The ALF... Villians or Heroes

[wsionynw]

The difference in our opinions, which will never be resolved, is that I think human life is inherintly more valuable than another animal's life. We can talk in circles if you like

This is certainly true, and can say so after having killed and eaten many animals myself. Venison has less fat than chicken, and tastes better too. Nevertheless, it is beside the point: The fact is that humans natural diet includes other animals. Any attempt to deny this is to disregard the facts.

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

Very true, humans are omnivores, and it's very likely that this gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. We can however choose not to kill animals for food (I say we in the general sense, of course some people rely on animals for their basic survival). Many people eat a vegetarian diet and it does them no harm at all. I make a moral choice not to eat meat.
Anyway, the ALF are against the factory farming of animals, the killing of animals for recreation and the needless slaughter of animals to satisfy greed. It's nothing to do with their concern about dietry requirements.

 

[BenTheMan]

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

I do have a bias towards humans, and have absolutely no problems in admitting this.

What can I say...I was raised a redneck. I see it as a right to hunt and kill your own food provided this is done in a sustainable manner (i.e. I can ensure that my kids will enjoy the same privledge in the future). I harvest maybe three deer a year, and as many wild hogs as are needed for sausage. There is something deeply satsifying about getting your hands dirty, I think. I wish I had the talent to grow my own tomatoes too.

We can however choose not to kill animals for food (I say we in the general sense, of course some people rely on animals for their basic survival). Many people eat a vegetarian diet and it does them no harm at all. I make a moral choice not to eat meat.

I have no problems with this, just dont try to evangelize to me.

Anyway, the ALF are against the factory farming of animals, the killing of animals for recreation and the needless slaughter of animals to satisfy greed. It's nothing to do with their concern about dietry requirements.

I also have no problems with people opposing these things, but again, they should not force their views on me. I love animals, too. They taste very good.

 

[mountainhare]

BenTheMan:

Would you rather the lab preform the tests on humans?

The fact of the matter is that drug testing does eventually end up being done on humans.

And yes, some would say that drug testing should be done on humans, for the very simple fact that humans are willing participants, whereas animals are not. By what right do we take an animal (against its will?) and torture/kill it for medical research? Would you approve of an advanced alien species doing the same to humans?

Humans are naturally omnivores, and one can argue that the reason we have large brains is because our diets are so high in protein---in general, predators are more intelligent than prey in Nature, so bring on the steaks.

1. Conjecture. There's controversy in the scientific circles as to whether our ancestors brains were able to advance due to protein from meat, or protein from legumes.

2. Either way, your logic is flawed. It was necessary to eat meat 10,000 years ago, so it must be necessary to do so today? May I point out that tribal warfare has acted as a catalyst for technological advancement. So bring on those bloody and brutal wars!

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

IRRELEVANT AND UNSUPPORTED!

IRRELEVANT because the situation of the Iraqi people is different from that of animals. The Iraqi people are indeed capable of mass movement, rebellion, and organized resistance. Animals are not.

UNSUPPORTED because the animal rights activists I have met condemn all war. In fact, the AFL website praises political prisoners that have objected to the War in Iraq, and condemns the harsh treatment of the civilians. So apparently you're just inventing nonsense generalizations.

 

[BenTheMan]

And yes, some would say that drug testing should be done on humans, for the very simple fact that humans are willing participants, whereas animals are not. By what right do we take an animal (against its will?) and torture/kill it for medical research? Would you approve of an advanced alien species doing the same to humans?

IRRELEVANT and UNSUPPORTED.

IRRELEVANT because we cannot show that aliens exist.

UNSUPPORTED because there is no proof that animals DON'T want to be tested on.

Look---you're making points that were made like three posts ago. Why don't you scroll up and read my responses while I step on another kitten.

 

[mountainhare]

IRRELEVANT because we cannot show that aliens exist

It's a hypothetical. Do you know what a 'hypothetical' is? Perhaps I can get a grade school English teacher to explain it you.

UNSUPPORTED because there is no proof that animals DON'T want to be tested on.

LOL! This is the best you've got? Very well, I guess that we might as well just round up all the babies and infants, and test our treatments on them. After all, there is no proof that babies DON'T want to be tested on. I've never heard them object.

Lack of consent = No consent. This principle is clearly observed in rape cases. Just because a drugged/gagged woman doesn't object to you having sex with her, does not change the fact that it is indeed the rape.

Get the fuck out of my thread, TROLL.

 

[BenTheMan]

LOL! This is the best you've got? Very well, I guess that we might as well just round up all the babies and infants, and test our treatments on them. After all, there is no proof that babies DON'T want to be tested on. I've never heard them object.

Lack of consent = No consent. This principle is clearly observed in rape cases. Just because a drugged/gagged woman doesn't object to you having sex with her, does not change the fact that it is indeed the rape.

Get the fuck out of my thread, TROLL.

Aparently it is harder than I thought for you to comprehend sarcasm.

 

[mountainhare]

You were being sarcastic? Given that the arguments you just posted are quite often actually used to justify medical experimentation/meat eating, it's a little hard to tell.

 

[Oxygen]

Ben I'm against experimenting on animals for essentially useless reasons. Take for example the cutting off of the cat's balls. To see what kind of reaction it produced? Who gave away a grant for that? Did they even have to ask? If they really wanted to know, why not take some sick child-raping male pedophile and cut his balls off? Heck, they could auction off the privilege and fund more research with the proceeds.

No argument on the Loreal thing, although I don't think the kid should be allowed to sue. But now that we know that mascara in your eyes is bad for you, do we have to keep proving it?

As far as hunting goes, like Mr. Nugent says, "KILL IT AND GRILL IT!" I tried a proper vegetarian diet to help lose weight, and while it worked for weight loss, it just didn't feel right. Maybe it's psychological (I'll admit, black bean burgers are tasty), but after I had lost the weight I needed to lose (doctor's advice) it felt so good to sink my teeth into a tri-tip! Once we get ourselves all moved out to the country, we plan to get fresh meat. Meanwhile, we go for the leanest cuts we can and try to cook with as few artificial ingredients and added fats as possible. (I know, fats are necessary. We're just cutting it back, not out.)

 

[BenTheMan]

You were being sarcastic? Given that the arguments you just posted are quite often actually used to justify medical experimentation/meat eating, it's a little hard to tell.

Yeah I know it is probably a bit difficult to tell as there is no way to convey that meaning here.

The bottom line is exaclty here:

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

It boils down to a choice: I feel that a human's life in inherintly more valuable than an animal's, and you feel the opposite way.

 

[BenTheMan]

I want to make sure that everyone understands that I don't DISvalue the lives of animals.

No argument on the Loreal thing, although I don't think the kid should be allowed to sue. But now that we know that mascara in your eyes is bad for you, do we have to keep proving it?

What if they change the formula to make it stay on your lashes longer?

As far as hunting goes, like Mr. Nugent says, "KILL IT AND GRILL IT!" I tried a proper vegetarian diet to help lose weight, and while it worked for weight loss, it just didn't feel right. Maybe it's psychological (I'll admit, black bean burgers are tasty), but after I had lost the weight I needed to lose (doctor's advice) it felt so good to sink my teeth into a tri-tip! Once we get ourselves all moved out to the country, we plan to get fresh meat. Meanwhile, we go for the leanest cuts we can and try to cook with as few artificial ingredients and added fats as possible. (I know, fats are necessary. We're just cutting it back, not out.)

Yeah like Ted says, cruelty to animals is not killing it in the first shot.

 

[James R]

Here we go again... another person who has never considered the issues but is quite willing to make a fool out of himself anyway.

BenTheMan

I've never really understood what the basis is for "animal rights".

For a start, see my elegant missive on [enc]equal consideration[/enc].

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

I don't know who those people might be, but I think you're conflating completely unrelated issues.

The difference in our opinions, which will never be resolved, is that I think human life is inherintly more valuable than another animal's life. We can talk in circles if you like

Let's not.

How about you explain why you think human life is inherently more valuable than non-human animals' lives? In doing so, please address the points I make in the encylopedia article linked above.

I am sure you must have a basis for your beliefs. They wouldn't just be unthinking assumptions, would they?

I await your response.

This is certainly true, and can say so after having killed and eaten many animals myself. Venison has less fat than chicken, and tastes better too. Nevertheless, it is beside the point

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

Sorry, but it didn't work. Let's see if you can do any better.

The fact is that humans natural diet includes other animals. Any attempt to deny this is to disregard the facts.

Let us assume this is true for a moment. (I reserve the right to discuss whether or not it is true later.)

Then, explain to me why natural implies good in this instance. Why is it right and moral for human beings to do what comes naturally?

I do have a bias towards humans, and have absolutely no problems in admitting this.

Is it a bias based on principles or ethics, or just a selfish bias?

I have no problems with this, just dont try to evangelize to me.

Why are you trying to evangelise others, then? Why are you spouting off about how nice it is to eat venison, and how great it is to own and use a gun against defenseless creatures?

Is it one standard for you and another for everybody else?

I also have no problems with people opposing these things, but again, they should not force their views on me. I love animals, too. They taste very good.

Trumpeting your own immorality as a badge of honor is never a good look.

 

[555]

I have yet to see one member of these Animal Rights movements to actually step forwards and volunteer themselves for the Research programs over the animals. If they want to save animals they would actually be better off taking the animals place.

If they break into a laboratory and free one hundred animals, that a number of experiments they upset which they obviously couldn't care about, however those number of experiments will more than likely be conducted one place or another and will just initiate such experimenters to find more animals to take the place of the ones they lost. You could suggest they increase the number of animals suffering.

I know what it feels like to be poked and prodded, used against your will as a subject to some experiment you have no control over. No matter how cruel and demeaning, I have had the chance to live and hopefully the chance to continue living to and this I expect they want for the animals to.

When they close down such centres they are acting like controllers of a mass eugenic abortion since those animals are no longer bred, no longer demanded and no longer have the chance to lead a life.

Additionally, The Guerilla tactics used against Corporate *public* testing will likely force the hand of the government to put the testing in Military controlled installations. Where experiments could take a turn for the worse, rather than perhaps medical research their is the potential for biological weapons research since a budget would attempt to *Kill* two birds with one stone.

 

[wsionynw]

Mountainhare, Ben, kiss and make up! It's clear that you both have no desire to see animals suffer, so let's start with what we all agree on and take it from there!
Moving back to the question regarding the actions of the ALF, I suspect that Mountain supports their actions and motivations, whereas Ben feels they go too far in the fight for animal rights by making life difficult for humans.
My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so. Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

 

[BenTheMan]

So apparently people are in the mood of taking everything I say seriously.

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

I have never cared much who I offended, and was only telling the truth. And sense when does not being a vegetarian = lack of ethics?

I am sure you must have a basis for your beliefs. They wouldn't just be unthinking assumptions, would they?

Apologies if I don't have a logical and principled view on every aspect in my life. If spent less time trying to out the crackpots in the Physics forum, or trying to learn Conformal Field Teory, or trying to generate Yukawa couplings for heterotic string models to arbitrary order, then perhaps I could spend my days contemplating the views of animals.

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

Again you read too much into my comments. Perhaps I should be more "sensative", and I have never met someone who takes these flippant responses so seriously.

Why are you trying to evangelise others, then? Why are you spouting off about how nice it is to eat venison, and how great it is to own and use a gun against defenseless creatures?

If you feel evangelized then I apologize. I guess that I do not count me saying "Venison tastes good" as an attempt to gain followers.

Trumpeting your own immorality as a badge of honor is never a good look.

And, of course, the closing.

James---I will read your article and try to put whatever views I have on firm footing. This is something that, in truth, I had never considered deeply. But I am offended that you dismiss, out of hand, the view that hunting is ok as "immoral" or "unethical". Aparently I missed something in the SciForums rules that say every comment I make should be taken seriously.

 

[BenTheMan]

Mountainhare, Ben, kiss and make up! It's clear that you both have no desire to see animals suffer, so let's start with what we all agree on and take it from there!

Only if Mountainhare is a chick and no one tells my girlfriend.

Moving back to the question regarding the actions of the ALF, I suspect that Mountain supports their actions and motivations, whereas Ben feels they go too far in the fight for animal rights by making life difficult for humans.

This is probably exactly correct. I hate protestors in general that I don't agree with. This is ostensibly why they protest, though, to get me to agree with them. But, like Maddox says---civil disobedience is still disobedience.

http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com/shirts.htm

From the ALF website:

Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.

There is a Catch 22 of sorts here---the ALF people clearly hold a view that the majority of Americans don't agree with, and use methods that the majority of Americans don't support. In this sense, they want to force their agenda on to average people who either don't agree with them, or have no strong views on the subject. And in this sense they are cut of the same cloth as the Jehova's witnesses who knock on my door occasionally.

James and Mounainhare will, I'm sure, use history to point out that, at one time, most Americans didn't have a problem with slavery, and run around waving their hands and shouting "Moral Relativism! Moral Relativism!". They may even play the "Hitler Card". These arguments will not fly with me, because humans have, inherintly, more rights than animals. (Hint to James: I may argue this case based on Scienctific Advancement.)

To me, there are bigger problems in the world than wether or not animals are treated fairly. I guess that it is GOOD that we have people worried about these things, because it shows how advanced our country is. I mean, there aren't people in Africa worrying about animal rights. I suppose that there are smart people who spend their time in ALF meetings instead of simplifying the tax code, or thinking about how to provide health care for everybody. Like I said, I'm glad that America is a country of such talent such that it can be used to devise ways to break in to medical research facilities and free all the animals.

My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so.

But there is a significant amount of research that NEEDS to be carried out, and using animals is the only way to do it. Much of the cancer research is done on rats because they are cheap and you can make many exact genetic copies of the same rat---they provide a good control. Should we protect the rats from being given cancer by researchers? Or what about AIDS research? Should we be worried that rats and bunnies are dying horrible deaths so that people in Africa don't have to?

Toxicology tests are done on rats. Basically, you give 100 rats a chemical at a certain dosage, and see how many die. If you ever look on a chemical data sheet and see LD50 100mg it means "Lethal Dose to 50 rats at 100 mg". Calling this research "torture" is just an oversimplification of the situation.

The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?

Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

I guess making claims like "I support ALF but not their methods" is like saying "I support Hamas but they should not be killing Jews". ALF's mission states explicitly that they have every intention of breaking the law:

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

(I know, of course, the knee jerk reaction by everybody will be "I can't believe he just compared ALF to terrorists!" Fine---it was the first example that I could think of.) You can support "Palestinians" but not "Hamas", just like you can support "Animal Rights Activists" but not "ALF".

 

[BenTheMan]

The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?

I want to extend this point a bit further.

In America (I think James is from Europe, because he wrote 'evangelise'), the legal situation is much different. I am working with a German guy and he was surprised that his coffees come with a warning "Caution: Hot". Or that the buses had this warning on the back "Vehicle makes frequent stops". Aparently there aren't such things in Germany. All of this to say that there exists a significant amount of laws in America to protect stupid people. This means that if someone feeds bleach to their kid, they may be able to sue the bleach company for not putting a warning label on their product.

So there is a large class of legislation that needs to be in place that tells companies how to deal with stupid people. This legislation means that companies have to test their products on animals, to ensure that they put the right warning labels on their products.

Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human? Even if that human is paid for the job? And even if that human has signed a waiver? "I'm sorry you're blind, but now we know we can't sell this product. Here's $200."

 

[Baron Max]

My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so. Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

I think the problem here is even more basic ...or should be.

Do we support the rule of law and justice, or do we not?

The ALF, by using terrorist tactics as their means of fighting what they consider as cruelty to animals, essentially are negating the rule of law and justice. How can that be condoned? ..even if we agree with their ideals?

If I don't like something that others are doing, should anyone support me if I take to killing, burning property, blowing up things? ...even if you agree with views on the issue?

In the same manner, I don't think one can say that they support the ALF, then casually make claims of disagreeing with their tactics. Support is support, isn't it? Can you half-support the ALF? I don't think so.

I think the way to approach protecting the animals is through the law and through the courts and through justice. Because without the rule of law, and the courts, we're nothing but a bunch of violent, deadly, viscious animals ourselves.

Many people make claims that they support some particular terrorist groups' causes, but they don't support their methods or tactics. I just don't think you can do that ....and be honest and abide by the rule of law. It's one or the other ...ain't no inbetween.

There are many animal rights activist groups who don't use terrorist tactics. If you support the cause of animal rights, support one of those groups, NOT some terrorist group who takes the law into their own hands and violates the rights of others under the same ideal of ....the law.

Baron Max

 

[BenTheMan]

I know what it feels like to be poked and prodded, used against your will as a subject to some experiment you have no control over. No matter how cruel and demeaning, I have had the chance to live and hopefully the chance to continue living to and this I expect they want for the animals to.

When they close down such centres they are acting like controllers of a mass eugenic abortion since those animals are no longer bred, no longer demanded and no longer have the chance to lead a life.

Be careful making these arguments They will say "But what about slaves? What if we raise a black person for the specific purpose of picking cotton?"

 

[wsionynw]

Ben, your opinion that humans have more rights than animals will always enrage those that fight for animal rights, unless you can qualify this in some way. Sure us humans have many rights (depending on where you live in the wolrd) that cannot be given to animals. But we're not talking about the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech.

Medical research is of course important, but the question remains as to why animals should suffer for it? It's true that some of the research is aimed at helping both humans and animals, and it's also true that in some developed nations there are strict rules in place to prevent any needless pain and suffering to animals used in this research. This does not however come as any great comfort to animals bred for research that experience confinement and death, and very little else. Discussing the merits of the LD50 test is moot since the debate is not whether or not animal tests provide useful results, we know they do (in some cases).

How do you feel about direct action against the fur, leather and other similar industries?

BTW, there are many people in Africa concerned with conservation and the protection of animals. Check out the National Geographic if you want more info.

I can say that I support the ALF but not all it's methods because there are certain acts that I feel do not help the cause (such as threatening violence to individuals). You agree with killing animals for food, does that mean you support factory farming?

 

[wsionynw]

Baron, define a terrorist................
Now define a freedom fighter.

Should we all accept the law as it stands, or should we rise up and demand that the law be changed if we feel that certain groups of people or animals are being oppressed?

You cannot call the police and demand that they arrest a person killing animals for fur, meat, fun....so what can you do? If only it was as easy as simply asking the government nicely to change the law.

Remember that the ALF do not try to kill people, regardless of what the media would have you believe.