15000 dead minks

[TW Scott]

That backs up my point, then. PETA members don't break the law when they think they can get away with it, as you claimed earlier. Want to retract that claim now?

Okay so I take it back to modify it.

Animal Rights Activists break the law with no regard to how much damage they do to other people, property, themselves or the environement. And with a total disregard for the concept of Law and Order. This makes them no different than any other terrorist,

Fine. Classify away, if it makes you happy. The point is that not all "supporters" are "activists", which was my original point.

First of all this is only true among animal rights activists and animal rights supporters. It is analogous to islamic extremists and moderates. In fact the paralell is scary.

[/quote]So, with you having now retracted all of your original claims, my work here is done.[/QUOTE]

Modification complete, thank you for helping me prove that Animal Activists are the problem.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Animal Rights Activists break the law with no regard to how much damage they do to other people, property, themselves or the environement. And with a total disregard for the concept of Law and Order. This makes them no different than any other terrorist.

Wrong again. You actually have done no reading on this, have you? You're just assuming and imagining, because it suits your conservative and biased worldview.

Animal activists who break the law generally are very specific in what kinds of illegalities they commit. They consider themselves to be breaking the law for ethically justifiable reasons, and they only break the law to the extent they consider necessary to achieve their aims.

You have not learned from the error I pointed out to you earlier. You need to start listening. You have merely repeated yourself. No animal activist that I am aware of has "a total disregard for the concept of Law and Order". That is just an uninformed imagining on your part, seeking to "other" the activists.

Animal activists are different from terrorists in several important respects, although I will admit that in certain respects there can be similarities. Terrorists aim to create terror by threatening the lives of other human beings - innocent civilians. They are indiscriminate and they do not care who gets hurt. In contrast, by far the majority of animal activists do not set out to injure people at all.

A typical animal activist action might be to break into a battery hen farm and remove injured and sick birds. This is followed up by caring for the animals as best as possible. Obviously, trespassing on the farm is illegal, but the activists consider that there is no other way to help the chickens.

Before such an action is contemplated, activists try to petition farmers to change their practices. They talk with governments and law makers. But if that doesn't produce change, they are willing to break the law. Why? Because saving lives in ethically more important than whether or not you trespass on somebody else's land.

Animal activists also generally do not believe in the concept of animals as property - as "things" to be owned. Therefore, they do not consider their theft of chickens to be wrong, although clearly they know it is illegal. Again, the ethical considerations outweigh the illegality for them.

After an animal rescue, the normal course of action is for the activists to front the media. Often, they directly actually inform the media of their action and hold a press conference at the site itself. They know that they may be arrested, and they accept that. The publicity is considered to be worth the penalty, if it results in unjust practices being exposed and subjected to public scrutiny.

To compare animal activists to suicide bombers or the like shows a basic lack of understanding of what activists are about.

Modification complete, thank you for helping me prove that Animal Activists are the problem.

"The problem"?

You are obviously intimidated by them and everything they stand for. I guess that's your problem.

 

[wsionynw]

Animal Rights Activists break the law with no regard to how much damage they do to other people, property, themselves or the environement. And with a total disregard for the concept of Law and Order. This makes them no different than any other terrorist,
.

I think animal rights activists would consider themselves freedom fighters.

 

[Syzygys]

Minks are mustelids, related to otters and martens. Martens are small alpine predators, otters aquatic ones. Both are known for their playful behavior. Minks are semi-aquatic, and also climb stuff.

So what's your point? That minks like waterslides?

 

[Syzygys]

how is their death in the wild any worse than their slaughter in captivity, especially when it takes money away from such an industry.

Because in captivity they die fast and don't mess up the grass>rabbit>fox cycle.

 

[Clockwood]

Animal activists who break the law generally are very specific in what kinds of illegalities they commit. They consider themselves to be breaking the law for ethically justifiable reasons, and they only break the law to the extent they consider necessary to achieve their aims.

All actions are ethically justifiable as ethics are about as fluid as things come. A suitably determined individual can find an excuse for any act they can concieve of. Let me invoke Godwin's law and say that Hitler did just that.

 

[James R]

All actions are ethically justifiable as ethics are about as fluid as things come.

No. All human societies basically agree on a certain set of ethical principles.

A suitably determined individual can find an excuse for any act they can concieve of. Let me invoke Godwin's law and say that Hitler did just that.

An excuse is not the same as a justification.

 

[Genji]

I love animals, all types. They should be treated with respect and humanely when raised for food. But most animal rights groups such as the US Earth First and the ALF and the ELF are more similar to rightwing reactionaries than anything Left. They are anti-worker as they spike trees, sabotage eqippment, block roads and otherwise target workers for injury. They remind me of anti-abortion protesters blockading clinics; They are limited to one cause and one only, all the world is the enemy and they resort to guerilla type tactics to further turn people off the cause. They do nothing FOR the cause of animal welfare.

 

[TW Scott]

TW Scott:
Wrong again. You actually have done no reading on this, have you? You're just assuming and imagining, because it suits your conservative and biased worldview.

Odd, it seems I have done the reading and the fighting on the real frontlines while people like the morons who released the minks are just vandalous hooligans. Yes, my views are conservative and everyones views are biased. If someone says they are unbiased they are either lying or have an IQ less than the house fern.

Animal activists who break the law generally are very specific in what kinds of illegalities they commit. They consider themselves to be breaking the law for ethically justifiable reasons, and they only break the law to the extent they consider necessary to achieve their aims.

So destruction of property, endangering the public, molestation of an environments, forgery, identity theft, and other such acts are done for ethical reasons? Hmmm. Seems to me they are just out having a lark and found a good excuse to cover it. I'll even bet those animal rights activist who release the minks celbrate with beer and burgers at the bar.

You have not learned from the error I pointed out to you earlier. You need to start listening. You have merely repeated yourself. No animal activist that I am aware of has "a total disregard for the concept of Law and Order". That is just an uninformed imagining on your part, seeking to "other" the activists.

Then perhaps you do not know Activist and instead know Supporters.

Animal activists are different from terrorists in several important respects, although I will admit that in certain respects there can be similarities. Terrorists aim to create terror by threatening the lives of other human beings - innocent civilians. They are indiscriminate and they do not care who gets hurt. In contrast, by far the majority of animal activists do not set out to injure people at all.

Really so firing rifle's on a whaling ship belonging to a Native American Tribe that only take one whale a year for religious purposes is not setting out to injure people. Releasing 15,000 mink is not endangering the public indiscrimantely? Defacing people with paint that very well could be a substance people are allergic to is not taking risks with others? The truth is that Animal Rights Activist who participate in violent acts to sway public opinion are terrorists. It's that simple. Pelt one person with a rotten egg to protest over fur and know you are a terrorist. You may not have killed anyone, but you are using fear and violence on a civillian to make your political argument.

A typical animal activist action might be to break into a battery hen farm and remove injured and sick birds. This is followed up by caring for the animals as best as possible. Obviously, trespassing on the farm is illegal, but the activists consider that there is no other way to help the chickens.

It's still stealing. If some random person took your son becuase he was malnourished and anemic it would be kidnapping. If some guy just took your car becuase you were neglecting it and gave it a tune up it is still grand theft. If someone takes you dog and gets him fixed without your permission is still stealing and mutilating your pet.

Before such an action is contemplated, activists try to petition farmers to change their practices. They talk with governments and law makers. But if that doesn't produce change, they are willing to break the law. Why? Because saving lives in ethically more important than whether or not you trespass on somebody else's land.

Actually, experince and reality has shown they yelled at the farmers and offered no solutions. And when they talked to the government their proposition was so ridiculous as to be laughable and ignored. That is if they did it at all. They could have as easily persuaded the farmer that they be allowed in and to nurse any sick birds back to health at no cost to him. Provided of course your firneds give the birds back. Believe it or not a small step like that could, over time get the changes you want done.

Animal activists also generally do not believe in the concept of animals as property - as "things" to be owned. Therefore, they do not consider their theft of chickens to be wrong, although clearly they know it is illegal. Again, the ethical considerations outweigh the illegality for them.

However they are taking food out of the mouths of the farmers children. See they stupidly believe their action has no consequences. They can't see beyond their own noses. And here is the thing knowingly breaking is not a moral act. Especially when it is not a neccesity.

After an animal rescue, the normal course of action is for the activists to front the media. Often, they directly actually inform the media of their action and hold a press conference at the site itself. They know that they may be arrested, and they accept that. The publicity is considered to be worth the penalty, if it results in unjust practices being exposed and subjected to public scrutiny.

Okay, so they go back to the site of their crime and wail about how what the victim is doing is so much worse. Oh, so in effect like rapists in muslim countries. They choose to get their victims in trouble becuase they can. Yes, the media does pander to this and soon I hope it will stop. It just encourages the moronic.

To compare animal activists to suicide bombers or the like shows a basic lack of understanding of what activists are about.

True, suicide bombers are at least a step above activists. They may want to hurt people but they are willing to die for it. Meanwhile the Animal rights Activist wants to hurt people and get a medal.

Yes I am stereotyping, but sometimes it fits.

"The problem"?

You are obviously intimidated by them and everything they stand for. I guess that's your problem.

No, I am not intimidated. I loathe their methods. They make real progress so much harder through their whiney, cry-baby, showboat methods.

 

[vslayer]

Because in captivity they die fast and don't mess up the grass>rabbit>fox cycle.

i would have thought that in an artificial environment where they are turned into fur prodocts, the grass>rabbit>fox cycle would be affected far more.

 

[wsionynw]

I'll even bet those animal rights activist who release the minks celbrate with beer and burgers at the bar.

Meanwhile the Animal rights Activist wants to hurt people and get a medal.
.

Beer and veggie burgers maybe. Hurt people and get a medal? Bullshit.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hurt people and get a medal? Bullshit.

That is only permitted in the military.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

I don't know whether it is because you have some kind of vested interest in the mistreatment of animals, or whether it is simply that you aren't very mature. Either way, you don't seem to have the capacity to step back and look at issues objectively. All your arguments are essentially emotional outbursts which are ultimately valueless.

So destruction of property, endangering the public, molestation of an environments, forgery, identity theft, and other such acts are done for ethical reasons? Hmmm. Seems to me they are just out having a lark and found a good excuse to cover it. I'll even bet those animal rights activist who release the minks celbrate with beer and burgers at the bar.

This is childish. Even you could not really believe that committed animal rights advocates are "just out having a lark".

Such nonsense really requires no response. It is patently stupid.

Then perhaps you do not know Activist and instead know Supporters.

I know many supporters, and a few prominent activists, as it happens.

Really so firing rifle's on a whaling ship belonging to a Native American Tribe that only take one whale a year for religious purposes is not setting out to injure people. Releasing 15,000 mink is not endangering the public indiscrimantely? Defacing people with paint that very well could be a substance people are allergic to is not taking risks with others?

I have been talking in generalities, but you seem to keep wanting to concentrate on specific cases, then use a few extreme cases to attempt to stereotype an entire movement. If you'd like to discuss particular instances, we can do that, but you'll need to provide more detail than a few hysterical statements.

The truth is that Animal Rights Activist who participate in violent acts to sway public opinion are terrorists.

If you are referring to violence against people, then I agree with you. An animal activist who sets a bomb is no different from a right-to-life campaigner who bombs an abortion clinic. Both are wrong.

However, you keep ignoring the fact that such looneys are not the norm in the animal rights movement.

A typical animal activist action might be to break into a battery hen farm and remove injured and sick birds. This is followed up by caring for the animals as best as possible. Obviously, trespassing on the farm is illegal, but the activists consider that there is no other way to help the chickens.

It's still stealing.

Yes, it is. I've already explained to you how performing an illegal act may not always be unethical, but frankly I doubt you're sophisticated enough to take that on board. But let's continue...

If some random person took your son becuase he was malnourished and anemic it would be kidnapping. If some guy just took your car becuase you were neglecting it and gave it a tune up it is still grand theft. If someone takes you dog and gets him fixed without your permission is still stealing and mutilating your pet.

Do you ever look beyond the illegality of an act? For example, in the kidnapping case above, do you think that kidnapping could be justifiable in any situation? Or would it always be wrong, according to you?

Actually, experince and reality has shown they yelled at the farmers and offered no solutions.

Solutions are obvious. Farmers should clean up their acts and treat their animals humanely. But what do you do when they keep acting unethically (and, in some cases, illegally)? What do you do when inspectors know that illegal acts are occurring, yet still take no action?

They could have as easily persuaded the farmer that they be allowed in and to nurse any sick birds back to health at no cost to him.

And then what? Give them back to the farmer for another round of ill treatment? That's like handing an abused child back to an abusive parent.

However they are taking food out of the mouths of the farmers children. See they stupidly believe their action has no consequences.

Do you beleive that mistreatment of animals has no important consequences? I know from previous conversations that you do.

Once again, we clearly see that you hold a set of double standards. You'll need to reconcile your moral outlook at some point - if you ever come to understand morality, that is.

Okay, so they go back to the site of their crime and wail about how what the victim is doing is so much worse. Oh, so in effect like rapists in muslim countries.

Explain where the parallel is. I don't understand.

They choose to get their victims in trouble becuase they can.

No. They choose to point out the evils done by evil people. More people should do that, more often, and the world would be a better place. You should do it.

True, suicide bombers are at least a step above activists.

You can't be serious. Suicide bombers are morally superior to animal activists? Give me a break. You can't really be that stupid.

Meanwhile the Animal rights Activist wants to hurt people and get a medal.

Re-read my earlier post. I already explained to you that animal activists virtually never set out to hurt people. You haven't taken that on board yet.

I loathe their methods. They make real progress so much harder through their whiney, cry-baby, showboat methods.

You're against any progress on animal rights. That much is very very clear.

 

[TW Scott]

You're right JamesR your response is so patently stupid that there is no need to respond to it. In fact I am noly commenting on the one correct part.

 

[James R]

Yeah, when you have no response, run away TW Scott.

 

[TW Scott]

Well, that never stops you. of course I am not prone to making stuff up as you are. Not to mention I have yet to see you come to a correct conclusion on this part of the board.

Here's the simple fact Animal Rights Activist who perpetrate such crimes as the release of 15000 mink, are showing they are nothing more than terrorists. They did not care about the farmer's well being and stolle his livelihood, they did not care about the survival of the mink and just released them in the wild. They did not care for the local environement. In truth they performed a violent act for no more gain than some publicity, bad publicity at that.

 

[Oniw17]

Here's the simple fact Animal Rights Activist who perpetrate such crimes

Crimes because that's the policy of our government. Just saying that something is wrong because it's considered a crime by the government doesn't make it so.

as the release of 15000 mink, are showing they are nothing more than terrorists. They did not care about the farmer's well being and stolle his livelihood,

There is nothing wrong with stealing, and I wouldn't even call that stealing, more like liberating. Slave owners made their money from slaves, and I don't see you making an argument suggesting that they were robbed of anything. They obviously thought so, which is why they had fugitive slave laws passed. It's the responsibillityof the one being stole off of to do something about it.

they did not care about the survival of the mink and just released them in the wild.

If the mink can't survive on their own in the wild, they don't deserve to. I'm sure that some of them will survive, out of 15000. That's quite a bit to say that they won't survive.

They did not care for the local environement.

Thanks to the perfectness of nature, the environment will balance itself out in a few generations of life.

In truth they performed a violent act for no more gain than some publicity, bad publicity at that.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.