Alf/elf

[DasFapital]

What is are some of the views here in regards to the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front?

[The Jay]

I don't have one. Are they anything like this: http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18140957

If they are, then I would hold a very low one. Attacking cosmetics labs is one thing. Attacking a cancer research lab is another.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Re the ALF:

"..in 1999, a freelance reporter, Graham Hall, said he had been attacked after producing a documentary critical of the ALF, which was aired on Channel 4. The documentary showed ALF press officer, Robin Webb, appearing to give Hall—who was filming undercover and purporting to be an activist—advice about how to make an improvised explosive device, though Webb said his comments had been used out of context. Hall said that, as a result of the documentary, he was abducted, tied to a chair, and had the letters "ALF" branded on his back, before being released 12 hours later with a warning not to tell the police." (Wiki)

I understand and could even agree with some of the ideas and aims of these groups, but their tactics are no better than pro-life radicals (intimidation, death threats, fire-bombing). It's just so fucking viscious and single-minded...also rarely hear them come up with viable alternatives to the animal testing and they give no support to institutions that promote alternatives (like the CAAT)

[Ele'ill]

They say animal liberation is human liberation but I think human liberation is animal liberation and the order is important. Environmental actions put a smile on my face.

[Mr. Natural]

I'm a "Judi Bari deep ecologist." Unlike most Earth First!ers such as Dave Foreman, Judi understood that socialist revolution as a mass movement of aware workers/people was required, and that forest workers and forest protectors needed to come together to fight against the common enemy of capitalism.

ELF has already been rolled up by the FBI and other government agencies. Do comrades really believe underground cells torching auto agencies and lodges can possibly endure and wake the American people up and motivate them to take on capitalism? Comrades who believe this are severely out of touch with the power of current Western capitalist states and their police and surveillance capabilities. Then there is the problem of the political ignorance and conservatism of Western peoples, which is greatest in the US.

As for ALF, it manifests a nasty theme of misanthrophy, and if it has politics, they are reactionary.

Socialist revolution is possible in the West, but it will have to first recognize the systemic effects of the global triumph of capitalism and attend to the wholesale mental and physical envelopment of the human species by the capitalist system's institutions and values. Humanity's present state is akin to some dire work of science fiction: an alien system has invaded Earth and captured its life forms.

Life generates a sustainable surplus (profit) of energy with which it maintains its communities. Life produces for community. Capitalism, on the other hand, attacks human and non-human forms of community to manufacture a runaway profit--a cancer of living community.

It's really that simple. My red-green best.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I'm a "Judi Bari deep ecologist." Unlike most Earth First!ers such as Dave Foreman, Judi understood that socialist revolution as a mass movement of aware workers/people was required, and that forest workers and forest protectors needed to come together to fight against the common enemy of capitalism.

ELF has already been rolled up by the FBI and other government agencies. Do comrades really believe underground cells torching auto agencies and lodges can possibly endure and wake the American people up and motivate them to take on capitalism? Comrades who believe this are severely out of touch with the power of current Western capitalist states and their police and surveillance capabilities. Then there is the problem of the political ignorance and conservatism of Western peoples, which is greatest in the US.

As for ALF, it manifests a nasty theme of misanthrophy, and if it has politics, they are reactionary.

Socialist revolution is possible in the West, but it will have to first recognize the systemic effects of the global triumph of capitalism and attend to the wholesale mental and physical envelopment of the human species by the capitalist system's institutions and values. Humanity's present state is akin to some dire work of science fiction: an alien system has invaded Earth and captured its life forms.

Life generates a sustainable surplus (profit) of energy with which it maintains its communities. Life produces for community. Capitalism, on the other hand, attacks human and non-human forms of community to manufacture a runaway profit--a cancer of living community.

It's really that simple. My red-green best.

ALF is not misanthropic. And in what way is it ractionary?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Sorry if this thread is completely done. My bad if it was.:blushing:

[Mr. Natural]

TheMza, The thread is not done if you re-open it. I live in the US and identify as a deep ecologist and "amateur naturalist" and my comments re-ALF were based on the considerable anecdotal evidence of ALF "misanthropy" I come across. Indeed, the overwhelming impression I get is that ALF has abandoned humanity to embrace animal rights. You seem to have ALF connections or counter-information that would be worth posting. You might consider opening an ALF thread somewhere if this is so.

As to ALF's "reactionary politics," my remark was made in half-assed reference to what I see as ALF's lack of concern for the human condition and its avoidance of any "people politics." ALF has seemed to me to be an often fanatical "animal liberation front" that has abandoned humanity.

I'm a very committed supporter of "animal rights," but know the "animal situation" cannot be resolved without a resolution of the human dilemma. Humanity must establish community/communism with itself and the rest of life. We must learn to share life with each other and the many other beings, and communist relations are living relations.

Mac, my much-loved McNab, approves this message. My red-green best.

[Igor]

http://www.tvequals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/alf-on-the-phone.jpg

that's what i think

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

TheMza, The thread is not done if you re-open it. I live in the US and identify as a deep ecologist and "amateur naturalist" and my comments re-ALF were based on the considerable anecdotal evidence of ALF "misanthropy" I come across. Indeed, the overwhelming impression I get is that ALF has abandoned humanity to embrace animal rights. You seem to have ALF connections or counter-information that would be worth posting. You might consider opening an ALF thread somewhere if this is so.

As to ALF's "reactionary politics," my remark was made in half-assed reference to what I see as ALF's lack of concern for the human condition and its avoidance of any "people politics." ALF has seemed to me to be an often fanatical "animal liberation front" that has abandoned humanity.

I'm a very committed supporter of "animal rights," but know the "animal situation" cannot be resolved without a resolution of the human dilemma. Humanity must establish community/communism with itself and the rest of life. We must learn to share life with each other and the many other beings, and communist relations are living relations.

Mac, my much-loved McNab, approves this message. My red-green best.

Well, I don't have connections to them, but I am very interested and supportive of their cause. And there are those in the movement that seem to be misanthropic, but it's a large movement. There are many different views, even people who are communists, and all its variants. Maybe the people that seem to hate humanity, probably don't mean it. If you put your heart into helping animals, and you're seeing all the horrible things keep happening to them, you'd probably get very angry. I would also agree with you that animal rights will definitely be a more realistic goal, with capitalism out of the way.

:)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know the personal views of their members/supporters, so I'm going to talk more generally about environmental and animal groups - but my overall impression of their approach is that it's lacking in that it's a moralistic approach. Rather than class-based approaches to these issues, it's the self-appointed specialists who learn specific techniques and skills. I think this is more common in the animal and environmental movements across the board, so I don't think we can really "point fingers" at these groups specifically. Most groups go the NGO-route on these issues and ALF is the radical-liberal version of special lawyers who have skills in battling corporations in the courts: one has a suit and the other a pair of pliers for opening cages but it's more similar than not in the larger view.

Ultimately, the problem isn't the interaction of humans and animals or even corporations and animals, it's a problem of commodification and how and why things are produced or researched. If there was mass democratic control over production and resources then it would be possible to "change minds" and then change the ways things are done. It does no good now because most people are already against pollution or nuclear war, but we also don't have any meaningful control over that. We need to change the system, not change attitudes and that's an argument we should be trying to make with environmentalists and activists.

This isn't to say that reforms can't be achieved or that they would be worthless, but to be effective from a working class view, they would need to be tied into building a mass movement that raises the question of who gets to control the air and sea and animals and why... and hopefully develop to pose an alternative.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think they're ridiculous. They won't stop animal research or experimenting, at least not until capitalism is overcome.

Also, I don't care about animal testing if human progress and well being is on the line.

[Mr. Natural]

If the human species ever establishes anarchist/communist social relations, the human species will care very much about our relations with the rest of life. We will be living as "life with awareness of itself," in a spirit of sharing and community. We will not stand outside and above life, but will be immersed in conscious, living relations.

Marx: "This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man ...." (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts)

Also from the Manuscripts: "That man's physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

As for ALF, it should be pointing to and linking capitalism's capture, exploitation, and torture of all life forms. Capitalism has imprisoned humanity in mental cages expressing its values and institutions and is increasingly imprisoning people in actual physical prisons. We are all draft animals on Maggie's Farm now, whether we are people or horses, and it seems to me that ALF could seed revolutionary crops from such a theoretical stance.

But now we're back to ALF's current "reactionary?" "liberal?" politics and its general blindness to the godawful reality of capitalism's takeover of life on Earth.

My red-green best

[Fourth Internationalist]

According to official ALF guidelines (from their website), they don't advocate violence. So they're cool with me!

The ALF's guidelines according to their website...

1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.
2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

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

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

5. To analyze the ramifications of any proposed action and never apply generalizations (e.g. all 'blank' are evil) when specific information is available.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd recommend everyone to watch these before judging these groups.

"If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front"
&
"Behind the Mask" 2006 documentary

[Jimmie Higgins]

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

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

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

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

5. To analyze the ramifications of any proposed action and never apply generalizations (e.g. all 'blank' are evil) when specific information is available.
Thank you, yes it's best to look at what people have to say about their strategy rather than just generalize or use anecdotal things, as I was doing:blushing:.

But I do think my general point as far as a political critique of these kinds of strategies is reflected in their points above. All of these things require "activist action" not working class action or a mass movement aiming for more popular control over the conditions that lead to these kinds of abuses. So really I think if you look at the goals of those points, almost all of them could be shared as the goals of a Liberal advocacy nonprofit. Rather than seeing activists as the protagonists, however, they would see lawyers battling in the courts to "liberate animals from specific bad production sites and companies (injunctions)" and to "inflict economic damage (lawsuits)" as well as PR campaigns to "raise awareness" etc.

So ultimately, while it's good that people are fighting for these things, I think it comes up short of what's needed and the strategy can't achieve the kind of movement that would win major reforms let alone real revolution in the relationship between humans and the natural world (which ultimately would take a wholesale re-organization of social and productive relationships).

[Mr. Natural]

I see some of this discussion as having a stark response: If you aren't aware of the nature of the capitalist system and aren't consciously opposing capitalist relations in a manner that creates popular understanding, your actions will be ultimately futile and you will be objectively working within and for The System.

ELF seems to be a good example for the preceding statement. If ELF didn't exist, the FBI would want to create it.

Judi Bari, a revolutionary socialist deep ecologist, emphasized organizing forest workers and forest protectors, and not arming them. Judi was not averse to revolutionary violence, but understood the prevailing situation. The rest of Earth First!, though, concentrated on penny ante acts of sabotage and forest mischief, and the FBI eventually nailed Dave Foreman and rolled Earth First! up.

Earth First! is still around in remnants, and I've read that Earth First!ers party a lot at their annual gathering in the woods and dance drunkenly around campfires and drink beer from each other's butt cracks. Perhaps it is now the "Belly up around the campfire, Boys!" group Foreman always wanted. But: Bah, humbug!

My red-green, Judi Barian best.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

According to official ALF guidelines (from their website), they don't advocate violence. So they're cool with me!

They're professed ideologues with a bias towards non-human life. Why should they be taken at their word?


The ALF's guidelines according to their website...

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

In the "direct actions" I'm aware of this is hardly if ever the case. The ALF would have to have a fleet of transportation vehicles designed to carry large amounts of animals comfortably for long distances, which given their likely funding I don't think they possess.

Instead, we see animals such as mink and other foreign species being released into the local environment in large quantities, which has nothing but a negative effect.


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

Problem for the ALF: Large companies can either afford generous insurance policies, or they can comfortably accommodate the financial impact of such actions due to the size of their operation. Or they're working on a government contract and thus it is not actually the company's money the ALF are throwing on the flames of righteousness.

Of course, the alternative of targeting smaller businesses also places one in the business of pushing people (that is, fellow human beings) into shittier jobs or even destitution.


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

The ALF don't think people are aware that animals die to provide them things like meat and leather? Maybe if they're under a certain age, but we all grow up. Eventually.


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

Does this include animals released which later die from starvation or predation, due to having lived all their life in captivity?


5. To analyze the ramifications of any proposed action and never apply generalizations (e.g. all 'blank' are evil) when specific information is available.

Like number one, this point the ELF seems to apply only in theory, rather than in practice as as well.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah I think the Bari approach (from the little I know of it) seems very positive and I hope that with the economic crisis and rise in some class fight-back (as well as how recent capitalist "natural" disasters like the BP spill or the nuclear plants in Japan etc generally hit the poor and working class while industry gets bailed out from the disasters they cause) there will be a shift in environmental struggles.

I hope the keep the butt-crack beer drinking though :lol:

[Fourth Internationalist]

They're professed ideologues with a bias towards non-human life. Why should they be taken at their word?

I hope that's not actually how you choose who is honest and who is not.


In the "direct actions" I'm aware of this is hardly if ever the case. The ALF would have to have a fleet of transportation vehicles designed to carry large amounts of animals comfortably for long distances, which given their likely funding I don't think they possess.

They don't liberate whole farms. They can't. They have taken animals such as rabbits from fur farms and animal testing facilities and were then found new homes.


Instead, we see animals such as mink and other foreign species being released into the local environment in large quantities, which has nothing but a negative effect.

This is the one thing some of the ALF does that I don't support. People I've talked to who also support the ALF also usually agree that simply releasing them is not a good idea especially because they're not wild.


Problem for the ALF: Large companies can either afford generous insurance policies, or they can comfortably accommodate the financial impact of such actions due to the size of their operation. Or they're working on a government contract and thus it is not actually the company's money the ALF are throwing on the flames of righteousness.

I don't think they really attack huge corporations.


Of course, the alternative of targeting smaller businesses also places one in the business of pushing people (that is, fellow human beings) into shittier jobs or even destitution.

If someone is torturing animals for a living, they deserve to no longer have that source of income.


The ALF don't think people are aware that animals die to provide them things like meat and leather? Maybe if they're under a certain age, but we all grow up. Eventually.

They're talking about factory farms, animal testing labs, and fur farms, all of which inflict great pain on animals. **

PETA has a lot of information on how awful those types of places are for animals.*


Does this include animals released which later die from starvation or predation, due to having lived all their life in captivity?

It should.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hope that's not actually how you choose who is honest and who is not.

Why not? Actions speak louder than words do they not?


They don't liberate whole farms. They can't. They have taken animals such as rabbits from fur farms and animal testing facilities and were then found new homes.

None of which even begins to address the root causes for why fur farming or animal testing occur.


This is the one thing some of the ALF does that I don't support. People I've talked to who also support the ALF also usually agree that simply releasing them is not a good idea especially because they're not wild.

Does this not also apply to the relatively small amounts of animals taken by the ALF from fur farms and laboratories?


I don't think they really attack huge corporations.

Well, they are responsible for the larger part of what ALF are against, no?


If someone is torturing animals for a living, they deserve to no longer have that source of income.

Fur farm workers and animal lab technicians don't do that, however. Any distress caused during the process is an unfortunate side-effect that should be minimised as far as is practical, but since they contribute to the comfort and safety of human beings I think we would do well to continue them, improving as we go. Unlike say, crush videos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_film), where inflicting pain and distress for human pleasure is an integral and essential part of such practices.


They're talking about factory farms, animal testing labs, and fur farms, all of which inflict great pain on animals. **

PETA has a lot of information on how awful those types of places are for animals.*

Sounds like a damn good reason to improve our processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin), but not to eliminate them altogether.


It should.

Then what facilities does the ALF have for re-releasing animals back into their native habitats? When RSPB Scotland released sea eagles in the Scottish wilderness (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14505322), they first had to rear the chicks until they were old enough to fledge. This kind of operation requires not only suitable premises dependent on what species of animal they are dealing with, but also expertise borne of both training and experience. Can the ALF demonstrate they have these things, which represent an absolute minimum requirement for worthwhile environmental/animal welfare tasks?

[Jazzratt]

If someone is torturing animals for a living, they deserve to no longer have that source of income.
People who work in labs that test on animals aren't simply "torturing" animals for shits and giggles. Animal experimentation always serves an end in increasing our understanding of the biological sciences. I think that placing the wellbeing of animals over the advances made possible by animal experimentation is misguided at best and actively inimical to human understanding and dominance of nature at worst.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why not? Actions speak louder than words do they not?

How is believing in animals rights a way to judge someone's honesty? That seems to me what you were talking about. Correct me if that's not why your original statement was referring to.


None of which even begins to address the root causes for why fur farming or animal testing occur.

Neither did the Underground Railroad.


Does this not also apply to the relatively small amounts of animals taken by the ALF from fur farms and laboratories?

I don't understand what you're saying.


Well, they are responsible for the larger part of what ALF are against, no?

They are, but as you said, it would do very little damage and is thus not going to help the cause much.


Fur farm workers and animal lab technicians don't do that, however. Any distress caused during the process is an unfortunate side-effect that should be minimised as far as is practical, but since they contribute to the comfort and safety of human beings I think we would do well to continue them, improving as we go. Unlike say,*, where inflicting pain and distress for human pleasure is an integral and essential part of such practices.*

This statement reminds me of democratic socialists who believe the free market is good.

Fur farms often keep multiple animals in tiny wire cages. In China, where a majority of fur for clothes comes from, animals have been seen skinned alive. You can even google the videos if you like or go to PETA's website.

The majority of animal testing is cosmetic testing which often involve dripping chemicals into the eyes of animals and other awful things. More videos can be found either through google or PETA.


Sounds like a damn good reason to , but not to eliminate them altogether.

I agree that we should improve them if humanity is unwilling to give all beings the right to live freely.


Then what facilities does the ALF have for re-releasing animals back into their native habitats? When RSPB Scotland released sea eagles in the Scottish wilderness[/url], they first had to rear the chicks until they were old enough to fledge. This kind of operation requires not only suitable premises dependent on what species of animal they are dealing with, but also expertise borne of both training and experience. Can the ALF demonstrate they have these things, which represent an absolute minimum requirement for worthwhile environmental/animal welfare tasks?

I said they should. It doesn't mean the ALF people that do it do so. Anyone who does release such animals into the wild in my opinion and even their guidelines cannot be considered and ALF member. It's unfortunately difficult to say who is a member and who is not as the ALF is not an organization but individuals who follow the guidelines. Some people who claim to be a part should not; those people seem more like "Animal Rights Militia" people who advocate violence in the name of animal rights where the ALF advocates economic sabotage and civil disobedience.

[Luís Henrique]

where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

The contradiction is staggering and ridiculous.

There is no such thing as "natural lives free from suffering". Nature abounds with suffering, animals make each others suffer as a rule.

To the OP, these abominable fooleries are a byproduct of capitalist development. Less necessary labour time, more idiots with too much time on their hands and too little substance within their skulls.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

People who work in labs that test on animals aren't simply "torturing" animals for shits and giggles. Animal experimentation always serves an end in increasing our understanding of the biological sciences. I think that placing the wellbeing of animals over the advances made possible by animal experimentation is misguided at best and actively inimical to human understanding and dominance of nature at worst.

Animal testing is unnessescary (especially in cosmetic testing) and unreliable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is believing in animals rights a way to judge someone's honesty? That seems to me what you were talking about. Correct me if that's not why your original statement was referring to.

You were judging ALF in light of statements made on a website, which are of less relevance than what ALF actually does.


Neither did the Underground Railroad.

Please don't denigrate the work of the Abolitionists (who did more than just run the UR) by comparing it to what ALF/PETA do.


I don't understand what you're saying.

Even in their native environments, animals suffer horrific fates. This can be compounded by their release into unfamiliar environments, which has occurred in actions linked to the ALF.


They are, but as you said, it would do very little damage and is thus not going to help the cause much.

By targeting smaller businesses, the ALF is effectively giving larger companies within the same industry greater access to the market. What precisely is gained by driving smaller companies (which may be more amenable to pressure) out of business?


This statement reminds me of democratic socialists who believe the free market is good.

Fur farms often keep multiple animals in tiny wire cages. In China, where a majority of fur for clothes comes from, animals have been seen skinned alive. You can even google the videos if you like or go to PETA's website.

Does the ALF have a presence in China? If not, what is the relevance?


The majority of animal testing is cosmetic testing which often involve dripping chemicals into the eyes of animals and other awful things. More videos can be found either through google or PETA.

Funny thing about cosmetics is that they sometimes end up in the eyes of customers. Since companies don't like being sued by humans blinded by their products, they test them on animals first.


I agree that we should improve them if humanity is unwilling to give all beings the right to live freely.

But that's animal welfare, not animal rights.


I said they should. It doesn't mean the ALF people that do it do so. Anyone who does release such animals into the wild in my opinion and even their guidelines cannot be considered and ALF member. It's unfortunately difficult to say who is a member and who is not as the ALF is not an organization but individuals who follow the guidelines. Some people who claim to be a part should not; those people seem more like "Animal Rights Militia" people who advocate violence in the name of animal rights where the ALF advocates economic sabotage and civil disobedience.

My, that's handy. So if an action by ALF is fucked up somehow, meaning it transgresses the "guidelines", ALF and their supporters get to freely disown that action, even if it was carried out by bona fide ALF affiliates. Sounds like a recipe for "doing no wrong".

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2499253]They're professed ideologues with a bias towards non-human life. Why should they be taken at their word?

Where does it say that?

In the "direct actions" I'm aware of this is hardly if ever the case. The ALF would have to have a fleet of transportation vehicles designed to carry large amounts of animals comfortably for long distances, which given their likely funding I don't think they possess.

Which they do. They often bring large cars, and only take as many as they can.

Instead, we see animals such as mink and other foreign species being released into the local environment in large quantities, which has nothing but a negative effect.

Not really. Minks are able to survive, and very few die, which would be better than getting slaughtered in a fur farm. Here's a study.


http://www.animalliberationfrontline.com/liberated-mink-survive-in-the-wild-study-shows/


Problem for the ALF: Large companies can either afford generous insurance policies, or they can comfortably accommodate the financial impact of such actions due to the size of their operation. Or they're working on a government contract and thus it is not actually the company's money the ALF are throwing on the flames of righteousness.

Of course, the alternative of targeting smaller businesses also places one in the business of pushing people (that is, fellow human beings) into shittier jobs or even destitution.

If a target is hit multiple times, insurance companies want nothing to do with them. ALFs tactics have been quite successful in shutting down fur farms, and labs.

The ALF don't think people are aware that animals die to provide them things like meat and leather? Maybe if they're under a certain age, but we all grow up. Eventually.

They are aware. What do you mean?


P.S. I don't mean to attack you. If that's what it seems like, that's not what I'm trying to do.

[Fourth Internationalist]

EDIT: below is not a quote but I accidentally messed up sorry!


You were judging ALF in light of statements made on a website, which are of less relevance than what ALF actually does.

The ALF can only be judged by what it says it is because it's not an organization but are individuals who do direct action in the way the guidelines say. So even if someone claims to be ALF then for example kills someone in the name of animals cannot be considered ALF.

Please don't denigrate the work of the Abolitionists (who did more than just run the UR) by comparing it to what ALF/PETA do.

Just as the UR wasn't the only thing they did the ALF (sabotage etc) isn't the only thing animal rights activists do.

Even in their native environments, animals suffer horrific fates. This can be compounded by their release into unfamiliar environments, which has occurred in actions linked to the ALF.

I know that, but you have to agree life would be much better in the wild versus being packed into tiny metal cages.

By targeting smaller businesses, the ALF is effectively giving larger companies within the same industry greater access to the market. What precisely is gained by driving smaller companies (which may be more amenable to pressure) out of business?

What is gained is that that small business will no longer harm animals. That is seen as a good thing by animal rights advocates.

Does the ALF have a presence in China? If not, what is the relevance?

The relevant part was that they are kept in tiny metal cages. The part about China is to your statement saying fur farmers don't torture animals.

Funny thing about cosmetics is that they sometimes end up in the eyes of customers. Since companies don't like being sued by humans blinded by their products, they test them on animals first.

Cruelty free testing is widely available for cosmetics. That's why so many companies no longer test their products on animals.

But that's animal welfare, not animal rights.

I'd rather have them be in bigger cages and than have them in smaller cages. So would any other animal rights activist.

My, that's handy. So if an action by ALF is fucked up somehow, meaning it transgresses the "guidelines", ALF and their supporters get to freely disown that action, even if it was carried out by bona fide ALF affiliates. Sounds like a recipe for "doing no wrong".

So if I go shooting someone in the name of the CPUSA even though they don't advocate violence it's considered an action by the CPUSA? NO!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wow I think I messed up the quote. Sorry.

[No_Leaders]

Most people that are ALF or ELF, Earth First type groups are politically radical leftist. I have yet to meet someone who's apolitical and proponent of animal rights or the earth. Usuaully they have the views because they see these forms of exploitation as going hand in hand with all other forms of exploitation.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Most people that are ALF or ELF, Earth First type groups are politically radical leftist. I have yet to meet someone who's apolitical and proponent of animal rights or the earth. Usuaully they have the views because they see these forms of exploitation as going hand in hand with all other forms of exploitation.

No one is free when others are oppressed. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where does it say that?

If one considers an animal life equal to a human life, then humans are no longer the priority.


Which they do. They often bring large cars, and only take as many as they can.

A Mickey Mouse operation, then. Animals require proper transport, not being shoved in the back of somebody's personal motor vehicle. It's not like one is taking the family dog to a new home.


Not really. Minks are able to survive, and very few die, which would be better than getting slaughtered in a fur farm. Here's a study.

http://www.animalliberationfrontline.com/liberated-mink-survive-in-the-wild-study-shows/

The mink survive because they eat the smaller, weaker animals of the environment into which they have been released. This is actually much much worse than the mink simply dying shortly after release, as this means they can do more damage to whatever ecosystem they happen to have been released in.


If a target is hit multiple times, insurance companies want nothing to do with them. ALFs tactics have been quite successful in shutting down fur farms, and labs.

No, their insurance premiums increase, which means that only big nasty companies can afford them. Also running costs increase due to the need for more security. This places more research out of the reach of more benign entities such as universities and non-profits.

Net effect of ALF actions: putting people out of work and retarding human development. Animals are still being reared for meat, fur etc. Not what I would call any kind of meaningful progress.


They are aware. What do you mean?

You're making an appeal based on emotion, not reason. It might work if one has the mind of a young child, who may not fully comprehend the ins and outs of how the pork pie they're eating reached their plate, but most capable adults are at least vaguely aware that something had to die for them to have their meat and leather shoes.


EDIT: below is not a quote but I accidentally messed up sorry!

The ALF can only be judged by what it says it is because it's not an organization but are individuals who do direct action in the way the guidelines say. So even if someone claims to be ALF then for example kills someone in the name of animals cannot be considered ALF.

That is a problem, not something to be proud about! It means there is fundamentally no accountability for the actions of those who choose to affiliate themselves with ALF.

It also opens yourself up to "false flag" operations which can be disastrous for the public image of the ALF. People are not going to believe a thing the ALF says about nonviolence if people claiming affiliation with ALF (or "animal rights" in general for that matter) engage in intimidation (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2008/the-animal-liberation-front-and-intimidation/).


Just as the UR wasn't the only thing they did the ALF (sabotage etc) isn't the only thing animal rights activists do.

Considering what I've seen of PETA "propaganda", I don't think the animal liberation movement has much to be proud of elsewhere either. Making a fuss over Obama killing a fly, sexist advertising campaigns, all these and more add up pretty terribly.


I know that, but you have to agree life would be much better in the wild versus being packed into tiny metal cages.

The freedom of the wilderness is the same kind of freedom one gets when one is fired and made homeless. Freedom to starve.


What is gained is that that small business will no longer harm animals. That is seen as a good thing by animal rights advocates.

Then in moves a bigger company which can afford the insurance premiums and security measures needed to turn a profit. The demand for animal testing and fur and meat remains unaffected by the actions of the ALF, and we're back at square one.


The relevant part was that they are kept in tiny metal cages. The part about China is to your statement saying fur farmers don't torture animals.

The screams and struggles of the creature don't improve the quality of the fur, if anything I would say that quality suffers especially with the small cages. I'd give them bigger cages and kill them with nitrogen asphyxiation.


Cruelty free testing is widely available for cosmetics. That's why so many companies no longer test their products on animals.

That's because those "cruelty-free", products, formulations and ingredients have already been tested on animals to the satisfaction of regulatory bodies.


So if I go shooting someone in the name of the CPUSA even though they don't advocate violence it's considered an action by the CPUSA? NO!

No, but presumably when the CPUSA does do something, it's pretty damn obvious (beyond graffiti and communiques that could have been issued by anyone really) that the CPUSA are the ones doing it and not someone else.

One could also do a lot of PR damage to groups like ALF by doing things like going to small farms, smashing up their equipment and releasing their animals, and daubing "ALF" in red paint all over the place before leaving. That wouldn't be an ALF action, but in the eyes many of the general public that ALF are presumably trying to reach, it would be.

[Jazzratt]

Animal testing is unnessescary (especially in cosmetic testing) and unreliable.
That's not true. Isn't playing the blank assertion game fun and productive?

Animal testing prevents unneeded suffering on the part of people using the products that are tested by weeding out the more obviously harmful products and by reducing the risk to human volunteers in subsequent tests (many tests on animals are simply a preliminary stage, after all). Moreover a lot of our understanding of physiology comes from observations made on animals in situations that would be unethical were they imposed on human subjects, also since most animals have shorter lifespans than humans it is easier to find long term complications or problems that would not usually be evident until a subject breeds. The damaging myth that animal testing is "unnecessary and unreliable" is almost always championed by those ignorant of science. Also, for fuck's sake how stupid do you think these people are? If animal testing continually produced shoddy or unusable data why in fuck's name would people bother with it? There aren't enough people that are cartoonishly evil caricatures to keep animal testing common out of sheer sadism.

[Art Vandelay]

Most people that are ALF or ELF, Earth First type groups are politically radical leftist. I have yet to meet someone who's apolitical and proponent of animal rights or the earth. Usuaully they have the views because they see these forms of exploitation as going hand in hand with all other forms of exploitation.

Then there just simply idiots. If these people are truly radical leftists, then they would understand that animal rights are an impossibility under capitalism (or else then they just don't understand how capitalism works and in that case aren't radical leftists). Indeed the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of workers are both by products from capitalism; so then lets fucking organize to overthrow capitalism (not break some animals out of cages), upon which the possibility of animal rights become real.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2499942]If one considers an animal life equal to a human life, then humans are no longer the priority.

That makes no sense at all. This isn't a "one or the other" situation.

A Mickey Mouse operation, then. Animals require proper transport, not being shoved in the back of somebody's personal motor vehicle. It's not like one is taking the family dog to a new home.

So? They're put into temporary containers. Momentary discomfort is not the end of the world, if they will be free afterwards.

The mink survive because they eat the smaller, weaker animals of the environment into which they have been released. This is actually much much worse than the mink simply dying shortly after release, as this means they can do more damage to whatever ecosystem they happen to have been released in.

As for the mink eating eachother, I'm not sure. Do you have any studies or something about it? Thanks.

Minks often eat eachother in fur farms anyway. And as for the ecosystem:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Canada/OpentheCages.htm

I do feel a little bad about using ALF websites, but where else would these be?:D

No, their insurance premiums increase, which means that only big nasty companies can afford them. Also running costs increase due to the need for more security. This places more research out of the reach of more benign entities such as universities and non-profits.

And even so, if the targets are attacked enough, they will shut down. It has happened many times. Security also doesn't tend to stop liberations.

Net effect of ALF actions: putting people out of work and retarding human development. Animals are still being reared for meat, fur etc. Not what I would call any kind of meaningful progress.

It just depends on your views on animal rights.

You're making an appeal based on emotion, not reason. It might work if one has the mind of a young child, who may not fully comprehend the ins and outs of how the pork pie they're eating reached their plate, but most capable adults are at least vaguely aware that something had to die for them to have their meat and leather shoes.

What? Everyone knows that animals have to die, they just might not know how poorly the animals are treated.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Then there just simply idiots. If these people are truly radical leftists, then they would understand that animal rights are an impossibility under capitalism (or else then they just don't understand how capitalism works and in that case aren't radical leftists). Indeed the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of workers are both by products from capitalism; so then lets fucking organize to overthrow capitalism (not break some animals out of cages), upon which the possibility of animal rights become real.

I have noticed that a lot of animal rights activists are anti-capitalists. It's very sensical.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If one considers an animal life equal to a human life, then humans are no longer the priority.

Most animal rights activists don't believe animals are equal to humans. Please try not to believe meat industry myths

Considering what I've seen of PETA "propaganda", I don't think the animal liberation movement has much to be proud of elsewhere either. Making a fuss over Obama killing a fly, sexist advertising campaigns, all these and more add up pretty terribly.

When did I ever say Animal Rights activists advocate animal rights perfectly? And if nudism is sexist than that's just stupid of you to think that.

The freedom of the wilderness is the same kind of freedom one gets when one is fired and made homeless. Freedom to starve.

Animals, unlike humans, live in the wild. We're talking about animals not humans.

The screams and struggles of the creature don't improve the quality of the fur, if anything I would say that quality suffers especially with the small cages. I'd give them bigger cages and kill them with nitrogen asphyxiation.

It saves money.

That's because those "cruelty-free", products, formulations and ingredients have already been tested on animals to the satisfaction of regulatory bodies.

New products always have to be tested. And cruelty-free products are not tested on animals at all.


No, but presumably when the CPUSA does do something, it's pretty damn obvious (beyond graffiti and communiques that could have been issued by anyone really) that the CPUSA are the ones doing it and not someone else.

One could also do a lot of PR damage to groups like ALF by doing things like going to small farms, smashing up their equipment and releasing their animals, and daubing "ALF" in red paint all over the place before leaving. That wouldn't be an ALF action, but in the eyes many of the general public that ALF are presumably trying to reach, it would be.

It would seem that way, but it wouldn't actually be that way, as you seem to acknowledge.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Animal testing prevents unneeded suffering on the part of people using the products that are tested by weeding out the more obviously harmful products and by reducing the risk to human volunteers in subsequent tests (many tests on animals are simply a preliminary stage, after all).

Testing products is not either tested on animals or humans. We have newer technology nowadays that can be used to test without animals.

Moreover a lot of our understanding of physiology comes from observations made on animals in situations that would be unethical were they imposed on human subjects, also since most animals have shorter lifespans than humans it is easier to find long term complications or problems that would not usually be evident until a subject breeds.

Once again, we have technology that can replace short-lived rats, etc.

The damaging myth that animal testing is "unnecessary and unreliable" is almost always championed by those ignorant of science. Also, for fuck's sake how stupid do you think these people are? If animal testing continually produced shoddy or unusable data why in fuck's name would people bother with it? There aren't enough people that are cartoonishly evil caricatures to keep animal testing common out of sheer sadism.

Do some research on the subject. A really good book I'd recommend reading is "Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy".

Now, you ask, why would people test on animals if it's so unreliable? That's why; it's unreliable. Huge corporations are able to pass chemicals and such as safe because they test them on animals. In fact, sometimes when it's dangerous on animals, corporations will claim that animal testing is unreliable to even though it killed every animal, it's safe for humans. Of course there's still a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Animal testing will easily replaced when capitalism is overthrown. Theres many promising research methods that won't be cruel to either species, but right now they're too expensive.

[Art Vandelay]

I have noticed that a lot of animal rights activists are anti-capitalists. It's very sensical.

That very well may be true, but you didn't really address my point; if they indeed are anti-capitalists, then they are shitty ones unable of addressing the real issue at hand.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

That very well may be true, but you didn't really address my point; if they indeed are anti-capitalists, then they are shitty ones unable of addressing the real issue at hand.

Sorry, I didn't realize I should reply. I think at the very least, they're saving as many animals as they can. An anti-capitalist society is a far way away, so it's good to help out animals as much as we can.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That makes no sense at all. This isn't a "one or the other" situation.

Yes it is. ALF actions slow down animal testing and make it a more expensive operating cost, thus denying valuable methods to smaller, less well-funded organisations which might have more admirable research goals than some global pharmaceutical company pursuing an increased share price.


So? They're put into temporary containers. Momentary discomfort is not the end of the world, if they will be free afterwards.

We have absolutely no garuantee that the ALF in their actions have the necessary equipment, experience and training to safely remove animals from captivity and rehabilitate them before release into a suitable habitat. That is my point.


As for the mink eating eachother, I'm not sure. Do you have any studies or something about it? Thanks.

Minks often eat eachother in fur farms anyway. And as for the ecosystem:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Canada/OpentheCages.htm

I'm not talking about the mink eating each other. I'm talking about them preying on other animals once released. They are carnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mink) after all.


And even so, if the targets are attacked enough, they will shut down. It has happened many times. Security also doesn't tend to stop liberations.

So you don't give a shit that ALF's actions are actually making things worse?


It just depends on your views on animal rights.

I think they're a fucking wacky idea. People first.


What? Everyone knows that animals have to die, they just might not know how poorly the animals are treated.

You're not demonstrating how "animals are at times treated crappily and that makes people feel bad" is logically connected to "meat is murder".


Most animal rights activists don't believe animals are equal to humans. Please try not to believe meat industry myths

So how does it break down? Are some species more worthy of moral consideration than others? If it's based on intelligence, how does that work out?


When did I ever say Animal Rights activists advocate animal rights perfectly? And if nudism is sexist than that's just stupid of you to think that.

What PETA did in their campaigns was not "nudism" otherwise they would have employed models other than attractive women. I didn't criticise PETA for not being perfect. I criticised them for being petty and sexist.


Animals, unlike humans, live in the wild. We're talking about animals not humans.

So? Starving is a crappy experience no matter if one is in the wild or in society.


It saves money.

And it doesn't click with you that maybe, just maybe, it's a daft idea to add to their financial burdens with crappy stunts that also damage the environment and get the released animals as well as local wildlife hurt and killed? Also, if these cruel cost-cutting measures are being done in China, just how does ALF cells targeting American mink farms improve the situation?

I'm sure the purveyors of fur in China are rubbing their hands with glee.


New products always have to be tested. And cruelty-free products are not tested on animals at all.

Not if they contain ingredients already well-established as safe.


It would seem that way, but it wouldn't actually be that way, as you seem to acknowledge.

No, the ALF and their sympathisers simply get to disown any action, done in good faith or otherwise, that they don't like being associated with.


Testing products is not either tested on animals or humans. We have newer technology nowadays that can be used to test without animals.

Such as?


Once again, we have technology that can replace short-lived rats, etc.

Which you again fail to mention.


Do some research on the subject. A really good book I'd recommend reading is "Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy".

Don't force us to make your arguments for you. If you've read a book, share with us the relevant information.


Now, you ask, why would people test on animals if it's so unreliable? That's why; it's unreliable. Huge corporations are able to pass chemicals and such as safe because they test them on animals. In fact, sometimes when it's dangerous on animals, corporations will claim that animal testing is unreliable to even though it killed every animal, it's safe for humans. Of course there's still a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.

They don't need to fuck around with animals if they're desperate to get something on the market. There are all sorts of tricks they can pull, they can put (indirect) pressure on the researchers in order to bias methodology, they can bury "inconvenient" results in a filing cabinet somewhere, they can cherrypick the data. The presence or absence of animal testing has no effect on the basic honesty of corporations, therefore it is purely a question of efficacy.


Animal testing will easily replaced when capitalism is overthrown. Theres many promising research methods that won't be cruel to either species, but right now they're too expensive.

Ah yes, these research methods that keep getting mentioned but not named.

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry, I didn't realize I should reply. I think at the very least, they're saving as many animals as they can. An anti-capitalist society is a far way away, so it's good to help out animals as much as we can.

I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, obviously I think that we should help as many poor people as we can, but that doesn't change the fact that I am anti charity; to paraphrase Oscar Wilde: charity is a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution. The same could be said of animal rights activists. Of course its better to save as many animals as possible under capitalism, but the point is that they can't save the animals under capitalism! Should we all start becoming charity relief workers (since we would like poor people to be better off under capitalism) or should we educate, agitate, and organize for the overthrow of capitalism. The alf/elf put anti-capitalism on the back burner, which is nothing short of a betrayal of the proletarian cause, as well as a betrayal of the animals they proclaim to want to help.

[levyel]

On some issues I really favor ALF-ELF, on others I don't. However, I think as propagandists of the deed (of a related sort) they're invaluable, especially in regard to limiting their exposure of violence to mostly property.

[Jazzratt]

Testing products is not either tested on animals or humans. Most medicines, after they are deemed reasonably fit for humans (usually by animal testing), are put through clinical trials with human volunteers. This is how we measure efficacy.


We have newer technology nowadays that can be used to test without animals. Name them. For example if we are to increase our understanding of neurology we often need access to brains - preferably living brains and since it is clearly unethical to start hacking into human heads to see what makes them tick we use animals. What technology do you suggest should replace an actual brain in this scenario? What about eyes?


Once again, we have technology that can replace short-lived rats, etc.
Hahaha. Please, tell me of this technology that can unpredictable inheritable flaws or the long term effects of genetic alteration with the kind of accuracy seen in animals. I think I wish just as fervently as you that such technologies existed, though for different reasons, but I don't think wishing it makes it so.


A really good book I'd recommend reading is "Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy". I can tell from the title that it will be a totally dispassionate review written by someone that didn't write backwards from their conclusion :rolleyes:


Now, you ask, why would people test on animals if it's so unreliable? That's why; it's unreliable. Animal testing is unreliable because it's unreliable. Sterling logic there, genius.


Huge corporations are able to pass chemicals and such as safe because they test them on animals. In fact, sometimes when it's dangerous on animals, corporations will claim that animal testing is unreliable to even though it killed every animal, it's safe for humans.
So they'll ignore their results, which is bad science, in order to make a profit? Who fucking knew?

[Luís Henrique]

Most people that are ALF or ELF, Earth First type groups are politically radical leftist.

They are not. They may use a leftist jargon, or rather a parody of the leftist jargon, but their political positions are deeply anti-humanist, and consequently deeply anti-leftist. They are outright reactionaries who support inequality and oppression. Their method is to try to demonstrate how ridiculous anti-racist, feminist, anti-discrimination positions in general are, by mimicking the rhetoric and applying it to a huge and absurd straw man.


I have yet to meet someone who's apolitical and proponent of animal rights or the earth.

By definition, since that is a political position, they cannot be apolitical. But not everything that is not apolitical is progressive or leftist.


Usuaully they have the views because they see these forms of exploitation as going hand in hand with all other forms of exploitation.

They have the views they have because they do not understand what exploitation is, and they try to ridicule the struggle against exploitation by equating it with situations where no exploitation goes on at all.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I'm talking about them preying on other animals once released. They are carnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mink) after all.

Yes, and when predators like them are released into ecosystems to which they are exotic, they can unleash an ecological disaster, by overpredating some species, by outcompeting local predators, by introducing exotic bacteria and viruses, and so on.

It is just plain stupidity and ignorance parading as leftism, most likely to discredit leftism in general.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

Animal testing will easily replaced when capitalism is overthrown. Theres many promising research methods that won't be cruel to either species, but right now they're too expensive.

The tests themselves are not more expensive (often less expensive), but it overal reduces corporations' profit.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Most medicines, after they are deemed reasonably fit for humans (usually by animal testing), are put through clinical trials with human volunteers. This is how we measure efficacy.

I was replying to someone talking as if it was an either/or situation between human testing or animal testing, which I was saying you don't have to test on humans, if you don't test on animals. I know that you will eventually have to human test but at first there is no need. Understand the context of my replies before replying to them.

Name them. For example if we are to increase our understanding of neurology we often need access to brains - preferably living brains and since it is clearly unethical to start hacking into human heads to see what makes them tick we use animals. What technology do you suggest should replace an actual brain in this scenario? What about eyes?

There are varieties of scanners used to study the brain. And I would assume something similar would be able to study the eyes. I'm not exactly sure what would be used for I have never done in-depth research conducted by myself on the human eyes. If I did I don't see why studying animals' eyes would give me in-depth knowledge of the human eyes.

Hahaha. Please, tell me of this technology that can unpredictable inheritable flaws or the long term effects of genetic alteration with the kind of accuracy seen in animals. I think I wish just as fervently as you that such technologies existed, though for different reasons, but I don't think wishing it makes it so.

I don't know what you mean by genetic alteration. I'm not familiar with this term.

I can tell from the title that it will be a totally dispassionate review written by someone that didn't write backwards from their conclusion :rolleyes:

*facepalm*

Animal testing is unreliable because it's unreliable. Sterling logic there, genius.

He asked me why would corporations test on animals if they were unreliable. I said that is the reason why. Please learn to read, genius.

So they'll ignore their results, which is bad science, in order to make a profit? Who fucking knew?

Or they can use their results to make profit, with the results being unreliable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was replying to someone talking as if it was an either/or situation between human testing or animal testing, which I was saying you don't have to test on humans, if you don't test on animals. I know that you will eventually have to human test but at first there is no need. Understand the context of my replies before replying to them.

How would we know that a new medicine or surgical procedure is safe and ethical to test on humans without testing it on animals first?


There are varieties of scanners used to study the brain. And I would assume something similar would be able to study the eyes. I'm not exactly sure what would be used for I have never done in-depth research conducted by myself on the human eyes. If I did I don't see why studying animals' eyes would give me in-depth knowledge of the human eyes.

"Scanners" (by which I assume you are referring to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging)) can only detect what is already there. You can't scan a subject's brain to examine the effects of Formula X if you don't first give them some Formula X for their brain to interact with, producing activity that the scanner can detect.


I don't know what you mean by genetic alteration. I'm not familiar with this term.

New substances may damage the DNA of the organism into which it is introduced. How would one know if that happens or not without first testing the new substance on actual living organisms?


He asked me why would corporations test on animals if they were unreliable. I said that is the reason why. Please learn to read, genius.

Actually, I think you will find that I pointed out that companies don't need animal testing to be unreliable if they want to fudge the results or whatever. You were the one who rhetorically asked why they would use what you called (but did not support with like, evidence) "unreliable" animal testing.


Or they can use their results to make profit, with the results being unreliable.

You haven't proved that animal testing is unreliable, you've just automatically assumed that.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

We have absolutely no garuantee that the ALF in their actions have the necessary equipment, experience and training to safely remove animals from captivity and rehabilitate them before release into a suitable habitat. That is my point.

I have read a lot about animal liberation. "How it was dones", communiques, articles, etc. The people doing these are quite knowledgable, research their targets, and take proper percautions. Of course we cannot be 100 percent sure. In addition, you can go to jail for a very long time if you release mink. The people who take that risk more than likely know a lot about it.

I'm not talking about the mink eating each other. I'm talking about them preying on other animals once released. They are carnivores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mink) after all.

I must have misread, my bad.

So you don't give a shit that ALF's actions are actually making things worse?

I don't think they are making things worse.

You're not demonstrating how "animals are at times treated crappily and that makes people feel bad" is logically connected to "meat is murder".

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.



Ah yes, these research methods that keep getting mentioned but not named.[/QUOTE]

http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html)

http://www.h-ed.com.au/think/14-research/1-alternatives-to-animal-experiments.html (http://www.h-ed.com.au/think/14-research/1-alternatives-to-animal-experiments.html)

[Jazzratt]

User Name: For the love of fuck use quote tags or at least quotation marks.


I was replying to someone talking as if it was an either/or situation between human testing or animal testing, which I was saying you don't have to test on humans, if you don't test on animals.
No. You weren't. You were replying to me and I had said:

Animal testing prevents unneeded suffering on the part of people using the products that are tested by weeding out the more obviously harmful products and by reducing the risk to human volunteers in subsequent tests (many tests on animals are simply a preliminary stage, after all).
This suggests that I was already talking about animal tests as being one testing option amongst many that is in no way exclusive.


I know that you will eventually have to human test but at first there is no need. Understand the context of my replies before replying to them.
There is a need if you give a shit about the human volunteers on which you will test your medicine/product. Using animal testing can stop them suffering needlessly.


There are varieties of scanners used to study the brain. NoXion already covered this but it's also worth noting that because our imaging hardware still isn't quite at the point we'd like it to be we still do need to look at physical brain slice by slice from time to time. This is painstaking work (even with machines like this (http://www.zivic-miller.com/instrument%20images/Yahoo%20Pics/stainless-steel-mouse-brain-slicer-matrix-1mm-coronal-section-slice-intervals.gif) to speed up the actual slicing process) which most people would happily abandon for the much easier method of just scanning the whole brain layer by layer and looking at the accurate results. Again there is no reason to continue this practice save its necessity.


If I did I don't see why studying animals' eyes would give me in-depth knowledge of the human eyes. No, I don't suppose you do. Eyes are things that stay fairly similar throughout most creatures - same basic arrangement of cones, rods and what have you. Examining the eyes of other species is useful on two fronts - telling us about eye development and telling us, broadly, how to treat eyes when they fuck up. I'll wager that laser eye surgery, for example, was brought to us by a number of blinded animals.


I don't know what you mean by genetic alteration. I'm not familiar with this term. NoXion explained this. It's also possible to introduce new information - in the form of whole segments of DNA - to animals: currently the methods for this are used exclusively on animals (well, I should more accurately say "nonhumans" because they have been used on plants (GMO) and protoctista. Probably even fungi) and the area of study is called "transgenics." The advances it gives us though, may someday allow us to use these methods to the benefit of humanity [treatment of genetic defects and the like].


He asked me why would corporations test on animals if they were unreliable. I said that is the reason why. Please learn to read, genius. Oh, so instead of being tautological you were being ludicrous. I'm so terribly sorry to have misread you.As you yourself pointed out they can, if they wanted, throw out results they don't like or use other dodgy methods to ignore the science. They don't need to use unreliable methods and you are adding an unnecessary layer to your conspiracy theory: William of Occam would like a word with you...


Or they can use their results to make profit, with the results being unreliable.
You're an ideologue. Anything anyone does with the results of animal testing is proof of its being unreliable to you. Not only is the supposed unreliability of animal testing your premise but it is your conclusion as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have read a lot about animal liberation. "How it was dones", communiques, articles, etc. The people doing these are quite knowledgable, research their targets, and take proper percautions. Of course we cannot be 100 percent sure. In addition, you can go to jail for a very long time if you release mink. The people who take that risk more than likely know a lot about it.

If you're familiar with the literature, then quote it! Don't just expect the rest of us to take your word for it!


I must have misread, my bad.

So the study you linked to actually paints a worse picture than at first sight. Rather than released mink simply dying in an unfamiliar environment, they are loosed into a setting where they do considerable damage to local wildlife.


I don't think they are making things worse.

But they are. If animal testing becomes more and more expensive due to the extra security needed to guard against actions like those of the ALF, then fewer educational and nonprofit institutions can afford it as a testing method. This means that more and more only big corporations will be able to conduct animal testing, stagnating research in areas that are not considered "profitable".


I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Please explain to me how a video showing shitty practices is an argument for abolishing them, rather than improving said practices?


http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html

[COLOR=red]http://www.h-ed.com.au/think/14-research/1-alternatives-to-animal-experiments.html (http://www.h-ed.com.au/think/14-research/1-alternatives-to-animal-experiments.html)

Some of those "alternatives" still involve the use of animals, and none of them are a suitable replacement for observing the effects of novel chemicals on living organisms.

[Sea]

The ALF's agenda looks good on paper, but does not work out so well in reality.