NationStates Jolt Archive

According to spokesmoron Dr. Jerry Vlasak (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)..

"If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognize the consequences,

Really. He defends attempts to burn the family alive:

"This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences."

The father is unreasonable. Right.

Moron. How is hurting humans any better than hurting animals?

http://willvideoforfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/alf.jpg


Nooooo!!!! Not ALF!

Authorities suspect that an animal rights group created the list, which warned: "Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse."
I hope they (The police) get their hands on these freaks.

Y'know, I thought this thread was on abortion.

And now I find myself wishing it were. :(

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

According to spokesmoron Dr. Jerry Vlasak (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)..

"If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognize the consequences,

Really. He defends attempts to burn the family alive:

"This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences."

The father is unreasonable. Right.

My solution: let the animals go, test on the ALF douchebags:p

Y'know, I thought this thread was on abortion.

And now I find myself wishing it were. :(

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

Because we're better than them.

Y'know, I thought this thread was on abortion.

And now I find myself wishing it were. :(

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

Because it would be wrong to sink to their level?

Because it would be wrong to sink to their level?

No, it wouldn't. This holds true with torture, not with online outing.

Because we're better than them.

This looks good on paper, but...

At any rate, is it cruel and unusual punishment to serve as a guinea pig? Because the ALFers deserve it, and it would solve their problem.

Because it would be wrong to sink to their level?

I personally see an ethical difference between say me outing a person because we disagree on NSG and me outing them because they advocate burning my house down w/ me and my family in it.

No, it wouldn't. This holds true with torture, not with online outing.

I disagree.

i think posting their pictures with a caption saying "douchebag" would be sufficient to get our point across

Is anyone really surprised that they think white mice are more important than innocent human children?

I disagree.

To be sure, we'd not be firebombing their houses.

But do feel free to disagree.

Is anyone really surprised that they think white mice are more important than innocent human children?

Sadly, no.

This looks good on paper, but...

At any rate, is it cruel and unusual punishment to serve as a guinea pig? Because the ALFers deserve it, and it would solve their problem.

But what?

Would you argue that we should be sending suicide bombers onto public transport in Tehran?

Is anyone really surprised that they think white mice are more important than innocent human children?

so now they favor the "white" mice over mice of color?

Just a funny anecdote on the animal rights crowd:

A friend of mine went to the activities fair at his college (Colorado University) and set up a stall right next the PETA table for a group he called TAPE (Tapeworm And Person Equality) on which he put glasses of water that allegedly contained tapeworm larvae. He claimed to stand against anti-parasitic medication because they were a violation of animal rights, and politely asked everyone who signed up for PETA to join his cause. None of them would.

But what?

Would you argue that we should be sending suicide bombers onto public transport in Tehran?

How about publicizing the information of those who fund and support suicide bombers in the areas they have hit?

But what?

Would you argue that we should be sending suicide bombers onto public transport in Tehran?

Nope, but that's because the people whose buses would get bombed are innocent.

Is anyone really surprised that they think white mice are more important than innocent human children?

White mice never hurt anyone. Kids grow up into people, and ALF members are people, who firebomb kids.

Circle of life, beautiful thing really not to be taken remotely seriously

Just a funny anecdote on the animal rights crowd:

A friend of mine went to the activities fair at his college (Colorado University) and set up a stall right next the PETA table for a group he called TAPE (Tapeworm And Person Equality) on which he put glasses of water that allegedly contained tapeworm larvae. He claimed to stand against anti-parasitic medication because they were a violation of animal rights, and politely asked everyone who signed up for PETA to join his cause. None of them would.

Hehe. But at least George Bush accepts humans and fish can coexist peacefully.

Just a funny anecdote on the animal rights crowd:

A friend of mine went to the activities fair at his college (Colorado University) and set up a stall right next the PETA table for a group he called TAPE (Tapeworm And Person Equality) on which he put glasses of water that allegedly contained tapeworm larvae. He claimed to stand against anti-parasitic medication because they were a violation of animal rights, and politely asked everyone who signed up for PETA to join his cause. None of them would.

Ah, an intelligent Conservative with a pwning friend! Nice!

so now they favor the "white" mice over mice of color?

Psst!

"African American"!

Ah, an intelligent Conservative with a pwning friend! Nice!

Sadly we are getting rarer and rarer :(.

*points at the current RNC*

This one is totally going on my sig.

Nope, but that's because the people whose buses would get bombed are innocent.

Ah, so it's only ok to use the tactic used by terrorists sometimes?

How about if someone uses the information you've uploaded to firebomb an ALF members house and kills his kids, would you be using the rhetoric of Dr. Jerry Vlasak that the "children are old enough to recognize the consequences"?

I think anyone involved with this should be locked up for life.

White mice never hurt anyone. Kids grow up into people, and ALF members are people, who firebomb kids.

Circle of life, beautiful thing really not to be taken remotely seriously

i wonder if any of these radicals find themselves dying of some nasty disease if they would still be willing to spare the animals if a cure could be found by doing so... people's morality has a pretty nifty tendency to change in that kind of situation

How about publicizing the information of those who fund and support suicide bombers in the areas they have hit?

Nope.

If the government has that information then they should be prosecuting these people, not leaving them for a baying mob to deal with.

Ah, so it's only ok to use the tactic used by terrorists sometimes?

How about if someone uses the information you've uploaded to firebomb an ALF members house and kills his kids, would you be using the rhetoric of Dr. Jerry Vlasak that the "children are old enough to recognize the consequences"?

To be sure, I'm not endorsing firebombing, I'm endorsing posting addresses.

But point... -_-

*Grudgingly concedes*

so now they favor the "white" mice over mice of color?
Yup. Damned racists.
White mice never hurt anyone. Kids grow up into people, and ALF members are people, who firebomb kids.

Circle of life, beautiful thing really not to be taken remotely seriously

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

The FBI calls it 'domestic terrorism'. That sounds a little like Harriet Nelson with a suicide bomb vest.

I thing they should drop the 'domestic' and call it what it is: Terrorism.

To be sure, I'm not endorsing firebombing, I'm endorsing posting addresses.

But point... -_-

*Grudgingly concedes*

It only takes one person to restore my faith in humanity.

Thank you.

It only takes one person to restore my faith in humanity.

Thank you.

To be sure, I only conceded a point we were discussing (and then only because you maneuvered so well in the discussion), I didn't do anything restoring-faith-in-humanity-worthy. o_O

The trouble with cases like this is that in a lot of countries, (Britain in particular) the authorities are too weak to stand up to the animal rights extremists. Gotta be nice, play fair, ect. They have the ALF spokesman's name so it would be easy for the government to send some guys round to his house to pay him a little visit, maybe even getting a few names of some of his extremist friends in the process. The animal rights extremists operate because they know how weak the government is. You don't have to become a dictatorship or anything like that, just play dirty like a few decades ago. Just use the same tactics as the FBI in the sixties and seventies and the French police in the same era and you could probably damage them considerabley.

According to spokesmoron Dr. Jerry Vlasak (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)..

"If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognize the consequences,

Really. He defends attempts to burn the family alive:

"This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences."

The father is unreasonable. Right.

God damn radicals! How dare they go on illegal and destructive rampages and value non sentient life over sentient life whilst going around causing mayhem and destruction with their outright and insanity. Radicals should all either get heavy therapy or get stamped out. I think deep down they don't care about their cause whatsoever, I think deep down they only want to do damage.

Snip.

Well, no, the Government should pursue them as criminals, nothing else.

The trouble with cases like this is that in a lot of countries, (Britain in particular) the authorities are too weak to stand up to the animal rights extremists. They have the ALF spokesman's name so it would be easy for the government to send some guys round to his house to pay him a little visit, perhaps getting some names from him in the process. The animal rights extremists operate because they know how weak the government is. You don't have to become a dictatorship or anything like that, just play dirty like a few decades ago. Just use the same tactics as the FBI in the sixties and seventies and the French police in the same era and you could probably damage them considerabley.

Break the law to defeat the evil ones? Yeah, good luck with that.

It only takes one person to restore my faith in humanity.

Thank you.

yeah but then u hear a story like that guy who decapitated another person on a bus... really now aren't we a dispicable species?

Nope.

If the government has that information then they should be prosecuting these people, not leaving them for a baying mob to deal with.

"Should be" being the key word. As it is, they are leaving the targets open to action by ALF and other extremists which only encourages them even more. Especially while organizations like PETA are helping them out.

To be sure, I only conceded a point we were discussing (and then only because you maneuvered so well in the discussion), I didn't do anything restoring-faith-in-humanity-worthy. o_O

This is NSG, do you have any idea how infrequently people will conceed a point, whether they're rigt or not?

Just a funny anecdote on the animal rights crowd:

A friend of mine went to the activities fair at his college (Colorado University) and set up a stall right next the PETA table for a group he called TAPE (Tapeworm And Person Equality) on which he put glasses of water that allegedly contained tapeworm larvae. He claimed to stand against anti-parasitic medication because they were a violation of animal rights, and politely asked everyone who signed up for PETA to join his cause. None of them would.

Silly.

Only cute, fuzzy animals count.

Everyone knows that.

The FBI calls it 'domestic terrorism'. That sounds a little like Harriet Nelson with a suicide bomb vest.

I thing they should drop the 'domestic' and call it what it is: Terrorism.

But it isn't teh ebil Muslims doing it! Clearly, this means it needs a different name.

But it isn't teh ebil Muslims doing it! Clearly, this means it needs a different name.

That's what she said. ;)

Well, no, the Government should pursue them as criminals, nothing else.
It's not always as simple as that. While you're dithering around doing things the nice honest way they'll be acting the same as always and medical research will be inevitabley damaged through intimidation and property destruction.

Break the law to defeat the evil ones? Yeah, good luck with that.
It's worth a try. Seemed to work with the FBI against the Black Panthers (At least that's what my dad told me and what I've read on teh internets about it). Apparantly the FBI broke the back of the Black Panthers using a varierty of means, legal and illegal. Plus I think the French police against the nationalist OAS and certain Algerian groups in the 60s and 70s, along with other political movements.

This is NSG, do you have any idea how infrequently people will conceed a point, whether they're rigt or not?

I'm the Ace Of Spades.

It's more than an idiotic title I came up with to sound cool.

Well, actually, no, it isn't.

But still, I take pride in arguing well and in making it resemble even a bit of an anime-style thing. As such, I can't afford to simply keep going on an argument I think I lost only for its sake. It's unseemly, you see, and pointless, like keeping a fight once one's arm is broken.

Silly.

Only cute, fuzzy animals count.

Everyone knows that.

This crazy environmentalist movement will lead to us killing off rats as a species! We must keep producing the waste that they live off!

yeah but then u hear a story like that guy who decapitated another person on a bus... really now aren't we a dispicable species?

Not really.

2 weeks ago I organised a blood drive at work where 40 people took time out of their day to help save the lives of others for no personal gain.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

It's not always as simple as that. While you're dithering around doing things the nice honest way they'll be acting the same as always and medical research will be inevitabley damaged through intimidation and property destruction.

The same applies for purse-snatchers. Should the Police be given powers to, say, kidnap their daughters and threaten them for confessions? How long until an officer finds that a good idea would be to do the same to a neighbor he had a spat with by ACCUSING him?

Anyone ever considered what animal testing has allowed us to have? Vaccinations, for a start, against most diseases. But, as with most extremist groups, they omit facts just for convenience.

I'm the Ace Of Spades.

It's more than an idiotic title I came up with to sound cool.

Well, actually, no, it isn't.

But still, I take pride in arguing well and in making it resemble even a bit of an anime-style thing. As such, I can't afford to simply keep going on an argument I think I lost only for its sake. It's unseemly, you see, and pointless, like keeping a fight once one's arm is broken.

You mean in that short discussion I got to have a huge sword and everything?

Grace is grace and style is style, learn to take a compliment mate.

You mean in that short discussion I got to have a huge sword and everything?

Grace is grace and style is style, learn to take a compliment mate.

Yup! Innit cool? :D

And I did take it, I'm just saying it'd not be worth it to pursue the argument due to your superiority in this one. ;)

This crazy environmentalist movement will lead to us killing off rats as a species! We must keep producing the waste that they live off!

Crazy environmentalists live on waste?:eek2:

All the more reason to increase recycling.

Psst!

"African American"!

Hey, if they aren't in America, they can't be African American...
And if they did not originate in Africa, they can't be African American...

I mean does it make sense to call a black Englishman an African American?

And Hispanics can be referred to as people of color as well....

Anyone ever considered what animal testing has allowed us to have? Vaccinations, for a start, against most diseases. But, as with most extremist groups, they omit facts just for convenience.

Nuh uh. Animal testing is only used so they can put shampoo and makeup in cute little fuzzy rabbit's eyeballs.

Nobody does it for any good reasons.

Hey, if they aren't in America, they can't be African American...
And if they did not originate in Africa, they can't be African American...

I mean does it make sense to call a black Englishman an African American?

And Hispanics can be referred to as people of color as well....

To Sir, With Love story again?

It's worth a try. Seemed to work with the FBI against the Black Panthers (At least that's what my dad told me and what I've read on teh internets about it). Apparantly the FBI broke the back of the Black Panthers using a varierty of means, legal and illegal. Plus I think the French police against the nationalist OAS and certain Algerian groups in the 60s and 70s, along with other political movements.

No, it isn't. If any group must be expected to act lawfully then it is the police.

Hey, if they aren't in America, they can't be African American...
And if they did not originate in Africa, they can't be African American...

I mean does it make sense to call a black Englishman an African American?

And Hispanics can be referred to as people of color as well....

Hush, I'm being stupid here! ;)

The same applies for purse-snatchers. Should the Police be given powers to, say, kidnap their daughters and threaten them for confessions? How long until an officer finds that a good idea would be to do the same to a neighbor he had a spat with by ACCUSING him?
No, because the nature of the crime is different. I think purse snatchers would be better dealt with using a combination of conventional law enforecement methods and social programs to address the causes of crime. Political extremism is a whole different thing which requires a different approach. When you're dealing with people who are motivated by a political cause and are willing to act ruthlessly to achieve their aims, you have the change tack if you want to crush them and not have to grovel to the negotiating table with them.

No, it isn't. If any group must be expected to act lawfully then it is the police.
That doesn't mean it won't work, though. Seemed to in those cases. My dad's a serving police officer and I would generally agree with you. For the vast majority of crimes thing need to be done by the book. But politically motivated crimes are done for a whole different set of motives and attract a different type of criminal. You have to use a little initiative in these cases.

This crazy environmentalist movement will lead to us killing off rats as a species! We must keep producing the waste that they live off!

they really are filthy creatures though, everyone be sure to recycle more! conservation is the key to win the war against rodents!

More troubling to me is the myriad of other, far more pressing causes that need attention. I just can't get past the thought: "Lab rats? You firebombed someone's house over lab rats? Really? No more coffee for you, mate."

How many times did I say that the ALF deserves the same treatment as Al-Qaeda? The ALF needs to be crushed before this sort of nonsense spreads even further.

No, because the nature of the crime is different. I think purse snatchers would be better dealt with using a combination of conventional law enforecement methods and social programs to address the causes of crime. Political extremism is a whole different thing which requires a different approach. When you're dealing with people who are motivated by a political cause and are willing to act ruthlessly to achieve their aims, you have the change tack if you want to crush them and not have to grovel to the negotiating table with them.

Then you have the FBI use LEGAL tactics. Anything less is allowing STATE terrorism.

Hush, I'm being stupid here! ;)

Oh, ok. Carry on.

No, because the nature of the crime is different. I think purse snatchers would be better dealt with using a combination of conventional law enforecement methods and social programs to address the causes of crime. Political extremism is a whole different thing which requires a different approach. When you're dealing with people who are motivated by a political cause and are willing to act ruthlessly to achieve their aims, you have the change tack if you want to crush them and not have to grovel to the negotiating table with them.
'What these people are doing is wrong. You know it. I know it. Negotiating won't get us anywhere. We must do whatever it takes to stop them'
Who does that sound like to you? Someone from ALF about to order the firebombing of a researchers home, or an FBI agent about to order a raid of the home of a suspected ALF member?


That doesn't mean it won't work, though. Seemed to in those cases. My dad's a serving police officer and I would generally agree with you. For the vast majority of crimes thing need to be done by the book. But politically motivated crimes are done for a whole different set of motives and attract a different type of criminal. You have to use a little initiative in these cases.
I don't care if it'd work, and I don't care what your father does for a living. If the police are above the law then they are little more than state sponsored terrorists.
Then you have the FBI use LEGAL tactics. Anything less is allowing STATE terrorism.

Exactly.

Just a funny anecdote on the animal rights crowd:

A friend of mine went to the activities fair at his college (Colorado University) and set up a stall right next the PETA table for a group he called TAPE (Tapeworm And Person Equality) on which he put glasses of water that allegedly contained tapeworm larvae. He claimed to stand against anti-parasitic medication because they were a violation of animal rights, and politely asked everyone who signed up for PETA to join his cause. None of them would.

This might explain a lot. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonCute)

If militant animal rights activists cared so much for animals in experimentation, they'd volunteer to take their place. That's what Jesus would've done.... you know, if He gave a shit about a bunny.

Then you have the FBI use LEGAL tactics. Anything less is allowing STATE terrorism.
You're being a bit melodramatic here. I'm not talking about sending death squads roaming the streets or opening up concentration camps. Just talking to the officers in charge of investigating political extremists and telling them it's the results that are the important thing and that they can use their own discretion as long as things don't get too out of hand. The odd blind eye turned here and there, that kind of thing. As has happened successfully before.

'What these people are doing is wrong. You know it. I know it. Negotiating won't get us anywhere. We must do whatever it takes to stop them'
Who does that sound like to you? Someone from ALF about to order the firebombing of a researchers home, or an FBI agent about to order a raid of the home of a suspected ALF member?
Doesn't sound like anything, it sounds like a broad quote that could be said by any different person in any set of circumstances, and could be right or wrong depending on those circumstances.

If militant animal rights activists cared so much for animals in experimentation, they'd volunteer to take their place. That's what Jesus would've done.... you know, if he gave a shit about a bunny.

they should remember that God gave man dominion over the animals... and women... they'd do well to remmeber that, yep

they should remember that God gave man dominion over the animals...

Jesus ate meat. *nod*

and women... they'd do well to remmeber that, yep

I suspect that this was a setup of some kind.

You're being a bit melodramatic here. I'm not talking about sending death squads roaming the streets or opening up concentration camps. Just talking to the officers in charge of investigating political extremists and telling them it's the results that are the important thing and that they can use their own discretion as long as things don't get too out of hand. The odd blind eye turned here and there, that kind of thing.

Hell no.

You're being a bit melodramatic here. I'm not talking about sending death squads roaming the streets or opening up concentration camps. Just talking to the officers in charge of investigating political extremists and telling them it's the results that are the important thing and that they can use their own discretion as long as things don't get too out of hand. The odd blind eye turned here and there, that kind of thing. As has happened successfully before.
The success of previous acts of illegality on the part of the police is irrelevant. If you can turn a blind eye to police breaking the law then how can you reasonably object to anyone else breaking the law? It would be the very height of hypocrisy. Sure, you may think that the police are doing it for the greater good. Go find a member of PETA and chances are they'll tell you the same thing about the ALF. I'll bet you a delicious taco that everyone in Al Qaeda thinks that what they do is for the greater good. Hitler thought that his Final Solution was for the good of the Reich.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to name names if it meant that reasonable people would just refuse to grant them any service or that people were simply made more aware and therefore could go on guard when those people are around. Even I would want to hunt down people I knew were guilty of a severe crime like property damage and murder (and it would be murder).

Beyond that I like L. Neil Smith's idea that would end prisons and essentially force the perpetrator to recompense his/her victim for the crime involved, that is if they survived the victim's self defense.

Oh and if its not sentient its meat.

I eat meat.

The success of previous acts of illegality on the part of the police is irrelevant. If you can turn a blind eye to police breaking the law then how can you reasonably object to anyone else breaking the law? It would be the very height of hypocrisy. Sure, you may think that the police are doing it for the greater good. Go find a member of PETA and chances are they'll tell you the same thing about the ALF. I'll bet you a delicious taco that everyone in Al Qaeda thinks that what they do is for the greater good. Hitler thought that his Final Solution was for the good of the Reich.
But there are differences in breaking laws. For example, there's a world of difference between murder and downloading pirate music (Which everyone does) or breaking some of those silly old laws about hackney carriages carrying hay and oats, or having to do longbow or crossbow practice every day. I doubt you would be saying that just because these acts of illegality are tolerated, you rightfully have to tolerate all of them. Discretion has to be used, as it is in these cases.

Anyway must be off to bed now, bye.

If militant animal rights activists cared so much for animals in experimentation, they'd volunteer to take their place. That's what Jesus would've done.... you know, if He gave a shit about a bunny.

Nah, they volunteer prisoners instead.

But there are differences in breaking laws. For example, there's a world of difference between murder and downloading pirate music (Which everyone does) or breaking some of those silly old laws about hackney carriages carrying hay and oats, or having to do longbow or crossbow practice every day. I doubt you would be saying that just because these acts of illegality are tolerated, you rightfully have to tolerate all of them. Discretion has to be used, as it is in these cases.

What is the difference between the mob kicking down the door of your house and threatening you and your family and the police doing the same thing? Well, I suppose the mob are doing it for money, and the police are doing it because you're an evil political extremist(like Benazir Bhutto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto)). Well then, what's the difference between the police intimidating you and your family because you're an evil political extremist and the ALF intimidating you and your family because you're an evil animal murderer?

His name is seriously Vlasak?

so whatever happened to the guidelines for alf actions?

Like I said in the old thread about the rise of Animal Liberation Terrorism, the douchebag Jerry Vlasac is another Paul Hill waiting to go off. They're both supposed physicians charged with upholding the Hippocratic Oath who instead declare that it's okay to kill people under certain situations that can be smokescreened as "self-defense". Mark my words if he doesn't get busted for something within 10 years, Jerry'll follow the path of his predecessor Paul and end up gunning down a testing lab researcher in cold blood.

The FBI calls it 'domestic terrorism'. That sounds a little like Harriet Nelson with a suicide bomb vest.

I thing they should drop the 'domestic' and call it what it is: Terrorism.

But from how nothing is being done about them in comparison to instances of alleged foreign terrorist activities, it seems like the govenment's current definition of 'terrorism' is "People died and Muslims had something to do with it."

If militant animal rights activists cared so much for animals in experimentation, they'd volunteer to take their place. That's what Jesus would've done.... you know, if He gave a shit about a bunny.

Jesus cursed a fig tree. Why would he give a shit about a bunny?

Researchers that do animal testing need to start living in these: http://static.monolithic.com/, so they can stop worrying about their house being firebombed.

Firebomb this, bitch! http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/braswell_fire/index.html

Dr Vlasak? What does he have a PhD in? Douchebaggery and unethicalness?

Nope.

If the government has that information then they should be prosecuting these people, not leaving them for a baying mob to deal with.

The government is apparently more interested in dealing with Muslim bogeymen than with ALF.

To be sure, I'm not endorsing firebombing, I'm endorsing posting addresses.

But point... -_-

*Grudgingly concedes*

What about pizza-bombing? Like calling a pizza delivery in for 20 meat lovers pizzas and listing their address?

the ALF has already committed a far worse atrocity (http://www.last.fm/music/Various+Artists/This+Is+the+A.L.F.)

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

I've always wondered why the internet has yet to do this (and then do Al Qaeda)

uggggggggggh

the ALF has already committed a far worse atrocity (http://www.last.fm/music/Various+Artists/This+Is+the+A.L.F.)



I've always wondered why the internet has yet to do this (and then do Al Qaeda)

Bleah. Just like PETA, they've got entertainers deluded into thinking they're a mainstream animal rights organization.

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

presumably because that wouldn't actually do anything, since its sort of a clandestine non-organization with a publicly known press office

Bleah. Just like PETA, they've got entertainers deluded into thinking they're a mainstream animal rights organization.

well to hand it to PETA at least some of its advertising isn't a bizarre and confusing experience

I listened to this album and spent the rest of the day pattering about in my undies with no idea what was going on

presumably because that wouldn't actually do anything, since its sort of a clandestine non-organization with a publicly known press office

sort of like science :confused:

So his children should be prepared for the consequences of their fathers actions?

Nothing like punishing the son for the father’s crimes hey, not that there has been any apart from arson and terrorism but still.

So his children should be prepared for the consequences of their fathers actions?

don't you see? this is sure to stop the evils of science!

the kids have nothing to do with the father's job.you,sir, are a disturbed individual...

http://willvideoforfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/alf.jpg


Nooooo!!!! Not ALF!

Hah, my thoughts exactly... I miss that goofy bastard!

But yeah, sick puppies.

So they think that every single species except Homo Sapiens has inviolate rights? Or do they preach some twisted "ends justify the means" garbage? Probably both.

Since PETA funds these people, why the hell aren't they labled as a terrorist organisation.

Probably because PETA advertises itself and ALF as upholding "cute" animal rights.

So they think that every single species except Homo Sapiens has inviolate rights? Or do they preach some twisted "ends justify the means" garbage? Probably both.

not officially.

Since PETA funds these people, why the hell aren't they labled as a terrorist organisation.

because they haven't funded any allegedly 'terrorist' activities, only defense funds and the like

I fervently believe that there's room on this planet for all of God's creatures - Right next to the mashed potatoes.

ALF, ELF, and PETA: Shut up.

Probably because PETA advertises itself and ALF as upholding "cute" animal rights.

That and current government definition of terrorism is "People got killed, and them dirty Muslims did it."

Authorities suspect that an animal rights group created the list, which warned: "Animal abusers everywhere beware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse."

Bastards, why don't they fight for a trule noble cause and combat human abuse? There's more of that. :mad:

the kids have nothing to do with the father's job.you,sir, are a disturbed individual...

correction, the animal activists are the disturbed maniacs. The OP was merely reporting it.

Bastards, why don't they fight for a trule noble cause and combat human abuse? There's more of that. :mad:

Because it's all about selfish attention whoring and self-aggrandizement than any substantive addressing of issues.

Animal Liberation is sharing a lot in common with anti-abortion extremists. A self-proclaimed physician as a spokesman for the movement insisting that murder is justifiable under "certain circumstances," and then an unofficial hit list of people involved with the "evil practice" along with a "we don't advocate violence against these murderers but we won't shed a tear if anything happens to them" copout.

Someone has to stop these types of morons before they kill somebody or get a bunch of other morons to join them.


Jerry Vlasak is one F***ED UP asshole.


I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable, I think that there are places where it could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint.

For instance, if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work — and if these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination ... — and I wouldn't pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a trickle-down effect and many, many people who are lower on that totem pole would say, "I'm not going to get into this business because it's a very dangerous business ...

And I don't think you'd have to kill — assassinate — too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human animals.

And I — you know — people get all excited about, "Oh what's going to happen when the ALF accidentally kills somebody in an arson?" Well, you know I mean, I think we need to get used to this idea. It's going to happen, okay? It's going to happen.


Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors' lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would.
:|

Someone has to stop these types of morons before they kill somebody or get a bunch of other morons to join them.

Jerry Vlasak is one F***ED UP asshole.

:|

Said it before and said it again, Animal Liberation is borrowing tactics from anti-abortion extremists and Jerry Vlasak is another Paul Hill waiting to gun down a lab worker.

correction, the animal activists are the disturbed maniacs. The OP was merely reporting it.

Not all animal activists are disturbed maniacs. A large number of Animal Liberationists however are.

human abuse...There's more of that.

seems numerically doubtful

Not all animal activists are disturbed maniacs. A large number of Animal Liberationists however are.

No, I'm pretty sure that they actually are. Anyone that thinks animals have rights beyond what sauce to put with them is insane.

No, I'm pretty sure that they actually are. Anyone that thinks animals have rights beyond what sauce to put with them is insane.

Oh boy.

No, it's not quite that simple. There's a difference between believing bulls shouldn't be used in bullfighting, for instance, and believing in setting fire to the houses of people that use lab rats.

No, I'm pretty sure that they actually are. Anyone that thinks animals have rights beyond what sauce to put with them is insane.

i think they have the right to be cooked by people who know what they are doing, we owe them that much after killing them

Oh boy.

No, it's not quite that simple. There's a difference between believing bulls shouldn't be used in bullfighting, for instance, and believing in setting fire to the houses of people that use lab rats.

Then what are we suppose to use in bullfighting? Because I'm all for the use of white Rhinos.

i think they have the right to be cooked by people who know what they are doing, we owe them that much after killing them

No, they do have the right not to be abused or mistreated or killed needlessly. However, animal experimentation and eating animals is NOT needless. So, yes, they have rights. Not as we do, but they have them.

Then what are we suppose to use in bullfighting? Because I'm all for the use of white Rhinos.

I don't know, a toreador whose genitals were cut off? It's a sadistic sport. Neither it nor rodeos are filable under "need" in any way.

No, they do have the right not to be abused or mistreated or killed needlessly. However, animal experimentation and eating animals is NOT needless. So, yes, they have rights. Not as we do, but they have them.

Every signle group that has ever been granted rights have rose up for them selves and taken them. If animals want rights, they must take them. The black community in America would never had gotten rights by just sitting around for people to give them their rights. Instead, the took them.

I don't know, a toreador whose genitals were cut off? It's a sadistic sport.

But then it wouldn't be bull figthing. It would be castrated toreador fighting. And anything with out genitals isn't very agressive, which is have the sport.

No, they do have the right not to be abused or mistreated or killed needlessly. However, animal experimentation and eating animals is NOT needless. So, yes, they have rights. Not as we do, but they have them.

well yeah, they shouldn't be treated cruely uneccessarily, only sadistic assholes would do such a thing. i just won't agree with those who think we shouldn't eat animals or that they can't be used for medical tests. when u get right down to it, human beings are more important after all.

I don't know, a toreador whose genitals were cut off? It's a sadistic sport. Neither it nor rodeos are filable under "need" in any way.

should ban horse and dog racing as well, they might not be getting killed deliberately but that is often the end result anyway

Every signle group that has ever been granted rights have rose up for them selves and taken them. If animals want rights, they must take them. The black community in America would never had gotten rights by just sitting around for people to give them their rights. Instead, the took them.

So, you're saying that we can be sadistic bastards until animals develop sentience and knowledge of what "rights" mean or you're saying that the bull that gores a rodeo clown or a toreador, killing him, is within his rights on doing so?

So, you're saying that we can be sadistic bastards until animals develop sentience and knowledge of what "rights" mean or you're saying that the bull that gores a rodeo clown or a toreador, killing him, is within his rights on doing so?

Pretty much yeah. The difference between can and should is a very large one.

But then it wouldn't be bull figthing. It would be castrated toreador fighting. And anything with out genitals isn't very agressive, which is have the sport.

Then we could not HAVE the damn sport. Put a guy in a motorcycle trying to hit another guy instead.

Pretty much yeah. The difference between can and should is a very large one.

Still. We don't have the right to be sadistic bastards to animals unless they have the right to gore people or maim them...

Quid pro quo.

Then we could not HAVE the damn sport. Put a guy in a motorcycle trying to hit another guy instead.

Maybe as an opening act, but leave bullfighting where it is.

Maybe as an opening act, but leave bullfighting where it is.

Okay, what about a robotic bull programmed to kill?

Still. We don't have the right to be sadistic bastards to animals unless they have the right to gore people or maim them...

Quid pro quo.

Sure, let them. Thats a sign they are trying to get rights,

Okay, what about a robotic bull programmed to kill?

That I have a problem with. Robots are people too!

That I have a problem with. Robots are people too!


D&D says it best

Golem: Construct. Not living.

Animal: Animal. Living.

Every signle group that has ever been granted rights have rose up for them selves and taken them.
Simply not true.

Rights were granted to children, the mentally disabled, the elderly, etc., without 'them' rising up and demanding rights.

Simply not true.

Rights were granted to children, the mentally disabled, the elderly, etc., without 'them' rising up and demanding rights.

The rights given to the elderly were given out of pure self interest. And the disabled were given rights out of either pity. Children were granted rights because of the Bambi effect.

Now, if these ALF people would become the subjects of the biomedical experiments, then perhaps we don't need to experiment on animals anymore.

The rights given to the elderly were given out of pure self interest. And the disabled were given rights out of either pity. Children were granted rights because of the Bambi effect.
Either way, it's still the case that what you posted was nonsense. Rights are granted to those who can't demand them for themselves.

I think it's also worth noting that folks aren't necessarily arguing for nonhuman animal rights, as so much as the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals.

Either way, it's still the case that what you posted was nonsense. Rights are granted to those who can't demand them for themselves.

I think it's also worth noting that folks aren't necessarily arguing for nonhuman animal rights, as so much as the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals.

Its a slippery slope. Same reason many of you oppose tourture across the board.

Now, if these ALF people would become the subjects of the biomedical experiments, then perhaps we don't need to experiment on animals anymore.

you mean, being the animal lovers that they are, they wouldn't gladly trade places with one of the poor furry creatures suffering for our own petty human advancements?

Its a slippery slope.
What is?

Ethical discourse need not inolve rights.

What is?

Ethical discourse need not inolve rights.

One day were are stopping the clubbing of baby seals because they're just so cute, then were banning hunting because you don't think its right, next were giving apes citizenship, next we teach them to talk, then bam! Planet of the Apes.

One day were are stopping the clubbing of baby seals because they're just so cute, then were banning hunting because you don't think its right, next were giving apes citizenship, next we teach them to talk, then bam! Planet of the Apes.
You said it yourself, a slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).

Come back when you've an argument to make.

you mean, being the animal lovers that they are, they wouldn't gladly trade places with one of the poor furry creatures suffering for our own petty human advancements?
Then good. Now we wouldn't have to deal with that ever-present possibility that what might be true in the experiments with other species might not hold true in humans. Them ALF people make good subjects in experiments, you know, as they don't seem to be taking the necessary risperidone and quetiapine because it was tested on animals.

And, I must take exception on those "petty human advancements". Human advancements, however petty, can be built up upon. Add those "petty advancements", you get something real.

And, I must take exception on those "petty human advancements". Human advancements, however petty, can be built up upon. Add those "petty advancements", you get something real.

well i was trying to be be sarcastic without letting my scorn for those people be too obvious. just trying to get in the minds of those nuts with that previous post you see ;)

well i was trying to be be sarcastic without letting my scorn for those people be too obvious. just trying to get in the minds of those nuts with that previous post you see ;)
Sorry. Sarcasm detector is broken after duty. :(

just trying to get in the minds of those nuts with that previous post you see ;)

Seriously, don't bother with this; it'll probably just fill you with an odd mix of rage and confusion. Those people are broken; they don't think like us. Terrorists and terrorist sympathizers don't operate using normal standards of logic and compassion; that's why they're so dangerous in the first place.

I'm quite pleased that pretty much everyone in this thread already realizes this. It's actually helped to restore my faith in humanity a little.

This is neither new nor isolated to medical researchers.

To me, what seperates us from other animals is our intelligence. Animal rights protesters are not as intelligent as the average person so I don't consider them people.

Animal rights protesters are not as intelligent as the average person so I don't consider them people.
Are you talking of all those who campaign for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals, or just those militants?

Are you talking of all those who campaign for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals, or just those militants?
The militants I don't consider human. Their supporters I consider children.

See, with right come responsibilities. Even if all animals were liberated they'd end up getting arrested for any number of things. Not paying taxes, killing people or each other, public nudity and sex, shitting all over the place, you get the idea. All the liberated animals would be in special animal prisons in a month or dead on the scene for resisting arrest and threatening police. Life isn't Disney bullshit where lions sing songs with wild boars and you can wish upon a star to make all your dreams come true.

If all you're talking about is ethical treatment then you'll have some common ground with people like me. Just keep in mind that what is ethical is not an absolute, it's subjective and something to discuss. Keeping animals as companions and using them to advance science is not the same as dog fighting.

Even if all animals were liberated they'd end up getting arrested for any number of things.
What are you on?

You seem to be under the rather silly notion that 'animal rights' or 'ethical treatment of animals' equates to teating nonhuman animals as human. This is, quite obviously, nonsense, and not at all the goal of the animal rights movement(s).

Just keep in mind that what is ethical is not an absolute, it's subjective and something to discuss.
That in itself is a contentious position, and one very much up for discussion. Though at another time.

Keeping animals as companions and using them to advance science is not the same as dog fighting.
Quite.

Though to treat nonhuman animals as a resource to be 'used' is, I think, a rather worrying state-of-affairs.

Maybe as an opening act, but leave bullfighting where it is.

The thing that annoys me about bullfighting, is that if the bull manages to kill the matador or wound him bad enough so he has to be taken out of the ring, they kill the bull anyway. That's just not fair.

Bull riding, in rodeos is much more fair. In fact, the bull has the advantage. Lots of guys don't even make it long enough to register a score. And a successful bull (one that is really tough to ride) is often given a lush retirement full of plentiful food and studding.

The thing that annoys me about bullfighting, is that if the bull manages to kill the matador or wound him bad enough so he has to be taken out of the ring, they kill the bull anyway. That's just not fair.

Bull riding, in rodeos is much more fair. In fact, the bull has the advantage. Lots of guys don't even make it long enough to register a score. And a successful bull (one that is really tough to ride) is often given a lush retirement full of plentiful food and studding.

Typically by the time the bull faces the matador in bullfighting, the bull has been weakened by barbed spears and other painful and bloody instruments. At that point, probably best off killing the poor thing. But I can't help but giggle when some dork in tights gets a bull horn right in the tenders.

If you want fair, let's see those motherfuckers fight an uninjured bull.

Bull riding, in rodeos is much more fair. In fact, the bull has the advantage. Lots of guys don't even make it long enough to register a score.

Horrendous abuse has been recorded at rodeos, the bulls don't just get mad on their own you know.

And a successful bull (one that is really tough to ride) is often given a lush retirement full of plentiful food and studding.

Why does this remind me of The Running Man?

The FBI calls it 'domestic terrorism'. That sounds a little like Harriet Nelson with a suicide bomb vest.

I thing they should drop the 'domestic' and call it what it is: Terrorism.The "domestic" is just to say its done by people from the same country. People like to know who they should be afraid of, whether its foreigners or their own neighbours.

The same applies for purse-snatchers. Should the Police be given powers to, say, kidnap their daughters and threaten them for confessions?Certainly makes the job more appealing if you get to kidnap pretty girls (because we all know how that goes in the movies; Stockholm syndrome and all that).

For example, there's a world of difference between murder and downloading pirate music (Which everyone does)Pirate music? Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum? Can't say I've downloaded any sea-shanties; well aside from that one flash-movie.

No, I'm pretty sure that they actually are. Anyone that thinks animals have rights beyond what sauce to put with them is insane.So its fine if someone gets a dog just so he has something to kick?

Every signle group that has ever been granted rights have rose up for them selves and taken them.Ah yes, I remember the great children's insurrection of 1988, where children all across the globe rose up against their adult oppressors and set fire to government buildings demanding rights for children. Culminating in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child) the following year.
Good times, good times.

Dr Vlasak? What does he have a PhD in? Douchebaggery and unethicalness?

Pickles.

Good times, good times.
Except when we all got sent to bed early, with nae dinner.

:(

Except when we all got sent to bed early, with nae dinner.

:(Hah, you should have thought of pillaging the candy store. That's the first thing we did. After that, no force on earth was a match for our sugar rush.

My solution: let the animals go, test on the ALF douchebags:p
Sounds about right.

Pickles.
Oh shit, pickles. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjxOt2u2BGM)

Hah, you should have thought of pillaging the candy store. That's the first thing we did. After that, no force on earth was a match for our sugar rush.
They cornered us in the ball-pit at Koko's... it was all over in a blink of an eye.

What are you on?

You seem to be under the rather silly notion that 'animal rights' or 'ethical treatment of animals' equates to teating nonhuman animals as human. This is, quite obviously, nonsense, and not at all the goal of the animal rights movement(s).
Ingrid Newkirk said that the one of the primary goals of PETA and the animal rights movement is total animal liberation and she isn't the only one. Now, I can understand if you'd want to distance yourself from PETA and the ALF, they do take the argument for humane treatment of animals to the extreme and their members have either funded terrorism or engaged in it.

That in itself is a contentious position, and one very much up for discussion. Though at another time.
Ethics are arbitrary. It's just what individuals consider moral and just and that differs for every person.

Ethics, Morality, conscience; funny how they all go out the window when we need something. The fact is that there is always a price for advancement.

I've never understood such people.
Animal rights...fine, whatever, but this is just to much...idiots..

These are the people who "liberate" minks, then watch in horror as confused, frightened, and extremely territorial minks kill each other.

My solution: let the animals go, test on the ALF douchebags:p

Give them the chance to volunteer. We'll see how principled they really are then.

Give them the chance to volunteer. We'll see how principled they really are then.

Well, principled as attention whore terrorists get anyways.

Ingrid Newkirk said that the one of the primary goals of PETA and the animal rights movement is total animal liberation

yeah, and?

I enjoy liberating animals, too. It's called using animals to liberate human animals from horrific diseases.

Well, principled as attention whore terrorists get anyways.

Yes, the implied idea was to prove that they're just in it for the fun of having a "cause".

The rights given to the elderly were given out of pure self interest. And the disabled were given rights out of either pity. Children were granted rights because of the Bambi effect.

You mean Bambi the cute little fawn? Shouldn't animals already have rights then?

If Clyde, Emma, Persephone (the cats who own me), Carmella (the rat whom I serve), Morpheus (my ophidian friend) and Remus (my mousely companion) were "liberated," they'd die. I'm their servant, who'd feed them, take them to the vet, get them their shots, pet them, talk to them and protect them from idiots if they were "liberated."

PETA and ALF have this notion that liberating domesticated animals would be good for them. I've worked with feral cats and know how "good" their lives are. They die young of hunger, disease, accidents and infections. I watched a hawk catch one of my colony who wasn't quick enough - I was too far away to stop it and it would have been foolish of me to try. Animals need protection, not rights. Protection from "owners" who, tiring of them, throw them away to fend for themselves. Does PETA address this? NO.

If you want fair, let's see those motherfuckers fight an uninjured bull.

That would be fair. The matador gets a sword, the bull of course, has his natural weaponry. And if the bull wins, he doesn't get killed anyway. That would be a fair fight.

Does PETA address this? NO.

PETA addresses it, by killing them. The pets that is.

That would be fair. The matador gets a sword, the bull of course, has his natural weaponry. And if the bull wins, he doesn't get killed anyway. That would be a fair fight.

The bull would win pretty much every time, and suddenly very few people would volunteer to be matadors, regardless of how well paid it is.

PETA addresses it, by killing them. The pets that is.

Don't forget it's because it's cheaper for PETA to kill the animals rather than maintain functional care shelters for them. Also, the pets have a greater value to PETA dead as opposed to alive since their corpses can be stored in walk-in freezers to preserve for future propaganda bullshit.

The bull would win pretty much every time, and suddenly very few people would volunteer to be matadors, regardless of how well paid it is.

You think so? I suppose the bull would then have the advantage.

You think so? I suppose the bull would then have the advantage.

I read, somewhere, a hundred years ago, that they won't allow a bull that's been spared to fight again. Not because it's humane, but because bulls learn. They learn that the cape isn't their enemy, it's the man with the cape who's the enemy and they charge accordingly.

PETA and ALF have this notion that liberating domesticated animals would be good for them.

not to my knowledge. got a source?

White mice never hurt anyone.

What about if they have fleas...and they spread the plague?!?!?!?!?!?!?! :eek:

I know...

I read, somewhere, a hundred years ago, that they won't allow a bull that's been spared to fight again. Not because it's humane, but because bulls learn. They learn that the cape isn't their enemy, it's the man with the cape who's the enemy and they charge accordingly.

I see. Very interesting. So, I still don't get what's so great about watching a bullfight. Who likes a one-sided contest?

not to my knowledge. got a source?

Their website has four paragraphs essentially condemning pet owners as "selfish," and to a degree they even imply abusive behaviors with a single equivocating paragraph at the end.

I mean, you've got to read this stuff. They even haul out the Christo-fascist bogeyman of "Satanism".

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp

*snip*

Of course, the page you linked to explicitly disavows the stance Anti-Social Darwinism attributed to them:

"Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety."

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

Of course, the page you linked to explicitly disavows the stance Anti-Social Darwinism attributed to them:

"Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety."

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

I figured linking to their own policies would give us the clearest picture possible. While ASD's claims were not entirely true, PETA's own policy is rationalized on nuttiness.

Another perspective, perhaps. If you consider death to be liberating, than PETA's on the right track. There is definitely a cognitive dissonance between what they say and what they do.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

http://www.workingpitbull.com/truthaboutpeta.htm

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/183

Another perspective, perhaps. If you consider death to be liberating, than PETA's on the right track. There is definitely a cognitive dissonance between what they say and what they do.

so your new claim is that peta doesn't approve of euthanasia for animals, but does it anyway? got any evidence for that one either?

Another perspective, perhaps. If you consider death to be liberating, than PETA's on the right track. There is definitely a cognitive dissonance between what they say and what they do.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

http://www.workingpitbull.com/truthaboutpeta.htm

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/183

PETA always talks the talk, but never takes so much a single step for the walk. Like I said, they find dead animals a lot more useful than living ones since the corpses can be stored in their $2000 walk-in freezers for later use in some faked animal-atrocity propaganda video or some shit like that.

Don't forget these gems from Ingrid Newkirk (Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk)):

We do not advocate "right to life" for animals.

- On a postcard to Nathan Winograd, a neuter/release and no-kill shelter advocate.

Euthanasia is the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved

- At a press conference in 2005, after two PETA employees were arrested for animal cruelty after dumping hundreds of dead animals in a dumpster.

I will be the last person to condemn ALF

- The New York Daily News, 1997 December 7

I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.

- "National Animal Rights Convention", 1997 June 27

And here's her highlights:

Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.

- The Washington Post, 1983 November 13

Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.

- US News & World Report, 2002 April 8

Do they really want to fuck with a guy who has access to chemicals a heckuva lot more dangerous than a molotov cocktail? Hell, I could make C4 in my lab if I wanted to.

Wait...

To the FBI monitoring all my transmissions (phone, voice, electronic, and mental), I have no idea how to make C4. None. No clue. No access to nitrates and play-dough at all. Nope. Nor am I harboring a grudge towards retarded hippies who attack researchers who are trying to improve the human condition at the expense of a few dirty, smelly, mean-spirited animals.

Seriously, mice fucking suck. I pull out their brains with glee, just because the bastards always try to bite, even when I'm feeding them, breeding them, or just holding them. Little assholes.

The fact that it's for genuine scientific research is secondary.

PETA always talks the talk, but never takes so much a single step for the walk. Like I said, they find dead animals a lot more useful than living ones since the corpses can be stored in their $2000 walk-in freezers for later use in some faked animal-atrocity propaganda video or some shit like that.

Don't forget these gems from Ingrid Newkirk

We've always known Ingrid to be a hypocritical attention whore. When she refuses insulin shots and willingly allows diabetic shock to kill her, we'll know she means what she says. Until then, she's a loudmouth with no redeeming qualities.

Would be interesting to have someone withhold all insulin shots from her and videotape her actions from there on as her condition worsens. Sadistic? Maybe. Ironic? Likely. Ruining any vestige of her credibility to the world? Definitely.

We've always known Ingrid to be a hypocritical attention whore. When she refuses insulin shots and willingly allows diabetic shock to kill her, we'll know she means what she says. Until then, she's a loudmouth with no redeeming qualities.

Yes, but she's also a loudmouth with no redeeming qualities running a domestic terrorist support network. She's defended terrorists like Rodney Coronado and openly speaks support for terrorist groups like ALF. Nothing so far as been done to PETA legally.

Contrast that to the Holy Land Foundation which got clamped down in record time when someone thought it was sending money to Hamas.

I think I've said it before. ALF and PETA market themselves as "saving" sickeningly cute animals with Disney makeovers, so nobody can take them seriously, even when they do serious things like firebombings and attempted murders.

Muslims on the other hand, have this constructed reputation in America that paints them as caricature terrorists, so even an idea that something may be wrong gets a whole lot of negative media and political attention.

All you have to do is paint ALF and PETA as inextricably linked to Muslims, convince a few higher ups, or just the ignorant masses, which is easier, and you'd have Ingrid shipped off to Guantanamo bay before you can say "Animal rights".

That being said, there is a slight difference in perceptions. PETA supposedly only funds legal teams to protect ALF members, and not ALF directly. But if you can find evidence that they do directly fund ALF, then it's a whole different kettle of fish.

Nothing so far as been done to PETA legally.

unless you are claiming that the bush admin is full of vegans and animal rights fellow travelers, perhaps this might imply that they haven't actually done anything illegal...

Ingrid Newkirk said that the one of the primary goals of PETA and the animal rights movement is total animal liberation and she isn't the only one.
'Total animal liberation' certainly doesn't mean 'being treated exactly the same as a human, with all of a fully conscious adult human's rights and responsibilities', and although I strongly disagree with some of the methods used by the ALF and PETA, I seriously doubt their members would argue the above to be true.

Ethics are arbitrary.
You keep on stating this as if it's established fact; it clearly isn't, as thousands of years of metaethical discourse have shown.

You keep on stating this as if it's established fact; it clearly isn't, as thousands of years of metaethical discourse have shown.
That's the result of social conditioning. Parents tell their kids what they think is ethical and when they grow up they do the same. Slavery used to be accepted practice just about everywhere but today much of the developed world condemns it along with prejudice like racism. If what a society considers ethical can change with time based on the personal views of individuals then ethics are not an absolute, they are arbitrary impositions that people and societies place on themselves.

That's the result of social conditioning. Parents tell their kids what they think is ethical and when they grow up they do the same.That has nothing to do with metaethical discourse; Kant, Mills, Aristotle etc.
Not to mention that even objectively, although justification differs cross-culturally, moral judgments are always quite similar (with some allowance for practical circumstances). There is nothing arbitrary about our natural inclinations.

'Total animal liberation' certainly doesn't mean 'being treated exactly the same as a human, with all of a fully conscious adult human's rights and responsibilities', and although I strongly disagree with some of the methods used by the ALF and PETA, I seriously doubt their members would argue the above to be true.

Animal Liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.

- Vogue 1989 September 1

Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk)

From the mouth of the head fruitcake herself. Ingrid Newkirk states that Animal Liberationists do not separate Man from Animal, therefore implying that Animals should receive the same rights as Man.

That has nothing to do with metaethical discourse; Kant, Mills, Aristotle etc.
Not to mention that even objectively, although justification differs cross-culturally, moral judgments are always quite similar (with some allowance for practical circumstances). There is nothing arbitrary about our natural inclinations.

Not true, the Chinese, For example, have an entirely different system of ethics and morals than do westerners and the same can be said for the Japaneses. Even more, Ethics vary from person to person, thus they are not absolute at all but rather subjective to the individual.

Not true, the Chinese, For example, have an entirely different system of ethics and morals than do westerners and the same can be said for the Japaneses. Even more, Ethics vary from person to person, thus they are not absolute at all but rather subjective to the individual.So they don't care for their children? And they think you should kill everyone except if you have a really good reason not to? And it's fine by them to take something that belongs to someone else?
Give me some real differences in their moral behaviour; and not their justification for that behaviour (ethics). Because justification typically comes after they've already decided what to do; after they've decided what's right to do, on instinct and experience. According the James Q Wilson's "the Moral Sense", people's moral behaviour revolves around sympathy, fairness, self-control and duty; and although admittedly the extent to which each plays a role is modified by upbringing (how could it not); overall the same patterns persist around the globe. And the same thing is born out in the last chapters of Gazzaniga's "the Ethical Brain" and various articles on the subject I've read.
There is nothing arbitrary about our moral behaviour; it's an evolutionary adaptation. And you can trace numerous aspects of it back to other species like various apes.

- Vogue 1989 September 1

Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk)

From the mouth of the head fruitcake herself. Ingrid Newkirk states that Animal Liberationists do not separate Man from Animal, therefore implying that Animals should receive the same rights as Man.

Which means, tracing back the steps of that thought process, that she'd gladly take insulin from a baby's pancreas if it means she continues to live.

From the mouth of the head fruitcake herself. Ingrid Newkirk states that Animal Liberationists do not separate Man from Animal, therefore implying that Animals should receive the same rights as Man.

Thus, people who believe in equality of the sexes advocate for abortion services for men.

Nice little tidbit:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200310060033

Seems Newkirk wants her body to be turned into meat. Now, I'd buy her. I mean, I'd not eat her, because I don't know where she's been, but I'd feed her to a cute and fuzzy animal, it seems like the thing she'd want.

As for a wallet of Newkirk leather... Mmm...

That's the result of social conditioning.
Metaethical discourse is the result of social conditioning?

Parents tell their kids what they think is ethical and when they grow up they do the same.
True, yet this shows nothing as to whether ethics are subjective or absolute. Certain absolutists, metaethical realists for example, would say that some parents are teaching their kids correct ethical facts and some aren't.

Slavery used to be accepted practice just about everywhere but today much of the developed world condemns it along with prejudice like racism.
Again, true, but this shows us nothing as to whether ethics are subjective or absolute. To go back to the realist, s/he might say that those who found slavery to be morally acceptable were wrong, and we, who find slavery morally unacceptable, are right.

If what a society considers ethical can change with time based on the personal views of individuals then ethics are not an absolute, they are arbitrary impositions that people and societies place on themselves.
Not necessarily, it might simply show that societies are progressing (or not) towards a more correct ethical position.

The mere presence of ethical disagreement or change in ethical stances, doesn't show that ethics are subjective. It could be that the metethical realist is correct, and moral statements are statements about facts, not statements about attitudes or upbringing.

If we have a disagreement about whether 2 + 2 = 4 or not, we wouldn't say that mathematics is subjective, just that people have different ideas about what are the correct mathematical facts.

Perhaps morality is the same.


From the mouth of the head fruitcake herself. Ingrid Newkirk states that Animal Liberationists do not separate Man from Animal, therefore implying that Animals should receive the same rights as Man.
Perhaps, though what "same rights"? Not knowing the context of the quote (I can't, after a hasty search, find the article online) I don't know if she's saying that humans shouldn't have any "special rights" over nonhuman animals not to be eaten, or shouldn't have any rights that nonhuman animals don't enjoy, or something else.

What I'm getting at is I'm not sure she, or her ALF/PETA counterparts, would argue for animals such as reptiles, rodents, etc., to have voting rights, rights to education, etc., rather than 'simply' arguing for nonhuman animals to have protection (in the form of rights) from unnecessary death, forceful removal from their 'home' habitat, etc.

They've got some fucked up views, I quite agree, particularly their stances on violent action, but I'd not want to mischaracterise them or any other group.


Which means, tracing back the steps of that thought process, that she'd gladly take insulin from a baby's pancreas if it means she continues to live.
I don't see how that follows at all.

What's your reasoning?

Morals and ethics are not the same as math. Pick up a dictionary and look up ethics. You will find that it means a set of rules of conduct for an individual or of a culture. Since these rules vary from person to person and cultural customs come from the individuals who practice them and these rules can change over time it seems pretty obvious that ethics are arbitrary.

You want to know what humanity is really like? Stick two men in a room with a bomb and a knife and tell them that if one doesn't kill the other they'll both die when the timer runs out. As soon as you are put in a position where ethics, morality and conscience are no longer convient you'll discard them. If you don't, you die. That's what we are when you strip away everything else, a fearful, greedy lot.

If you really want something to ponder and argue about try this: "I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is." Sort of like that whole tree falling in the woods bit except better.

I don't see how that follows at all.

What's your reasoning?

Terribly sorry, I think I mistook her for another animal activist, a diabetic one that uses insulin?

Pick up a dictionary and look up ethics. You will find that it means a set of rules of conduct for an individual or of a culture.

no, you won't.

i always wonder this in these threads, but what is it about peta that drives otherwise rational people insane, with full-on creationist quote mining and blatant mischaracterization and a corny-esque re-airing of the same already countered claims over and over?

i always wonder this in these threads, but what is it about peta that drives otherwise rational people insane, with full-on creationist quote mining and blatant mischaracterization and a corny-esque re-airing of the same already countered claims over and over?

Explain...

i always wonder this in these threads, but what is it about peta that drives otherwise rational people insane, with full-on creationist quote mining and blatant mischaracterization and a corny-esque re-airing of the same already countered claims over and over?

Same reason people respond to fundies in the same way. The constant moralizing and nagging that you're not living your life in some sort of "right" way is a nuisance, and PETA wants to make a highly visible point out of it, Newkirk is the one who described the organization as "Media sluts" or whatnot. It's almost Phelpsian.

i always wonder this in these threads, but what is it about peta that drives otherwise rational people insane, with full-on creationist quote mining and blatant mischaracterization and a corny-esque re-airing of the same already countered claims over and over?

Because absurd arguments often result in absurd counterarguments.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

i always wonder this in these threads, but what is it about peta that drives otherwise rational people insane, with full-on creationist quote mining and blatant mischaracterization and a corny-esque re-airing of the same already countered claims over and over?

That would depend on whether these quote mining instances you're talking about are mischaracterizations of what was said.

That would depend on whether these quote mining instances you're talking about are mischaracterizations of what was said.

indeed. have you been reading the same thread as me?

no, you won't.
Yes, you will.

From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

See? Ethics are a set of values. It's what people consider moral or proper. It's not an absolute, it's something to be discussed and debated. Saying that your view is the only right one is bullshit, especially when it steps on the toes of other people. In philosophy no single answer is ever the answer. Unless it benefits me.

When I saw the title, I for some strange reason assumed that you meant the furry alien who used to have a tv show

Yes, you will.

equivocation, though probably unknowingly on your part. chumbly was discussing metaethics and you clearly don't know what that means. in any context that includes the word 'metaethics' you are talking philosophy. start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics are a set of values. It's what people consider moral or proper. It's not an absolute

that last claim is contentious - indeed, it was the claim chumbly was contending. it certainly doesn't follow from anything you've said.

In philosophy no single answer is ever the answer.

bullshit

According to Wikipedoes "meta-ethics addresses the question 'What is (moral) goodness?'".

But the fact remains that what people consider moral is their opinion. If people didn't exist then neither would the concepts of ethics, morality, or concience. Philosophy isn't like physics. Without us to contemplate what is right and wrong they would not exist. But it wouldn't matter if man never existed, the stars would shine just as brightly.

But the fact remains that what people consider moral is their opinion. If people didn't exist then neither would the concepts of ethics, morality, or concience. Philosophy isn't like physics. Without us to contemplate what is right and wrong they would not exist. But it wouldn't matter if man never existed, the stars would shine just as brightly.

and if people didn't exist there would be no centimeter. do you take this to imply that you could claim that a centimeter is equal to the distance between earth and saturn and not be wrong?

indeed. have you been reading the same thread as me?

If you mean this thread, yes. But mind you, different people see things differently, especially when it comes to interpretation. So why don't you highlight a few of these cases?

and if people didn't exist there would be no centimeter.
Correct, but the distances measured in centimeters would still be the same. But, like I said, philosophy is not science. Philosphy is about shit like justice, how people ought to act, and "what is beauty?", all of which is subjective.

do you take this to imply that you could claim that a centimeter is equal to the distance between earth and saturn and not be wrong?
How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

If you mean this thread, yes. But mind you, different people see things differently, especially when it comes to interpretation. So why don't you highlight a few of these cases?
See, in the mind of someone like Free Soviets, they're always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Terribly sorry, I think I mistook her for another animal activist, a diabetic one that uses insulin?
You're making no sense.

You claim you've found some logical connection between arguing for nonhuman animals to have rights and a rationale for stealing a baby's organs... which I just don't see. If you've an argument, make it.

If you just want to spout silly, illogical statements, go spam somewhere else.


Morals and ethics are not the same as math.
Metaethical realists would disagree, and merely stating the opposite isn't a counter-argument.

Moreover, why seperate 'ethics' and 'morals/morality'? What do you see as different between the two terms?

Since these rules vary from person to person and cultural customs come from the individuals who practice them and these rules can change over time it seems pretty obvious that ethics are arbitrary.
For the nth time, this simply doesn't follow.

You've got to do far more than merely point to disagreement over moral matters to show that morality is subjective.

You want to know what humanity is really like? Stick two men in a room with a bomb and a knife and tell them that if one doesn't kill the other they'll both die when the timer runs out.
Basing one's view on human nature upon a crappy film franchise is, I'd say, unadvisable.

As soon as you are put in a position where ethics, morality and conscience are no longer convient you'll discard them.
But that's an ethical position; that one must do anything to survive.

You can't get out as easy as all that.

That's what we are when you strip away everything else, a fearful, greedy lot.
What's your reasoining behind this?

If you're just going to point to certain greedy, fearful actions of certain human beings, then I'll point to certain altruistic, calm actions of certain other human beings, and then we'll get nowhere.



<dictionary snip>

See? Ethics are a set of values.
Nope, I don't see.

Nothing you posted made any case for morality being subjective.

In philosophy no single answer is ever the answer.
Only some philosophers would agree with you there.

But, like I said, philosophy is not science. Philosphy is about shit like justice, how people ought to act, and "what is beauty?", all of which is subjective.
And a large amount of philosophers, past and present, would strongly disagre with you about the above.

If you mean this thread, yes. But mind you, different people see things differently, especially when it comes to interpretation. So why don't you highlight a few of these cases?

sure

PETA and ALF have this notion that liberating domesticated animals would be good for them.

this is as yet completely unsupported, and actually has been contradicted here

Don't forget it's because it's cheaper for PETA to kill the animals rather than maintain functional care shelters for them. Also, the pets have a greater value to PETA dead as opposed to alive since their corpses can be stored in walk-in freezers to preserve for future propaganda bullshit.

this is as yet unsupported and is certainly not what peta actually claims as its reason for opposing no-kill shelters and supporting euthanasia

- Vogue 1989 September 1

Source (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk)

From the mouth of the head fruitcake herself. Ingrid Newkirk states that Animal Liberationists do not separate Man from Animal, therefore implying that Animals should receive the same rights as Man.

this is almost certainly a misrepresentation of newkirk's position and is directly contradicted by, for example, peta's faq (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp)

need more? there's plenty. for example, anything indri has to say on the subject he already said and was shown to be wrong on months ago...

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

what specifically was so dissimilar that my analogy isn't illuminating at all? what is your objection? make a damn argument.

and merely stating the opposite isn't a counter-argument.

is so!

is so!
Pipped at the last hurdle!

*waves fist madly*

what specifically was so dissimilar that my analogy isn't illuminating at all? what is your objection? make a damn argument.
The problem with your analogy was that it was a poor attempt to mischaracterize my argument and make it seem weaker than it is. I made an argument, that ethics are arbitrary rules of conduct, that good and evil are a matter of opinion and are something to be discussed and debated. You didn't like that idea so you've been demanding that I prove it and rejecting everything that I have presented.

The burden of proof is not on my shoulders, if you claim that morality is absolute then you have to prove it somehow. By failing to do so you've asked me to just take your word for it and I have a problem with that. The only way to prove it would be through an experiment and if you can't do that then it wouldn't be science, just your opinion. And that's fine that you have a different set of beliefs but you should recognize that as just your opinion. It doesn't make you wrong, it just means that you aren't automatically right because you believe you are.

BTW, I had something for Chumply but I got this error when I tried to post it:
"Your submission could not be processed because a security token was missing or mismatched.

If this occurred unexpectedly, please inform the administrator and describe the action you performed before you received this error."

The problem with your analogy was that it was a poor attempt to mischaracterize my argument and make it seem weaker than it is. I made an argument, that ethics are arbitrary rules of conduct, that good and evil are a matter of opinion and are something to be discussed and debated. You didn't like that idea so you've been demanding that I prove it and rejecting everything that I have presented.

oddly, you are the one making a strawman here. i made no claim at all.

however, i do agree with chumbly. the pseudo-argument you have put forward for ethics being arbitrary and completely subjective is a terrible argument. it is literally the same as claiming that there is no correct solution to 2 plus 2 because some people think it is 4 and some people think it is 19. your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise.


how, specifically, do you believe ethics differ from the centimeter such that it is possible for someone to be wrong about the length of the centimeter but not about what is ethical?

this is as yet completely unsupported, and actually has been contradicted here

ASD's point however, is not factually void. ALF, at the very least, has been involved in numerous acts of B&E resulting in lab and farm animals being let loose in the general public. PETA on the other hand, has had at least a conviction or two regarding pet thefts if I remember correctly, as well as taking animals from shelters, killing them, and then dumping them.

Both ALF and PETA claim to be working for the "betterment of animals" although the exact wording may differ. How does the act and statement reconcile itself then?

Either they believe that what they are doing is in line with what they claim, or they do not, which in the case of the latter, would make them frauds.


this is as yet unsupported and is certainly not what peta actually claims as its reason for opposing no-kill shelters and supporting euthanasia

The latter part of Gauthiers statement is factually true I believe. There have been exposes showing that at least some of PETA's propaganda images have been created using animal carcasses stored in their premises, and were not in fact, from the labs/farms/etc they accused of such acts.

As for the former, I would ask if there is a logical disconnect between "valuing all lives" and then euthanizing these supposed "valued lives"?

One cannot take a reason at face value if there are reasonable grounds to doubt the sincerity of the reason is there not?

For example, if you saw someone climbing in through the broken window of your house, a crowbar in one hand, and a bag in the other, who claimed to be from the bank doing a repossession of your valuables for a bad debt, would you believe said reason?

Or a better example, a charitable organization which is purportedly run to feed hungry orphans, only to have an expose show that the funds are being used to purchase the founder a Mercedes Benz as an operating expense, with only a penny spent on food. Can you honestly say that the reasons given are valid?

Or more simply. The Church of Scientology. Would you say that their statements and actions are not sufficient to cast doubt on the authenticity on the claims to be a religion?

I find it quite interesting however, that you use PETA statements to defend PETA actions, which would be much akin to Japanese statements regarding their motives and actions in say, Nanking of the late 1930s in terms of trustworthiness.

Surely you can do better than that?

The burden of proof is not on my shoulders, if you claim that morality is absolute then you have to prove it somehow.
True, but the burden of truth is also upon yourself.

Morality as being subjective is not the 'default' position. Both sides, moral absolutists and moral relativists, have got to show their reasoning.

BTW, I had something for Chumply but I got this error when I tried to post it...
Can you re-post it if possible?


I would ask if there is a logical disconnect between "valuing all lives" and then euthanizing these supposed "valued lives"?
I don't see any disconnect.

One can value a life and wish it to be euthanised for its own good. Sticking with nonhuman animals, but ignoring ALF/PETA for a tad, we wouldn't say the adoring pet owner who chooses to euthanise their pain-wracked pet didn't value their pet's life.

I don't see any disconnect.


Because you are using parameters not typical to PETA claims and actions. One might as well claim that Scientology doctrine and Islamic doctrine are the same.


One can value a life and wish it to be euthanised for its own good. Sticking with nonhuman animals, but ignoring ALF/PETA for a tad, we wouldn't say the adoring pet owner who chooses to euthanise their pain-wracked pet didn't value their pet's life.

Perhaps, but this example is not PETA, we are talking about. PETA claims that rearing animals for food, regardless of how, is cruel and inhumane, especially the part where they are killed for processing, generally an instantaneous, painless procedure, though they claim it isn't.

Yet PETA itself advocates killing animals that under normal circumstances, such as shelter animals, would go on living mostly healthy lives.

How do you explain that?

Because you are using parameters not typical to PETA claims and actions.
Ahh, your question seemed more general.

Yet PETA itself advocates killing animals that under normal circumstances, such as shelter animals, would go on living mostly healthy lives.
Do they?

I've heard BS on all sides about this issue, and nothing definitive to show either way. Does PETA actively advocate "killing animals that under normal circumstances would go on living mostly healthy lives"? If so, then what is there reasoning? If animals are being killed, then what health are the animals in?

I'd have to know more about PETA, their motives and their actions, before anwering further. The organisation isn't hugely prevailant in the UK, and I know more about other organisations campaigning for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals.

Do they?

Depends on what NAS means by "go on living mostly healthy lives."

PETA euthanizes pets when it doesn't have the resources to give them decent conditions, and no one adopts them. It argues that euthanasia is better than living horribly, and personally I agree. Its use of euthanasia, of course, is standard practice among organizations that deal with pets, not a predilection toward mass animal slaughter caused by their inherently diabolical nature.

Ahh, your question seemed more general.


If I was not specific enough, I apologize.


Do they?


Really, really.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

Some bits from former PETA members

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

A tracking group for activists funding has this to say.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

On a side note, a PETA payoff to a convicted arsonist.

http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm

Here, ALF, a known terrorist organization, tries to make excuses for PETA and itself.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2005_8/PETAeuthanizing.htm


I've heard BS on all sides about this issue, and nothing definitive to show either way. Does PETA actively advocate "killing animals that under normal circumstances would go on living mostly healthy lives"? If so, then what is there reasoning? If animals are being killed, then what health are the animals in?

Apparently animals healthy enough to be adopted from other shelters. News is old, so this was all I could find.

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-peta-activists-on-trial-for-killing-animals

Additional information shows that they also euthanize the majority of animals given to them, regardless of the health the animals are in.

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2004
http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2005


I'd have to know more about PETA, their motives and their actions, before anwering further. The organisation isn't hugely prevailant in the UK, and I know more about other organisations campaigning for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals.

Considering that PETA has openly admitted to sending funds to support members of the ALF and ELF, both criminal organizations who have committed arson, vandalism, attempted homicide with incendiary devices and even grave robbing, their motives insofar as respect of law are highly suspect.

Depends on what NAS means by "go on living mostly healthy lives."

Adoption is usually one. Shelters can get overcrowded, this is undeniable. But that does not excuse misleading shelter staff so as to get their hands on the animals in order to kill them.

Let me make one thing clear. I realize that animals may have to be euthanized for a variety of legitimate reasons. Serious injury, sickness, or simply lack of resources to provide reasonable amounts of care. I neither advocate nor decry it. It is simply a question of pragmatism. However, that decision is for the shelter to make with the animals they have, not some holier than thou misfits who think that the law does not apply to them and that under no circumstances will these animals ever be adopted.

*snip*

We've been over this at length already, and I'm not interested in continuing the argument for the same reasons I discontinued it last time.

If you're interested, Chumblywumbly, here's (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539205) the thread. The most relevant portions of the discussion are from about post 175 on, but a lot of it makes interesting reading, because it shows how tiresome and repetitive some of these claims have become, especially when they are refuted every time.

We've been over this at length already, and I'm not interested in continuing the argument for the same reasons I discontinued it last time.

If you're interested, Chumblywumbly, here's (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539205) the thread. The most relevant portions of the discussion are from about post 175 on, but a lot of it makes interesting reading, because it shows how tiresome and repetitive some of these claims have become, especially when they are refuted every time.

The FBI does not share your opinion of PETA concerning their support of ALF.

We've been over this at length already, and I'm not interested in continuing the argument for the same reasons I discontinued it last time.

I'm going to limit this mostly to the facts on hand, rather than the theoretical ethical constructs of last time that had nothing to do with the matter on hand, and ended only because it was going nowhere.

Honestly, sometimes these threads are like an Orwellian Two Minute Hate. It's ridiculous. There are so many better things to absurdly demonize in the world.

Honestly, sometimes these threads are like an Orwellian Two Minute Hate. It's ridiculous. There are so many better things to absurdly demonize in the world.

What, people giving monetary support to kill people, blow things up, set things on fire, and kill animals - all illegal activities in their context - is not illegal and worth highlighting and stopping?

Hotwife, I have you on Ignore, so if you're replying to me it's pointless.

I'm going to limit this mostly to the facts on hand

While there was no limit, there was certainly discussion of the "facts on hand" then. The issues being discussed now are more or less the same.

While there was no limit, there was certainly discussion of the "facts on hand" then. The issues being discussed now are more or less the same.

You and I both know it went far beyond the facts on hand.

Hotwife, I have you on Ignore, so if you're replying to me it's pointless.

Actually, for the first time in quite a while he has a point, so I'll repost his here - under good faith, Hotwife.

"What, people giving monetary support to kill people, blow things up, set things on fire, and kill animals - all illegal activities in their context - is not illegal and worth highlighting and stopping?" - Hotwife.

You and I both know it went far beyond the facts on hand.

Hence "There was no limit." It does help to actually read what people say.

"What, people giving monetary support to kill people, blow things up, set things on fire, and kill animals - all illegal activities in their context - is not illegal and worth highlighting and stopping?" - Hotwife.

To my knowledge, PETA has supported the legal funds of ALF members and the like, but not actively funded their operations. There is a difference.

Hence "There was no limit." It does help to actually read what people say.



To my knowledge, PETA has supported the legal funds of ALF members and the like, but not actively funded their operations. There is a difference.

Yeah, its kind like the lawyer for the mob not taking part in any less than legal activities. But they still are in the mob.

Hence "There was no limit." It does help to actually read what people say.


Then you should also acknowledge that I stated that my intention was to keep it to the facts at hand, and not beyond.

And to the best of my knowledge, the argument regarding the facts at hand were never resolved.

It would be better if the various animal rights organizations were consistent on the idea that "killing and torture are bad".

Bad for people, bad for animals. This helps, because most people are "killing is ok for animals because I eat them, and torture of animals is ok if I never know about it, after all, they are animals".

You know, the whole "moral superiority" thing that Heikoku is always on about.

I bet that Heikoku is consistent on the "killing is bad" thing. Which makes her credible on the subject of "you shouldn't kill".

I can't really go around saying, "you shouldn't kill" because I have killed - people and animals - under situations that were legal, and which I thought were morally and ethically correct. Since those are all subjective definitions that various humans may agree on from time to time, it's more of "killing is ok, as long as it's legal".

The moment an ALF person says that "killing is ok, as long as it's for the cause", or the moment a PETA person pays for their legal defense, they are in the SAME moral and ethical boat as I am - in my mind worse, because they don't even care if it's legal or not.

It would be better if the various animal rights organizations were consistent on the idea that "killing and torture are bad".

Bad for people, bad for animals. This helps, because most people are "killing is ok for animals because I eat them, and torture of animals is ok if I never know about it, after all, they are animals".

You know, the whole "moral superiority" thing that Heikoku is always on about.

I bet that Heikoku is consistent on the "killing is bad" thing. Which makes her credible on the subject of "you shouldn't kill".

I can't really go around saying, "you shouldn't kill" because I have killed - people and animals - under situations that were legal, and which I thought were morally and ethically correct. Since those are all subjective definitions that various humans may agree on from time to time, it's more of "killing is ok, as long as it's legal".

The moment an ALF person says that "killing is ok, as long as it's for the cause", or the moment a PETA person pays for their legal defense, they are in the SAME moral and ethical boat as I am - in my mind worse, because they don't even care if it's legal or not.

1- I'm male.

2- I'm on YOUR SIDE in this discussion: I'm against PETA and ALF.

3- I'm consistent in that killing people is rong mainly because they're our species and a rational, sentient one. I'm also against animal cruelty and against killing "for killing". But with animals that are threatening us, or that are useful to humans, such as testing or eating, it IS okay, mainly because any species does it in a way (such as eating). So, yeah, my view has internal coherency.

Morality as being subjective is not the 'default' position. Both sides, moral absolutists and moral relativists, have got to show their reasoning.
Try to think of it like this, I'm being an atheist here and you're not. What I mean is that I believe that God is the creation of people and to support this view I point to the different belief systems throughout the world and the lack of any intervention by an all-powerful creator outside of holy scriptures I consider fictitious because of the lack of supporting evidence and the wild claims they make. You have taken the side that God does exist and said it must be true because people believe it and there is no proof that God doesn't exist. Well, you can't prove a negative but I have have shown that there is reasonable doubt of the existence of God.

Philosophy isn't a science because there is no way to test it objectively, no way to run any experiments. Science demands replicable results and collected data that support a hypothesis. Science doesn't seek to answer the question of why. Philosophy is about the why. Science is about objective stuff, philosophy is about subjective stuff.

Saying that morals are absolute because you believe it is so isn't science, it's faith.

Can you re-post it if possible?
It was a TL;DR rebuttal. I'm not rewriting that. Besides, I think I've come up with a better way to make my point.

Try to think of it like this, I'm being an atheist here and you're not.
Your analogy, to put it bluntly, sucks.

At the risk of repeating myself, metaethical subjectivism is not the 'default' metaethical position (though it is curently the most popular position outside of professional philosophy). Pointing to disagreement over moral questions proves squat about what metaethical position is correct.

Well, you can't prove a negative...
Of course you can.

Science is about objective stuff, philosophy is about subjective stuff.
Only sometimes, and only according to certain people.

Think of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or the modern advances in quantum mechanics; it can be claimed they shows how certain aspects of science are down to the subjective observer. Moreover, the role of the subjective observer, especially in relation to said observer's own mind, has made a welcomed return to science (particularly psychology and cognitive science) in recent years.

Philosophy, on the other hand, can be seen from an almost purely objective stance. Certain philosophers will argue that their work is fully objective.

Saying that morals are absolute because you believe it is so isn't science, it's faith.
And so is saying that morality is subjective without backing up your claim; as you yourself are.

Indri, when a theist claims that God exists, they are making a claim that is essentially incredible: that something exists that radically violates everything we understand about how the world works, something that on its face is wildly implausible. When, upon being challenged, the most objective support they can muster is extremely dubious empirical support and long-discredited philosophical arguments, it makes sense to return to the "default" of non-existence of the deity.

The case of metaethics is radically different. Moral reasoning exists. Everyone knows this--it's something pretty much all of us deal with, if not in ourselves than at least in others. This moral reasoning is something we certainly don't treat as arbitrary: most people are willing to present reasons why they think something is right or wrong. Furthermore, while there is substantial moral variation from culture to culture, there are common elements--different varieties of the Golden Rule, prohibitions on murder and theft, and so forth.

While it does not follow necessarily from any of these elements that an objective moral standard exists, they do suggest that our understanding of the character of moral reasoning accords rather nicely with such an explanation... in a way that, say, the apparent universal, almost necessary character of natural laws does not accord with an interventionist supernatural being.

Philosophy isn't a science

did anyone suggest otherwise? in so far as there is a part-whole relation, it could be argued that science is a very specialized type of philosophy

Science doesn't seek to answer the question of why.

yeah, no scientist has ever asked "hey, why do various celestial bodies make retrograde motions?"

Y'know, I thought this thread was on abortion.

And now I find myself wishing it were. :(

But, I digress. why don't we put up the names and addresses of the people linked to ALF online?

bit late but.....

Because we have Anonymous over @ /b to do it for us?

bit late but.....

Because we have Anonymous over @ /b to do it for us?

We do? o_O

The ALF should be infected with an LG virus that turns their insanity to our amusement.

The ALF should be infected with an LG virus that turns their insanity to our amusement.

Bad Idea. They'll turn into the Clown Liberation Front or the Mud Liberation Front or the Taco Liberation Front.

Of course you can.


Prove it. Without having to rely on proving a positive.

Prove it. Without having to rely on proving a positive.
Why should I abide to that?

The statement wasn't, "you can't prove a negative... providing you don't use logic".　Proving a positive often, if not always, relies on (implicit) proof of negatives. Why should proof of negatives not be helped by proving positives?

My username is Chumblywumbly
Non Aligned States is not my puppet.
Therefore, my username is not Non Aligned States.

Prove it.

1 + 1 = 3
2 = 3
Oops! Clearly 2 =/= 3.
Therefore, 1 + 1 =/= 3.
There.

In this particular case, Indri should suggest something about moral reasoning that is inherently subjective. For example, he might argue as follows: no "ought" statement can follow from an "is" statement. But the only objective knowledge we have concerns matters of "is." It follows that our "ought" beliefs are not rooted in any objective knowledge, but only in inherently subjective parts of human experience--like our emotions, our instincts, our gut feelings regarding things.

I think this argument is flawed, but at least it's an argument, not an unsupported assertion. You can have a productive discussion about it, one that doesn't just involve one person saying "This is true" and the other person (quite rightly) saying "Not so fast" over and over again.

Why should I abide to that?

The statement wasn't, "you can't prove a negative... providing you don't use logic".　Proving a positive often, if not always, relies on (implicit) proof of negatives. Why should proof of negatives not be helped by proving positives?

My username is Chumblywumbly
Non Aligned States is not my puppet.
Therefore, my username is not Non Aligned States.

What you're doing is proving positives, and concluding a negative by implication of said positive. Technically, you're not proving a negative.

In either case, topic at hand people? Facts of the matter show logical disconnects between PETAs varied assertions and actions and that PETA is quite willing to provide protection for criminal acts.

What you're doing is proving positives, and concluding a negative by implication of said positive. Technically, you're not proving a negative.
I'm concluding (proving) a negative, yet not proving a negative?

I'm concluding (proving) a negative, yet not proving a negative?

Technically, you are proving a positive, and by implication, closing out a possibility. Example.

1+1 = 2, thereby, 1+1 != 3

But you aren't proving 1+1 != 3

And you haven't replied to my earlier post despite your request for information on PETA actions and motives.

Technically, you are proving a positive, and by implication, closing out a possibility. Example.

1+1 = 2, thereby, 1+1 != 3

But you aren't proving 1+1 != 3
With the implicit premise that mathematical equations can only have one answer, yes you are.

And you haven't replied to my earlier post despite your request for information on PETA actions and motives.
I'm still sorting through it all, you posted quie a few links.

So far, it seems to be as Soheran described. PETA euthanise animals it feels cannot lead a good life trapped up in animal shelters. Many in the animal liberation movement disagree with them; some wholly, some partly.