ALF sets fire to fur store causing $100,000+ in damages

[Aspiring Humanist]

Animal rights activists claimed responsibility on Monday for a fire that caused $100,000 in damage to a Boise-area store that sells fur coats and fireworks, authorities said.

No one was injured in the early morning blaze at Rocky Mountain Fur & Fireworks, a retailer in Caldwell, Idaho, about 30 miles northwest of the state capital.

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which says it conveys messages for unnamed animal advocates, distributed a statement from a group calling itself the "arson unit" that said it set fire to a store stocked with "chemically treated skins of thousands of tortured animals".

"By oppressing innocent life, you've lost your rights. We've come to take you down a notch. Stay in business and we'll be back," the unit said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-animalrights-idUSTRE78Q08A20110927

Haven't seen any major ALF activity in a little while, hope to see more.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Sounds good, won't change much but it is better than doing nothing.I hope to see more as well. :thumbup1:

[Leftsolidarity]

This put a huge smile on my face

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I hope to see less of that. Fuck the ALF/ELF.

[Aspiring Humanist]

ALF and ELF have closed down a few businesses for good, and if I recall correctly they prevented a logging company from raping a forest in Oregon, don't quote me on that though. This type of direct action does infinitely more good than standing outside wallstreet with a picket sign next to bourgeois Obama supporters

[Misanthrope]

I hope to see less of that. Fuck the ALF/ELF.

Why? Those poor people will go without fur coats? Or the workers at the store will suffer in turn?

[Leftsolidarity]

I hope to see less of that. Fuck the ALF/ELF.

Umm......why?.....

[eyeheartlenin]

To godless and aspiring: Yeah, I find my heart strangely warmed by this news; I am grinning as I write this. The store that was attacked specialized in "fur and firearms." Reminds me of an old slogan/bumper sticker: "Defend your right to arm bears." One of the best experiences of my life was spending a year and a half helping take care of a rottweiler, who was our good and affectionate friend, so I think it's great that someone is actively opposing mistreatment of animals. More power to the animal liberationists!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Umm......why?.....

Excellent question.

[The Jay]

Is everyone that supports the alf a vegetarian here? If not, how do you reconcile that?

[Leftsolidarity]

Is everyone that supports the alf a vegetarian here? If not, how do you reconcile that?

I am a vegetarian but I could justify not being one I guess. Say if you hunted your own food or bought from more animal friendly farms I suppose.

[Os Cangaceiros]

ALF and ELF have closed down a few businesses for good, and if I recall correctly they prevented a logging company from raping a forest in Oregon, don't quote me on that though. This type of direct action does infinitely more good than standing outside wallstreet with a picket sign next to bourgeois Obama supporters

They did not prevent anyone from raping a forest in Oregon. The incident that I believe you're refering to was chronicled in "If A Tree Falls", a documentary about the rise and fall of the ELF. The company that they targeted is still around and as far as I know is doing fine. ELF did target a piece of infrastructure that was used for the mass slaughter of wild horses, though, and it was never rebuilt. That slaughterhouse was the subject of a mass campaign of protesting and petitioning that had gone nowhere for years, and it was probably their biggest success.

The ELF/ALF really is full of a bunch of weirdo nature fetishists, from what I've been able to tell. I mean, I like nature a lot too, but I think that nature should be utilized for human use, and I have no illusions about some kind of idyllic natural state where everything exists in perfect harmony. No, in order for me to exist other things must die. Personally I like having things like paper and electrical systems and computers and industrial medicine. I also think that "animal liberation" is a joke. The modern environmental movement spans the range from primitivism to bourgeois environmentalism, recently featuring Ugandan peasants being beaten and shot at in an effort to drive them off land owned by a "carbon offset" company. In between I don't see much worth liking. (although I'm also not one of those "pave the planet" weirdos)

There are some people who were involved in ELF/ALF though, like I've said before, who I think are really solid individuals, like Daniel McGowan, and they deserve our support, even if we don't entirely agree with their causes. I have a lot of respect for people like him, who'll tell the feds to go fuck themselves and refuse to testify against his co-defendants, even though they were folding like a house of cards and he was facing life in prison.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I like this, this is a blow to the bourgeois and we need more of it.

Only sad thing is it's a blow to swag potential as well but small potatoes.

[Princess Luna]

Animal rights activists claimed responsibility on Monday for a fire that caused $100,000 in damage to a Boise-area store that sells fur coats and fireworks, authorities said.

No one was injured in the early morning blaze at Rocky Mountain Fur & Fireworks, a retailer in Caldwell, Idaho, about 30 miles northwest of the state capital.

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which says it conveys messages for unnamed animal advocates, distributed a statement from a group calling itself the "arson unit" that said it set fire to a store stocked with "chemically treated skins of thousands of tortured animals".

"By oppressing innocent life, you've lost your rights. We've come to take you down a notch. Stay in business and we'll be back," the unit said.
Lol, what a strange choice of merchandice. also I don't support this action. If anything can be learned from the war on drugs, its that trying to stop the production of a commodity though force is doomed to failure. Even if the ALF put this store out of business permently, the would-be-costumers will just go to a different store, and the people who kill the animals to make the fur coats will still be getting their slice of the pie, so they will have no reason to stop. The only effect of this action, is now dozens of people are without a job most likely and the U.S. government has new ammo to smear the animal liberation movement with.

[RedZezz]

A first offense on a federal arson charge stemming from the destruction of property and involving interstate commerce carries a prison sentence of at least 10 years.


Ah yes, capitalist justice. Destruction of private property without harming another human being deserves at least about 12% of one's years lost.

[Tenka]

This type of direct action does infinitely more good than standing outside wallstreet with a picket sign next to bourgeois Obama supporters
Too bad ELF and ALF are not interested in burning wallstreet -- only some inconsequential little fur stores and the like....
I think that ELF and ALF are ideological masturbators with pyromaniacal tendencies, and not really our friends in the class struggle.

[Leftsolidarity]

Too bad ELF and ALF are not interested in burning wallstreet -- only some inconsequential little fur stores and the like....
I think that ELF and ALF are ideological masturbators with pyromaniacal tendencies, and not really our friends in the class struggle.

I would disagree. I have met communists and anarchists who associate with these groups and I feel that it does contribute to our struggle.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I would disagree. I have met communists and anarchists who associate with these groups and I feel that it does contribute to our struggle.

They are reactionaries.


"By oppressing innocent life, you've lost your rights. We've come to take you down a notch. Stay in business and we'll be back," the unit said.

This is by the way not a blow to the bourgeois in any meaningful way whatsoever.

[Leftsolidarity]

They are reactionaries.


Oh, well if you say so I guess that makes it so...:rolleyes:


This is by the way not a blow to the bourgeois in any meaningful way whatsoever

It's something

[Aspiring Humanist]

Next time anyone here does ANYTHING remotely revolutionary that furthers our cause in the slightest bit that DOESNT involve holding a sign and shouting slogans then can you talk shit about a revolutionary act that caused significant damage to a unquestionably reactionary enterprise but ONLY THEN

[Os Cangaceiros]

So one has to actually engage in arson to question the utility value of arson? :confused:

I mean, the "Informal Anarchist Federation" is a lot closer to my own politics than the ELF, but I have no illusions that firebombing police stations or blowing up diplomats is harming capital in the slightest...

[Aspiring Humanist]

So one has to actually engage in arson to question the utility value of arson? :confused:

I mean, the "Informal Anarchist Federation" is a lot closer to my own politics than the ELF, but I have no illusions that firebombing police stations or blowing up diplomats is harming capital in the slightest...

Wait I thought I was on revleft not a social democracy forum

[Apoi_Viitor]

It's something

That will most likely harm the environmentalist cause...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wait I thought I was on revleft not a social democracy forum

lol k a bunch of vegan firebugs setting fur stores ablaze does in fact amount to more than a pimple on a proverbial elephant's ass when looked at in the broader context of capital. my bad homeslice

[Leftsolidarity]

That will most likely harm the environmentalist cause...

Why do you think so? This stuff happens all the time. It sure got me interested when I was a youngin'

[Aspiring Humanist]

lol k a bunch of vegan firebugs setting fur stores ablaze does in fact amount to more than a pimple on a proverbial elephant's ass when looked at in the broader context of capital. my bad homeslice


Obviously burning a fur store isn't going to overthrow the capitalist system. But downplaying direct action against the bourgeoisie and making activists seem like crazy pyromaniacs that the average person can't identify with at all is what the capitalists would want

[Apoi_Viitor]

Why do you think so? This stuff happens all the time. It sure got me interested when I was a youngin'

While it does have a certain aesthetic appeal to some young people, individual acts of terrorism tend to put off most people.

[Leftsolidarity]

While it does have a certain aesthetic appeal to some young people, individual acts of terrorism tend to put off most people.

Terrorism :confused:

I'd hardly call it terrorism. It might put some off but it's not like it is the only face of the environmental movement at all. Actually I never hear about this stuff except for alternative news sources.

[Os Cangaceiros]

re: AH

I don't have to make it seem like that, though...the average person doesn't identify with most of the things the ALF does! Most people don't give a crap about the veal industry or the plight of the mink or whatever. And I don't blame them, honestly.

When a group like ELF/ALF, or Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, or latter generation manifestations of Red Army Faction etc. engage in acts of violence that are divorced from the "average people", it just seems like a weirdo subcultural cult to most observers.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Another one that happened yesterday.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/mystery-terrorists-release-mink/article_5d53334e-e86c-11e0-9bfc-001cc4c03286.html



KNAPPA — An estimated 300 mink were released on a farm in Knappa just after 1 a.m. Sunday.
Clatsop County Sheriff’s deputies are on high alert for suspected “unknown animal rights terrorists,” who have a record of striking this time of year.

Deputies responded to the call in the early hours of Sunday morning from a farmer, Carl Salo. He reported that his alarm was going off and at least 100 mink were on the loose on Conroy Road.
Officers estimate approximately 300 of the animals were running wild.

[Leftsolidarity]

re: AH

I don't have to make it seem like that, though...the average person doesn't identify with most of the things the ALF does! Most people don't give a crap about the veal industry or the plight of the mink or whatever. And I don't blame them, honestly.

When a group like ELF/ALF, or Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, or latter generation manifestations of Red Army Faction etc. engage in acts of violence that are divorced from the "average people", it just seems like a weirdo subcultural cult to most observers.

So if the average person was pro-slavery would it be wrong to attack slavemasters' houses or the like? No.

We can't just sit around awaiting some undefined awaking of the masses to do anything. While I'm no proposer of the propaganda of the deed concept I do feel that actions bring attention and sometimes support to a cause.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There was a huge abolitionist movement in the USA long before the civil war broke out, so I don't think it's a good comparison. I mean, besides the fact that we're comparing minks, foxes and (in at least one case) fruit flies to enslaved humans, of course.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Another one that happened yesterday.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/mystery-terrorists-release-mink/article_5d53334e-e86c-11e0-9bfc-001cc4c03286.html

Fucking lunacy. Did they not stop to consider the ecological damage resulting from releasing some 300+ predators in a relatively small environment?

And that's not even taking into consideration whether the mink released were a native species or not...

Shit like this is evidence that when it comes to matters of ecology, animal rights groups don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Burning down a fur outlet has nothing to do with working class self-emancipation. Nothing. It's a desperate act by a lost and desperate middle-class group that puts the imagined "rights" of animals above the interests of human beings because they have become so alienated.

From the many other posts on fur:

Fur cannot be replicated artificially.

And yea, artificial production of some equivalent to fur would also be interference in nature. Building the plants and machinery; stretching roads, cables, and pipes to them; keeping them running with electricity, lubricants, etc.; producing and delivering the chemicals necessary, etc., would all damage animal habitat, drive animals away, harm animals and kill animals.

Every time you flush your toilet you contribute to the death of animals.

* * *

Mink are not endangered. Neither are muskrat, racoon, fox or beaver. Those are the animals most commonly harvested for fur (though bobcats, fishers, marten, coyotes, and otters are also harvested with some frequency). In fact, many furbearers are overpopulated as a result of a lack of predation and/or habitat. When the economy dropped off, fur prices dipped, the fur harvest fell, and the number of furbearers went even higher than before.

There's no danger of eliminating whole species of animals to manufacture fur clothing at the present time. When there were in the past, it was caused by the nature of capitalism itself (which also leads to things like mountain top removal, marcellus shale drilling and offshore drilling). Profit is the sole motivation. Short term gains are taken at the expense of long term negative results.

That's an argument against the private ownership of the means of production though; it has nothing to do with utilizing animals for their fur.

People who are opposed to hunting and trapping (or animal farming) are usually so divorced from the process of production of their food and clothing that they have no real clue what they're on about. Hunting and trapping are no more "brutal" than the slaughter of chickens or cattle. The creation of a fur hat, which is warm and waterproof, is no more "savage" than the creation of leather shoes, belts or wallets. The construction of a new railway or airport probably causes more harm to wild animals than the total number of hunters in the area. In fact, hunters do more toward wildlife and habitat management and protection than any other group of people.

The creation of most clothes in sweatshops around the world is definitely more brutal than any of that, not least of all because it's human beings that are being brutalized in the process.

But people who live in cities and suburbs and cry about hunting, trapping, fishing and farming and have no idea where their food and clothes come from don't usually think of any that, just as people who live on farms or in rural areas don't give a second thought to lopping off a live chicken's head or shooting a deer.

* * *

Why should we limit ourselves to just the most basic necessities? In that case move out of your house and apartment because its construction destroyed habitat and displaced animals. Stop riding in cars, buses, trains and planes. Stop drinking treated water. Stop wearing shoes.

And yes, fur is a necessity that allowed humans to leave Africa and settle into areas with cold weather. To this day it remains one of the best materials to shield humans from severe weather. It's also a unique, aesthetically pleasing material.

By harvesting an animal and turning its pelt into wearable fur we give it value.

It's no different than killing a cow to produce steaks or killing a rat to test cancer medicines.

[Rusty Shackleford]

oh for fucks sake ALF/ELF and PETA and shit like that make environmentalism into something misanthropic and cooky.


their sole interest is the environment. not the working class or oppressed peoples.


i dont give a fuck about furs (And why the fuck were they selling fireworks AND furs. fucking idiots)

[EvilRedGuy]

Shutup fascists.

Nobody gives a shit. Pseudo-science technocrat/anarkist scum.

[blackandyellow]

Next time anyone here does ANYTHING remotely revolutionary that furthers our cause in the slightest bit that DOESNT involve holding a sign and shouting slogans then can you talk shit about a revolutionary act that caused significant damage to a unquestionably reactionary enterprise but ONLY THEN

But many of us do not find shops that sell fur any more reactionary than any other capitalist enterprise.

I think due to the decline of traditional forms of working class struggle e.g. trade unions etc, i think many left-wing people look to these sort of struggles. In my opinion it is a mistake.

[Delenda Carthago]

In times of crisis, the capital itself steps into the "destructive construction".

[thefinalmarch]

Shutup fascists.
Hahaha, you're joking, right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Shutup fascists.

Nobody gives a shit. Pseudo-science technocrat/anarkist scum.

Pseudoscience? What part of my post was incorrect? Mink are predators, are they not? Therefore a sudden influx of hundreds of hungry predators into a small area will have a negative effect on say, bird and small mammal populations, will it not?

Fascists reject reality for a romantic fiction. They're a lot closer to animal rights types than technocrats in their basic methodology.

[danyboy27]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-animalrights-idUSTRE78Q08A20110927

Haven't seen any major ALF activity in a little while, hope to see more.

I am always glad to see fringe organisations like that deprive workers from their job in an already uncertain economy! good publicity stunt keep going, the working class will wake the fuck up for sure!

On a more serious note, i would like to say that i feel really bad for all the workers who will probably lost their job beccause of this action and i wish them not become another 99er.

[GPDP]

And this helps the working class how?

But hey, at least those cute little critters are free. Yay!

[Tenka]

But hey, at least those cute little critters are free. Yay!
No, they were dead. And now they're dead and burnt. What a waste.:(

[danyboy27]

I would also like to point out that burning that store put a lot of polution in the air.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fascists reject reality for a romantic fiction. They're a lot closer to animal rights types than technocrats in their basic methodology.

Not to mention that the real fascists were actually huge proponents of "animal rights." The were the first promoters of the concept to hold state power.

"There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals. Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime. Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals. Göring was an animal lover and conservationist. The current animal welfare laws in Germany are modified versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis..... Göring also banned commercial animal trapping, imposed severe restrictions on hunting, and regulated the shoeing of horses. He imposed regulations even on the boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to a concentration camp for cutting up a bait frog.... In 24 November 1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law called Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act), for protection of animals. This law listed many prohibitions against the use of animals, including their use for filmmaking and other public events causing pain or damage to health, feeding fowls forcefully and tearing out the thighs of living frogs...." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

"An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself.... I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp." - Göring

Of course, like our modern day petty-bourgeois environmentalists and animal rights activists, they were also extremely misanthropic.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Fascists reject reality for a romantic fiction. They're a lot closer to animal rights types than technocrats in their basic methodology.

How so? Many different groups have romanticized visions.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not to mention that the real fascists were actually huge proponents of "animal rights." The were the first promoters of the concept to hold state power.

"There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals. Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime. Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals. Göring was an animal lover and conservationist. The current animal welfare laws in Germany are modified versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis..... Göring also banned commercial animal trapping, imposed severe restrictions on hunting, and regulated the shoeing of horses. He imposed regulations even on the boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to a concentration camp for cutting up a bait frog.... In 24 November 1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law called Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act), for protection of animals. This law listed many prohibitions against the use of animals, including their use for filmmaking and other public events causing pain or damage to health, feeding fowls forcefully and tearing out the thighs of living frogs...." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

"An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself.... I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp." - Göring

Of course, like our modern day petty-bourgeois environmentalists and animal rights activists, they were also extremely misanthropic.

Did you just use the old,"The Nazis did it so therefore it is evil" thing? Your quotes do not reflect how supporting animal rights is wrong,it merely shows that the Nazis had some strange views when it came to animals.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Did you just use the old,"The Nazis did it so therefore it is evil" thing? No I didn't. I showed that the poster trying to liken people opposing this ALF activity to fascists was completely and totally incorrect, since real fascists were great promoters of "animal rights" who banned hunting, fishing, fur trapping, etc.

Of course the empty worship of animals and nature does go hand-in-hand with misanthropy.

[blackandyellow]

Did you just use the old,"The Nazis did it so therefore it is evil" thing? Your quotes do not reflect how supporting animal rights is wrong,it merely shows that the Nazis had some strange views when it came to animals.

I think the point may be that there is a link between having a diminished view of humanity and being misanthropic, and supporting 'animal rights'.

The left-wing, or atleast Marxists (maybe other leftwing traditions are different, i'm not sure), generaly are not misanthropic and do not have a diminshed view of humans, but rather are the exact opposite. Why else would communism be desirable?

[danyboy27]

How so? Many different groups have romanticized visions.

romanticism and politics should never mix, its fucking deadly.

I love romanticism where it belong; poetry and arts.

[RedJanitor]

since real fascists were great promoters of "animal rights" who banned hunting, fishing, fur trapping, etc.

Just because some nazis also advocated animal welfare (an ideology which has nothing to do with animal rights/liberation) somehow all animal rightists/liberationists are fascists? That is some faulty fucking logic if I ever heard.


Of course the empty worship of animals and nature does go hand-in-hand with misanthropy.

To imply that the animal rights position (the idea that the interests of non-human animals should be given equal consideration to the interests of human animals) is akin to "religious worship" is nothing more then a strawman. The idea that animal rightists believe that the interests of non-human animals are more important then human animals is also a strawman.

I would agree though that AR is a mixed bag. It would be dishonest of me to say that misanthropy doesn't at all exist within the AR milieu, because it does, and it is a problem. This problem stems from several different factors. The biggest being the AR movements liberal single issue focus, which leads to a lack of understanding of the broader social structure and how different forms of oppression interrelate. Many animal rightists take the attitude that society oppress animals because we are "evil" and "selfish", when in reality it is a product of socialization and economic necessity within capitalism. Misanthropy I think also stems from the fact that there is some overlap between more "radical" elements of the milieu and green anarchism (which we all know is a dark abyss of fucked up shit).

So in conclusion, misanthropy does exist within the AR milieu, but misanthropy is in no way inherent to the AR position. Misanthropy is something that exists in many different social movements and it needs to be actively confronted in all of it's manifestations and rooted out.

[thefinalmarch]

Just because some nazis also advocated animal welfare (an ideology which has nothing to do with animal rights/liberation) somehow all animal rightists/liberationists are fascists? That is some faulty fucking logic if I ever heard.
It's as if you didn't even read the post you replied to...

I showed that the poster trying to liken people opposing this ALF activity to fascists was completely and totally incorrect.

[Magón]

Fucking ALF. I was just looking for a fur coat this winter, along with some fireworks I could shoot off. :cursing:

[Vanguard1917]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-animalrights-idUSTRE78Q08A20110927

Haven't seen any major ALF activity in a little while, hope to see more.

'Aspiring Humanist'? The lesson here is: don't give up aspiring.

What there is to celebrate about this idiotic action should be beyond us all. Needless to say, 'fur breeders' have done far more for human survival and advancement, historically speaking at least, than these misanthropic nutjobs ever have or will. You don't have to be a fan of the modern luxury-fur industry to grasp just how backward its opponents can be.

[Ele'ill]

The allowance of a fur industry represents a fatal flaw in our logic as revolutionaries- to allow the same physical pain and emotional distress for profit and pleasure that we do not tolerate our own species going through at all. Animal liberation, albeit not an immediate priority, is a part of creating a better world.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If I can't wear fur, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

http://www.gmcw.org/springaffair/auctionitems/fullsize/mink_fur.jpg

[Leftsolidarity]

If I can't wear fur, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

http://www.gmcw.org/springaffair/auctionitems/fullsize/mink_fur.jpg

Alright, don't let the door hit you on the way out ;)

[Rufio]

'Aspiring Humanist'? The lesson here is: don't give up aspiring.

What there is to celebrate about this idiotic action should be beyond us all. Needless to say, 'fur breeders' have done far more for human survival and advancement, historically speaking at least, than these misanthropic nutjobs ever have or will. You don't have to be a fan of the modern luxury-fur industry to grasp just how backward its opponents can be.
And you don't have to be ignorant of the historic role of fur clothing in human advancement to oppose the modern fur industry.

Despite the lazy ass Nazi comparisons the romanticism and misanthropy that you will find within animal rights and enviromentalist movements is a legitimate criticism and problem with those movements. But there's more revolutionary potential among them then you'll find on a fucking fur farm. No doubt.

[Leftsolidarity]

If I can't wear fur, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

http://www.gmcw.org/springaffair/auctionitems/fullsize/mink_fur.jpg

Thanks for the neg rep. Glad to see that you can't take a joke :thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

If I can't wear fur, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

*chortle*chortle*chortle*

Don't post pictures. :)

[tir1944]

Seems that these ALF guys have too much time on their hands...

[EvilRedGuy]

If I can't wear fur, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

http://www.gmcw.org/springaffair/auctionitems/fullsize/mink_fur.jpg


So you admit that you're from the Bourgeoisie? No wonder you don't want to be apart of our revolution. :rolleyes:


Fur is a bourgeois luxury. I have meet none from the proletariat in Denmark that wants to support this misery. btw.

[Ele'ill]

Just the fact that NHIA would actually wear such a hideous piece of clothing... Even if it's synthetic fur. Jesus :bored: It's more like "If I can't dress like a complete flake I don't want to be a part of your revolution". Yeah don't worry that's no problem with me. Do your pants look like that too?

Sometimes I feel as though certain users have a 'get drunk and punch puppies' LAN party where they all dress in their animal skins (indoors) and post snarky strawman arguments on revleft.

[tir1944]

Fur is a bourgeois luxury.
Lenin wore fur dude.
Also,please,explain to me what makes a "luxury" "bougreois".
Thanks.

[Desperado]

When a group like ELF/ALF, or Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, or latter generation manifestations of Red Army Faction etc. engage in acts of violence that are divorced from the "average people", it just seems like a weirdo subcultural cult to most observers.

This is something that really concerned me for a while, and worried me about "activism" as a concept. But it's pretty applicable to most revolutionary activities - including radical syndicates and the like - today. The ideas of an epoch are those of the ruling class my friend, and under the present situation dirty commies like us "just seem like a weirdo subcultural cult".

The point is that we are meant to rebel against the norm. We'll be irrelevant wierdos until the working classes come over. Before that then we have to agitate (in a variety of ways). We can't be revolutionaries and act like "average people" where they are not revolutionary. So long as our actions are just ones, we have to trust that eventually people will see them as so.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I support this action.

Go ALF! You rock!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you admit that you're from the Bourgeoisie? No wonder you don't want to be apart of our revolution.

You've got me! Because only the bourgeoisie wears fur. Because only the bourgeoisie should enjoy nice, luxurious, things. Because all workers should only be able to wear polyester Mao suits in the glorious socialist future under the wise leadership of the party.



Fur is a bourgeois luxury. I have meet none from the proletariat in Denmark that wants to support this misery. btw.

I have met none from the proletariat in the US that wants fur banned.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just the fact that NHIA would actually wear such a hideous piece of clothing...

Philistine.

Not only is fur one of the most beautiful materials on earth, and recognized as such by most people, it's also warm, durable and weather resistant. There is nothing that can compare to fur yet in existence.


Even if it's synthetic fur.

In the picture? That's mink. On my head and back in the winter? That's fur too. No synthetic for me, thanks. Doesn't make much sense, feels and looks fake, doesn't have the warmth or protection from the elements.

I do have one synthetic hat that was given to me as a gift. Didn't compare to my raccoon ushanka at all. I gave it away.


Jesus :bored: It's more like "If I can't dress like a complete flake I don't want to be a part of your revolution". Yeah don't worry that's no problem with me. Do your pants look like that too?

No, most of my pants are made from cotton, but of course the mechanized farming of cotton, processing, production of jeans, transportation, etc., all cause various living things to die (plants and animals are displaced, destroyed, poisoned, smashed, run over, and more through the process).

So it's only really different in the eyes of misanthropic environmentalist nutters who see animals with cute faces and decide they must come to the rescue of their little furry friends (who would gnaw their fingers off if they every got close enough to actually touch one).

Human existence is predicating on interference in nature. Every road, house, hospital, chemical, medicine, airplane, car, computer, electric line, battery, etc., etc., etc., directly causes the deaths of animals.

I'm sure you walk around in the nude to display your unwavering personal principles though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is, by far, the best work to come from Appleton:

In defence of fur by Josie Appleton

‘Fur is dead’, chanted the animal rights activists as they invaded a Burberry catwalk show in Milan a couple of days ago. ‘Burberry: fur shame’, read their placards.

In the Nineties, fur was material non grata. To wear fur was to appear selfish and callous – ‘scum’ was the word most frequently used to describe those who wore it. Supermodels such as Naomi Campbell and Cindy Crawford posed in ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other famous figures said they would ‘rather go naked than wear fur’.

Similar protests are still around today. This week PETA launched another anti-fur advert featuring nude celebrities, including Sadie Frost, imploring people to ‘Turn your back on fur’. Heather Mills McCartney has not only been in the headlines for her big-money divorce from Paul, but also for her campaigning against the use of cat and dog fur in China.

However, there are signs that the tide might be turning. The International Fur Trade Federation announced $12.77 billion worth of global fur sales for 2005, a rise for the seventh consecutive year, and up from $9.1 billion in 2000. Campbell and Crawford are now back in their fur coats, and collections from names such as Prada and Louis Vuitton are dripping with a variety of pelts.

Still, many fashion houses and designers keep their lines free of fur, including Ralph Lauren, Sadie Frost, Stella McCartney, Topshop, Selfridges, Liberty of London and H&M. Those who use fur are frequently shamefaced. Burberry mumbled the following statement: ‘As a luxury brand there will be occasions where the use of fur will be considered important to the design and aesthetics of a product. In those instances we will continue to use fur. However, we will not use fur if there is a serious concern that the fur has been produced by the unacceptable treatment of the animals concerned.’ (1)

There is no reason to be ashamed. A fur coat is the best possible use of fur, and fashion is the best possible use of a fur coat.

Anti-fur campaigners claim that we don’t need to use fur. In the words of sex symbol turned animals rights campaigner, Bridget Bardot, fur is just a ‘superficial luxury’ to satisfy our own vanity. ‘Designers who still use fur are heartless and shameless’, said a PETA spokesperson after the Milan catwalk invasion. The fur-defending American Vogue editor, Anna Wintour, had a dead raccoon thrown in her soup while she was sitting at a restaurant table; a 2002 PETA ad featured the singer Sophie Ellis Bextor holding up a skinned fox with the slogan, ‘Here is the rest of your coat’. In the 1980s, ads included a woman trailing blood from her fur coat, with the line: ‘It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat – but only one to wear it’.

Fur fashion gets reduced to the bloodied corpse, the manacles, the cries of pain. Looking at a beautiful coat, they see not the artful object but the slain animal. ‘Fur looks better on its original owners’, says PETA, with the implication that on the animal fur is alive while on us it is merely dead stuff.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. Just as a butterfly is never aware of the beautiful patterns on its wings, so a mink will wear its soft coat until death without ever appreciating it. For the mink, fur is just something that it carries around in the battle to survive, like claws or teeth.

By being made into a fur coat, that mink’s pelt is raised into something higher, just as a tree made into a violin is raised, or a cow made into a sumptuous steak is raised. A raw material becomes part of the human world; fur isn’t just on the back of an animal scratching around for food, but is instead worked on and admired as art. Indeed, it is only really by becoming a coat that a mink’s life can be said to have had any purpose at all.

So-called ‘superficial luxury’ is when our use of fur is at its highest. Fur was human beings’ first clothing (‘unto Adam and also to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them’, says the Bible). As humans made their way out of Africa some 100,000 years ago, their naked skins could not endure the cold of Europe and northern Asia. At this stage they had not yet learned to weave and knit their own cloth, so they borrowed the fur of the animals of their region. It was fur use that allowed humans to spread throughout the world, reaching even the inhospitable wastelands of Siberia and crossing the icy Baring Straits into the Americas.

As societies developed, fur took on a richer and more symbolic significance. Fur became not just a material for survival but a mark of status and character – hence the leopard skin pelts of African chiefs, and the lion skin worn by the mythical Greek hero Hercules. In the Middle Ages there were strict rules limiting the wearing of different furs to different classes, with the richest and rarest pelts restricted to the backs of the nobility and commoners allowed only sheepskin. Fur now wasn’t just used for warmth but also for decoration, with the introduction of fur trimmings for cloth garments.

Yet it was only with modernity that fur became fashion, which meant that it could be appreciated purely as a beautiful material. A designer thinks of the texture, look and feel of a fur pelt, choosing those that are most suitable for the design he or she has in mind. It’s strange that the aesthetic use of nature is seen as decadent, because it actually makes the most use of different natural features and characteristics. A designer’s choice between mink or bear or fox isn’t made because they are cold and have to grab the nearest animal, or because they are restricted to a particular category of fur because of their status; rather it is based on reflecting on and appreciating the qualities of mink, bear and fox fur. These qualities of genuine fur – both the shine and the soft feel – can’t yet be achieved with artificial fur replacements.

We’ve come a long way since the first fur coats of early humans. These were crude, cut out around the shape of the animal skin, with little thought to appearance. Inuits wrapped up in their furs look square: the shapes of their bodies are submerged as they battle to stay warm. By contrast, fashion fur products are designed around the wearer, and huge amounts of effort are invested in getting the right effect. Madame Paquin, the dress designer at the head of a developing international fashion scene in the early twentieth century, made a coat in Canadian mink that used 300 skins, and took 100 hours of cutting and 1,000 hours of sewing (2). Fur coats were a key part of Edwardian elegance, cut to emphasise the figure of the wearer; and later, in the 1960s, designers experimented with dyeing fur crazy colours and introducing sweeping folds.

Today there are new and exciting possibilities for fur on the catwalk. As well as dyeing, and working fur into hip-hugging skirts and voluptuous cloaks, designers are also experimenting with new techniques. Some are ‘knitting’ fur into a mesh, to create lightweight and soft shining material; others are plucking it, removing the longer outer hairs to leave only the softer shorter hairs; or sheering it; or embellishing it with crystals.

To designers who say that they don’t want an animal to die for their art, I say their art clearly isn’t worth much. Fur shouldn’t be consigned to the Stone Age: we’re just finding out what it can do.

Josie Appleton is convenor of the Manifesto Club.

(1) Fighting the return of fur, Guardian, 18 September 2006

(2) Fur in Dress, Elizabeth Ewing, BT Batsford Ltd, 1981

[Leftsolidarity]

No, most of my pants are made from cotton, but of course the mechanized farming of cotton, processing, production of jeans, transportation, etc., all cause various living things to die (plants and animals are displaced, destroyed, poisoned, smashed, run over, and more through the process).

So it's only really different in the eyes of misanthropic environmentalist nutters who see animals with cute faces and decide they must come to the rescue of their little furry friends (who would gnaw their fingers off if they every got close enough to actually touch one).

Human existence is predicating on interference in nature. Every road, house, hospital, chemical, medicine, airplane, car, computer, electric line, battery, etc., etc., etc., directly causes the deaths of animals.

I'm sure you walk around in the nude to display your unwavering personal principles though.

Are you really going back to this same bullshit argument that was already derailed in a past thread? First, why are you talking about interfereing with nature? Second, animals are sentient creatures, plants are not.

[blackandyellow]

But there's more revolutionary potential among them then you'll find on a fucking fur farm. No doubt.

So drop-out Animal Lib activists have more revolutionary potential than those who have their surplus labour extracted on fur farms?

[Leftsolidarity]

So drop-out Animal Lib activists have more revolutionary potential than those who have their surplus labour extracted on fur farms?

Great sterotypical generalizations! :thumbup1:

[CleverTitle]

He has a point though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is something that really concerned me for a while, and worried me about "activism" as a concept. But it's pretty applicable to most revolutionary activities - including radical syndicates and the like - today. The ideas of an epoch are those of the ruling class my friend, and under the present situation dirty commies like us "just seem like a weirdo subcultural cult".

The point is that we are meant to rebel against the norm. We'll be irrelevant wierdos until the working classes come over. Before that then we have to agitate (in a variety of ways). We can't be revolutionaries and act like "average people" where they are not revolutionary. So long as our actions are just ones, we have to trust that eventually people will see them as so.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. There's a reason I chose those specific examples.

Red Brigades, for all their failings, DID have a substantial base of support among the working class in the beginning of their history. Even the 1st generation of Red Army Faction had a certain degree of support among Germany's youth...there were some polls that said that around 50% supported an aggressive militant movement attacking capital, if I remember correctly? In the USA members of the radical abolitionists and radical labor activists, even though they were minorities in comparison to the population at large, still had large bases of support that held up even when things got ugly. Trying to quantify a movement's or group's actual support is difficult, but not impossible in my opinion.

So the question is not "oh, we're a minority in comparison to the country's population, we're a weirdo cult then". But ELF/ALF arose out of green anarchy ghettos in Eugene and elsewhere, and really has no substantial base of support at all, even in the "environmentalist movement".

It also goes back to what the fundamental role of the militant is. I personally don't believe that "class consciousness" has much to do with our efforts (having been indoctrinated by "nihilist communism" and certain left communist texts), and I don't really believe that preaching the gospel of socialism at every march and rally is going to move us any closer to communism. And I certainly don't believe that burning down stores and other soft targets is doing any good at all, in any sense.

[EvilRedGuy]

Lenin wore fur dude.
Also,please,explain to me what makes a "luxury" "bougreois".
Thanks.

Lenin was bourgeois.

Yes i said it, Lenin is from the Bourgeoisie class. Before he couldn't afford fur, but just like all these pseudo-revolutionaries on this site you too will become apart of the Bourgeoisie and wear fur. Fuck you.

[tir1944]

Lenin was bourgeois.
Really? He was? :laugh:



Yes i said it, Lenin is from the Bourgeoisie class.

For real dude?



Before he couldn't afford fur
And how do you know that?
Conclusion:those who wear fur are bourgeois?

Dude i just hope you're trolling...

[Aspiring Humanist]

Banning animal farming would be nice in the long term but burning down the store doesn't help. The animals are dead anyways, the least we could do is make sure they didn't die in vain. Why not "reappropriate" the furs and put the fur company out of business that way? It's just as effective and it's better to get arrested for shoplifting than arson!


Anyways it's a waste of time, even as far as animal rights are concerned there are much more intelligent forms of activism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs

NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART
NSFW
DONT WATCH IF YOU GET SICK EASILY OR HAVE A SLIGHT GLIMMER OF EMPATHY IN YOUR COLD INHUMANE HEART

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't need to watch videos. I trapped for a while, which means I caught, killed, skinned and stretched furbearers. It's a pretty common way to make extra money in a lot of areas.

Actually, it's usually the people that have never trapped, never hunted, never fished, never been around animals, never seen where their food comes from and/or what kind of impact human existence actually has on animals that push the "animal rights" crap.

Petty-bourgeois environmentalism is huge in urban areas, suburbs, and among "back to nature" slumming burnouts. It's not real popular among people who actually have contact with wild animals on a regular basis.

I saw my first deer gutted when I was around 5. It doesn't bother me at all to see it or do it. I took a friend hunting once who had never seen it and he was disgusted at age 17. I took another friend from Korea hunting who saw their first deer kill and gutting at age 28. They weren't bothered at all. But they had also seen their food (fish, seafood, some others) butchered before they ate them throughout their life.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

BTW, emotional appeals are the lowest form of debate. That's why anti-woman abortion opponents show up at clinics with huge photos of aborted fetuses (and sometimes still born infants).

And, like the woman said:

"Fur fashion gets reduced to the bloodied corpse, the manacles, the cries of pain. Looking at a beautiful coat, they see not the artful object but the slain animal. ‘Fur looks better on its original owners’, says PETA, with the implication that on the animal fur is alive while on us it is merely dead stuff.

"This is exactly the opposite of the truth. Just as a butterfly is never aware of the beautiful patterns on its wings, so a mink will wear its soft coat until death without ever appreciating it. For the mink, fur is just something that it carries around in the battle to survive, like claws or teeth."

I'd also mention that a lot of fur is wild trapped. The better stuff especially. Wild trapped animals are usually killed swiftly, with little to no pain (things like conibears and drowning sets see to that). Of course, don't get let little facts get in the way of big lies.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

*chortle*chortle*chortle*

Don't post pictures. :)

But videos are okay, right? I mean, as long as they agree with your animal worship that is.

[Vanguard1917]

Banning animal farming would be nice in the long term but burning down the store doesn't help.

Banning animal farming would actually be far worse than one store being burnt down by a few crackpots. It would entail state sanction of a ludicrous idea ('animal liberation'), and it would criminalise the wishes of the vast majority of humanity.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually, it's usually the people that have never trapped, never hunted, never fished, never been around animals, never seen where their food comes from and/or what kind of impact human existence actually has on animals that push the "animal rights" crap.

Yeah. I've been in conversations with people in suburban areas and on the internet about hunting, and they talk about it like it's some barbaric throwback tradition (and these are people who eat meat, too!) I'm forced to remind them that there are places (such as where I grew up) where getting meat isn't quite as convenient or inexpensive as it is where they live. A lot of these conversations come up when Sarah Palin is the subject, aka "Sarah Palin kills things, what a dumb hick". It's like, well, there's a lot of obvious reasons to not like Sarah Palin, but the fact is that a lot of people living in the area she lived in still live a "subsistence lifestyle", and I think a lot of the rhetoric surrounding her reeks of bigotry towards rural people.

I'm not really bothered by blood and guts, either. I grew up around dead deer, rabbits, fish etc. and had to butcher them, pull guts out, and all the other things associated with harvesting meat. There are quite a few trappers here, too, and I know plenty who do it responsibly (aka they check their traps regularly, not come back once a week to find a dead dog in their snare).

[Zav]

This made my day. The ALF/ELF haven't been very active the past few years, though perhaps they had smartened up and just stopped spray-painting acronyms and identifying slogans (adds fuel to the right-wing machine, you know). A gram of direct action is worth a tonne of theory.

EDIT: Here we go again... :/

[EvilRedGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs

NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART
NSFW
DONT WATCH IF YOU GET SICK EASILY OR HAVE A SLIGHT GLIMMER OF EMPATHY IN YOUR COLD INHUMANE HEART


Thats so fucked up. I can't believe psychopaths like 'Nothing Human Is Alien(and those deserve to die, right?)' can sit there and just accept. Some people just have several issues they need to get paste. Rehabilitation center for them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I watched one get skinned but couldn't bear to see anymore....so fucking barbaric! Made me wanna puke! FUCK ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS SHIT! :mad:

[blackandyellow]

That videos not very nice. Thankfully theres people prepared to do this, so those of us who dont like seeing that sort of thing dont have to, but can still enjoy the produce (fuck, i dont have a fur coat actually)

Does anyone know why they dont just kill the animal before they skin it though? Seems abit odd.

[Aspiring Humanist]

BTW, emotional appeals are the lowest form of debate. That's why anti-woman abortion opponents show up at clinics with huge photos of aborted fetuses (and sometimes still born infants).

And, like the woman said:

"Fur fashion gets reduced to the bloodied corpse, the manacles, the cries of pain. Looking at a beautiful coat, they see not the artful object but the slain animal. ‘Fur looks better on its original owners’, says PETA, with the implication that on the animal fur is alive while on us it is merely dead stuff.

"This is exactly the opposite of the truth. Just as a butterfly is never aware of the beautiful patterns on its wings, so a mink will wear its soft coat until death without ever appreciating it. For the mink, fur is just something that it carries around in the battle to survive, like claws or teeth."

I'd also mention that a lot of fur is wild trapped. The better stuff especially. Wild trapped animals are usually killed swiftly, with little to no pain (things like conibears and drowning sets see to that). Of course, don't get let little facts get in the way of big lies.

Not appealing to emotion, someone said that they are dead before they are skinned so I posted a video that showed live animals being skinned

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yea normally they are killed long before they are skinned.

The best furs are taken wild, in traps. A lot of traps kill instantly. Conibears kill instantly. Drowning sets kill instantly. Otherwise they are dispatched in the trap. Good trappers check their lines every day. Some states require it. The animals are often asleep in the traps. You do a swift dispatch and that's that. Some trappers skin them. Some stretch them. Some freeze them and sell them "on the round." Some tan them themselves. It all depends. No one does it to live animals, probably not least of all because they enjoy the use of their hands.

The majority of furbearers are dispatched first, and later, skinned like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN5DtsbDIWU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN5DtsbDIWU)

If they are skinned alive that sounds like a fur farm, and it sounds like it has to do with labor time, with capitalist owners wanting to cut down on the amount they have to pay workers.... same as speed ups in any other industry. So of course the answer to that is to abolish private property in the means of production. That's an argument against capital, not against harvesting animals to satisfy human wants and needs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thats so fucked up. I can't believe psychopaths like 'Nothing Human Is Alien(and those deserve to die, right?)' can sit there and just accept. Some people just have several issues they need to get paste. Rehabilitation center for them.

It's probably the people that so alienated from their own environment that they're not capable of participating in the production of things that satisfy their own wants and needs that are the ones most need in need of help.

Humans have been harvesting plants and animals throughout our existence as a species (fur is what allowed the migration out of Africa, for one). To argue that such acts are repulsive frankly stinks of some of the most severe remoteness and debasing worship of nature that I've ever encountered.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Yes I can see it now
"in further news, an socialist gang burned down a fur store. Let's morn the losses and reason to kill another 100,000 thousand dollars in animals."

People watching say
"what a bunch of leftist idiots."

[Magón]

I'm still fucking pissed from the last time I checked this thread out, I can't get my fur coats and fireworks all at the same place.

FUCK YOU ALF!!!!

[black magick hustla]

who cares they are dumb animals. i had some patties today they were delicious. this whole animal liberation thing is completely alien to me, its like some suburban white shit

[Tifosi]

I watched one get skinned but couldn't bear to see anymore....so fucking barbaric! Made me wanna puke! FUCK ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS SHIT! :mad:

But nobody here supports that shit from that video do they. There are ways to kill the animal humanely, like NHIA said.

Like with Chickens, you keep them calm for the entire process so they don't know what is going on. Go in and get it in the dark, grap it's legs, hold it upside down and in a swift movement break it's neck by pulling down. The Chicken will flap around like crazy (nervous reaction) but it will be dead at this point. It's doesn't know what the fuck happened, and you've got dinner.

Have you even seen an animal being killed in real life before? Have you ever caught a fish or something?

[Zav]

Meat-eaters are akin to those smokers who can't see anything wrong with what they're doing. I see no way that unnecessary killing can be humane. If you're lost in Nunavut, then yes, you need to hunt to survive, but virtually no one is in that situation and has the need for animal products, and the meat and fur industries just satisfy greed.

[black magick hustla]

snip

[black magick hustla]

Meat-eaters are akin to those smokers who can't see anything wrong with what they're doing. I see no way that unnecessary killing can be humane. If you're lost in Nunavut, then yes, you need to hunt to survive, but virtually no one is in that situation and has the need for animal products, and the meat and fur industries just satisfy greed.

Iym7PuerE0U

start from 5:00

[ZeroNowhere]

Meat-eaters are akin to those smokers who can't see anything wrong with what they're doing. I see no way that unnecessary killing can be humane.I'm not sure how this analogy makes sense. Surely if you were to actually apply it, your concern would not be with the humanity or inhumanity of unnecessary killing, but with the health effects of eating meat? It's not clear how your actual argument relates at all to the analogy.


I watched one get skinned but couldn't bear to see anymore....so fucking barbaric! Made me wanna puke! FUCK ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS SHIT! :mad:
!!!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

But nobody here supports that shit from that video do they. There are ways to kill the animal humanely, like NHIA said.

Like with Chickens, you keep them calm for the entire process so they don't know what is going on. Go in and get it in the dark, grap it's legs, hold it upside down and in a swift movement break it's neck by pulling down. The Chicken will flap around like crazy (nervous reaction) but it will be dead at this point. It's doesn't know what the fuck happened, and you've got dinner.


Which is my point: if you are going to kill something than do it quick and with the least amount of pain possible...this is to say don's skin something alive! (*shudder*) ....I don't have a problem with eating meat nor am I in favor of giving animals "rights," but I do believe that they should be treated like living creatures and not objects.


Have you even seen an animal being killed in real life before? Have you ever caught a fish or something?

I've killed fish before when I was little,though I can't say I enjoyed it.I also used to abuse animals though deeply regret it now.

[EvilRedGuy]

I don't see whats wrong with giving Animals "Animal Rights"

Not human rights though.

[thefinalmarch]

I don't see whats wrong with giving Animals "Animal Rights"

Not human rights though.
Giving animals rights would deprive the majority of humanity of their needs and wants. I don't want to live in some vegan dystopia where the consumption of meat is forbidden and so is the wearing of any animal-derived clothing/accessories. Many humans today rely on meat as a major source of protein and nutrients in general, and more so those who live in rural areas or where agriculture is impossible, inefficient or otherwise impractical. Animals are also a vital source of test subjects for millions of medicines and drugs which have probably saved billions of human lives by now, which would have otherwise ended abruptly and tragically from preventable or curable illnesses.

You don't have to be anthropocentric as fuck like I am to realise that we humans have always relied upon animals to maintain our civilisation, and there's no conceivable reason why we should give up such an indispensable resource at the risk of running that very civilisation into the ground.

[EvilRedGuy]

Giving animals rights would deprive the majority of humanity of their needs and wants. I don't want to live in some vegan dystopia where the consumption of meat is forbidden and so is the wearing of any animal-derived clothing/accessories. Many humans today rely on meat as a major source of protein and nutrients in general, and more so those who live in rural areas or where agriculture is impossible, inefficient or otherwise impractical. Animals are also a vital source of test subjects for millions of medicines and drugs which have probably saved billions of human lives by now, which would have otherwise ended abruptly and tragically from preventable or curable illnesses.

You don't have to be anthropocentric as fuck like I am to realise that we humans have always relied upon animals to maintain our civilisation, and there's no conceivable reason why we should give up such an indispensable resource at the risk of running that very civilisation into the ground.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but you completely misunderstood my post.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace." - Rudolph Rocker

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't see whats wrong with giving Animals "Animal Rights"

Not human rights though.

Essentially you mean that animals should be given their own set of rights so that people would have to treat them better.These rights however do not exempt them from being slaughtered.

Is that the gist of it?

[Quail]

It's probably the people that so alienated from their own environment that they're not capable of participating in the production of things that satisfy their own wants and needs that are the ones most need in need of help.

Humans have been harvesting plants and animals throughout our existence as a species (fur is what allowed the migration out of Africa, for one). To argue that such acts are repulsive frankly stinks of some of the most severe remoteness and debasing worship of nature that I've ever encountered.
How is it relevant to argue that we needed fur in the past so therefore we should continue to use it?

I don't object to people eating meat or using fur if that's what they need to do to survive, but for most people it isn't necessary. I don't put animals above humans or even on a level with humans, but causing them to suffer for no reason just seems unfeeling and barbaric to me.

[Leftsolidarity]

This is the same fucking discussion we had in the thread about PETA making porn.

[Art Vandelay]

This is the same fucking discussion we had in the thread about PETA making porn.

I have not read it all but seems to be the same discussion in the hunting thread as well, with some of the same posters throwing out the same arguments.

[Leftsolidarity]

I have not read it all but seems to be the same discussion in the hunting thread as well, with some of the same posters throwing out the same arguments.

Same people, same arguments, different thread

[Luís Henrique]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-animalrights-idUSTRE78Q08A20110927

Haven't seen any major ALF activity in a little while, hope to see more.

Stupid arseholes. Why don't they do mother earth a favour and kill themselves for good? I am sure their corpses would be quite useful as fertiliser.

Luís Henrique

[danyboy27]

I think its obvious that nobody here who agree with killing for fur or meat also agree for useless or cruel killing of animals.

On a more humane perspective, i think that if someone really want to show respect to a slain animal, the best way to do so is to use every part of it; the skin the bones, the meat, the blood, the fat, everything should be used.

The process is not really different than what happen when a human is killed by a bear or a pack of wolve in Nature. They kill us, eat what they can, then the other animals come around to get the rest of the stuff and what is not eaten is absorbed by the ground or eaten by insects.

[Luís Henrique]

Obviously burning a fur store isn't going to overthrow the capitalist system. But downplaying direct action against the bourgeoisie and making activists seem like crazy pyromaniacs that the average person can't identify with at all is what the capitalists would want

Except this wasn't "direct action against the bourgeoisie". And yes, making activists seem like crazy pyromaniacs is what the capitalists would want - which is a good reason that we shouldn't act like crazy pyromaniacs first place.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

So if the average person was pro-slavery would it be wrong to attack slavemasters' houses or the like?

Don't you count slaves as people, when you make your "average"?


We can't just sit around awaiting some undefined awaking of the masses to do anything. While I'm no proposer of the propaganda of the deed concept I do feel that actions bring attention and sometimes support to a cause.

Two different things:

First, any thing is not necessarily better than nothing; and any thing that doesn't involve "the masses" is quite certainly worse than nothing.

Second, "animal liberation" is probably the most stupid cause I can think of. What's the purpose of feigning a struggle to "liberate" creatures that cannot even understand the idea of liberation?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Alright, don't let the door hit you on the way out ;)

I fear there will be no doors in your "revolution" either...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Just the fact that NHIA would actually wear such a hideous piece of clothing... Even if it's synthetic fur. Jesus :bored: It's more like "If I can't dress like a complete flake I don't want to be a part of your revolution". Yeah don't worry that's no problem with me. Do your pants look like that too?

And what other dresses would your "revolution" ban?

Sorry, but I can't be arsed by a "revolution" that imposes dressing codes based on petty bourgeois morality. If I wanted something like that I would just cross the street and join the evangelical church there.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Every road, house, hospital, chemical, medicine, airplane, car, computer, electric line, battery, etc., etc., etc., directly causes the deaths of animals.

Animals kill animals, all the time. The only way to stop this bloody orgy is to kill all animals...

Luís Henrique

[Leftsolidarity]

Don't you count slaves as people, when you make your "average"?

Stupid question. You understand what was meant.


Two different things:

First, any thing is not necessarily better than nothing; and any thing that doesn't involve "the masses" is quite certainly worse than nothing.

Second, "animal liberation" is probably the most stupid cause I can think of. What's the purpose of feigning a struggle to "liberate" creatures that cannot even understand the idea of liberation?

Luís Henrique

You're right but I feel this is better than nothing. So without "the masses" nothing should be done? I think you'll find it rough to get anything done with that idea.

How is that a stupid cause? Ah, so if you think that a being isn't able to understand the concept of liberation you think it doesn't deserve it? You just opened up a certain door WIDE open for me to critize. Hopefully me pointing that out will make you want to retract your statement first. If you still think that, well I don't like you, to say the least.

[Luís Henrique]

Stupid question. You understand what was meant.

Yes, I understand it very well. With saying "critters = slaves", you end up with the logical consequence: "slaves = critters". This is unavoidable. As you can't bring animals up to human level, you necessarily end lowering oppressed humans to the level of animals.

So, again: why don't you consider slaves as people, when you calculate your average people?


You're right but I feel this is better than nothing. So without "the masses" nothing should be done? I think you'll find it rough to get anything done with that idea.

You think like that because you distrust and despise the "masses".


How is that a stupid cause? Ah, so if you think that a being isn't able to understand the concept of liberation you think it doesn't deserve it?

How it isn't a stupid cause? How can you even imagine "animal liberation"? Animals aren't members of a society, they can't follow rules, they can't understand the idea of rights and duties, they can't respect each others' "rights". It is complete foolery.


You just opened up a certain door WIDE open for me to critize.

So make your criticism.


Hopefully me pointing that out will make you want to retract your statement first. If you still think that, well I don't like you, to say the least.

"Animal liberation" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of - and I have heard plenty of very stupid ideas. Indeed, it is a stupid, reactionary, and misanthropic idea. So what now? You don't like me? I can live with that, be sure. :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique