ALF "liberates" 15,000 fish to death

[Pangloss]

The animal terrorism thing is pretty divisive, and as such I (personally) see no point in discussing it with its defenders (like IMM, who's opinion I respect a great deal; I just don't see the point in arguing with her about it since our positions are just not likely to change). They believe that their position is justified. Fortunately (in my opinion this is fortunate) society will not allow them to take matters into their own hands, any more than they will allow any other kind of vigilante "justice". There is a "right" way which society has determined is how we will allow laws to be enacted and changed, and that's that. End of story. There is no debate.

 

Incidentally, there have been cases (although I think they involve SPCA rather than PETA or ALF, but I'd have to check sources on this) where animal rights activists convinced local authorities to raid animal farms and sieze the animals in spite of the fact that the conditions they were living under were normal or even above-par. They hire consultants to tell the authorities that the conditions are sub-par, take secret video which they then attach monologues to which sound really horrible (but in fact they're presented to judges and policemen who have no clue what they're actually looking at), and then they swoop in for the kill with the full power of law enforcement behind them, seizing animals which they then simply turn around and sell at 100% profit.

 

The purpose of this activity is to increase awareness and drive funding goals. This has been well-documented and the subject of many debates around the internet. ABC News ran a story on it earlier this year, if memory serves.

 

The point being that just because someone does good does not guarantee that everyone who acts in the name of that cause also does good. It's a shame that this activity casts a bad light on people who are honestly trying to help by dealing with animal-raisers who treat their animals poorly (which, I will note, is in violation of the law!). Police can't keep up with all that stuff, and I'm as sickened as anyone else when I heard about cases of animal abuse. If activists can help in that area then I say more power to them. But it's also important that authorities and citizens understand that there are people out there who will take advantage of the situation.

[ParanoiA]

If everyone was as level headed as Pangloss, we wouldn't need a forum...

[Pangloss]

Kind of a damper on interesting debate, aren't I? Sorry about that.

[ParanoiA]

Kind of a damper on interesting debate, aren't I? Sorry about that.

 

Naw! We weren't getting anywhere with this one. I think we just like fighting with IMM on the animal versus human thing really. She does a great job debating with everybody, especially being so outnumbered.

[Callipygous]

when do debates ever get anywhere?

 

i find very few subjects where you can talk to someone about something and they will actually change their minds. the only discussions i ever see actually "going anywhere" are ones where someone starts out the thread by asking for information or help with something. it especially doesnt happen with controversial subjects.

 

as for the topic. the only good i think came from it is that the industry will probably start to be on the lookout for such behavior and with any luck, legal action will be taken against people who continue to do it.

 

i also have to agree with paranoia. i find most of IMMs opinions on animal rights to be completely ludicrous, and find myself continually amazed (and frustrated) by her ability to defend it with rational arguments.

[YT2095]

I have to agree with you there, I`ve known Several occasions where I`ve had a few misconceptions blown away, as I have done also for others.

But they`ve all been Science related and on proper terms of discourse (befitting those of a scientific nature).

things such as this are very unlikely to go anywhere, beyond the Archives of forgotten threads or the Removed area.

[In My Memory]

Snail,

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.

Gotcha, I read your comment too fast the first time without noticing the source of income is fish. But basically, I dont think people should have that kind of job or any kind of job in a slaughterhouse for that matter, they should find another job or someone should step in and feed them until they can find another job.

 

 

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

I'd hope Eduador could learn to make better fiscal decisions and help their economy, but their currency is so unstable that no one wants to trade with them, and the US and UK giving such huge agricultural subsidies to farming corporations that no latin farm can compete against really doesnt help either. I think if they really needed it, then US or UK assistance would be obligatory.

 

 

 

Padren,

IMM' date=' 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?[/quote']

Only if the deaths werent intentional.

 

For example, lets say someone "liberated" the African slaves, and then killed them all because they were the slaves a rival diamond miner; I wouldnt forgive that. But if people were liberating the slaves out of genuine interest for their wellbeing, but an accident caused the deaths the slaves, then its completely out of control and not in the intentions of the liberators, then I'd definitely forgive it.

 

 

 

Paranoia,

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' date=' 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?[/quote']

Well, sense you already labeled morality as subjective opinion, you'd just label any possible answer I'd give to your questions as a subjective opinion... and likewise, your answers to those questions are a subjective opinion as well, and they have no morally binding component and cannot be used as an argument that terrorism is wrong...

 

... but in any case, people can believe anything is acceptable, but the belief itself doesn't say that its acceptable. What matters is the justification, and there are straightforward, to-the-point explanations why racists, homophobes, and al queda's terrorism isnt justified:

 

- first and foremost, God provides no basis for ethics. Gods will is fundamentally unknowable, and when two people claim that God wants different things, theres no way to resolve the dispute, which undermines the usefulness of divine command theory. Racism, homophobia, and muslim extremism are all almost entirely dependent on the will of God to make there claims, but divine command theory is so inadequate and the explanation for why we should even obey God at all is so lacking that racists, homophobes, and muslim extermists lack a theistic justication for their actions in the first place.

 

- On al queda, you have to consider that suicide bombers die for precisely nothing. The god they believe in doesnt doesnt exist, he's a manmade fiction, and so theres no heavenly approval of al quedas actions in the first place, and so there is no justification for their actions.

 

- The principles that racists and homophobes use are objectionable, because theres no argument that race is a moral characteristic or that homosexuality differs morally from heterosexuality (<------ believe me, I've tried to get a straight answer out of homophobes for years on that one, and their responses are usually idiotic like "its not natural!!!" "they cant have kids!!!" "god created AIDS to kill the gays!!!" and so on).

 

- etc.

 

There are so many ways we can question the principles of racists, homophobes, and muslim extremists, and in my experience those types of people are completely naive and have no reason why they hold their beliefs, and they are completely incapable of stating a plausible justification. And so, terrorism on behalf of racism, homophobia, and radical islam arent justified.

 

But at the very least, animal rights extremists have plausible justifications, namely on the basis that species membership is irrelevant and animals are just as valuable as their mentally similar human counterparts. One of the reasons I usually come back to over and over again is that animals (and infants) have a few basic rights to welfare and selfdefense, but if they're incapacitated and cant defend themselves, then another individual is justified to defend the person or animal on their behalf. Most of us were intervene if we saw people beating their kids to death, and we'd be justified in doing so; the ALF uses virtually the same reasoning to intervene on behalf of animals, but the only problem is, not any many people have empathy for animals as they have for humans being treated in the exact same way. And so, we have at least one plausible justification for animal rights extremism, and a particular justification that doesnt apply to racists, homophobes, or extremist muslims.

 

 

 

Dak,

as a human example' date=' 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?[/quote']

No, darling, I dont think the situation is analogous at all, they dont willfully hurt animals. See the ALF Credo:

The ALF guidelines are:

 

1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

 

3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

 

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

 

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available.

 

animals would be much better off without the ALF.

Hell no! 100s of animals are rescued everyday who would otherwise be tortured and killed. If nobody ever did anything, then there would be no hope for any animals at all.

 

As far as economic damage is concerned, look at this:

The animal liberation movement has won notable victories over 30 years. It is almost impossible to buy a fur coat in Britain. Several farms that reared dogs and cats for tests have been econom ically ruined. In January 2004 Cambridge university was forced to abandon a planned neurological research laboratory that would have involved experiments on primates (4). A campaign to exert pressure on companies collaborating in the project was coordinated on the internet by Mel Broughton, a friend of Barry Horne; he has spent four years in prison for possessing explosives.

 

Over three years the Cambridge project changed from a simple laboratory to a fortress, its cost soaring from £24m to £32m ($45m to $60m). That was unacceptable to the university authorities and they gave up, to the dismay of the prime minister, Tony Blair, who is concerned about the development of research, and of Mark Matfield, who talks of a "black day for patients".

 

Broughton is determined to thwart a new research facility project at Oxford university. He explains that the authorities can cope with one demonstration a year, but not constant pressure on shareholders and suppliers. Contacted in March by animal rights’ campaigners, the group BTP Travis Perkins withdrew almost immediately from the Oxford project. Last month two contractors, Montpellier and RMC pulled out and other major suppliers are reviewing their contracts because of fears of harassment.

 

The activists’ chief enemy, Huntington Life Sciences, Europe’s largest animal testing laboratory, is still going strong despite activists’ efforts over the past four years to breach its barbed-wire encircled fortress in Cambridgeshire, which they liken to a concentration camp. The managing director of HLS and bête noire of the ALF for 20 years, Brian Cass, believes in what he does and defends animal testing because of benefits for patients. The centre uses 70,000 animals in tests for global industry every year. An HLS official says: "85% are fish or rodents. Dogs and monkeys account for only 1%" - that is still 700 animals.

And are you aware of what ALF did to Huntington Life Science center's stock? Wikipedia entry:

Campaigns against Huntingdon claim to have succeeded in harming the company financially. In 2000, SHAC obtained a list of HLS shareholders, including the names of beneficial owners: anonymous individuals and companies who bought shares in the name of a third party. These included the British Labour Party pension funds, Rover cars, and the London Borough of Camden.

 

The list was passed to the Sunday Telegraph, which published it on December 3, 2000, and several beneficial owners disposed of their shares, including the Labour Party. Two weeks later, an equity stake of 32 million shares was placed on the London Stock Exchange for one penny each and HLS quotes crashed. The Royal Bank of Scotland closed HLS's bank account and the British government arranged for the state-owned Bank of England to give them an account, because no other bank would do business with them. The British Banking Association said "Huntingdon Life Sciences are in a nightmare situation," (Huntingdon Life Sciences, financial report 2002). [13] (pdf)

 

On December 21, 2000, HLS was dropped from the New York Stock Exchange because of its share collapse: its market capitalization had fallen below NYSE limits and the NYSE did not accept HLS's revised business plan. [14] On March 29, 2001, Huntingdon lost both of its market makers and its place on the main platform of the London Stock Exchange.

 

HLS later decided to moved its financial centre to the United States to take advantage of stricter U.S. securities laws, which allow greater anonymity for shareholders. It incorporated in Maryland as Life Sciences Research, Inc., it was saved from bankruptcy when its largest shareholder, American investment bank Stephens, Inc, gave the company a $15-million loan. HLS's position remains unstable, as is shown by its $87.5-million debt and by documents leaked to SHAC. [15] On September 7, 2005, the New York stock exchange asked Life Sciences Research/HLS to delay its listing. The company had been listed on the junior OTC bulletin board since its move out of the UK. The NYSE offered no reason for the delay, [16] and on February 4, 2006, the company lost its only listed market maker, Legacy Trading. As a result, it can no longer trade on the OTC Bulletin Board.

Can you say "w00t!"? I knew you could

 

 

SwansonT,

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.

I'm having trouble parsing "fish suffered relative to existence outside of the fishery", what are you asking?

 

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?

I'm sure they do, but fortunately people are lot more sympathetic to house pets (companion animals), and an animal police does the work that ALF would normally take up. I'm pretty sure that ALF would intervene on mistreated house pets if they needed to.

 

 

Callipygous,

i find most of IMMs opinions on animal rights to be completely ludicrous, and find myself continually amazed (and frustrated) by her ability to defend it with rational arguments.

Thats almost sig worthy

 

(One of the things I notice is that, for how strongly people believe their moral convictions, the vast majority of them dont know why. I've even been pretty amazed in thread that, in the 5 years people have had to think about 9/11 and every other act of terrorism before and after, the best arguments against terrorism are "but the MAJORITY decides whats right!!!" and "morals are subjective!!!". Thats it, that is the disappointing best that people can come up with, and that is the extent of the inkling of rationality use... its almost a morbid parody of morality, because its so wishy washy and unprofound that it doesnt even come close to discrediting equally irrational justifications for any kind of terrorism at all. I hope to god that people objected to 9/11 for better reasons than "morals are subjective!!!!!!!1!1!one!"...)

[YT2095]

go to Any prison and count how many think they were justified or even Innocent/not guilty, you`ll find that the majority do!

 

these were quite Obviously Criminals, how can you even Try to justify that?

 

and even if you perceive by whatever twisted logic that Fisheries are wrong, When did 2 wrongs EVER make a right?

[GutZ]

It wrong but you can be far more sympathic towards the cause. Similar to if someone killed a relative that you are close to and you beat the crap out of them. It's obviously not right in any sense, but you can feel some sort of sympathy right?

 

The acts are based on a extreme view though. As much as you can sympathize with the idea, there is a fine line between terrorism, and acts of rebellion for a better way. There are situations in history that humans have, even in really bad situations used non-violent approaches.It's alot harder too do since you have to constantly channel your anger while these injustices are going on, so it's probably not a common act, we are after all just animals.

[YT2095]

their cause is ridiculous in this instance, ill conceived and poorly executed.

they are Criminals.

[Sisyphus]

(One of the things I notice is that, for how strongly people believe their moral convictions, the vast majority of them dont know why.

 

So you weren't a vegetarian before you worked out all your complex rationalizations for it?

[swansont]

I'm having trouble parsing "fish suffered relative to existence outside of the fishery", what are you asking?

 

 

It is assumed that fish suffer in the fishery. It is also assumed that they do not suffer, or suffer less, outside of a fishery. Neither has been demonstrated.

 

I'm sure they do, but fortunately people are lot more sympathetic to house pets (companion animals), and an animal police does the work that ALF would normally take up. I'm pretty sure that ALF would intervene on mistreated house pets if they needed to.

I would think, given their stance, that the ALF and like-minded individuals would define domestication as mistreatment, i.e. all pets are captive and therefore mistreated. And if not, why not?

[In My Memory]

Sisyphus,

So you weren't a vegetarian before you worked out all your complex rationalizations for it?

Yes, exactly. Everything after this point is the story of my life, you can skip it if you like:

 

I've only been a vegan since 1999, and until then I never thought about the subject at all. My best argument against it was "f--- PETA, I like meat".

 

Basically, when I was starting my first years in college, I was always thought of myself as a very bright person, and continued to think of myself that way because of how easily everyting was going for me. I was always fascinated by philosophy, so I began taking all of the philosophy courses available, and almost immediately my intellectual arrogance was displace by a feeling of being very very stupid. I thought I knew everything, but then I was introduced to the most wonderful philosophical ideas that I'd never thought of, and I read so many books that I'd never heard of... I focused especially on ethics, and immediately I was learning about moral principles that were so well reasoned. After about 2 months, I figured out that for my whole life, I'd never been a moral thinker, I'd never thought about anything and I found that my moral ideals were flimsy, half-baked values I'd learned, and not really the product of any profound thinking. Everything that I held was either contradictory or naive, and all of my rationalizations were ad hoc, wishy-washy nonsense that didnt really stand under its own weight (I used to be pro-life and anti-gay, because I was raised baptist, even though at the time I'd really stopped believing in gods.

 

If only I had the time to tell you how much my philosophy professors dangled me on a string, asking me one question to hear an answer, and then asking the same question (slightly rephrased) to hear the complete opposite answer. I used to be basically an anti-gay bigot, and would say things like "how could you even call it moral, its completely UNNATURAL!", then my professors would ask me what I meant by unnatural, and I would say something idiotic like "its not what were designed for", followed with a comment a few minutes later like "so what if teenage girls were designed to have babies at the age of 12 or 13, that doesnt mean they should have babies that young". Then as you could imagine, I'd be asked whether I thought people should behave as they were naturally designed or not, and then I'd have to say "ok, I havent thought about this much, let me get back to you".

 

And basically, dozens of events like that poked holes in my whole ethical world, and it showed me just how unforgivably contradictory my sense of ethics were. I dont want to bore you with the long drawn out story of how I was in a really depressed state of moral ambiguity, to how I had to build my ethics from the ground up several dozen times, to how I discovered that the concepts of morals I kept coming up with rediscovered the same principles expounded by Peter Singer years before I'd even heard of him, so I'll skip to the most important parts:

 

Basically, I figured out the hard way that I couldnt reasonably take any of the moral principles I had for granted, especially not as "intuitively obvious", because almost all of my intuitions contradicted horrifically. So over the years, I've asked myself the most bizarre questions that most people never even think about:

- why is it wrong to take human life? why should we bother to preserve it?

- in what moral sense does non-human life differ from human life?

- whats a perversion and why are perversions wrong?

- on what basis can someone call something there "property", and what philosophical basis does "property" have in the first place?

- whats the objection to racism? or nationalism? or enslaving everyone below 5'4" to serve everyone taller?

- why should we obey god? why should we obey our governments?

- I heard "because I'm the parent thats why" so often, but why does that mean anything? why should I obey my parents, why is the response "I'm the child and I'll do what I want" inadequate?

- whats wrong with making innocent people suffer? whats wrong with sadism?

- why cant men wear womens clothing?

- etc.

 

I just think about those kinds of things all the time, and I have an answer to most of them. Not many other people do, they just have irrational beliefs about what the answers are, but not what they should be. For the large part, peoples justification for believing anything is half-baked, usually non-sequitor, and even idiotic at times, and I come across things like that when reading debates on god, abortion, and most especially animal rights. I became a vegan out of principle, because I couldnt think of any reason why animals suffering doesnt matter, and because the arguments people were using to justify eating meat (i.e. "its tasty" "animals kill other animals, why shouldnt I" "but how do I know animals really feel pain?") were idiotic and fell desparately short of providing a real justification; and I literally lol'ed when I saw what passed for an academic defense of meat eating, such as Carl Cohen's argument "a being only matters if it belongs to a kind who is a rational species" (read about it). From the point of view who values being a good person more than anything, and has gone to great lengths to justify everything she does and believes, its just amazing to see just how little anyone else even thinks about the most simple things like why its wrong to kill people.

 

Lately, the most recent question of that type has been:

- whats the objection to terrorism?

 

Probably that one catches people off-guard, because its just supposed to be intuitively obvious that terrorism is wrong... but I dont think that answer cuts it (similarly, the statement "its inherently wrong" doesnt cut it, because I dont see how the wrongness of terrorism can be inherent rather than extrinsic). I dont actually think a lot of people have thought about the question, and so their responses to it are naive, they say "because it forces the will of a minority onto the majority" (<--- of course you never hear anyone explain why its wrong for minorities to do that).

 

So yeah, I answered your question and went off on a completely different tangent And if I come off as arrogant and having a superiority complex, thats because I am and I do

[YT2095]

And if I come off as arrogant and having a superiority complex, thats because I am and I do

 

Not a whole heck of a lot can be added to that really, I rest my case.

[ParanoiA]

I dont actually think a lot of people have thought about the question, and so their responses to it are naive, they say "because it forces the will of a minority onto the majority" (<--- of course you never hear anyone explain why its wrong for minorities to do that).

 

It's the "forces" word that makes it wrong, but only in the context of the republic. Our particular republic, as most republics, rely on an imperfect (not even good) but better than any other known alternative called "majority rule" concept. So, in a democratic republic, such as the United States, is it wrong for a minority to force their will on the majority. However, they have every right to demonstrate, protest, speak freely, distribute literature - everything short of using "force" to get their ideas across.

 

There, now you've heard someone explain why it's wrong for minorities to do that.

[ParanoiA]

Not a whole heck of a lot can be added to that really, I rest my case.

 

What case have you made?

 

You know, I disagree with IMM on alot of things, but at least she makes a post with substance and lays out an argument. I have yet to see you construct a single post that could stand next to any of her posts.

[YT2095]

I`m not one for long drawn out speeches, never have been.

I`ve presented all args needed to represent my stance/opinion.

Logic requires no explaination to the logical, it just IS.

 

they perpetrated a Criminal act of terrorism.

and when present with "And if I come off as arrogant and having a superiority complex, thats because I am and I do "

that goes to prove my Self-Interest arg also.

[Dak]

No, darling, I dont think the situation is analogous at all, they dont willfully hurt animals. See the ALF Credo

 

no, sweety, what they write down on paper does not ameliorate the fact that they do hurt and cause the deaths of animals in order to 'save' them. the situations are analogouse because both groups are hurting those that they are trying to save.

 

by releasing animals (wether destined for food or research) into an environment where they will just

 

1/ die

and

2/ be immediately replaced

 

they are increasing death, just as the SLF would be. more animals are slaugtered in the (probably now dead) animals stead to feed humans. more animals are tested on to re-do the experiment foiled by the liberation of the (probably now dead) lab animals. the really stupid thing being that scientists are legally and ethically obliged to design the experiments as to limit suffering of the animals, and the are forsed to repeat them (and thus subject more animals to experimentation) when the ALF 'rescue' them from the immunocompromise suite

 

pretty unarguably 'hurting' the aminals.

 

not to mention that violence against humans (which i've already mentioned) prettymuch belies their intent to 'not harm animals' (interesting that you glossed over that question), not to mention that the bold bit specifically mentions not hurting humans. as i said, writing something down isn't the same as doing it.

 

if you dont agree with the above: same question, but alter the analogy so that the slavers shoot runaway slaves, to discourage running away. now, the SLF analogously liberate many slaves to death. justified?

 

Hell no! 100s of animals are rescued everyday who would otherwise be tortured and killed. If nobody ever did anything, then there would be no hope for any animals at all.

 

to steal bascules wording, 'rescued to death'.

 

the ALF release animals, but they invariably die. and, if the above is true, then surely, every day, 100's of animals are 'tortured and killed' that would otherwise be left alone, simply to compensate to loss for from the ALFs actions? i've certainly never not been able to buy a burger due to ALF-indused shortage.

 

not only that, but they give no thought whatsoever to the effect on other local wildlife when they are 'rescuing' animals. in some cases, they have released animals that are not natural inhabitants of the local country, and upset the local ecosystem, or released diseased/poisoned lab rats into the local environment. i bet the local wildlife are really grateful for the ALF. can you say w00t

 

As far as economic damage is concerned, look at this:

 

And are you aware of what ALF did to Huntington Life Science center's stock? Wikipedia entry:

 

i dont think britains lack of fur coats can be attributed to the ALF, and it's easy enough to buy a leather jacket.

 

for the rest: so? a few people have chickened out due to the ALF. animal research still continues.

 

your arguing that the ALF's actions are morally ok: then, how about this.

 

say i form a club of retaurds of my own. say we don't like the cruelty to animals that the ALF is commiting -- we don't like the needless deaths of animals by the ALF's hands.

 

say we, then, publically announce that for every animal 'liberated' by the ALF we will immolate two. the ALF free 100 rats, we burn 200 to death. yes, we're harming those we are trying to save, but eventually, the ALF will learn that their only choice is to ceace their actions, reguardless of the fact that they think they're justified, in order to stop our violent ways. if we dont do this, no one will, and these animals will continue to suffer at these people hands.

 

justified? bearing in mind the animal immolation front would be acting with the best interests of animals at heart.

 

I'm sure they do, but fortunately people are lot more sympathetic to house pets (companion animals), and an animal police does the work that ALF would normally take up. I'm pretty sure that ALF would intervene on mistreated house pets if they needed to.

 

hmm...

 

question (that you might know the answre to): how cum if i, say, have a pet rabbit, cut it's ears off, and keep it in a box only barely big enough to fit it into, i'll get arrested, but battery farms are legally allowed to do similar?

[Pangloss]

Anybody who gets frustrated or annoyed in debate (myself included) is forgetting the fact that the most important purpose of debate is not to speak but rather to listen. I mean sure, obviously if everyone was only listening then it would get real quiet. (grin) But there is a purpose that is served by hearing what someone who disagrees with you has to say.

 

People don't typically have fully-formed opinions, they have vague sketches about how they feel on a subject in general. Through debate they can basically ratchet up the resolution and split the appropriate hairs on sub-subjects, etc. For example, one might be opposed to "animal rights nazis", but through debate come to be reminded that animal abuse does happen, it is illegal, and perhaps come to appreciate the good work done by some (most) people in groups like SPCA/PETA, etc.

 

Put another way, debate allows us to go beyond broad generalizations that do nothing to advance society, and come to find the middle ground necessary to move society forward.

 

In this particular thread, some of the interesting and relevent points raised include the differentiation between animal rights advocacy and property terrorism, the distinction between property terrorism and violent terrorism, the problems inherent with vigilante justice, the problems that even animal advocates see in groups like ALF, and the potential value of fighting (to some extent) for animal rights.

 

That is a valuable debate. Whether people all come to agree in the end is actually irrelevent. What matters is that people participated in it, and (whether they may realize it or not) learned something in the process.

[Royston]

Anybody who gets frustrated or annoyed in debate (myself included) is forgetting the fact that the most important purpose of debate is not to speak but rather to listen. I mean sure, obviously if everyone was only listening then it would get real quiet. (grin) But there is a purpose that is served by hearing what someone who disagrees with you has to say.

 

People don't typically have fully-formed opinions, they have vague sketches about how they feel on a subject in general. Through debate they can basically ratchet up the resolution and split the appropriate hairs on sub-subjects, etc. For example, one might be opposed to "animal rights nazis", but through debate come to be reminded that animal abuse does happen, it is illegal, and perhaps come to appreciate the good work done by some (most) people in groups like SPCA/PETA, etc.

 

Put another way, debate allows us to go beyond broad generalizations that do nothing to advance society, and come to find the middle ground necessary to move society forward.

 

I've bookmarked this thread, because that sums up for me (at least) the point of the discussions on here. Very well put Pangloss, and that aim could be extended to all types of discussion.

 

In this particular thread, some of the interesting and relevent points raised include the differentiation between animal rights advocacy and property terrorism, the distinction between property terrorism and violent terrorism, the problems inherent with vigilante justice, the problems that even animal advocates see in groups like ALF, and the potential value of fighting (to some extent) for animal rights.

 

Distinctions can be made, but the qualm I have with any act of terrorism, is that it's forcing an ideal on an environment that can't possibly accomodate that ideal...there are acts of terrorism that are clearly more severe, but these acts never seem to appreciate the bigger picture, which irritates the hell out of me.

 

That is a valuable debate. Whether people all come to agree in the end is actually irrelevent. What matters is that people participated in it, and (whether they may realize it or not) learned something in the process.

 

Couldn't agree more.

[GutZ]

Well I think the biggest problem is trying to defend people who act in this manner. These people hurt those organisation by affliating their actions with that organisation.

 

I really don't think anyone here has a problem with groups trying to save animals, it's the method of how they do it which doesn't make them any better then the companies and establishments that are hurting them in the first place. To me it boils down to self-interest for both sides. The ones at PETA/ ALF/etc, that work in a rational way are having their efforts wasted promoting an animal friendly society when these actions take place. Alot of people think that because someone doesnt act instantly they are ignoring it. It's just a way to justify their inability to control their emotions.

 

Sure they may save 10,000 fish or so that day but you also have 100,000 people looking at this and competely ensure that these people are loony and feel no real obligation to help out in anyway (I think this thread proves that). In the end and long term goal is to get a society that understands the impact of animal cruelty.

[YT2095]

I really don't think anyone here has a problem with groups trying to save animals

 

I certainly don`t have a problem with that at all

 

I`ve done it myself and also have a regular payment taken monthly for the PDSA and RSPCA.

[Royston]

Well I think the biggest problem is trying to defend people who act in this manner.

 

There shouldn't be a problem, you can support aspects of an organisation, but if they screw up, or some of their methods are flawed, then it should be acknowledged. It would be the equivalent of me defending Dawkins views on religion (apologies for using that word) because he is a scientist, which is daft.

 

I see it as a form of patriotism, supporting the ideal whatever methods are used. There are much better ways of getting a point across, than resorting to property terrorism et.c If you want somebody to listen to your opinion, then you have to gain respect, and vandalism is not going to get respect from anyone outside the organisation.