ALF "liberates" 15,000 fish to death

[bascule]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2366233,00.html

 

The loss is estimated to have cost the fish farm at least £500,000 as boats, cranes and offices were also vandalised. The halibut died from starvation or getting caught in seaweed. They were also being eaten by herring gulls and otters.

 

Okay, so the PETA videos of poor circus animals get to me, I admit. Same with cows... poor cows!

 

And yes, I too can't stand seeing debeaked chickens crammed into deplorable conditions for the purposes of providing the world with eggs and fried chicken.

 

But seriously... halibut? Now granted, the ramifactions of their action were not considered, and the fish they "liberated" simply met with their deaths.

 

But... why halibut? Why aren't they trying to liberate chimps, or cows, or some other group of animals more worthy of moral consideration?

 

And, to top it off... random acts of vandalism. Well done.

[gcol]

Is this not a typical act of a new breed of terrorist, "Ethical Terrorists". They say their destructive actions are O.K. because they are morally justified. In my opinion they have no morals or ethics, merely twisted prejudices. In principle their justification could be used to condone any terrorist act. They are surely to be condemned for setting a dangerous precedent.

 

I had a nightmare the other day where marauding bands of meat-eaters torched fields of captive vegetables to liberate them.

[GutZ]

lol its the thought that counts apparently...

[ParanoiA]

Priceless. I love it when they display their ignorance so gloriously.

[ecoli]

What I find unfortunate is that the fish were unable to survive because they were brought up in captivity. Has any ALF spokesperson say anything about this yet?

[In My Memory]

I dont really care if the fishery lost so much money hat it couldnt build anymore fisheries, I'd be more concerned if ecological damage was caused.

 

At the very least, it is better that the fish were released even if they died, not so much because the fish were better off released than killed, but because it means the fisheries cant profit from the fishes deaths.

 

 

gcol,

Is this not a typical act of a new breed of terrorist, "Ethical Terrorists". They say their destructive actions are O.K. because they are morally justified. In my opinion they have no morals or ethics, merely twisted prejudices. In principle their justification could be used to condone any terrorist act. They are surely to be condemned for setting a dangerous precedent.

Maybe if the principle was "my god wants me to kill you", then yes, any act of terrorism can be defended. But I dont think "its wrong to exploit animals for profit", which is the one that any ALF member would use, really justifies every act of terrorism. Of course, I think its also important to realize that not all terrorism is the same, people are definitely endangered by militant Muslims and white supremecists who *want* to kill others than by the ALF who only destroy property.

 

But in any case, terrorism itself is not inherently bad at face value, because at least in the case of ALF they are trying to use it accomplish good ends (sometimes they screw up though, like in the halibut incident above). The reason why people would even consider terrorism in the first place is because sometimes theres just nothing the governments or lawmakers will do. I'm pretty sure every congressman in the US gets 100s of letters every year, especially during hunting season, to stop passing laws that kill more animals... but letter writing doesnt always work, it doesnt accomplish anything.

[ParanoiA]

At the very least, it is better that the fish were released even if they died, not so much because the fish were better off released than killed, but because it means the fisheries cant profit from the fishes deaths.

 

So it's about profit afterall...

 

 

But in any case, terrorism itself is not inherently bad at face value, because at least in the case of ALF they are trying to use it accomplish good ends (sometimes they screw up though, like in the halibut incident above). The reason why people would even consider terrorism in the first place is because sometimes theres just nothing the governments or lawmakers will do. I'm pretty sure every congressman in the US gets 100s of letters every year, especially during hunting season, to stop passing laws that kill more animals... but letter writing doesnt always work, it doesnt accomplish anything.

 

Letter writing isn't working because the majority of people don't agree with you. When lawmakers and the government won't do anything it's because the majority of the country, their constituents, don't agree with your principles. So, terrorism is the minorty party trying to force their will onto the majority and you're justifying it just because you happen to agree with that minority party's views.

[In My Memory]

Paranoia,

Letter writing isn't working because the majority of people don't agree with you. When lawmakers and the government won't do anything it's because the majority of the country, their constituents, don't agree with your principles. So, terrorism is the minorty party trying to force their will onto the majority and you're justifying it just because you happen to agree with that minority party's views.

So, whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.

 

Consdier that almost every civil rights fight in history has pitted a minority of people against a majority. For example, gay rights is a current topic where a minority of gay rights supporters are against the status quo that says "smear the queers". Lets just take a hypothetical situation:

 

- 30 years ago, being opening gay meant the risk of being abducted and beaten to death. If witnessed people attacking and killing gays, but the police or government didnt care at all, there wouldnt be much you could do but intervene on gays behalf with violence... do you think you'd be justified doing the right thing, even if likeminded people were in the microminority? Probably, and no amount of "you're forcing your will on the majority!!!!" comments will mean anything to you.

 

A lot of ALF members look at animal liberation in the same way: animals cant defend themselves, and the governments dont care about animal abuse, so ALF defends the animals on their behalf.

[Dak]

I dont really care if the fishery lost so much money hat it couldnt build anymore fisheries, I'd be more concerned if ecological damage was caused.

 

At the very least, it is better that the fish were released even if they died, not so much because the fish were better off released than killed, but because it means the fisheries cant profit from the fishes deaths.

 

are you really naiive enough to think that, over all, this helped the fish?

 

the supermarkets aren't going to go 'oh dear, someone has vandalised a fishery, no fish for us this week, that is a shame to be sure'

 

they'll just buy from somewhere else untill the fishery has recovered, or from somewhere else permanantly if the fishery doesn't, meaning:

 

exactly the same number of fishes killed for food (other fisheries will take up the slack to meat the demand for fish, either temporarily or permantly)

 

PLUS up to 15,000 fish killed for absolutely no reason.

 

is it truly better that one fish dies without feeding a human, and so another one is killed instead, than for just one fish to be killed to feed a human?

 

1 fish... 2 fish... hmm...

 

i may be an omnivore (and more carnivore than vegetarian), but i do have ethics in this area. admittedly, they're more damage-limitation than refraining from doing it, but i dont buy battery produce, i dont eat animals that were killed as babys or childeren (lamb, for example), and i prefer to eat larger animals (cows: 1 death = several meals; chicken: 1 death = about 4 meals), so, for me, this is completely unethical.

 

normally, 1 fish death = 1 fish worth of food for a human.

 

add retards into the equasion, and 2 fish deaths = 1 fish worth of food for a human; 1 by the ALF's hands, and one more to take it's place on the dinner table. not to mention that, presumably, lots of the fish were young, and would have lived to adulthood if they remained in the fishery.

 

wasteful deaths that do nothing to limit human consumption of fish, even over the very short term, and only serve to temporarily increase the number of human-induced fish deaths, all in the name of protecting fish. and you think this is good, IMM?

 

bascule excellent title, i actually lol'd. 'liberated to death'

[Sisyphus]

You don't see anything intrinsically wrong with making your own laws? Anyone should be allowed to destroy anyone else's property because their crazy minority beliefs say it's ok?

 

As a matter of fact, there are situations where I would forsake the law. I won't give Godwin the satisfaction of mentioning them, but even in those situations, I certainly wouldn't expect any mercy from the majority, nor do I think any should be given. I certainly wouldn't try to continue going about trying to be an ordinary citizen.

[YT2095]

Yet another case of Do-Gooders doing more harm than good

 

they ought to spend time at guantanamo too, "Terrorist" IS the correct word for them.

and it`s more than evident Again that`s it purely motivated by SELF interest rather than using the brains the were born with!

[ParanoiA]

So, whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.

 

And what Al Quada operative doesn't agree with that? By that logic, all terrorism is ok since "bad principles" are subjective. Those southern racists didn't believe their principles were bad at all.

 

Consdier that almost every civil rights fight in history has pitted a minority of people against a majority. For example, gay rights is a current topic where a minority of gay rights supporters are against the status quo that says "smear the queers".

 

No, that was a minority of people who "pursuaded" the majority. And I would challenge whether it was truly a minority. For instance, consider the gay rights issues we're facing today. There is NOT a majority of people who say "smear the queers" (although we did play that rudimentary football game from time to time...). There IS a status quo however. People have a tendency to resist change, especially change that they don't have any real interest in. That doesn't mean the majority thinks a certain way.

 

Most of the people I know, from liberals to conservatives, don't care about oppressing gay people and could care less if they marry and have children. I'm not using that as a fact indicator, rather I don't think it's always a majority, as much as a perceived majority.

 

At any rate, it still doesn't justify terrorizing and destroying property and livelihood. Otherwise, the only difference between Al Quada and ALF is the weaponry.

[Royston]

At the very least, it is better that the fish were released even if they died, not so much because the fish were better off released than killed, but because it means the fisheries cant profit from the fishes deaths.

 

IMM, not particularly related to this statement, but it sparked a thought...where do you draw the line to what animal suffers the most, in comparison to somebody who is 'fishing' for example to raise and provide for their family.

 

There are countless of people brought up in the fishing trade, who's only means to provide for their family is fishing....the Galapagos Island dispute is an example, but clearly a different scenario. Considering there is no way of gauging what a 'fish' goes through, when it's caught for food, but a family with no income clearly suffers.

 

You can extend that to other animals, so where is the proof, and logical argument that draws a line on a certain species over the well being of a family ?

[YT2095]

pointless trying to be logical, reasonable or rational with self motivated idealistic terrorists Snail, give it up dude

[In My Memory]

Dak,

are you really naiive enough to think that, over all, this helped the fish?

Yes, those companies only continue to operate because theres a profit to make, and if they cant profit, then fewer animals are harmed overall. It would be better if the fish didnt die, but apparently whoever released them didnt have enough foresight on what what would happen to them and they screwed up, but its better overall because the Kame's fishery is £500,000 poorer and £500,000 taken out of the pool of money that contributes to animal suffering.

 

ALFs moves didnt accomplish something more ideal, but it accomplished at least a little.

 

wasteful deaths that do nothing to limit human consumption of fish, even over the very short term, and only serve to temporarily increase the number of human-induced fish deaths, all in the name of protecting fish. and you think this is good, IMM?

I would be amazed if other fisheries could meet the demand, but I guess I should think about it this way: maybe fisheries and slaughterhouses should be sabotaged with more frequency so that their continued operation is a net loss and makes it impossible to meet the demands.

 

 

 

Paranoia,

So' date=' whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.[/quote']

And what Al Quada operative doesn't agree with that? By that logic, all terrorism is ok since "bad principles" are subjective. Those southern racists didn't believe their principles were bad at all.

*** IMM re-reads her comment, notices that she didnt write anything at all even remotely implying that principles are subjective ***

 

What exactly are you replying to? I never said that bad principles are subjective anywhere in my post. If you actually think bad principles are subjective, then basically you should turn your criticism on yourself, and question how you could even object to acts of terrorism in principle.

 

 

 

Sisyphus,

You don't see anything intrinsically wrong with making your own laws?

Not in principle, no. And in fact, there is nothing that morally binds a person to obeying the law in the first place, theres nothing immoral about breaking the law, because laws and morality are not necessarily correspondant.

 

Believe me, there are numerous examples in history where laws are blatantly immoral and breaking the law is actually good.

 

Seriously, there are good criticisms are terrorism, but criticisms like "it forces the will on the majority!!!" and "it breaks the law!!!" are really the most unsophisticated criticisms.

 

Anyone should be allowed to destroy anyone else's property because their crazy minority beliefs say it's ok?

*** spits out those words Sisyphus just shoved into her mouth ***

 

As a matter of fact, there are situations where I would forsake the law. I won't give Godwin the satisfaction of mentioning them, but even in those situations, I certainly wouldn't expect any mercy from the majority, nor do I think any should[/b'] be given. I certainly wouldn't try to continue going about trying to be an ordinary citizen.

Oh no People making their own laws! Its total anarchy now!

 

Just wondering, but exactly should a majority refuse to give mercy to those who save [Godwin]?

 

 

Snail,

IMM' date=' not particularly related to this statement, but it sparked a thought...where do you draw the line to what animal suffers the most, in comparison to somebody who is 'fishing' for example to raise and provide for their family.

 

There are countless of people brought up in the fishing trade, who's only means to provide for their family is fishing....the Galapagos Island dispute is an example, but clearly a different scenario. Considering there is no way of gauging what a 'fish' goes through, when it's caught for food, but a family with no income clearly suffers.

 

You can extend that to other animals, so where is the proof, and logical argument that draws a line on a certain species over the well being of a family ?[/quote']

Well, if a family has no income, they cant buy fish anyway, so whether or not theres fish available, they'll suffer.

 

But in any case, I've never said that families deserve to suffer, but if they're suffering is really of genuine interest, the government should step in and feed them. Or at the very least, charitable people should feed them. (After all, how is their suffering less important than you parting with 10 or 15 dollars to feed them?) That way, we maximize the amount of good: no animals are killed, and hungry families have food to eat.

 

 

YT

Again that`s it purely motivated by SELF interest rather than using the brains the were born with!

WTF? How can you say that ALF is motivated by self interest, what are they gaining for being labeled as terrorists and liberating animals from slaughterhouses? It has nothing to do with self interest, but for animals interests, they are perfectly selfless.

 

If you have a problem with people motivated purely by self interests, take it up with the people who torture and kill animals for profit.

[gcol]

A contributor to this thread has stated, in another thread, that they valued a chimpanzee over the life of a human child. I wonder if they will produce similar arguments in favour of fish in general over the wellbeing of fishermens' families? I would be sympathetic to arguments that favoured subsistance fishermen over the highly mechanised methods of stripmining the seas to species extinction, as an olive branch.

[gcol]

To put the ALF into perspective, here is a link, Congressional testimony FBI which plainly calls them extremist terrorists. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

 

Supporters and apologists might beware the midnight knock on the door!

[In My Memory]

gcol,

To put the ALF into perspective, here is a link, Congressional testimony FBI which plainly calls them extremist terrorists. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

 

Supporters and apologists might beware the midnight knock on the door!

Its worth noting...

This April, Congressional Quarterly obtained a draft DHS document that listed groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front as the only significant sources of domestic terrorism. The document made no mention of violent right-wing hate groups and individuals. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=164

[YT2095]

 

But in any case, I've never said that families deserve to suffer, but if they're suffering is really of genuine interest, the government should step in and feed them. Or at the very least, charitable people should feed them. (After all, how is their suffering less important than you parting with 10 or 15 dollars to feed them?) That way, we maximize the amount of good: no animals are killed, and hungry families have food to eat.

 

 

YT

 

WTF? How can you say that ALF is motivated by self interest, what are they gaining for being labeled as terrorists and liberating animals from slaughterhouses? It has nothing to do with self interest, but for animals interests, they are perfectly selfless.

 

If you have a problem with people motivated purely by self interests, take it up with the people who torture and kill animals for profit.

 

Pt. 1) you think Fisheries should be Govt run?

people will eat fish if they catch it themselves or if the .Gov and handouts feed them, personaly I`de sooner they did it for themselves and have the added Bonus of Dignity.

 

Pt. 2) self interest by living by the assumption that they are Better than the rest of us because they don`t eat meat, and then Thinking that gives then the right to terrorise and perform nothing other that Criminal acts to display this "I`m better than You" dellusion. well I got news for that sort, THEY are Animals too! no better than than the rest of us, live with it!

and US Animals were eating meat a LONG TIME before these Idiots were spawned.

 

as for the "If you have a problem with people motivated purely by self interests, take it up with the people who torture and kill animals for profit."

comment, Don`t strawman me IMM, you should know better than that!

[Royston]

Well, if a family has no income, they cant buy fish anyway, so whether or not theres fish available, they'll suffer.

 

That doesn't follow, the source of income is fish...the argument is if there's constraints on fishing, not if they're available or not.

 

But in any case, I've never said that families deserve to suffer,

 

I never said you did.

 

but if they're suffering is really of genuine interest, the government should step in and feed them. Or at the very least, charitable people should feed them. (After all, how is their suffering less important than you parting with 10 or 15 dollars to feed them?) That way, we maximize the amount of good: no animals are killed, and hungry families have food to eat.

 

Oh please, you of all people should know that wouldn't work in today's economic climate, the food industry is huge, and people of certain geographic location can't grow 'bananas' as a source of income. Putting constraints on such things, and then asking people to give money, because 'we believe this animal suffers, but we have no proof of the level of suffering it's going through' so give money to the people that could thrive from this business, makes no sense.

 

Which governments are you talking about exactly...perhaps Ecuador ? Cause, they're brimming with money to support everybody in the food industry...not.

 

pointless trying to be logical, reasonable or rational with self motivated idealistic terrorists Snail, give it up dude

 

Heh, but I'd like to see IMM's argument on this...one more post and I'm done.

[padren]

IMM, just got to ask something:

 

Take the slavery diamond mines in Africa where slaves are worked to death.

 

If someone "liberated" such a camp by burning it down with all the slaves in it, thus "liberating" them to their deaths - would you make the same argument that hurting the profits of the diamond miners overshadows the negativity of those deaths?

 

Its one thing if someone believes fishing is wrong but that fish have no moral imparative to life and thus it could be justified that the deaths are justifiable, but since you do believe killing fish are wrong - how does it differ if its human life vs. fish life?

 

 

 

On the topic of terrorism:

 

I think to a degree, lots of different activities get mixed up in one term, but to seperate:

 

* Resistance/Guerilla fighting is one thing

* Terrorist tactics (whether by a state, a militia, or other group) are another

 

Resistance fighting is hard to call because either you agree with their cause or you don't - but there is no starwarsy clear cut good and evil most of the time from the perspective of observers.

 

Terrorism is pretty simple - you don't attack on hurting your enemy's logistics but impacting the psychology of your enemy, and often those who are not your enemy (and civilians) to try and get what you want.

 

If ALF started to initate say, savage beatings of random meat market officials and their families - thats terrorism all the way. From this example, it looks like they are trying to hurt their enemy's logistical capacities for profit...which is a lot harder than using terrorist tactics.

I don't agree with their guerilla cause, but I can respect it while I hope for their arrest.

[ParanoiA]

So' date=' whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, [u']because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.[/u']

And what Al Quada operative doesn't agree with that? By that logic, all terrorism is ok since "bad principles" are subjective. Those southern racists didn't believe their principles were bad at all.

*** IMM re-reads her comment, notices that she didnt write anything at all even remotely implying that principles are subjective ***

 

What exactly are you replying to? I never said that bad principles are subjective anywhere in my post. If you actually think bad principles are subjective, then basically you should turn your criticism on yourself, and question how you could even object to acts of terrorism in principle.

 

I can't believe you don't get my point IMM. "...because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others..." is a subjective opinion. That is my point. I wasn't suggesting that you acknowedged principles as being subjective, I was pointing out that it is.

 

These people with "bad principles", don't believe their principles are bad. The southern racists didn't believe that. The christian anti-gay haters don't believe it either. Al Quada believes our principles are bad. Is it ok for them to terrorize us too? As long as one side believes the other side's principles are bad?

 

My subsequent point being that it doesn't matter that you "think" our principles are bad. It's terrorism and it's inherently wrong to engage in it.

[Dak]

[edit]whoops, padren hadn't posted when i started writing this. great minds think alike, i suppose more slaves and human fish[/edit]

 

Yes, those companies only continue to operate because theres a profit to make, and if they cant profit, then fewer animals are harmed overall. It would be better if the fish didnt die, but apparently whoever released them didnt have enough foresight on what what would happen to them and they screwed up, but its better overall because the Kame's fishery is £500,000 poorer and £500,000 taken out of the pool of money that contributes to animal suffering.

 

ALFs moves didnt accomplish something more ideal, but it accomplished at least a little.

 

one word IMM: insurance.

 

even ignoring that (i.e., the fact that the fishery may not have actually suffered that much financial loss), given the little that it actually accomplished with reguards to saving fish, were the 15,000 fish's lives worth £500,000 worth of spiting?

 

I would be amazed if other fisheries could meet the demand, but I guess I should think about it this way: maybe fisheries and slaughterhouses should be sabotaged with more frequency so that their continued operation is a net loss and makes it impossible to meet the demands.

 

yes.

 

not that i agree with the ALF nor their tactics, but, from a tactical pov, for their methods to work they'd have to do it alot more. atm, they're ONLY upping the deaths of animals. in other words, they should step up their attacks, or step down completely (from an ethical POV, the latter).

 

as a human example, imagine the following situation:

 

a handfull of people go to a country where slavery is still alowed, and, not liking slavery, start to kill slaves.

 

if they did this enough, then, yes, maybe slavers would give up, and abandon slaves as uneconomical.

 

do it a little, however, and you get the following situation:

 

sans SLF:

 

one slave. random family of four people.

 

with SLF:

 

one dead slave. one (different) slave. random family of three, because one member, who would otherwize have been left alone, has been kidnapped by slavers to replace the dead one.

 

see why i think the ALF are tossers? do you really think the ALF are helping animals? do you claim the above analogue represents a group who's actions are helping slaves?

 

animals would be much better off without the ALF.

 

 

This April, Congressional Quarterly obtained a draft DHS document that listed groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front as the only significant sources of domestic terrorism. The document made no mention of violent right-wing hate groups and individuals. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

 

 

there are documented cases of the ALF torturing people. at least one springs to mind of a reporter who had 'alf' carved in his back[edit]¹[/edit], not to mention numerous death-threats to animal researchers.

 

anyway... aren't we working on the presumption that animal lives are at the very least of comparable worth to human lifes? the ALF are definately guilty of mass animal murder, which, by their own rules, should be comparable or equivelent to mass murder of humans.

[Sisyphus]

Not in principle, no. And in fact, there is nothing that morally binds a person to obeying the law in the first place, theres nothing immoral about breaking the law, because laws and morality are not necessarily correspondant.

 

Except that law is not law if it isn't enforced, and law is the foundation of society and the difference between civilization and anarchy. Making principled decisions to break the law is an extremely weighty decision, because it is inherently immoral to undermine society. Not to say that it can't sometimes be outweighed by the immorality of following the law, but it certainly needs a lot of "weight" for that to be the case. Merely saying that it is an immoral law is not enough.

 

Anyone should be allowed to destroy anyone else's property because their crazy minority beliefs say it's ok?

*** spits out those words Sisyphus just shoved into her mouth ***

 

Beyond not considering yourself crazy, how was that different from what you were saying?

 

Oh no People making their own laws! Its total anarchy now!

 

Well, yes, actually.

 

Just wondering, but exactly should a majority refuse to give mercy to those who save [Godwin]?

 

By enforcing the law. What I mean to say is, there are extreme situations when I would assume the role of terrorist, but I wouldn't in the least resent being treated like one. Again, there needs to be law, and whether law is moral or immoral is subjective.

[swansont]

Dak,

 

Yes, those companies only continue to operate because theres a profit to make, and if they cant profit, then fewer animals are harmed overall. It would be better if the fish didnt die, but apparently whoever released them didnt have enough foresight on what what would happen to them and they screwed up, but its better overall because the Kame's fishery is £500,000 poorer and £500,000 taken out of the pool of money that contributes to animal suffering.

 

The death of the fish is inevitable, so that's really moot, isn't it? The ALF doesn't have the ability to make any animal immortal, after all.

 

I don't see where it was established that the fish suffered relative to existence outside of the fishery. That's been assumed, but not demonstrated.

 

Why aren't the ALF people liberating house pets from their cruel masters, or do they do that and it just doesn't get as much press?