NationStates Jolt Archive

Animal-Rights Protests Grow Violent (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/animal-rights-protests-grow-violent/20080708093209990001?icid=200100397x1205369292x1200242077)

More and more animal liberation activists are drifting closer to earning the designation of Domestic Terrorists.

Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable."

Another physician who ignores the Hippocratic Oath and says that intimidation or murder might be justifiable in "defending" a particular group. Does that ring a bell people? Paul Hill, Operation Rescue? Ended up convicted of murdering an abortion specialist? How long you think before this guy ends up gunning down a researcher?

And speaking of the War on Abortion...

A Web site aimed at Berkeley lists the names of a dozen researchers and their home, work and e-mail addresses, their photos, and often their home numbers. The roster also includes graphic descriptions of each scientist's purported work with animals.

"This information is here so that others may pressure these individuals with legal protests - we do not participate in or encourage illegal activity," the Web site says.

An informal hit list of animal researchers. With the old "We don't condone violence or murder on these butchers but if something happens to them anyways we won't shed a tear" copout. Brilliant.

And here is a textbook definition of terrorism in action:

Many scientists are reluctant to discuss the effect violent incidents have had on biomedical research. They worry that any sign the attacks are succeeding could just lead to more of the same.

But at least one researcher decided the pressure was too much.

In 2006, activists began besieging the homes of several UCLA professors. Masked protesters converged on scientists' homes late at night, banging on doors, throwing firecrackers and chanting, "We know where you sleep," according to court documents.

Threatening calls and e-mails followed. Firebombs were left near homes three times; two failed to go off, while the third charred a front door. One professor's home was flooded when a garden hose was shoved through a broken window.

During the onslaught, which lasted two years, a UCLA scientist with small children informed protesters he had stopped doing animal research.

"Effective immediately, I am no longer doing animal research," vision researcher Dario Ringach wrote in an e-mail. "Please don't bother my family anymore."

But you know what's sad? The U.S. Government probably won't be the least bit interested in clamping down on these groups until they kill a researcher, and even then there'll be a minimal response unless it turns out they have connections to Al'Qaeda, Hamas or Hezballah.

Ugh. The worst part is, you're probably right. The US government won't do a thing until they kill a researcher, or four.

Page not found...

They're not labeled as terrorists?

I'm shocked!

*eats a BLT*

Page not found...

Link updated.

Just a BLT? if you want to really piss them off, find a KFC that PETA is protesting, get an order to go and eat it front of them.

In the words of the great Maddox. " For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat 3 "

These people are terrorists and should be jailed.

Hey - one mans terrorist is another pigs freedom fighter !

Just a BLT? if you want to really piss them off, find a KFC that PETA is protesting, get an order to go and eat it front of them.
You could go so much further.

Have a veal tasting session in front of their protest. A suckling pig speed-eating contest. A live pâté-making demontration, with real ducks. The possibilities are... eh... somewhat near endless.

In the words of the great Maddox. " For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat 3 "

"For every Jew you do not gass, I will gass three"

Hmm. Suddenly that statement doesn't seem so funny anymore, now does it ?
And oddly enough some animal rights activists really do consider these statements to be equivalent in malice.

You could go so much further.

Have a veal tasting session in front of their protest. A suckling pig speed-eating contest. A live pâté-making demontration, with real ducks. The possibilities are... eh... somewhat near endless.

I like your style.


Alma Matter, I found it funny, does that mean I'm a bad person?

"For every Jew you do not gass, I will gass three"

Hmm. Suddenly that statement doesn't seem so funny anymore, now does it ?
And oddly enough some animal rights activists really do consider these statements to be equivalent in malice.

Sort of like how Ingrid Newkirk complained about why people still talk about the Holocaust when chickens go through worse every day.

"For every Jew you do not gass, I will gass three"

Hmm. Suddenly that statement doesn't seem so funny anymore, now does it ?
No, but then animals aren't our equals.
And oddly enough some animal rights activists really do consider these statements to be equivalent in malice.
Yes, that's because they're morons.

Alma Matter, I found it funny, does that mean I'm a bad person?

In the eyes of an animal rights activist, you would be - yes.

Of course, the next question is if one should be allowed to mock someones sensitivities in this way. I tend to value freedom of speech slightly higher myself ;)

In the eyes of an animal rights activist, you would be - yes.

Of course, the next question is if one should be allowed to mock someones sensitivities in this way. I tend to value freedom of speech slightly higher myself ;)

Your damn right we should mock their sensitivities. And I meant the Jew joke.

No, but then animals aren't our equals.

Fine. Make it babies then ;)

Yes, that's because they're morons.

Why ? Their reasoning can be consistent. That they base their morals on different ideas and reasoning as you and I do does not make them morons.

In the eyes of an animal rights activist, you would be - yes.

Of course, the next question is if one should be allowed to mock someones sensitivities in this way. I tend to value freedom of speech slightly higher myself ;)

If people are so vocal in defending their right to bait Muslims, why should animal liberationists be treated special in comparison?

"For every Jew you do not gass, I will gass three"

Hmm. Suddenly that statement doesn't seem so funny anymore, now does it ?
And oddly enough some animal rights activists really do consider these statements to be equivalent in malice.
And some people believe the world is flat, has the sun revolving around it, and is subject to the gravitational whims of a planet no one can find.

Your example doesn't seem so clever now does it.

If people are so vocal in defending their right to bait Muslims, why should animal liberationists be treated special in comparison?

Exactly.
Of course, it would be nice if people in general could offer some more constructive reasoning in debates instead of being limited to reasonably lame one liners. But then again, that would take effort.

And some people believe the world is flat, has the sun revolving around it, and is subject to the gravitational whims of a planet no one can find.

Your example doesn't seem so clever now does it.

I see a small difference between not believing observable fact and having a difference of opinion on a moral issue. But that is just me ;)

Of course, the next question is if one should be allowed to mock someones sensitivities in this way.
Och, go on, it's nae bother.

I'm a vegetarian with strong feelings on the despicable ways we treat nonhuman animals (and the planet in general), but I think I can hack a few eejits stuffing their hypothetical stomachs with hypothetical meat.

They can posture on the internet all they want.

On the subject of violence used by 'animal liberation' groups, I utterly reject it.

Well, why don't these utter hypocritical morons offer THEMSELVES to be tested? And why isn't anybody publishing the addresses to THEIR houses online?

Fine. Make it babies then ;)
Eating babies is Bad And Wrong. Eating some animals is a tasty experience.
Why ? Their reasoning can be consistent. That they base their morals on different ideas and reasoning as you and I do does not make them morons.
Suppose so. I am just of the opinion that non-sentient life is below us in the grand scheme of things.

Och, go on, it's nae bother.

I'm a vegetarian with strong feelings on the despicable ways we treat nonhuman animals (and the planet in general), but I think I can hack a few eejits stuffing their hypothetical stomachs with hypothetical meat.

They can posture on the internet all they want.

On the subject of violence used by 'animal liberation' groups, I utterly reject it.

Vegetarian, huh?

*Eats veal*

Eating babies is Bad And Wrong. Eating some animals is a tasty experience.
Eating some babies may well be a tasty experience. Taste isn't everything.

Vegetarian, huh?

*Eats veal*
Except you're not, you're merely posting on an internet forum about hypothetically eating meat in front of people who don't eat meat.

Somehow I don't think many vegetarians are going to be offended by such immaturity.

Eating babies is Bad And Wrong. Eating some animals is a tasty experience.

Bad/wrong and tasty are not mutually exclusive ;)

Suppose so. I am just of the opinion that non-sentient life is below us in the grand scheme of things.

I quite agree. Of course, that does not necessarily lead to the belief that we can do whatever we want with them or that they are worthless.

Hypothetical scenario: if one unremarkable human has to die to save an entire species of unremarkable animals, that are neither a benefit nor a nuisance to humanity, would killing the human be justifiable ?

It is possible to devise a system of morals where the answer is yes.

I see a small difference between not believing observable fact and having a difference of opinion on a moral issue. But that is just me ;)
Your average person can no more observe we rotate around the sun than the mathematicians and astronomers did when they thought it revolved around us. Etc. If "animals are the same as people" is a "moral issue," you are failing some massive "observable fact" checks.

the sad thing is of course that I know of at least one person who refuses to listen to any criticism whatsoever of organizations such as PETA and their involvement in basically murder, course its always good to poke fun of peoples beliefs :)

personally I would of walked out and said that my neighbor is the scientist their after

the sad thing is of course that I know of at least one person who refuses to listen to any criticism whatsoever of organizations such as PETA and their involvement in basically murder, course its always good to poke fun of peoples beliefs :)

personally I would of walked out and said that my neighbor is the scientist their after

If the follow PETA, invited them over to dinner, and eat veal.

*Eats veal*

so tell me if you think this arsehattery is funny? actually lets go further and maybe you can tell me if anyone else will rather than just thinking your a jerk?

Your average person can no more observe we rotate around the sun than the mathematicians and astronomers did when they thought it revolved around us. Etc. If "animals are the same as people" is a "moral issue," you are failing some massive "observable fact" checks.

The moral issue is "animals should have certain rights". Only very silly people claim animals and humans are the same in everything.

Come on, everyone! There's plenty of room on for all of God's creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes!

so tell me if you think this arsehattery is funny? actually lets go further and maybe you can tell me if anyone else will rather than just thinking your a jerk?

I'm not trying to be funny. Quite frankly, I don't like vegans and vegetarians. Humans have sharp pointy teeth for a reason.

Hurt all of the animals you want. They don't have souls or feelings unless they are my pets and then they are human and I'll kill you if you look at them funny.

Back towards the main substance of the topic, anyone else notice how for all the big bold talk from the Dubya Adminstration about The War on Terror, there has been next to shit done about actual domestic terrorism from ALF and their likes?

Let's face it, the only way anything serious will be done about these Animal Liberation Terrorists is if one of their members are stupid enough to get caught saying something to the effect of "We're Doing This For Allah!"

hurt All Of The Animals You Want. They Don't Have Souls Or Feelings Unless They Are My Pets And Then They Are Human And I'll Kill You If You Look At Them Funny.

Qft.

Quite frankly, I don't like vegans and vegetarians.
Why not? They're alright so long as they don't turn food into a control issue.
Humans have sharp pointy teeth for a reason.
We have many more blunt mashy-crushy teeth for a reason ;)

I'm not trying to be funny.
You're being intentionally offensive, because of someone's beliefs?

May I remind you of this forum's rules.

Quite frankly, I don't like vegans and vegetarians. Humans have sharp pointy teeth for a reason.
Yes, we do. They developed at a time where eating meat was a necessary part of the human diet. Funnily enough, we also have other teeth, and are classed as 'omnivores'.

We don't now need to eat meat when alternatives are available (certain peoples haven't eaten animal flesh for thousands of years), and when the industrial production of meat causes such widespread environmental destruction, using up so much of our world's resources, it would seem sensible to make use of our body's incredible adaptability.

Canines are great for ripping apart oyster mushrooms. :p

Also, why on earth would you hate somebody for not partaking in an activity; their non-participation does you no wrong, yet you 'hate' them for it.

Bizarre.

Why not? They're alright so long as they don't turn food into a control issue.

We have many more blunt mashy-crushy teeth for a reason ;)

Those are for the really tender meat.

Its not natural to not eat meat.

I for one support the natural right of livestock animals to be tasty. Sooooo...anyone for protesting PETA meetings for their deplorable actions threatening this very basic right? Think of the animals!

Its not natural to not eat meat.
Tell that to certain groups of Hindus who haven't touched animal flesh for well over 2000 years.

Anyone actually interested in discussing a case of flagrant domestic terrorism being overlooked by an adminstration that has continually flaunted itself as fighting terrorism?

Tell that to certain groups of Hindus who haven't touched animal flesh for well over 2000 years.

Point me in their direction.

Anyone actually interested in discussing a case of flagrant domestic terrorism being overlooked by an adminstration that has continually flaunted itself as fighting terrorism?
Discuss the OP?

Are you mad, sir!?


Point me in their direction.
You've a funny conception of 'natural'. I suppose you don't take medicine, use eye-glasses or bother with cutting your hair, then?

Anyone actually interested in discussing a case of flagrant domestic terrorism being overlooked by an adminstration that has continually flaunted itself as fighting terrorism?

There is very little to discuss. The observation is quite right: certain groups commit acts of terrorism to support their case while the government barely acts.

You've a funny conception of 'natural'. I suppose you don't take medicine, use eye-glasses or bother with cutting your hair, then?

I wear glasses, take medicine, and get my hair cut.

There is very little to discuss. The observation is quite right: certain groups commit acts of terrorism to support their case while the government barely acts.

It also is meant to point out the government's double standard which seems to fit into the popular notion of "It's not terrorism if there's no Muslims involved".

Had this been an article on Islamic intimidation of scientists, this thread would have reached 10 pages by now filled with countless rants on how every Muslim in the world needs to strongly condemn it or they all support such things, along with the par for the course diatribe on how Muslims are all violent and incompatible terrorists with a telepathic link to Osama Bin Ladin.

But animal liberationists get a free pass in both criminal and social aspects when it comes to committing textbook terrorism. Nobody has ever called for PETA to strongly condemn such acts. Not only that, representatives of PETA all the way to Ingrid Newkirk have been recorded as implicitly or explicitly supporting terrorism campaigns against those they oppose. They've even provided financial support to a terrorist (Rodney Coronado). This in contrast to the Holy Land Foundation which got clamped down in record time on allegations that it sent money to Hamas.

I wear glasses, take medicine, and get my hair cut.
Then you are using/modifying your body in a way that isn't 'natural'.

As I said, a funny conception of 'natural'.

Had this been an article on Islamic intimidation of scientists, this thread would have reached 10 pages by now filled with countless rants on how every Muslim in the world needs to strongly condemn it or they all support such things, along with the par for the course diatribe on how Muslims are all violent and incompatible terrorists with a telepathic link to Osama Bin Ladin.

Of course, on the flip side of the coin, noone seems to be overly bothered by people calling the proponents of animal rights "morons". If this had been a topic where people claimed Christians or Muslims were suffering from a mental illness those people would have been banned by now ;)

Of course, on the flip side of the coin, noone seems to be overly bothered by people calling the proponents of animal rights "morons". If this had been a topic where people claimed Christians or Muslims were suffering from a mental illness those people would have been banned by now ;)

That's because calling animal rights activists (not Animal Liberationists which PETA, ALF and their ilks are, much like the difference between Muslims and Jihadis) is the same as saying all Christians are like Phelps, Robertson and Hagee or saying all Jews are like Goldstein and Amir. There aren't a disturbingly significant percentage of people who believe any of that to be true. Contrast that with the number of people who'll believe anything that's tossed in the air about Muslims this day and age.

Had this been an article on Islamic intimidation of scientists, this thread would have reached 10 pages by now filled with countless rants on how every Muslim in the world needs to strongly condemn it or they all support such things, along with the par for the course diatribe on how Muslims are all violent and incompatible terrorists with a telepathic link to Osama Bin Ladin.
And why should we continue this destructive hyperbole over to other groups?

And why should we continue this destructive hyperbole over to other groups?

Shouldn't but it seems people aren't interested in the stark hypocrisy of an adminstration that has repeatedly proclaimed itself to be leading a War on Terror.

That's because calling animal rights activists (not Animal Liberationists which PETA, ALF and their ilks are, much like the difference between Muslims and Jihadis) is the same as saying all Christians are like Phelps, Robertson and Hagee or saying all Jews are like Goldstein and Amir. There aren't a disturbingly significant percentage of people who believe any of that to be true.

Not entirely valid. I daresay that a huge number of people truly believes that vegetarianism and veganism are silly ("for every animal you won't eat..."). Let alone other requests for animal rights. The moroncalling starts far before the eco-terrorists are even considered.

Belief systems like Christianity and Islam get far more respect.

Contrast that with the number of people who'll believe anything that's tossed in the air about Muslims this day and age.

Hmm. I'm actually not convinced that muslims truly get more flack. Different one, certainly. But is being considered dangerous not better than being considered looney ?

"For every Jew you do not gass, I will gass three"

Hmm. Suddenly that statement doesn't seem so funny anymore, now does it ?
And oddly enough some animal rights activists really do consider these statements to be equivalent in malice.

Sorry, but animals are not people. So your silly statement does not apply.

This wants me to go buy 20 McChickens. So I will. split it 4 ways between ppl, we're good.

Shouldn't but it seems people aren't interested in the stark hypocrisy of an adminstration that has repeatedly proclaimed itself to be leading a War on Terror.
'Aren't interested', or merely used to it by now?

By the by, the UK government has been rather strict with militant animal rights groups.

Sorry, but animals are not people. So your silly statement does not apply.

*Buzz* - wrong. Your statement is only valid if rights are exclusive to people, if harming an animal is never a bad thing regardless of rights, if being superior means you can and should treat inferiors like crap and so on.

While you may embrace such a life philosophy, others may see things differently. You will need more advanced reasoning to make your case.

I'm a steadfast vegetarian, but not because I'm concerned about animal rights. I just can't stand the taste of meat. (This probably stems from my lack of smell.) Animal rights activism is okay to a point-as in, the destruction of horse factories that harvested hooved for glue, or things like that. But to say that humans should not be allowed to eat meat and that animals should be 'freed' would result in total chaos, and perhaps even starvation, as ironic as that sounds.

My point is, animals are not humans, thus don't qualify for human rights. I don't care much what is done with them, as long as you don't force-feed me chicken.

*Buzz* - wrong. Your statement is only valid if rights are exclusive to people, if harming an animal is never a bad thing regardless of rights, if being superior means you can and should treat inferiors like crap and so on.

While you may embrace such a life philosophy, others may see things differently. You will need more advanced reasoning to make your case.
You are polarizing the issue - "you either love animals or you're a Nazi!"

*Buzz* - wrong. Your statement is only valid if rights are exclusive to people, if harming an animal is never a bad thing regardless of rights, if being superior means you can and should treat inferiors like crap and so on.

While you may embrace such a life philosophy, others may see things differently. You will need more advanced reasoning to make your case.
Your statement is also wrong, it's hinging on your believe that animals have rights to begin with.

You are polarizing the issue - "you either love animals or you're a Nazi!"

Slightly inaccurate. What I am doing is pointing out that people can have a moral system in which the statement you just made is indeed true, and that simply mocking their beliefs does not make that moral system invalid or moronic.

Or to rephrase: that simply stating "they are not humans, therefor the statement is silly" is itself a silly statement.

Your statement is also wrong, it's hinging on your believe that animals have rights to begin with.

Wrong again. It hinges on the idea that people can believe that animals should have rights, deserve protection or whatever.

The merits of that idea are of course debateable. A debate which the "no rights" people could in theory even win - but they need to have it first.

Wrong again. It hinges on the idea that people can believe that animals should have rights, deserve protection or whatever.

The merits of that idea are of course debateable. A debate which the "no rights" people could in theory even win - but they need to have it first.

Er, not really, that's like teaching the 'controversy', when there isn't any to begin with.

In honor of this article, my chicken is in the oven right now.

As to animal rights:

Animals have a right to NOT be tortured.

...

I think that's about it.

Your statement is also wrong, it's hinging on your believe that animals have rights to begin with.
If one wants to construct a rational argument for humans having rights, it's hard not to fall back on the position that many beings have rights.

Animals have a right to NOT be tortured.

...

I think that's about it.

And what gives you the authority to state what rights any entity does or doesn't have?

And what gives you the authority to state what rights any entity does or doesn't have?
Nothing. It's only my opinion, no need to get snappy.

Animal Libbers make me giggle. I, for one, am more irritated with people killing/torturing other people than I am with people killing/torturing animals. PETA's now famous shameless juxtaposition of slaughterhouses with Holocaust footage speaks volumes to the effect that Animal Libbers care more about animals than they do about human fucking beings. Hitler leaps readily to mind--multiple sources (The Goebbels Diaries, Table Talk) suggest that banning meat was on his agenda once the war was over. Animal Liberationists--at least the ones who are members of my own generation--are sheltered know-nothings who have never seen the horrors of Communism, Fascism, or global Depression--they've convinced themselves that animals are the "new slaves" and that they are the oppressed party most deserving of "enlightened" intervention. Fuck that.

Oh, and Godwin can go sit on a cactus. If the shoe fits...

Nothing. It's only my opinion, no need to get snappy.

Why post an opinion in a debating forum if you're not going to debate it?

Oh, and Godwin can go sit on a cactus. If the shoe fits...

To be fair, Godwin merely made an observation that an Intertubes argument will eventually involve an inappropriate Nazi comparison. It's just the Intertubes community that somehow turned that into a "Ha Ha, You Lose" declaration.

Why post an opinion in a debating forum if you're not going to debate it?
When did I say I wasn't going to debate it? You asked who gave me the power to decide, which I replied with no one, it was just my opinion. If you wanted to debate, and not just snap at people who don't share your strong opinion on animal's rights, you would've actually made a point against that, or asked a question that actually had something to do with why I have that opinion.

Great, now I'm in a bad mood. Many thanks.:mad:

To be fair, Godwin merely made an observation that an Intertubes argument will eventually involve an inappropriate Nazi comparison. It's just the Intertubes community that somehow turned that into a "Ha Ha, You Lose" declaration.

True, true :p

I was merely stealing any would-be Godwinners' thunder. I've seen some pretty ridiculous defenses of ALF terrorism on this forum, up to and including "It's not Terrorism because it doesn't hurt/kill anyone."

And it's nice to see I've been sigged already! That's gotta be a record! :D

When did I say I wasn't going to debate it? You asked who gave me the power to decide, which I replied with no one, it was just my opinion. If you wanted to debate, and not just snap at people who don't share your strong opinion on animal's rights, you would've actually made a point against that, or asked a question that actually had something to do with why I have that opinion.

Great, now I'm in a bad mood. Many thanks.:mad:

I don't have a strong opinion on animal rights. There is no way to debate what you're saying with a counter assertion on what does and doesn't have rights, because the concept of what does and doesn't have rights is a subjective concept, the only thing I can debate is how you are able to have any ground for an assertion about what does have rights in the first place. I'm saying that there isn't really a ground for such a statement (though you can get around this sort of), that is debating your point and the idea is that you debate back and attempt to show me (if you can) that what you're saying isn't entirely subjective.

In a world where any two people can seldom agree on what rights people have, it strikes me as kind of silly to debate on what rights animals have. I do believe there is a definite line between right and wrong--it may broaden at times, under certain circumstances--but it is still there and it's the reason why we see strong negative reactions in almost every culture against things like murder, theft, and rape.

The "rights" possessed by animals (I use the term loosely for a reason) have to be assumed to be in relation to our rights, since for better or for worse, we do eat them and have for some time now. Whether or not meat has historically been a staple of our diet, the fact remains that we do eat them now and also that animal testing has resulted in benefits for humankind (and if any of you who disagree with me happen to be diabetic, I'd think twice before gettin' that keyboard a-clackin').

Animal rights activists often strike me as wanting to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand, humans are "just animals too" and are "no better" than the many species that surround us. In many ways I agree but the movement loses credibility when it turns around and says (sometimes even in the next breath) that we're "enlightened" and have "reached a stage" where we do not need animals to survive.

Did anybody see that video of that animal rights activist protesting that bull running event(I'm pretty sure it wasn't THE Running of The Bulls) and getting tossed around by the bull for a good twenty seconds or so?

I remember in an interview about a year later(from her wheelchair) that she didn't blame the bull. Fuck that. I'd have steak with every meal from that point on. :p

Wrong again. It hinges on the idea that people can believe that animals should have rights, deserve protection or whatever.

They can believe that. But much like people who claim to believe that a fertilized egg has a full set of human rights, I've yet to see anyone whose beliefs on the subject actually match the statement.

If someone believes that animals should not be used in medical testing, fine. That is their opinion. But I would expect them, then, not to benefit from it. Of course, this would basically mean no Western medicine whatsoever for them. But if they are really committed to the idea, they should be able to make that choice.

I also expect them to be honest within their rhetoric. For instance, I would expect them to realize that a picture of a primate with some sort of device hooked to its head most likely has nothing whatsoever to do with the work of an entomologist.

In a world where any two people can seldom agree on what rights people have, it strikes me as kind of silly to debate on what rights animals have.
And it makes it quite hard for those of us who argue for the better treatment of animals, but don't want to do so from a rights-based point of view.

They can believe that. But much like people who claim to believe that a fertilized egg has a full set of human rights, I've yet to see anyone whose beliefs on the subject actually match the statement.

If someone believes that animals should not be used in medical testing, fine. That is their opinion. But I would expect them, then, not to benefit from it. Of course, this would basically mean no Western medicine whatsoever for them. But if they are really committed to the idea, they should be able to make that choice.

I also expect them to be honest within their rhetoric. For instance, I would expect them to realize that a picture of a primate with some sort of device hooked to its head most likely has nothing whatsoever to do with the work of an entomologist.

Now don't jump down my throat. What I am about to say may upset y'all but I do so only out of morbid curiosity, as I don't condone the practices of PETA and ALF and am happy to use the medicine we've gotten from animal testing.

If there was a lot of advanced medicine that could only have come from the medical experiments performed on Nazi prisoners, would you say that it was worth it?

Examples of experiments performed:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005168

TBH, I have no idea what became of their experiments and if any advancements in medicine were actually made.

If there was a lot of advanced medicine that could only have come from the medical experiments performed on Nazi prisoners, would you say that it was worth it?

No. If we need to experiment on human beings - and all of our medical testing eventually reaches that point - I believe it must be done with informed consent. And it should only be done after we've exhausted other means of testing.

Examples of experiments performed:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005168

TBH, I have no idea what became of their experiments and if any advancements in medicine were actually made.

I don't know of any major advancements that came out of Nazi camps. Such experiments are just as reviled in the medical community as anywhere else.

And two further points somewhat related:
1) Human experimentation is less controlled than most animal experimentation. This is, of course, because we don't control the populations and thus cannot have large numbers of genetically identical or near-identical subjects. This is one reason that we don't start medical experimentation in human beings. We start in more controlled experiments and then move towards human beings.

2) While it may sound odd to say it, experimental animals generally live safer and less painful lives than their wild counterparts. They are provided with a strict day/night lighting cycle, ample food and water, medical attention, air conditioning, etc. A social animal must be properly socialized. For a procedure that might cause even a small amount of pain - for instance, tail snipping - pain reliever must be provided.

Any deviations from these requirements are allowed only when the experiment cannot be carried out without such a deviation. While it varies as the animal gets more complex (and closer to human), the death of an animal must also be justified. If your animal is of a higher order than rodents, and your experiment can be carried out without killing the animal, that is generally required. And a board which generally consists partially of scientists, veterinarians, and at least one layperson must approve the procedure.

Even if we were going to draw a comparison to Nazi camps we'd have to say that laboratory animals are treated much, much, much better than the prisoners were. The type of wanton suffering that animal rights activists go on and on about simply isn't allowed - at least not in 1st world countries.

PETA kills animals while protesting people who kill animals. Either that or the walk-in freezer they have at their Norfolk, VA HQ is frozen trailmix. Now if the animal liberationists were really in it because they didn't want any animals to be killed and just wanted birds, puppies, lions, warthogs, and kittens to libe free and get along then why don't they do something about PETA's euthanasia? Maybe they aren't really in it for the animals. Maybe they see this as way of rebelling against mommy and daddy or they just think it's fun to hurt people and they want to have something to excuse or justify their actions, if only to themselves.

If you really believe in animal rights then you either have to be willing to draw lines at just how far it should go or not pick and choose who you're going to hate and protest and attack for something you don't like. Sometimes you have to kill in order to survive or to ease suffering. You may not like it and no one expects you to enjoy it but you should accept it.

More power to the Animal Liberators! No matter what their labled as! Free the Animals!

I deeply respect everyone who has the determination to stick behind the ideals they hold dear, even if I don't particularly agree with them myself. Our country's First Amendment is a quite powerful one and can be a great vehicle for bringing change in this nation. I don't, however, believe that we should use violent or destructive means to bring about the change we wish to see. How could we expect our values to be respected when our actions do not reflect our ideals? I know that there must be better means for these animal rights activists to get their voices heard. Perhaps working with the government for change... instead of working against it.

"Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world; through nonviolence it comes to an end."

Now if the animal liberationists were really in it because they didn't want any animals to be killed and just wanted birds, puppies, lions, warthogs, and kittens to libe free and get along then why don't they do something about PETA's euthanasia?

because they aren't actually opposed to euthanasia in all circumstances?

Animal rights activists often strike me as wanting to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand, humans are "just animals too" and are "no better" than the many species that surround us. In many ways I agree but the movement loses credibility when it turns around and says (sometimes even in the next breath) that we're "enlightened" and have "reached a stage" where we do not need animals to survive.

i think the claim involved is just (perhaps inartfully) making the distinction between entities that have moral worth, and entities that are moral agents. you do not have to be the latter to be the former. and if you are the latter, then you are required to treat the former differently than if you were not - something that isn't capable of morality cannot be morally obligated to do anything.

I have fairly mixed feelings on this - I might not trust PETA to be honest in their intentions, ultimately they can be as much a marketing company as any other and, I feel, this affects their actions. I also feel they place animal rights a little too high over and above humans however...

I am losing the ability to see any justification for eating meat. I'm slowly coming round to the idea that creating huge profitable industries based solely on processing animals in the most efficient way possible is not something we should aspire to. That efficiency also causes both huge cruelty and, possibly, long term ill effects for mankind.

Mass farming, whether chickens, cows, pigs or salmon creates an environment in which disease grows quickly, viruses mutate and spread faster and this alone is cause for concern. The conditions under which those animals live and are slaughtered are also something we should not be proud of.

Ultimately, it's profit for nothing, utilising, often in a quite sickening way, the lives of other animals to make money - we don't need meat to survive, there's plenty of alternatives - the entire process is indicative of the way we treat the entire environment, as a playground, a mine, for our increasingly greedy needs. We never eat 'enough', we always want more.

Something that has really brought this into focus for me is the shark fin trade - according to some estimates, we have depleted the oceans of more than 80% of sharks over the last 50 years. The way in which we do it is also, quite simply, atrocious.

I'm certainly for the use of animals for medical testing, I don't even mind raising and farming animals for personal consumption but I'm truly moving away from the idea that mass farming of animals is in any way a good thing.

i think the claim involved is just (perhaps inartfully) making the distinction between entities that have moral worth, and entities that are moral agents. you do not have to be the latter to be the former. and if you are the latter, then you are required to treat the former differently than if you were not - something that isn't capable of morality cannot be morally obligated to do anything.

Beautifully put ^_^

Ugh. I get very sick of both sides of the animal rights debate, because both contain so many idiots who simply refuse to think or consider the other's point of view. Threatening animal researchers is obviously disgusting and reprehensible, but that in itself shouldn't discredit anyone who advocates for better treatment of animals.

There seems to me to be a pretty reasonable middle ground which is far too often ignored. As Dempublicents pointed out, scientific and medical researchers are specifically not permitted to engage in wanton cruelty towards the animals in their care, and every researcher I'm acquainted with who's worked with animals (and there are several) genuinely likes animals and did their best to prevent any suffering. Painting such people as demons is just silly. At the same time, however, there are perfectly reasonable objections to be made to the treatment of animals in factory farms or cosmetics testing, where there often really is undue suffering without anything like the sort of worthwhile payoff from research uses. It is not crazy to say that one would prefer to believe that one's pork chop came from an animal that led a reasonably full and happy life, rather than an animal that was horribly mistreated; there are valid arguments for banning the production of foie gras or boycotting companies who test nonessential products in obviously inhumane ways. Positions like this are simply not crazy and irrational - one can disagree with them, obviously, but it's inane to lump anyone who believes that maybe, as sentient beings capable of making ethical and merciful choices, we could try to be a bit nicer to the animals in our care in with people who believe that making death threats against cancer researchers is a reasonable activity.

It's the god damn Fursuiters.

Well, in regards to the OP, I firmly believe that the ALF should be dealt with in the same manner as al-Qaeda and the like; it's depressing that these ALF scumbags are running around spouting nonsense and breaking things. The government really needs to clamp down on them, and soon; hell, they arleady set stuff on fire, do we have to wait until they start detonating car bombs?

Also, Ingrid Newkirk is a stupid bitch and PETA is a worthless, ignorant organization full of idiots.

And it makes it quite hard for those of us who argue for the better treatment of animals, but don't want to do so from a rights-based point of view.

what is annoying about the focus on the language of rights is that it often just serves to derail people at this point. like, we've already got most people willing to get onboard with much higher standards of treatment, but when someone says 'rights' people start thinking voting and jury trials and never being legally killed ever and shit. now, of course, this is only a tactical complaint rather than a philosophical one - but tactics matter here. or they should, given the nature of the movement.

of course, tactical considerations are why i ignore so much of PETA's stuff. they seem to get results, so apparently their antics work. which means that with them and their supporters i'd prefer to get into the philosophical side of things, where i think they are quite often wrong.