats to murder scientists.... Yes, this certainly sounds like an organization that holds human life in the highest regard.

Stuff like this will always happen in Britain because our governments have always been too weak kneed when dealing with animal rights extremists. The government doesn't seem to realise that being the nice guy isn't going to get you anywhere. These people don't fear the consequences because they know that if they're caught they'll get a derisory sentence in cushy conditions. The government needs to be a little less orthodox when dealing with these people. A good example to follow would be the FBI under Hoover. They might not have acted cleanly but they got things done, crushing dangerous subversive organisations like the Black Panthers. If you play by the rules, expect to lose.

How do you go about testing a juice on animals, anyway? Make them chug a can of Pom?

Besides, why test it on animals? People have been drinking it for thousands of years. When was the last time you heard of corn on the cob being tested on animals?

I personally think they shouldn't be testing it on animals at all, that would end this whole conflict, save the companies millions in lost revenue and damages, and keep the animal rights people out of jail.

How do you go about testing a juice on animals, anyway? Make them chug a can of Pom?

Besides, why test it on animals? People have been drinking it for thousands of years. When was the last time you heard of corn on the cob being tested on animals?

I personally think they shouldn't be testing it on animals at all, that would end this whole conflict, save the companies millions in lost revenue and damages, and keep the animal rights people out of jail.
When you're dealing with a threat from extremists you don't surrender, you destroy them. If that means extremist scum get long prison sentences then great, that's the idea. If we just gave in all the time to avoid conflict we'd have every degenerate lunatic imposing their will on an unwilling majority. Also, while I agree that animal testing was probably unnecessary in this case, it would be catastrophic to end it entirely. We need animal testing to help ensure the safety of medicines, it's one of the few ways scientists can test the effects of their drugs on an entire organism.

When you're dealing with a threat from extremists you don't surrender, you destroy them. If that means extremist scum get long prison sentences then great, that's the idea.

That's only half the picture. You must kill recruiting methods if you wish to successfully stop any form of extremist groups. Otherwise, all you're doing is just prolonging the fight.

ALF and PETA have been noted to produce and distribute significantly graphic and equally misleading propaganda pieces towards children in order to recruit the next generation of people towards their cause.

Silencing the distributors alone will not solve the problem, as it will force it underground. Instead, counter propaganda should be used, one that removes the credibility of these organizations altogether rather than attacking their odious message.

Place them within their rightful category, that of being domestic terrorists, thereby removing their right towards legal recourse, and conduct counter propaganda. Eventually, they will be forced to take extreme measures, thereby killing their own credibility and turning local public support against them, or they will evaporate.

You see, there's a difference. Dolphins kill for food, it's not wrong, they eat what they kill, and only kill what they eat. We kill for pleasure, not just animals, but our own kind! Not to mention that their killings have little to no impact on the balance of the environment. Now if you look at the humans, we're always FUBARing ecosystems around the world just because of our greed. In other words, dolphins kill fish for food, we kill fish for pieces of paper (a.k.a. money).

Heh. Hehehe. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You don't know much about dolphins. Bottle-noses are viscious little pricks whom often kill the young of other species, who DO NOT compete for the same food as bottle-noses, are not impeding on territory, and pose no harm whatsoever to them, for what appears to be the fun of it.

Not only that, but they often times gang up on a young dolphin, and take turns dragging and keeping it under water until the young dolphin eventually drowns, and then leave. Not to mention various attacks on sharks and such.

But hey, they only kill for food. Right.

did you read the article past the first sentence?

Actually, excessive diarrhea and vomiting CAN cause a person to die, and very easily might I add.

People like this make me sick. The humankind is a disease in this planet, and it has been that way ever since we decided that we are 'superior'. Honestly, i'd rather be a dolphin than a fucking cancer.

:rolleyes: what sad little person you are.......we are superior we are at the top of the food chain, we are the supreme predator we are fully part of the planets ecology, life's a bitch if you're not human......now go kiss your cat.....

I'd say that language is the best one, because no other species has linguistic capabilities like we do. Consciousness is very poorly understood; personally, I feel that there are uniquely human aspects to it that will never be truly measured because it is a product of a system more vastly complex and smaller even than the trillions of synapses and neurons in our brains.

Well, even that is not really a solely human concept. Many animals have very complex vocal patterns, and appear to have at least a rudimentary symbolism behind their vocals. This may not be language, in the complex human sense, but it could be the beginning of a language system, quite easily. Not to mention that it is quite apparent that Homo Sapiens are not the only animals to have had speech, as recent studies and finds show that Neanderthals had the capabilities for the speech(Alright, technicality, I suppose-Neanderthals are humans, however it is debatable whether or not they are a different species than Sapiens).

Really, humans are to terribly unique. Many people like to cite various inventions for this. But let me ask you this:

Did you invent these things? No, no you did not. Really, the average human is not to terribly unique at all, when compared to some animals.

:rolleyes: what sad little person you are.......we are superior we are at the top of the food chain, we are the supreme predator we are fully part of the planets ecology, life's a bitch if you're not human......now go kiss your cat.....

Uh, so much is wrong with that. We are not "superior". There is no such thing as "superior" in the natural world. A bear is not superior to a deer because it eats it. They are both have their own little niches' they fit into, and are on the exact same ground. Likewise, humans are not superior, in a natural sense, to any animals. We are more intelligent, yes, but that's just a product of beneficial traits. To say that something is "better" than something else would make it seem there is a definate goal trying to be reached, which there really isn't. It all just kind of works out in whichever way it does.

PETA is a group of attention whores who never practice what they preach. Why else would they insist on "Animal Liberation" while gassing numerous cats and dogs taken from loving families under the lie of adoption, just so the corpses can be used in their future propagandas?

PETA is a domestic Al Qaeda. Simple.

PETA is a group of attention whores who never practice what they preach. Why else would they insist on "Animal Liberation" while gassing numerous cats and dogs taken from loving families under the lie of adoption, just so the corpses can be used in their future propagandas?

PETA is a domestic Al Qaeda. Simple.

Not to mention that their President has diabetes... and uses incilin... which is produced by using cows... and animal testing...

Oh, the idiotic irony.

Not to mention that their President has diabetes... and uses incilin... which is produced by using cows... and animal testing...

Oh, the idiotic irony.

INSULIN. Now it is made using GM bacteria. Also I doubt there is too much animal testing involved. The just extract it from the cuture medium test a sample for purity with chemical methods and ship it.

Not to mention that their President has diabetes... and uses incilin... which is produced by using cows... and animal testing...

Oh, the idiotic irony.

PETA ought to seriously consider changing its name to Animal Farm, don't you think?

Uh, so much is wrong with that. We are not "superior". There is no such thing as "superior" in the natural world. A bear is not superior to a deer because it eats it. They are both have their own little niches' they fit into, and are on the exact same ground. Likewise, humans are not superior, in a natural sense, to any animals. We are more intelligent, yes, but that's just a product of beneficial traits. To say that something is "better" than something else would make it seem there is a definate goal trying to be reached, which there really isn't. It all just kind of works out in whichever way it does.

how you want to interrupt "superior" is up to you....we are on the top of the food chain, that's not a boast or a claim of victory but a fact....we are the supreme animal on the planet, no other life form has dominated the planet like we have for better or worse......

INSULIN. Now it is made using GM bacteria. Also I doubt there is too much animal testing involved. The just extract it from the cuture medium test a sample for purity with chemical methods and ship it.

Really bad typo, wasn't paying attention to spelling, just phoenetics.

Also, although testing isn't(likely) done anymore, it was infact done so in the past, which is what I meant, which in turn makes the President a hypocrite. She'd be dead long ago had animal testing not been done. But hey, don't tell these people that almost any medication they have ever taken in their life(Or still are) has more than likely been tested on an animal.

how you want to interrupt "superior" is up to you....we are on the top of the food chain, that's not a boast or a claim of victory but a fact....we are the supreme animal on the planet, no other life form has dominated the planet like we have for better or worse......

Rats are found in practically every city in the world, and outnumber humans, easily. They can adapt to almost any environment, can adapt the environment to an extent to fit them, and are impossible to completely be rid of. From a purely naturalistic point of view, they are rival humans easily.

Also, we are not on top of the food chain. It is regional, but there are several places where people do infact fall prey to other animals. It may seem we are, but that is only because of the protection that more urbanized life due to civilization has given us.

Also, although testing isn't(likely) done anymore, it was infact done so in the past, which is what I meant, which in turn makes the President a hypocrite. She'd be dead long ago had animal testing not been done. But hey, don't tell these people that almost any medication they have ever taken in their life(Or still are) has more than likely been tested on an animal.

O.K. i'm good with this. I don't want to be seen as benig on their side. Because i'm not.to me thier placing the rights of annimals above those of humans is disturbing. Though I fell that unnecessary animal testing (eg cosmetics) should be avoided. I do not support thier methods of 'protest'.

O.K. i'm good with this. I don't want to be seen as benig on their side. Because i'm not.to me thier placing the rights of annimals above those of humans is disturbing. Though I fell that unnecessary animal testing (eg cosmetics) should be avoided. I do not support thier methods of 'protest'.

Indeed. I'm not against testing in the least, however as humane treatment as possible(As well as it being necessary) are the what I would consider important. Quite simply put, if we did not at least test on some animals, there would be almost an instant hault in medical advancement. We need to test on something before we test on humans, due to ethical and legal reasons.

Rats are found in practically every city in the world, and outnumber humans, easily. They can adapt to almost any environment, can adapt the environment to an extent to fit them, and are impossible to completely be rid of. From a purely naturalistic point of view, they are rival humans easily.

Also, we are not on top of the food chain. It is regional, but there are several places where people do infact fall prey to other animals. It may seem we are, but that is only because of the protection that more urbanized life due to civilization has given us.

rats-not true, I live in an area that is rat free they do not exist here they are exterminated as soon as the are spotted and that's in area of 661848 sq. km (255541 sq. miles) it may defy belief but it's absolutely true ,the regions to the west east and south of us all have rats....it can be done

an isolated area where people fall victim to animals does not put us below them in the food chain, where ever Humans go they eliminate all competition, big cats roamed the entire planet at one time now there only humans populations in areas that human have not yet fully claimed...

rats-not true, I live in an area that is rat free they do not exist here they are exterminated as soon as the are spotted and that's in area of 661848 sq. km (255541 sq. miles) it may defy belief but it's absolutely true ,the regions to the west east and south of us all have rats....it can be done


I hardly doubt that. You may have killed many of them, even most, but there is far more than likely rats around. Just because you don't see them, does NOT mean they are not there. Also, the mere fact that they are exterminated on sight means that since they pop up every now and then, there seems to be a breeding population present in your area.


an isolated area where people fall victim to animals does not put us below them in the food chain, where ever Humans go they eliminate all competition, big cats roamed the entire planet at one time now there only humans populations in areas that human have not yet fully claimed...

Such a simplistic viewpoint... must be nice to be so naive, I suppose.

Is your viewpoint of the "food chain" a world wide one, and linear with a top and bottom? If it is, you are sadly mistaken. The food chain is largely regional, and although they can be connected, there really is no "top" of the chain. It works in circles, really. Actually, with this in mind, I'm going to challenge the very notion of "the food chain", as it is far to simplistic, and quite frankly naive, of a construction. Back to the poin, often times regional circles are connected, I will admit. And, in many of these regions, humans ARE prey to animals, on a fairly regular basis.

And we don't necessarily eliminate competition. It is a trend in some regions, but not so in others. Only with recent advances in technology is that even possible to be universal, however this is not a testament as to our "supremity", as it would be destructive to the environment as a whole(including us).

Let me ask you another-How do you think we caused predators in the past to die off?

Heh. Hehehe. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You don't know much about dolphins. Bottle-noses are viscious little pricks whom often kill the young of other species, who DO NOT compete for the same food as bottle-noses, are not impeding on territory, and pose no harm whatsoever to them, for what appears to be the fun of it.

Not only that, but they often times gang up on a young dolphin, and take turns dragging and keeping it under water until the young dolphin eventually drowns, and then leave. Not to mention various attacks on sharks and such.

But hey, they only kill for food. Right.

Plus they're the rapists of the sea.
http://www.believermag.com/nonbookreviews/mammal_dolphin.php
They'll even try to rape humans!
http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphinrape.html