ELF-ALF

[Organic Revolution]

does anyone support the actions of the ALF-ELF. i support the action of both because

ELF- they fight directly againsts capitalism.. ex: blowing up SUVs

ALF- they fight against capitalism by making them use safer chemicals... or no chemicals at alll cause they have to test the shit on the scientists them selves.

[LSD]

ALF- they fight against capitalism by making them use safer chemicals... or no chemicals at alll cause they have to test the shit on the scientists them selves.

:angry:

The ALF does not fight capitalism, it fights progress.

The ALF is a disgusting organization with no understanding of how science or medicine work.

Without animal testing, medical research would stop. Not slow down, not cost more, not be more difficult, stop.

Do you know many vaccines and cures and medicines have been developed from animal research? THOUSANDS.

There are, litterally, billions of people who would be dead right now if it was not for animal research.

Do we have any diabetics in the house? Just thought you should all know that the ALF wants you to die.


ELF- they fight directly againsts capitalism.. ex: blowing up SUVs

The ELF is less dangerous, but it is a mischaracterization to say that they fight capitalism. Rather they fight what they percieve to be environmentally destructive.

Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the problem is not specific incidences, but the underlying system itself and so they fail to actually address what needs to be addressed. The ELF is, effectively, a reformist organization in that they think that capitalism can be adapted, if pressured enough, to accomadate environmental protection.

In the end, all that they end up doing is arson for the sake of arson. Capitalism wil never be environmentally conscious and there is no indication that any of their actions have ever had a progressive effect.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

So-called "eco-terrorist" groups are reactionary.

They reject the idea that there is any basis for transforming society in a progressive and humane fashion. Instead, they blame human civilization itself!

Their communiques are unintelligible drivel.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Damn! you said the things I wanted to say!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2005, 08:23 PM

ALF- they fight against capitalism by making them use safer chemicals... or no chemicals at alll cause they have to test the shit on the scientists them selves.

:angry:

The ALF does not fight capitalism, it fights progress.

The ALF is a disgusting organization with no understanding of how science or medicine work.

Without animal testing, medical research would stop. Not slow down, not cost more, not be more difficult, stop.

Do you know many vaccines and cures and medicines have been developed from animal research? THOUSANDS.

There are, litterally, billions of people who would be dead right now if it was not for animal research.

Do we have any diabetics in the house? Just thought you should all know that the ALF wants you to die.


ELF- they fight directly againsts capitalism.. ex: blowing up SUVs

The ELF is less dangerous, but it is a mischaracterization to say that they fight capitalism. Rather they fight what they percieve to be environmentally destructive.

Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the problem is not specific incidences, but the underlying system itself and so they fail to actually address what needs to be addressed. The ELF is, effectively, a reformist organization in that they think that capitalism can be adapted, if pressured enough, to accomadate environmental protection.

In the end, all that they end up doing is arson for the sake of arson. Capitalism wil never be environmentally conscious and there is no indication that any of their actions have ever had a progressive effect.
are you sure about this information. becuase ive heard the exact opposite. more than half of the test results from animal testing are thrown out. and also, humans and animals differ in many ways so testing on animals does not show the exact effects it will have on humans.

[Organic Revolution]

why cant they test the shit on them selves?

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Just remember you have to save the bacteria if you wanna save the whales. :D

[TC]

If you want to claim to be a revolutionary, burn something down or blow something up that you think is a better target before dissing the ELF-ALF.


Personally i disagree with the ELF, i support urban sprawl, cities are lovely, forests and country side is boring...but they're brave and willing to take risks and break the law for their left wing political views and thats a great thing rarely seen in the west.


the ALF on the other hand i think is really good...if you really think 'meat is murder' and you have the oprotunity to stop 'murder' don't you have a moral obligation to take it?



Just remember you have to save the bacteria if you wanna save the whales.





Um, why? Whales are intelligent, conscious, social animals that live for decades...bacteria are single celled organisms with no awareness that only live for moments. People want to save animals not because 'every living thing is precious' or 'they're all god's creatures' but because they experiance real suffering from people making use of them so it becomes a moral issue...with plants and bacteria theres nothing of that sort.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If meat is murder, we should round up every carnivorous animal and sentence them to death, since animals are people too.

Now you see how ridiculous the 'moral vegetarian' cause is?

[Red Heretic]

ELF-ALF are following the same road as weather underground. They will alienate themselves from the masses and achieve nothing.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:22 AM
If you want to claim to be a revolutionary, burn something down or blow something up that you think is a better target before dissing the ELF-ALF.
Burning and blowing things up qualifies as being revolutionary? :huh:

Did you ever entertain the thought that maybe arson and the use of explosives might be reactionary? Through individual terrorism (i.e. propaganda by the deed) and isolated, symbolic acts thse groups will do nothing but alienate the masses and present an excuse for police-state measures.

I've talked to ELF and ALF supporters who had nothing but hatred for the human race and said they cared far more for farm chickens or trees than they did homeless people and human victims of famine. This is a disgusting, warped and misguided line of thought.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:22 AM
the ALF on the other hand i think is really good...if you really think 'meat is murder' and you have the oprotunity to stop 'murder' don't you have a moral obligation to take it?
Yeah, unless you think the idea of "meat being equal to murder" is fucking crazy.

Using this "logic" death squads should roam the countryside looking for farmers in the act of slaughtering steer.

People eating hamburgers should also be arrested or put in insane asylums for cannibalism or some other crime.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:31 PM
If meat is murder, we should round up every carnivorous animal and sentence them to death, since animals are people too.

Now you see how ridiculous the 'moral vegetarian' cause is?
NoXion: That does not actually take anything away from being against animal testing.


I think the ELF should blow up the whitehouse. But then again I think that Bush is a fuck wit, what would I know?


At least these people are doing something. You may not agree with why, but they are doing something. You may think that none of them see that capitalism is the problem. But I disagree.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 07:21 AM
[QUOTE=NoXion,Jun 13 2005, 04:31 PM]I think the ELF should blow up the whitehouse. But then again I think that Bush is a fuck wit, what would I know?


At least these people are doing something. You may not agree with why, but they are doing something. You may think that none of them see that capitalism is the problem. But I disagree.
So do you think if tomorrow morning we woke up to hear the White House was blown up it would be a great thing? Maybe anarchists do but Marxists are against individual terrorism or sabotage. I won't shed any tears over the loss of Bush and his cabinet but that doesn't mean I should support it either. It would create chaos and confusion (i.e. reason to bring about stronger police-state measures.)

If it was uncovered some person/group of leftist orientation was responsible all of us would be potential victims of repression.

Revolution must come from the struggle of the masses not from vegans randomly detonating bombs against targets they deem worthy of destruction. The Weather Underground, Montoneros, Tupamaros, Baader-Meinhof Gang/Red Army Faction, Red Brigades etc. have tried this numerous times and it has failed miserably.

Maybe there are some of us who are involved in political activism, journalism, research and building revolutionary parties and organizations. You can call that "doing nothing" if you'd like but I think it's more worthwhile than setting Hummers alight.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Earth Liberation Front (http://www.earthliberationfront.com/) - They list their actions, take a look through them. Pipebombs at DMV buildings? Please try and justify that...
Animal Liberation Front (http://animalliberationfront.us/)

[TC]

If meat is murder, we should round up every carnivorous animal and sentence them to death, since animals are people too.

Now you see how ridiculous the 'moral vegetarian' cause is?


No,

You wouldn't bring criminal charges against a very young child for things that would be crimes if commited by a teenager or adult...animals are even less socially aware then young children so they're even less responsible for their actions. Modern society doesn't punish people who by either age or retardation or insanity are incapable of understanding their crime, why would anyone want to hold animals to a higher standard when their capabilities are even less?


ELF-ALF are following the same road as weather underground. They will alienate themselves from the masses and achieve nothing.

A mistake i think a lot of Leftists make is thinking that the only way to achieve anything is to work towards the "big revolution." I don't think thats true, and i think that its often a way of justifying inaction.

The Weather Underground was not a Communist 'vanguard' party nor did they ever intend to be. They were white students, for them to try to "lead a revolution" would be the height of arrogance, they differed to proletarian black leadership in the forum of the Black Panthers.

They basically had two objectives, to assist in the Vietcong's anti-occupation guerrilla war strategy, which relied on breaking the enemy political will to continue the war, not on actual battlefield victories, and to assist the Black Panther Party indirectly by diverting police attention to themselves away from the Panthers.

The Vietnam war wasn't a war with armies taking positions but a guerrilla war where given the nature of the conflict, both the American's and the Vietnamese Communists understood that totally defeating their enemy wasn't possible but rather forcing their enemy to quit fighting first, both by demoralizing their political support base, the American public and Vietnamese public respectively, convincing them that continueing to fight wasn't worth the costs. Given this, media mass perception of the media was vital; that was what the Tet Offensive was about, not actually taking cities so much as making the American public think that the Vietcong could not be defeated, could strike any where in th country and therefore reduce the support for the war. Likewise the US military reported victories in body counts not land taken. Likewise, the Weather Underground which wanted to support the Vietnamese war effort used its "stratigic position" "in the belly of the beast" as it was called to strike American targets in retaliation for American actions against Vietnam...So instead of simply allowing the US government to be gungho about invading laos, bombing hanoi, or escalating the war in Vietnam, the Weathermen would retaliate by bombing the US Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and the State department respectively; it was significant to show American weakness in a war that was being played for the media.

They also helped the Black Panthers in the only way they could; they were white so they weren't going to go into the ghetto and organize black workers, it would be condecending...but whenever Panthers were murdered by the police the Weathermen would bomb assets or buildings used by that police department as a gesture of support and defense. Their class and race allowed them access to places that the Panthers couldn't go and that privilege (which they were completely aware of) allowed them to act more aggressively with fewer risks (since the cops were murdering Black activists and only harassing white activists). Since the FBI was trying to destroy the Panthers, every FBI agent assigned to chasing rich white communists was an FBI agent that wasn't chasing revolutionary black communists, so the intent was also to divert secret police enegry away from the above ground Black communist movement.

Getting back to the ELF/ALF, even if the people who participate in their actions are nominally Anarchists, the stated missions of the "groups" are to protect the environment against capitalist abuses and to protect animals from exploitation and death, not to have some kindof workers revolution even if most ELF and ALF participants would support one...protecting the environment and saving animals is for them legitimate goals on their own.

As for alienating workers, for what they're trying to do it simply doesn't matter. Every animal the ALF saves from being butchered is an animal that they saved from being butchered, not a political statement but they actually made a direct difference in the lives of soemthing they care about; whether or not its popular is irrelevant to the aim. I'd think that people like celebrities, people with money, or known activists who are more equipted to organizing politically instead of taking direct action would work for Greenpeace or PETA instead of the ELF or ALF the same way that in the 60s and 70s Black radicals who were more equipted to organizing ghettos and less equipted to getting into government buildings would join the Panthers instead of the Weathermen...




Burning and blowing things up qualifies as being revolutionary?

Did you ever entertain the thought that maybe arson and the use of explosives might be reactionary?

Did it ever occur to you that fire and explosions are, in of themselves, simply physical phenomenon that are morally and politically neutral...that are only given political or moral significance by what it is that they're destroying? I think disabling things that are being used for reactionary purposes is progressive and disabling things that are being used for progressive purposes is reactionary. Blowing up abortion clinics and Black churchs is reactionary. Burning down prison offices and imperialist military facilities is progressive.



Using this "logic" death squads should roam the countryside looking for farmers in the act of slaughtering steer.

I think if you value animal life, human or otherwise, which obviously ALF (or PETA) would, you have a moral obligation to use the most minimal amount of force required to save it. If the a group of steer are going to be slaughtered by a group of farmers, the ALF or a similar group could respond either by killing the farmers, releasing the steer, or doing nothing beyond protest. If they kill the farmers there are a bunch of dead people, if they just protest the farmers there are a bunch of dead cows, but if they just ignore the farmers and release the steer while they're away, no one has to die. So even if you consider meat to be equal to murder "death squads" are not the best way to go since the same results can be accomplished with less loss of life.

Likewise, arresting people eating hamburgers makes no more sense then arresting people driving on middle eastern oil; its not going to bring back the dead cows or the dead Arabs and the people "participating" at that that end of the process have no control over it.

[TC]

Earth Liberation Front - They list their actions, take a look through them. Pipebombs at DMV buildings? Please try and justify that...

Isn't it sort of obvious? Cars damage the atmosphere and use up a vital non-renewable energy source which if used up before it can be replaced will lead to catastrophic economic collapse across the world?..bombing the DMV keeps a bunch of cars off the streets instead of just blowing up individual automobiles.


I don't agree with the action because i don't agree with those politics, but if you support those politics you can hardly say that it was random or unjustified politically.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

TragicClown I cannot believe that you are actually supporting these reactionary hatfuckers, did you know these bell-ends would rather save a drowning dog than a drowning child? these are far from your run-of-the-mill activists, these are fundamentalist crazies who would orgasm themselves at the prospect of civilisation burning.

Moral vegetarians are fucking hypocrites. They claim to have guiltless diets, but actually their diets kill millions of small field animals yearly. Meat eaters may cause the deaths of more animals, but they aren't claiming moral superiority nor are they setting up stands proclaiming meat is murder and getting up the noses of ordinary people, because they are the ordinary people.

Fuck 'em all.

[TC]

did you know these bell-ends would rather save a drowning dog than a drowning child?

Where on the ELF or ALF websites does it say that? Has Craig Rosebraugh or any other ELF/ALF spokesperson ever say that? Have the police ever found a burning building with a a big banner that reads "If you build it we will burn it! The Elfs are mad...Oh and by the way, we like dogs better then kids." Is what you're saying pure conjecture?

If its true i'd disagree with it but that doesn't mean that freeing animal's from certain death is a bad thing. Its the action that counts.


Moral vegetarians are fucking hypocrites. They claim to have guiltless diets, but actually their diets kill millions of small field animals yearly.

How is it hypocritical to refuse to participate in a practice you find barbaric and disgusting, at least to the furthest extent you can possibly while living a reasonably normal life.

And theres a huge difference between types of food that can create small numbers of accidental animal deaths and types of food where killing animals by the millions after having tortured them for years in factory farms is the entire process.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where on the ELF or ALF websites does it say that? Has Craig Rosebraugh or any other ELF/ALF spokesperson ever say that? Have the police ever found a burning building with a a big banner that reads "If you build it we will burn it! The Elfs are mad...Oh and by the way, we like dogs better then kids." Is what you're saying pure conjecture?

It's obvious you've never come across anybody with the ALF/ELF mindset. It's scary to say the least. Here's the sort of mind you're dealing with here:

"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

-Chris De Rose, Director, Last Chance for Animals

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

These people actually think that the lives of chickens are comparable to that of human beings!

It's rather obvious we're dealing with wackos here.


How is it hypocritical to refuse to participate in a practice you find barbaric and disgusting, at least to the furthest extent you can possibly while living a reasonably normal life.

But the point is they don't. Most moral vegetarian do not grow their own crops and hand-pick them, they buy them from the supermarket.


And theres a huge difference between types of food that can create small numbers of accidental animal deaths and types of food where killing animals by the millions after having tortured them for years in factory farms is the entire process.

I addressed this above. Meat eaters do not claim moral superiority, but moral vegetarians do, despite the fact their diet kills millions of animals annually.

[TC]

"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.

These people actually think that the lives of chickens are comparable to that of human beings!

It's rather obvious we're dealing with wackos here.

They're a political organization that relies heavily on shock value both to generate moral outrage for their cause and publicity. Having celebrities pose nude, naked protestors, shocking photage of how animal's are treated and killed in factory farms, labortories, ect., their "Got Beer" campaign, ect. are part of the organizations style. They don't actually think that animal rights are more important than human rights, from their website:

-------------------------------------------------------------
q:“How can you justify spending your time on animals when there are so many people who need help?”

a:There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention; cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think animals and humans are morally equal or that people's general moral obligations to an animal are equal to that towards another person simply because people's social relationship to each other is different and more complicated...but i think it would be difficult to argue that its morally more acceptable for certain entities to experiance suffering then other's.



I addressed this above. Meat eaters do not claim moral superiority, but moral vegetarians do, despite the fact their diet kills millions of animals annually.

I"m not sure where you go the "millions of animals annually" statistic or if you made it up, but i'd quote the PETA site:


We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are usually "kinder, gentler" ways for most of us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves than by killing animals.

If you can have less suffering in fewer animals or people isn't that morally better then more suffering in more animals or people even if you can't have no suffering?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They're a political organization that relies heavily on shock value both to generate moral outrage for their cause and publicity. Having celebrities pose nude, naked protestors, shocking photage of how animal's are treated and killed in factory farms, labortories, ect., their "Got Beer" campaign, ect. are part of the organizations style.

By comparing the suffering of non-sentient animals to the horrific suffering endured by the the sentient Jews during the holocaust, they are cheapening and degrading the tortures that many brave men and women underwent and of which some survived.
Would you honestly say to a holocaust survivor's face that his suffering was no worse than that of a chicken?

These ecofascists don't give a shit about the real suffering that going on in the world; they only want to advance their agenda, and will do so even to the point that it actually hurts animals - witness their 'freeing' of mink that actually ends up killing them through shock, and the fact that PETA kills animals (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/)


I don't think animals and humans are morally equal or that people's general moral obligations to an animal are equal to that towards another person simply because people's social relationship to each other is different and more complicated...but i think it would be difficult to argue that its morally more acceptable for certain entities to experiance suffering then other's.

As humans, don't you think we should be putting humans first, no?


I"m not sure where you go the "millions of animals annually" statistic or if you made it up, but i'd quote the PETA site:

Consider these:

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

Least Harm principle suggests people should eat meat, not vegan (http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm)


If you can have less suffering in fewer animals or people isn't that morally better then more suffering in more animals or people even if you can't have no suffering?

Not when it means limiting free choice, then no, I don't think so.

Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else?
One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations - causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment.

[TC]

By comparing the suffering of non-sentient animals to the horrific suffering endured by the the sentient Jews during the holocaust, they are cheapening and degrading the tortures that many brave men and women underwent and of which some survived.

All animals that aren't either sleeping or brain dead are sentient, the idea of a "non-sentient animal" is absurd, at least among vertebrates...Dogs and cats and cows and chicken and so on show the same signs of conciousness and awareness as people who can't speak do.

And it doesn't cheapen it at all, if anything the chicken comparison exadurates the suffering of holocaust victims because chicken in factory farms are in even more barbaric conditions then the Nazi death camps, its just that extreme.

Here watch this video http://www.meetyourmeat.com/ and tell me you don't think its the case if you can finish it without looking away from the moniter.

In fact when people talk about the most savage treatement of humans by other humans they refer to the way humans treat animals with words like 'butchered' and 'slaughtered' as being more intense means of describing brutality of killing someone then 'murdered' which is used only of humans.




Would you honestly say to a holocaust survivor's face that his suffering was no worse than that of a chicken?


No of course not, what would the point of that be, just to upset him? If someone told you that their child or parent or sibling or significant other died, and the same thing had happened to some random person you read about in the paper, would you honustly say to their face "your suffering is no worse then this other guys?" No, cause it would be horribly insensitive and tactless. Doesn't mean you wouldn't think it on a logical level though if the question was put to you directly.




As humans, don't you think we should be putting humans first, no?

How does that statment make more sense then "as Americans, don't you think we should be putting American's first, no?" to justify invading Iraq or "As Aryans, don't you think we should be putting pure blooded german stock nordic types first, no?" to justify murdering Jews (do i get points for referencing the holocaust too?? :-p) Its the same construction.

I do put humans first, the same way that i put people i care about first over people i know but have no relationship to or people who are total strangers...you're more likely to help people that you have a closer relationship with and in that sense it makes sense to help people in general before animals (unless its something like a pet)...but to put humans first just as putting your friends first, doesn't mean that anyone who isn't a human is simply a resource to be exploited however viciously you feel like it for whatever totally petty end like a hamburger you have in mind, anymore then you would say, torture kill and eat people who you don't really care so much about personally.



Not when it means limiting free choice, then no, I don't think so.


Who argues that free choice extends to harming others? Not even the most hard core libertarian or anarchist would claim that say, prohibiting murder means unacceptable limits on free choice.


How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else?

Bugs aren't comperable to farm animals they have entirely different types of nervous systems. I would much rather passively kill flies that are in the 'wild' and live for only a month anyways with specs of a brain and no spinal cord then actively kill cows that clearly have the capacity for a greater depth of experiance.



One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations - causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment.

So what?

[LSD]

are you sure about this information. becuase ive heard the exact opposite. more than half of the test results from animal testing are thrown out. and also, humans and animals differ in many ways so testing on animals does not show the exact effects it will have on humans.

Animal Testing - Facts vs. Myths (http://www.fbresearch.org/education/fact-vs-myth.htm)

The Anthrax vaccine, Chicken Pox vaccine, Cholera vaccine, Diphtheria vaccine, Flu vaccine, Influenza B vaccine, Hepatitis A vaccine, Hepatitis B vaccine, Measles vaccine, Mumps vaccine, Polio vaccine, Rabies vaccine, Rubella vaccine, Smallpox vaccine, Tetanus vaccine, Whooping Cough vaccine, Yellow Fever vaccine, Insulin, Pennicillin, Stretpmycin, Chemotherapy, Cycosporine, etc.... were all developed thanks to animal tresting.

There is no substitute!


why cant they test the shit on them selves?

Yes, why can't that doctor developing an aids vaccine inject himself with aids... :rolleyes:


the ALF on the other hand i think is really good...if you really think 'meat is murder' and you have the oprotunity to stop 'murder' don't you have a moral obligation to take it?

Yes. And if you "really think" that Jews are an inferior parasitic race and you have the "opportunity to stop" them, don't you have a "moral obligation to take it"?

You see, acting on ones morals is not a good thing when those morals are completely fucked up. I doesn't matter if neo-nazis really believe what their advocating, what they're advocating is wrong. Likwise for the ALF.


Did it ever occur to you that fire and explosions are, in of themselves, simply physical phenomenon that are morally and politically neutral...that are only given political or moral significance by what it is that they're destroying? I think disabling things that are being used for reactionary purposes is progressive and disabling things that are being used for progressive purposes is reactionary. Blowing up abortion clinics and Black churchs is reactionary. Burning down prison offices and imperialist military facilities is progressive.

And burning down a medical research center is a reactionary.


If you can have less suffering in fewer animals or people isn't that morally better then more suffering in more animals or people even if you can't have no suffering?

No.

The ALF doesn&#39;t want to create "minimum suffering", they want to "free the animsl", don&#39;t think that those are complementary aims. The ALF firebombs research clinics. The ALF, if it had the power, would effectively grind medical science to a halt. Tha doesn&#39;t reduce suffering, it increases it, although we&#39;ll have more rats around... <_<

And, besides, your question gives animals and human moral parity in terms of suffering, that simply does not exist.

But look, no one here supports needless animal cruelty. No one wants to go around beating dogs and strangling cats. But animals are not human and we cannot treat them as such. We are omnivores, we eat animals. That&#39;s about as natural an act as there is. Preventing people from eating meat is an act of oppression. It reduces freedom of action for nebulous reasons in support of a nebulous goal.

The animal fanatics want to give animals the rights of people with none of the responsibilities. I suppose that means that we should all financially support them so that they don&#39;t starve&#33; I can&#39;t imagine what they forsee animals giving back to society however...

The simple truth is that animals are not sentient and as such unable to be a part of our society. They are inferior to us and pretending that that isn&#39;t true doesn&#39;t change it. WE ARE SUPERIOR TO MICE&#33;


All animals that aren&#39;t either sleeping or brain dead are sentient, the idea of a "non-sentient animal" is absurd, at least among vertebrates...Dogs and cats and cows and chicken and so on show the same signs of conciousness and awareness as people who can&#39;t speak do.

Sentience is a complex subject, and neither of us will settle that debate here.

How about we agree that dogs and cats are not rational actors and that they are not capable of advanced complex thought?


And it doesn&#39;t cheapen it at all, if anything the chicken comparison exadurates the suffering of holocaust victims because chicken in factory farms are in even more barbaric conditions then the Nazi death camps, its just that extreme.

And how does that comparison not cheapen the holocaust?

Saying that the murder of chickens is a moral parallel to the systematic murder of humans says that chickens and holocaust victims are equally deserving of protection and that, therefore, one is not more or less preferable to the other.


I do put humans first, the same way that i put people i care about first over people i know but have no relationship to or people who are total strangers...you&#39;re more likely to help people that you have a closer relationship with and in that sense it makes sense to help people in general before animals (unless its something like a pet)...but to put humans first just as putting your friends first, doesn&#39;t mean that anyone who isn&#39;t a human is simply a resource to be exploited however viciously you feel like it for whatever totally petty end like a hamburger you have in mind, anymore then you would say, torture kill and eat people who you don&#39;t really care so much about personally.

Again, you&#39;re making a ludicrous moral parity between humans and animals.

Animals do not have human rights&#33; They are not a part of human society and so do not enjoy the rights given by that society. The very idea of rights is a human invention and applies only to humans. Society must protect rights because it is in the best interest of that society that it do so, that&#39;s it.

There is no "higher being" enforcing rights, they are as much a societal creation as anything. Sosicety exists to bennefit the members of said society, therefore it is the obligation of society to afford all liberties and basic rights to members of society so long as said liberties to not infringe on the same rights and liberties of other member of society.

Human society has no obligation to those species which are intrinsically biologically incapable of participating in such society.

Our human obligations are such because that is the nature of our relationship. Our relationship with other animals is in the context of their relationhip with themselves and with other animals. Animals eat animals&#33; Therefore, from a philosophical sense, the eating of meat is within their moral framework. The primary relationship in nature between animal and animal, mammal and mammal is that of hunter and prey, therefore, in terms of our natural responsibility, we are merely participating in preexisting supersocial acts.

That&#39;s philosophy, now here&#39;s reason: Rights are a societal creation. We are only obligated to provide rights for those who are part of human society. We have no obligation, nor logical reason, to provide rights for those who are not only not a part of said society, but of a species which is fundamentally incapable of even convieving of rights.

Specially incapable. There may be members of human society (infants, the infirmed) who are not capable of concieving of much, but the capacity and the excersizing of said capacity are two seperate things. Humans are genetically capable of concieving of complex abstract ideas, other animals are not.


Who argues that free choice extends to harming others? Not even the most hard core libertarian or anarchist would claim that say, prohibiting murder means unacceptable limits on free choice.

Free choice does not extend to hurting other HUMANS.

Animals are not people too&#33;
Meat is not murder&#33;

...it&#39;s meat. The killing of a human and the killing of an animal are entirely different moral acts. One is the killing of a fellow member of society and righted individual, the other is the killing of a non-protected biological entity.


Bugs aren&#39;t comperable to farm animals they have entirely different types of nervous systems. I would much rather passively kill flies that are in the &#39;wild&#39; and live for only a month anyways with specs of a brain and no spinal cord then actively kill cows that clearly have the capacity for a greater depth of experiance.

:lol: :lol:

So now you&#39;re saying that certain animals are more deserving of "rights" than others. ...based on what? Nervous system? Life span?

From what do you derive that we have a moral obligation to a cow but not to a fly?

"Greater depth of experience"?

Fine, but why draw the line there? Humans have a "greater depth of experience" than a cow, so why not just extend rights to them?

After all, that would make more sense&#33;

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

LSD, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Git&#33; :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So what?

An ALF ecofascist would give the same response if you pointed out that freeing mink is more harmful than not doing so, or that PETA actually kills more animals then it gets adopted.

But I notice you didn&#39;t address this.

[SupportTheALF]

Let me just first point out that im absolutely shocked someof this filth is written on a "Revolutionary Left" message board.

Where should I start?

Animal Testing

I don&#39;t think you people realise, animal testing is causing harm to both ANIMALS, and HUMANS. I notice Lysergic Acid Diethylamide failed to point out the drugs which was deemed safe for humans, through animal testing, which killed humans. Want some examples?

Lotronex caused five deaths in America and was withdrawn in February 2000. Another 93 known patients had to have surgery due to the effects of Lotronex, including removal of the colon. In clinical trials 27% of Lotronex patients suffered severe constipation, compared to 5% in a group taking no active treatment. GSK can&#39;t claim they were trying to save lives with Lotronex, it was a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a condition which causes discomfort but is not serious - unlike the serious conditions Lotronex caused.

GSK were also the manufacturers of Raxar, an antibiotic which was withdrawn in December 1999 after thirteen deaths. Raxar disrupted the QT interval (in other words, made the heartbeat irregular), yet was not necessary because there were already plenty of satisfactory antibiotics.

Maybe they also helped gain approval for Avelox, a drug their customer Bayer released just weeks after Raxar was withdrawn. Another antibiotic which was found to influence the QT interval, within a year it was cited in reports of eighteen deaths.
Roche, released Posicor in the summer of 1997. 100 reported deaths were filed by the following June, and even Roche admitted that Posicor patients had a death rate 10% higher than those on similar treatments. Posicor was a treatment for high blood pressure, and offered nothing that exisiting, safer drugs couldn&#39;t offer. An official from the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who oversee drug approval said of Posicor "there are a lot of other effective therapies out there, why not be safe with the public?". If they had been, those 100 people would probably be alive today.

Redux was a diet pill made by American Home Products (AHP). In17 months on the market, 123 deaths were linked with it by the FDA. Heart valve damage and respiratory problems caused by the drug were widespread, and damages for each category are expected to reach &#036;4,750 million.

Theres a small example. Oh wait....he/she ALSO didnt point out the the chemicals/diseases whichare safe for are safe in ANIMALS....but not for HUMANS&#33; Should these be pointed out as well? I believe they should be&#33;

Rabies produces many of the same symptoms in humans and animals but a vaccine that works in animals may kill a human.
Polio can be produced in monkeys but since the disease is subtly different experimental results cannot be extrapolated to humans.
Herpes B exists in animals and can be transmitted from an animal to a human, but Herpes B is asymptomatic in monkeys and kills humans.
Asbestos, arsenic and benzene are a few of the products that lingered on the marketplace because they were proven safe on animals but are deadly to humans.
Tobacco use was promoted by doctors and many others because it failed to produce ill effects in dogs forced to smoke thousands of cigarettes.

Now perhaps...I should point out which drugs are safe for HUMANS, but not for ANIMALS&#33;

Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is deadly to cats;
Aspirin causes birth defects in some animals and blood abnormalities in cats; Ibuprofen (Motrin) causes kidney disease in dogs at very low doses.
Penicillin and cyclosporine, a drug used for transplant patients, were held back from human use for decades because they did not work on animals. Penicillin and streptomycin are historical examples of in vitro discovery, and there have been thousands since.
Not only are in vitro (test tube) tests more humane than killing animals by exposing them to poisons, but also they have been shown to be more accurate in producing results which correlate from laboratory to real life. Toxicity tests using human cell cultures are two to three times more accurate than tests on rats and mice.

If you think animal experiments are neccecary consider the following:

Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.
At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.
40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.
Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.
Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.
95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.
Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.
The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.
We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.
Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.
Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.
Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.
If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.
Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.
As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

As far as cosmetic, cleaning products, herbicides, pesticides, ETC goes for animal testing, its CLEARLY OBVIOUS it does not need to happen, as there are so many companies which do not do it.

You can&#39;t trust people who can do this. Colgate/Palmolive who do many animal tests, lied to my face and said they didnt. Unless it has the Cruelty Free stamp of approval, dont trust any company.


Animals are sentient beings. Weather they be a rat, mouse, dog, cat, pig, sheep, cow, monkey, rabbit...or human.

Once an animal has seen the inside of a lab, they won&#39;t see the outside again. They are left in small plastic cages, or small barred cages, with either no contact, or little contact with another being of their species. Monkeys mutilate themselves by scratching themselves, pulling off their own fingers, etc, out of stress and boredom. Dogs go absolutely crazy in their cages, from stress and boredom and some even begin circling at an alarming speed, which until i saw for myself, i never thought would be possible. Animals spend their entire, miserable lives in these cages, until theyre taken out for their tests.

Its not only the housing conditions, and tests these animals have to suffer, but it is also abuse. One baby monkey had "Crap" tattooed into his head by "scientists". At Huntington Life Sciences, there is video footage of beagles being punched in the face, LIVE animals being dissected, monkeys being dragged around on leashes, who are then kicked, and stepped on.

There ARE alternatives to animal testing. Here are just a FEW examples..

Eytex
Produced by the National Testing Corp. in Palm Springs, California, Eytex is an in-vitro (test-tube) procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea to an alien substance. This alternative is used by Avon instead of the cruel Draize eye irritancy test.

Skintex
An in-vitro method to assess skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the reaction of a foreign substance on human skin (both Eytex and Skintex can measure 5,000 different materials).

EpiPack
Produced by Clonetics in San Diego, California, the EpiPack uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.

Neutral Red Bioassay
Developed at Rockefeller University and promoted by Clonetics, the Neutral Red Bioassay is cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity.

Testskin
Produced by Organogenesis in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Testskin uses human skin grown in a sterile plastic bag and can be used for measuring irritancy, etc. (this method is used by Avon, Amway, and Estee Lauder).

TOPKAT
Produced by Health Design, Inc. in Rochester, New York, TOPKAT is a computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratonogenicity (this method is used by the U.S. Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration).

Ames Test
Tests for carcinogenicity by mixing a test culture with Salmonella typhimurium and adding activating enzymes. It was able to detect 156 out of 174 (90%) animal carcinogens and 90 out of 100 (88%) non-carcinogenes.

Agarose Diffusion Method
Tests for toxicity of plastic and synthetic devices used in medical devices such as heart valves, artificial joints, and intravenous lines. Human cells and the test material are placed in a flask and are separated by a thin-layer of agarose (a derivative of seaweed agar). If the material tested is an irritant, an area of killed cells appears around the substance.

If this doesnt convince you, all I can suggest if that you enter an animal testing &#39;lab&#39;, and see the horrible conditions and torture these animals must go through, just so you can feel safe using your shampoo.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Taken from a WSWS article:
Certain individuals are not shy about spelling out the logic of their views. Dave Foreman, a founder of Earth First&#33; and advocate of curbs on immigration, is a prominent figure in these circles. In the late 1980s, while famine stalked Ethiopia, he declared, "The best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance." He wrote to one critic: "Call it fascist if you like, but I am more interested in bears, rain forests, and whales than in people."

Correspondence on animal rights (http://www.wsws.org/articles/testdir/sep2004/corr-s14.shtml)

[RedSkinheadUltra]

"...If such an individualist ethical outlook is taken up 200 years later, but emphasising equality with animals, how can we assess it in class terms? Only that it is the outlook of a disoriented and backward-looking section of the middle class that has lost all confidence in the mass of the human population, the working class..."

"...This does not mean that we are pacifists. We recognise that in developing a movement that seeks the democratic control and ownership of production, we will be opposed by the tiny minority of extremely wealthy people that currently own the transnational corporations and financial institutions. There is every likelihood that they will develop fascistic movements and use repressive state measures to inflict violence on the working class majority. In such a situation, we have always reserved the right of the majority to defend itself. This has nothing to do with advocacy of violence for its own sake, a position advocated by anarchists, animal rights protesters and other middle class tendencies that have lost all confidence in democratic politics based on the working class majority..."

[SupportTheALF]

Lets talk about some of the conditions animals have to go through to end up as your dinner..shall we?

I&#39;ll start off with chickens. Battery hens can be said to be the most mistreated animal on the planet. Four to six battery hens are generally packed into battery cages, either no bigger, or just bigger then ONE A4 piece of paper, cubed. Because of the cramped conditions, battery hen&#39;s are required to have their beaks chopped off with a hot blade, to stop them pecking and injuring each other. A chickens beak is very sensitive, full of nerve endings, and theyre removed with no anesthetic. The hens are contantly being rubbed up against metal wires/bars, so they quickly loser a large amount of their feathers, and because they have to stand on wire mesh for their entire miserable lives, they develope sores, swelling, and bruising on their feet. The small, cramped conditions means the birds never even get to stretch out their wings. It always means the smaller and weaker birds are crushed under the bigger and stronger birds. They are never able to retrive food and/or water, so they either starve to death, or are crushed to death. Because of the built up of chicken excretment, disease quickly developes and spreads. Battery hens do not just suffer physically under these conditions, they also suffer mentally. Chickens naturally have a pecking order ( a social heiarchy), in these small cramped conditions, the stronger birds just kill the weaker ones, as you read above. 20% of battery hens die of stress or disease. After 2 years, the bodies of these "machines", are so over worked, they can no longer produce the number of eggs demanded of them, so they are sent off to the slaughter house. This is generally after 2 years. Naturally, chickens can live to be 20 years of age.

Barn chickens (for consumption) don&#39;t live much better. Like battery hens, barn chickens live in manipulated lighting, so they believe it is day time for most of the day/night, and continue eating, to fatten themselves up. They are pumped with drugs, antibiotics and steriods. Antibiotics to try to control the disease going through each chicken, and steriods to make them grow big and plump quicker. Barn chickens are sent to the slaughter house after only just 6 weeks. Naturally, it would take a chicken much longer to reach the mature size. Because there are thousands of chickens are stuffed into a barn, they crush each other when they are afraid. I actually had a friend do shift work at Inghams chickens barns, and he went vegetarian because of the experience. He had to drive a forklift over live chickens, stuff them into crates, and take them to the slaughter house. He told me from the slaughter house, all he could hear was chickens screaming.

When chickens are slaughtered, they are all hung upside down, and a blade runs around and slits their throats. Because the chickens are not stunned, they can still move, and sometimes the blade misses. Because slitting a chickens throat does not kill it instantly, most chickens are boiled to death - while still fully conscious. Chickens experience extreme mental trauma while in the slaughter house. They witness other chickens being slaughtered infront of them - they know their fate. I should have mentioned roosters rarely even make it to the slaughter house - the majority are crushed when they are small chicks, because there is no use for them.

Pigs.

Many people don&#39;t know it, but pigs are highly sensitive, and intelligent animals. They are considered to have more intelligence then that of a dog. Like humans, pigs can cry. Pigs are mistreated from birth. Pregnant sows are kept in what are called gestation stalls from when they are old enough to breed. They are artificially inseminated, and left in these stalls for upto 4 years at a time. These stalls are so small the sows don&#39;t even have enough space to turn around. They have the option of standing, sitting, or laying down, with their legs hitting another sow. The sows skin becomes covered in open sores, and chafing, from rubbing against the sides of the stalls. Because of contant chewing of the bars of the front of the stall, the sows get big mouth sores, resulting in more pain for the animal. The sows do this out of boredom, or because theyre slowly going insane. When the sow is ready to give birth, conditions don&#39;t become any better. The forced into stalls inwhich they cannot stand up, they can only lay down and let their piglets feed off them. They are not able to show their piglets affection, and if their is a sick/lame piglet, it is left their to die infront of it&#39;s mother, and siblings. If a piglet is female, it joins the mother in the life of being a birth machine, if male, it is sent to a barn to be grown for slaughter.

If a baby pig is not fit for consumption, or its lame, a farm worker with kill it with a captive bolt gun. This is a bolt which fires into the pigs brain, supposedly killing it. Because the animal&#39;s movement is not restricted, the bolt often misses, and the pig is left to be skinned, stepped on, dismembered, or just disregarded, all while fully conscious. Pigs with a life with no bedding, just hard wooden floors, and because of this, they can obtain large open wounds, infections, etc etc. Because boredom leads to pigs biting each others tails, when they are a piglet, they are cut off with hot blades, with no anesthetic. They also have their teeth clipped, so they do not resort to cannibalism if there is a lack of food. Pigs are also pumped with steriods and antibiotics, for the same reason as chickens.

When pigs reach the slaughter house, they are thrown on large conveyor belts until they reach the killing floor. When they do reach the killing floor, they are &#39;stunned&#39;, with a captive bolt gun, but as i said, they generally miss the area in which they should have hit. The pigs are then hoisted up, by one leg, and their throats are slit, most while still fully conscious. They are then put onto another large conveyor belt, and dropped into scalding tanks. In the USA 1 pig is killed every 3 seconds. Because this number is so high, many pigs are dropped into the scalding tanks - while still fully conscious.

The animals dont only suffer because of the conditions they are kept in. They suffer because they are abused by the farm workers. At a piggery in the USA, undercover footage showed farm workers beating and inserting things into pigs&#39; anus&#39;. There was a case of a pig who had her leg broken by being beaten so much. She was then dragged outside, beaten, until she could not walk. Her throat was then slit, and she had a cinder block thrown on her head 3 times - she was still fully conscious. The farm workers then proceeded to skin, and dismember her, all while she was still alive. If you like to see video footage of this, i will give you a link.

Pork producers lose &#036;187 million a year due to dysentery, cholera, trichinosis, and other diseases fostered by factory farming.


Cows - meat and dairy.

I will start with dairy cows - because this is where it all begins. The dairy farm isnt the classic Old McDonald farm, where the cows are able to roam free in paddocks, until in the morning where the farmer milks them for his families milk. Cows are forced to stay in milking sheds. Three times a day, metal suckers are attached to their udders, and they are milked, until theyre empty. The metal suckers make their udders swell, and leaves them with open sores. Years of this makes cows so lame, by the end of it, they can generally not even stand up anymore. After a cow is not producing enough milk to meet the demand, she is sent off to slaughter. This is generally after around 4 years, and cows usually produce milk until they are about 12 - 15 years of age.

Cows are impregnated, and still forced to milk while pregnant. When her calf is born, it&#39;s sex depends on it&#39;s fate. If it is a female calf, it will stay with it&#39;s mother until it is old enough to be milked. If male, it will be taken from it&#39;s mother just a few days after birth, and chained in a small wooden crate. Because they have not been able to have the freedom to walk around - to strengthen their legs, their muscles become very frail, and the calves can generally not even stand in these crates. They are force fed a milk replacement, full of hormones, but lacking iron. Anemia keeps a calves flesh pale, and tender, but leaves the calf unable to move properly. They are slaughtered after 4 months of being kept in these conditions, and most are very sick, or to weak to walk when it comes time to be slaughtered. 1 in every 10 calves die in confinement.

Cattle which are kept for slaughter are generally fed a very unnatural diet of high bulk grains, and &#39;fillers&#39;, such as sawdust. They are castrated, branded, and de horned, all with out anesthetics.Im sure you all wouldnt like to have your teste&#39;s/clit cut off, be burned, or have a limb dismembered, all without painkillers, would you?&#33;

Sheep

Sheep are generally kept free range, but they also go through hell. When they are just baby theyre castrated, and a lump of their flesh is cut off, using a cruel practise called mulesing. This involves cutting a large piece of flesh off the sheeps backside, with hot blades. The wound is left undressed, and generally becomes infected. Sheeps wool is sheered, very uncarefully. The sheep after being sheered, are always left with open wounds, and bleeding sores. Most of Australia&#39;s sheep are exported to the middle east. Sheep have to endure weeks on stinking, filth filled ships, which are generally hotter then 40 degrees C. When they reach the middle east, they are apparently killed in the "halal" fashion, which means they are slaughtered by having their throat slit, and they are then dismembered - while still fully conscious.


I have taken you through the lives of the main animals used for food. There are still many more, such as kangaroos. 7 million kangaroos are killed a year for food and leather, this does not include the joeys which are clubbed to death after their mothers have been shot. Rabbits are kept confined in tiny cages until they are slaughtered, they rarely receive fresh food and water, and they have no bedding. Turkeys, ducks, and geese are kept in conditions very similar to the barn chicken.

Many people have come to the conclusion that veganism does not supply the body with the protein needed to be healthy, but, veganism CAN supply us with what protein is needed. Vegans should generally never worry about getting to much protein in their diet. Like any diet, it just needs to be varied. There is ALWAYS a big argument that vitamin B12 can only be found in meat products, and that is absolute crap. One glass (200mls) of soy milk contains 60% of the daily recommended amount of B12. Say, you have soy milk over your cereal, then a soy burger for dinner, youve taken in more B12 then you even need a day. The human body uses 70% of proteins found in meat products, and between 65-70% in soy products. So the balance is almost equal. Eat meat, or soy, and you will get enough protein in your diet. I was told by a doctor that veganism is one of the healthiest diets you can live on.

As for people talking about "HUMANS ARE MORE IMPORTANT&#33; SORT OUT THERE PROBLEMS FIRST&#33;". 75% of the grain in the USA alone is given to animals for slaughter. This grain, could feed the entire world. Over 50% of water in the USA, and over 75% of the water in Australia, goes to animals for slaughter. Australia is having a &#39;water shortage crisis&#39;. It has been blamed on people watering their gardens to much....what do you think? Thousands of kilometres of South American rain forest are cleared EVERY WEEK, for glazing fields for cattle. Animal agriculture&#39;s dependence on higher yields accelerates topsoil erosion on our farmlands, rendering land less productive for crop cultivation, and forcing the conversion of wilderness to grazing and farm lands. Animal waste from massive feedlots and factory farms is a leading cause of pollution in our groundwater and rivers. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has linked animal agriculture to a number of other environmental problems, including: contamination of aquatic ecosystems, soil, and drinking water by manure, pesticides, and fertilizers; acid rain from ammonia emissions; greenhouse gas production; and depletion of aquifers for irrigation.

James Cromwell (for those who dont know, the farmer in the film"Babe", an animal rights and environmental activist, who i was lucky enough to meet, AMAZING man) once said "I think it is impossible to be an effective environmentalist, without being a vegan". He&#39;s 100% correct.

[SupportTheALF]

As for the ALF, their aim is to cause economic damage to those make money from abuse and exploitation. Whether it be from fire bombing (which rarely happens, everyone uses it to make the ALF look &#39;bad&#39;), breaking an entering (a raid), stickering, painting, etc.

More power to them. :)


All I have to say. Haha.

[LSD]

Animal Testing

I don&#39;t think you people realise, animal testing is causing harm to both ANIMALS, and HUMANS.

(snip)


Guess what, I can copy and paste to ...or I could just provide a link.

Of course the difference is my link is from actual doctors.

Facts and Myths (http://www.fbresearch.org/education/fact-vs-myth.htm)
Product Testing (http://www.pirweb.org/pir07f_safety.htm)
Survey of Nobel Laureates (http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/nobel/nobel_survey.html)


Lets talk about some of the conditions animals have to go through to end up as your dinner..shall we?

Well, that was a complete waste.

No one here is arguing that current slaughter techniques are not often brutal&#33;

That&#39;s not the point. If you want to talk about possible reforms to animal processing systems, that&#39;s a seperate discussion. One which, by the way, is not at all clear cut. Yes, if it is reasonable possible, we should make slaughtering more humane, but only if it does not seriously hinder human consumption levels ...but, again, that&#39;s a seperate discussion.

What we&#39;re talking about here is the ALF which is not just against current meat processing, it&#39;s against meat&#33;


As for people talking about "HUMANS ARE MORE IMPORTANT&#33; SORT OUT THERE PROBLEMS FIRST&#33;". 75% of the grain in the USA alone is given to animals for slaughter. This grain, could feed the entire world. Over 50% of water in the USA, and over 75% of the water in Australia, goes to animals for slaughter. Australia is having a &#39;water shortage crisis&#39;. It has been blamed on people watering their gardens to much....what do you think? Thousands of kilometres of South American rain forest are cleared EVERY WEEK, for glazing fields for cattle. Animal agriculture&#39;s dependence on higher yields accelerates topsoil erosion on our farmlands, rendering land less productive for crop cultivation, and forcing the conversion of wilderness to grazing and farm lands.

This is all, again, totally irrlevent. There is not a lack of food in the word&#33; There&#39;s a distribution problem, but the solution to that is not to stop eating meat, but to stop capitalism.

And, are you saying that the goal of the ALF is to make food production more economical and efficient?

Strange, because I thought it was "total animal liberation", a concept, which by the way, is NUTS. I noticed you haven&#39;t actually addressed, let alone rebutted any of the previous posts in this thread. Hardly surprising, but I would like to see you defend the ALF&#39;s wack-job contention that animals are equally deserving of right as humans in human society.


As for the ALF, their aim is to cause economic damage to those make money from abuse and exploitation.

No it&#39;s not, it&#39;s to stop people from "abusing and exploiting" animals. They couldn&#39;t give a damn about actual exploitation of, you know, people.

Once again, animals do not have human rights.


All I have to say. Haha.

How enlightening.

[SupportTheALF]

Of course I copy and pasted, whats the point of re-writing something when it will say exactly the same thing?

Want some links...here you are&#33;

http://www.shac.net/SCIENCE/vlasik.html
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/dav.html
http://marcussternum.tripod.com/doctors.htm
http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/quotes.htm
http://www.lighthouse.net.au/lights/index.htm

Would you like more? Or is over 1000 doctors not evidence enough for you?

Why did you dismiss everything that was written about drugs which are fine for animals, or kill animals, not allowed or allowed for human use? Or the fact that many animal tested drugs have killed humans, when proven fine on animals?

Of course the ALF are against meat, you will find all vegans/vegetarians who are so for the animals that they are against meat.

You speak so much of "free choice". Why should animals not have the choice to possess their own flesh like you or I? They feel emotions, and physical feelings just like you and I do. Is that not enough for you? You eat them and condone the slaughter for their flesh simply because they don&#39;t speak human. Thats the only reason you eat them. Oh...and because youre so weak you have to let your tastebuds decide on what moral choices you make. Sad.

Of course animals dont have human rights, they are only given "rights" if theyre animal you pet, and call your own. The ALF are fighting for the freedom of those who can&#39;t speak up for themselves. They should be applauded. Risking your life to save another is an amazing thing, whether that life be a humans, or a lab rats.

[LSD]

Would you like more? Or is over 1000 doctors not evidence enough for you?

Not really, since I know nothing about those doctors; their experience, training, speciality, or abilities.

I put much greater trust in the opinions of those who have actually done ground-breaking work then 1000 random unknown medical school graduates.

And survey says... (http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/nobel/nobel_survey.html)


Why did you dismiss everything that was written about drugs which are fine for animals, or kill animals, not allowed or allowed for human use? Or the fact that many animal tested drugs have killed humans, when proven fine on animals?

Because it was irrelevent.

Animal testing isn&#39;t perfect and it cannot be relied on alone, but that doesn&#39;t mean that it should not be used&#33;

It should be used in addition to other methods of research and experimentation. Animal testing isn&#39;y sufficient, but it&#39;s needed.

And, honestly, I think even you must realize that the fact that a technique is not alone sufficient is not an argument for its abolition&#33;


You speak so much of "free choice". Why should animals not have the choice to possess their own flesh like you or I?

Because animals are not like "you or I". They are not even capable of thinking of such concepts. They don&#39;t have the fundamental ability to be even tangentially aware of a glimmer of the notion of the idea of "free choice".

Any society has an obligation to the members of that society, that is all is has an obligation to. There is a society of humanity. All humans are, ultimately, interconnected and able to communicate and form a coherent society. We cannot form a society with mice&#33;

How, exactly, do you envisage the "liberation" of animals anyways?&#33; Would animals be free to randomly roam the streets at will, killing and shitting wherever and whomever they please?

If we give them rights, then they have an accompanying responsibility to society. If we treat them like humans than they must behave like humans. We both know that isn&#39;t going to happen.

Animals are fundamentally inferior to us. They are so inferior that they are genetically incapable of being a part of society. Therefore, they cannot be afforded rights that only exist in human society.

Remember, if we treat animals the way they treat each other, we&#39;d eat them.


They feel emotions, and physical feelings just like you and I do. Is that not enough for you?

NO&#33;&#33;

:angry:

Emotion and physical sensation is NOT sufficient to be given human rights. The cognitive capacity to concieve of such rights is. The ability to participate in the society granting said rights is. RATIONAL THINKING IS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Thats the only reason you eat them. Oh...and because youre so weak you have to let your tastebuds decide on what moral choices you make. Sad.

Oh, brilliant ad hominem. What&#39;s particularly "sad" is that you&#39;re letting emotionalism be your guide. You don&#39;t want to hurt all those cute cuddly little animals...

How about malaria carrying mosquitos? They&#39;re not cute, you cool with slaugherting them?

:o You are?&#33;

But wait&#33; They&#39;re capable of "physical sensation"&#33; Probably even rudamentaty emotion&#33;&#33;&#33; How can you kill them?&#33;?&#33; MURDERER&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Risking your life to save another is an amazing thing, whether that life be a humans, or a lab rats.

If you want to risk your life to save a rat, knock yourself out. Believe me, we wouldn&#39;t shed a tear.

What I object to is your risking my life.

[SupportTheALF]

HEART SURGEON, DOCTOR JERRY VLASAK, is an EX VIVISECTOR, who is COMPAIGNING AGAINST VIVISECTION, because through his HANDS ON EXPERIENCE, with VIVISECTION, he has learnt it DOES NOT BENEFIT HUMAN BEINGS at all.

Of course, all pro-vivisection doctors are award winning, 60 year old men with YEARS worth of knowledge, right? And all those against vivisection are young medical school graduates with no experience. Is that what your saying?

Hitler advanced medical knowledge 50 years by testing on humans....perhaps we should do the same, eh?

Youre risking your health by trusting products which test on animals. Trusting BILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES, who are LYING TO YOU, so you will buy their product. Your choice, not mine.

Animals apart of our society, and we are apart of there&#39;s, why can&#39;t you except that? We need to live together in harmony.


We have a higher intelligence then animals, of course. Shouldnt we use that intelligence to protect them from harm? Just as we should protect our environment, and each other from harm?

Animals eat other animals out of instinct. We do it out of greed and selfishness.

You eat animal flesh full of disease, why are you bothered by a mosquitoe? I don&#39;t kill bugs, purposely.

Rational thinking....doesnt that mean all disabled people should be killed? Theres no use for them in society&#33; Lets kill them&#33; (Someone&#39;s starting to sound ALOT like Hitler to me, infact).


Youre risking your own life, buddy.

[LSD]

Hitler advanced medical knowledge 50 years by testing on humans....

No he didn&#39;t.

Most of the research conducted was later found to be worthless.


Youre risking your health by trusting products which test on animals. Trusting BILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES, who are LYING TO YOU, so you will buy their product.

I agree with you. Capitalism breeds deceipt. That is why we must abolish capitalism.

...wait, weren&#39;t we talking about the ALF?


Animals apart of our society, and we are apart of there&#39;s, why can&#39;t you except that?

Because it&#39;s crap ...and you haven&#39;t offered a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

Society is only composed of those who are capable of participating in society. Animals aren&#39;t even aware that society exists.


We need to live together in harmony.

Enough of this disney bullshit.

We will never live in "harmony" with animals because animals are incapable of even understanding what that concept means&#33;&#33;

Do you really think that a timberwolf will live in "harmony" with you?

Again, you fail to address what the end result of all of this is. What is the endgame here?

Once you grant full rights to animals ...what happens?

Since they are unable to at all contribute to society ...or follow the rules of society ...or UNDERSTAND THE EXISTANCE of society, how can they be protected by that society?

Basically, you&#39;re advocating chaos&#33;


We have a higher intelligence then animals, of course. Shouldnt we use that intelligence to protect them from harm?

No.

We should use it to contribute to society ...or to do anything else we damn well want to so long as it doesn&#39;t hurt anyone else in society.

We have no obligation to use our intelligence for any specific purpose, let alone saving fucking rabbits&#33;


You eat animal flesh full of disease, why are you bothered by a mosquitoe?

I guess you&#39;ve never been to the tropics, my friend.

If you&#39;d ever seen someone dying of malaria, you&#39;d never ask that question.


I don&#39;t kill bugs, purposely.

Answer the question&#33;

Should we kill mosquitos in malaria ridden areas?


Rational thinking....doesnt that mean all disabled people should be killed? Theres no use for them in society&#33; Lets kill them&#33;

Don&#39;t be obtuse.

There&#39;s a difference between capacity and the ability to excersize said capacity. Humans are capable of rational thought, even if individual humans are prevented from doing so by overriding conditions. Animals are genetically incapable and hence never able.


Hitler advanced medical knowledge 50 years by testing on humans....perhaps we should do the same, eh?

(Someone&#39;s starting to sound ALOT like Hitler to me, infact).

Wow, Hitler analogies... <_<

Not exactly the captain of the debate team, are you?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:04 AM



Youre risking your health by trusting products which test on animals. Trusting BILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES, who are LYING TO YOU, so you will buy their product.

I agree with you. Capitalism breeds deceipt. That is why we must abolish capitalism.

...wait, weren&#39;t we talking about the ALF?


i bet the alf has done more to fight capitalism than you ever have. they attack capitalist targets. you imagine them attacking labs where great things are happening? bullshit.

[LSD]

they attack capitalist targets

Like research labs?


you imagine them attacking labs

Yeah like that.


where great things are happening?

Like medical research, yes.


bullshit.

I don&#39;t suppose you could be bothered to defend that rather terse analysis?

[SupportTheALF]

Im lacking sleep at the moment, so my arguements arent going the at their best, i&#39;ll acknowledge that.

I can&#39;t understand your mindset. I think we should drop this, as were going to go back and forth with the same arguements, which we are.

I believe in abolishing society, and living in a community. Our beliefs differ on a big scale, so we wont come to an understanding with any of the points both parties have brought up.

Youre actually the first person ive ever spoken to who is pro animal testing, haha, and I work full time with an animal rights organisation,and we get alot of anti animal rights people come through who are still against vivisection.

But anyway,

Have a good one.

[LSD]

I believe in abolishing society, and living in a community.

That&#39;s a contradictory statement.

Community = society.

Maybe you mean abolishing the state? Well, in that case, I agree with you entirely&#33; The state is an oppressive institution which must be destroyed ...which is neither here nor there in our discussion on the ALF.


Youre actually the first person ive ever spoken to who is pro animal testing

Yes, that&#39;s a problem in much of the animal rights movement today. People isolate themselves with ideologically like-minded people and are never exposed to the obvious counter-arguments.

I think you should spend some time talking to some doctors who actually domedical research. You know, who are busy saving lives while the ALF is firebombing their clinics.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:14 AM

they attack capitalist targets

Like research labs?


you imagine them attacking labs

Yeah like that.


where great things are happening?

Like medical research, yes.


bullshit.

I don&#39;t suppose you could be bothered to defend that rather terse analysis?
i think you have a strange concept as to what the medical industry is. most labs arent finding cures to all these horrible diseases. most labs are creating shitty drugs to sell. whats the point of finding a cure for these things when you can have a new drug every couple of years for profit. so then yes some research labs are capitalist targets, no? and the alf dont just attack labs. they also sabotage butcher shops, is this not hurting capitalism? the meat industry is very large, they are disrupting the selling of goods by glueing locks and whatnot. you should be supporting the abolishment of the meat industry(the one we have now that is) if you are an anti-capitalist since it is a major profit maker, you are an anti-capitalist arent you? the only reason i respect your arguement is because at least you discuss and not automatically say, PETA-People eating tasty animals. thank you.

[SupportTheALF]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:19 AM

I believe in abolishing society, and living in a community.

That&#39;s a contradictory statement.

Community = society.

Maybe you mean abolishing the state? Well, in that case, I agree with you entirely&#33; The state is an oppressive institution which must be destroyed ...which is neither here nor there in our discussion on the ALF.


Youre actually the first person ive ever spoken to who is pro animal testing

Yes, that&#39;s a problem in much of the animal rights movement today. People isolate themselves with ideologically like-minded people and are never exposed to the obvious counter-arguments.

I think you should spend some time talking to some doctors who actually domedical research. You know, who are busy saving lives while the ALF is firebombing their clinics.
We actually have 5 people who work with us who are ex lab workers. My mum is a qualified doctor (although she doesnt practise, and has since become a social worker), who is completely against animal testing because of human health also.

Again, oppression, we oppress animals my friend. To expect to change the world we have to first change ourselves from the inside out, this change has to include whats on our plate.

Anyway, as I said, today is not my day for an arguement. I took off work so i could rest my brain, haha, never happens :lol: .

[violencia.Proletariat]

and you dont have to be vegi/vegan, which i dont understand why you are so agaisnt? its easy, healthier. you could be freegan. i also dont apreciate your stereotypical view of vegans/vegi&#39;s. im a vegitarian but i dont attack people who eat meat, or think im better than them. im happy to discuss the topic with people but i dont preach, and i dont look down on meat eaters unless they are assholes and stereotypical about vegis/vegans. there are elitists/assholes everywhere, i think you know that.

[LSD]

i think you have a strange concept as to what the medical industry is. most labs arent finding cures to all these horrible diseases. most labs are creating shitty drugs to sell. whats the point of finding a cure for these things when you can have a new drug every couple of years for profit.

Again, I agree with you that capitalism is a hindrence to medical progress, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the solution is to blow up research clinics&#33;

For the momment, they&#39;re all we have&#33; We need to attack capitalist infastructure not tangential areas like the drug industry which, while rather large, is not essential to capitalism.

And, besides, even if capitalism were abolisehd and research was done the way it should and cures were being produced ...if those cures were being made from animals, the ALF would firebomb the clinic.

The ALF doesn&#39;t care about capitalism, they care about "total animal liberation".


and the alf dont just attack labs. they also sabotage butcher shops, is this not hurting capitalism?

No.

It&#39;s hurting small petite-bourgeois shop owners and proletarian workers.

You want to hurt capitalism? Blow up the IMF&#33;


the meat industry is very large, they are disrupting the selling of goods by glueing locks and whatnot. you should be supporting the abolishment of the meat industry(the one we have now that is) if you are an anti-capitalist since it is a major profit maker

Every industry in capitalism is a "profit maker", otherwise they wouldn&#39;t be industries&#33;

The point is why target the meat industry in particular? Again, there are much more realistic and logical targets&#33;


you are an anti-capitalist arent you?

Yes, which is much more than I can say for the ALF&#33;

[LSD]

and you dont have to be vegi/vegan, which i dont understand why you are so agaisnt?

I&#39;m not&#33;

If you want to be a vegan, I can honestly say I don&#39;t care.


i also dont apreciate your stereotypical view of vegans/vegi&#39;s

Again, I don&#39;t have one.

I have a negative view of the ALF and PETA and like organizations, but I am quite aware that they represent the fringe extreme of vegetarians.

[LSD]

Again, oppression, we oppress animals my friend.

*sigh*

We cannot "oppress" animals. You&#39;re misusing words. We can only oppress members of society, oppression has no meaning outside of a social context. There is no "oppression" in nature and so we cannot oppress those who are not a part of society.

[SupportTheALF]

Just to clear something up, the ALF isnt an organisation. Its in reality it&#39;s simply a name animal rights actions are put under.

You can&#39;t become a member of the ALF, the ALF is memberless. Simply a name for those who risk their lives to stop animal exploitation.

[SupportTheALF]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:33 AM

Again, oppression, we oppress animals my friend.

*sigh*

We cannot "oppress" animals. You&#39;re misusing words. We can only oppress members of society, oppression has no meaning outside of a social context. There is no "oppression" in nature and so we cannot oppress those who are not a part of society.
Main Entry: op·press
Pronunciation: &-&#39;pres
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French oppresser, from Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, from ob- against + premere to press -- more at OB-, PRESS
1 a archaic : SUPPRESS b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2 : to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
synonym see WRONG
- op·pres·sor /-&#39;pre-s&r/ noun


I dont see "only members of society" in small letters anywhere...anyone else?

[LSD]

You can&#39;t become a member of the ALF, the ALF is memberless. Simply a name for those who risk their lives to stop animal exploitation.

Well, yes and no. Those who do actions in the name of ALF are generally considered to be "members", but you&#39;re right there&#39;s no formal organization of leadership. It&#39;s sort of like a lot of urban terrorist outfits. It basically works with unconnected cell groups that cannot be traced to one another.

Very tidy.

[LSD]

to burden spiritually or mentally

How can you mentally (or "spiritually") burden a creature that is incapable of complex rational thought?


I dont see "only members of society" in small letters anywhere...anyone else?

In order to be oppressed you must be capable of concieving of freedom. Animals are not.

[SupportTheALF]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:37 AM

You can&#39;t become a member of the ALF, the ALF is memberless. Simply a name for those who risk their lives to stop animal exploitation.

Well, yes and no. Those who do actions in the name of ALF are generally considered to be "members", but you&#39;re right there&#39;s no formal organization of leadership. It&#39;s sort of like a lot of urban terrorist outfits. It basically works with unconnected cell groups that cannot be traced to one another.

Very tidy.
Has to be ;)

[SupportTheALF]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:39 AM

to burden spiritually or mentally

How can you mentally (or "spiritually") burden a creature that is incapable of complex rational thought?


I dont see "only members of society" in small letters anywhere...anyone else?

In order to be oppressed you must be capable of concieving of freedom. Animals are not.
If I was to chain my housemates dog right now he would go insane, he wouldnt like it, he would bark at me, pull at the rope because he wanted to be let go.

He doesnt want to be chained up, just as I dont want to be chained up.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 02:29 AM

i think you have a strange concept as to what the medical industry is. most labs arent finding cures to all these horrible diseases. most labs are creating shitty drugs to sell. whats the point of finding a cure for these things when you can have a new drug every couple of years for profit.

Again, I agree with you that capitalism is a hindrence to medical progress, but that doesn&#39;t mean that the solution is to blow up research clinics&#33;

For the momment, they&#39;re all we have&#33; We need to attack capitalist infastructure not tangential areas like the drug industry which, while rather large, is not essential to capitalism.

And, besides, even if capitalism were abolisehd and research was done the way it should and cures were being produced ...if those cures were being made from animals, the ALF would firebomb the clinic.

The ALF doesn&#39;t care about capitalism, they care about "total animal liberation".


and the alf dont just attack labs. they also sabotage butcher shops, is this not hurting capitalism?

No.

It&#39;s hurting small petite-bourgeois shop owners and proletarian workers.

You want to hurt capitalism? Blow up the IMF&#33;


the meat industry is very large, they are disrupting the selling of goods by glueing locks and whatnot. you should be supporting the abolishment of the meat industry(the one we have now that is) if you are an anti-capitalist since it is a major profit maker

Every industry in capitalism is a "profit maker", otherwise they wouldn&#39;t be industries&#33;

The point is why target the meat industry in particular? Again, there are much more realistic and logical targets&#33;


you are an anti-capitalist arent you?

Yes, which is much more than I can say for the ALF&#33;
the point is, that you may not like what they are for, and in your views they wont suceed. maybe they wont. but they are hurting capitalism, they arent hurting people. and its not like there walking down to the local butcher shop, first of all because there probably arent any left, you get meat at your chain grocery store. so they are attack corporations(would you have a problem with them attacking a mcdonalds?). i unerstand you dont like their message or movement, but they hurt capitalism, so i dont see why you dont support their actions.

[LSD]

If I was to chain my housemates dog right now he would go insane, he wouldnt like it, he would bark at me, pull at the rope because he wanted to be let go.

He doesn&#39;t want to be chained because there are things that he wants to do that he is prevented from doing by the chain.

That isn&#39;t oppression, its bondage. And it doesn&#39;t take much to not like being immobilized.


He doesnt want to be chained up, just as I dont want to be chained up.

He doesn&#39;t not want to be chained up because he feels "mentally burdened" but because it is preventing him from moving. He is not feeling "oppressed" because HE IS NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT&#33;

[LSD]

i unerstand you dont like their message or movement, but they hurt capitalism, so i dont see why you dont support their actions.

Because their message is their actions.

Do I mind if they vandalize a McDonalds? No. But I don&#39;t support them.

If a neo-nazi group vandalized a McDonalds because it hired Latinos, should I support them? Actions are not all that matter. Reasons count&#33;

[SupportTheALF]

Its preventing him from being free. Just as the state limits us from our own freedoms.

All beings should have the right to their freedom, regardless of their mental capacity.

[LSD]

Its preventing him from being free.

That&#39;s not the same as "oppression".


All beings should have the right to their freedom, regardless of their mental capacity.

But what does this practically mean?

No restrictions on animals? Should they be subject to human laws? How can we reasonable expect animals with no understanding of rules to follow them?

Again, "total animal liberation" is an IMPOSSIBLE goal&#33;

[SupportTheALF]

Ok...again...

Animal activists are NOT saying chickens should have the right to vote (cause voting changes nothing&#33; haw haw)....

Animal activists are saying, animals should have the right to possess their own flesh, just like you, and i.

[LSD]

But what does that mean?

Do we just have chickens and bears and wolves and turkeys running wild?

Who the hell is going to feed them?&#33;

And why can&#39;t they "vote"? If we&#39;re giving them societal rights, don&#39;t they have societal obligations?

[SupportTheALF]

Let me ask you a question...do you think its fine for the Japanese to kill the humpback whale for them to eat?

(They say its for scientific research, but humpback whale meat has just be reintroduced into japanese schools, so..think for yourself)

[LSD]

This means you don&#39;t have an answer to my question doesn&#39;t it?


Let me ask you a question...do you think its fine for the Japanese to kill the humpback whale for them to eat?

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s "wrong", but I do think it&#39;s undesirable because it does unnescessary and needless damage to the pacific ecosystem

[violencia.Proletariat]

youve talk about unnescessary and logic. well lets see it is logical to eat meat? no, you can live without it. whos gonna feed bears? what are you talking about?? were not discussing wild animals were discussing farm animals because they are the most widely abussed. my point is, that animals shouldnt have to suffer whether it be in a lab or on my dinner plate. im not granting them any rights over humans or full equality. they have the right to live, thats what i think. and your acting like meg&#39;s values are so outrages, look at india man, thats total freedom for animals, its not so insane as to it cant happen&#33; now do i think animals should be allowed to walk in the middle of streets whenever they want?, no, because in america they would be more likely to get hit by cars and whatnot. but they shouldnt be tortured, beaten or slaughtered thats all i want to stop.

[LSD]

youve talk about unnescessary and logic. well lets see it is logical to eat meat?

Yes.

It tastes good, it&#39;s healthy, it&#39;s fun.


no, you can live without it.

You can live without electricity too, but it makes more sense to live with it.


im not granting them any rights over humans or full equality. they have the right to live, thats what i think.

You&#39;ve been saying this since the beginning, but I&#39;m still waiting for a justification.

From where does that right derive? WHY do they have that right?


and your acting like meg&#39;s values are so outrages

Who?


look at india man, thats total freedom for animals

:lol:

Ever been to india?

Yeah, you&#39;ll often see cows wandering around the streets. But you&#39;re just as likely to see them in pens or fenced in.

Cows are hardly "free". Hell, even the government is driving them out of the cities (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-14-india-sacred-cow-streets_x.htm)&#33;


but they shouldnt be tortured, beaten or slaughtered thats all i want to stop.

I agree that torture and cruelty is emotionaly painful and entirely unnescessary brutality. Anyone who tortures an animal is clearly seriously disturbed and must be treated.

In terms of slaugherting, look, if you want to not eat meat, again, that&#39;s your right. Just so long as you respect my right to eat what I want.

Animals are not members of society and so are not protected by societal rights. I&#39;ve been repeating this for pages and you have still not even attempted to refute it&#33;

[redstar2000]

An interesting and rather heated thread...

In my view, the "ALF" is not well focused at all. People are not going to stop eating meat for "moral reasons" in any significant numbers. That ought to suggest a focus on the unnecessary cruelty involved in raising and slaughtering of the meat that we eat. (It wouldn&#39;t hurt to mention the fact that the meat-packing industry is one of the most dangerous occupations that presently exists...right up there with coal mining and fire fighting, in fact, and far more dangerous than being a cop.)

I would support a permanent ban on any new cosmetics that would require any further animal testing at all. Human vanity is "no excuse".

Whatever present-day written "safeguards" that may exist to "regulate" animal testing, it&#39;s pretty clear that they are, at best, sporadically enforced in practice. I see no objection to a continuing campaign to expose abuses and on-going violations of those regulations...as well as making those regulations "tougher".

If that requires some "breaking-and-entering" of corporate or academic research facilities, I have no problem with that.

Many existing zoos in the U.S. are old and cruel...they should be shut down.

I can&#39;t see any reasonable justification for circus animals, horse racing, dog racing, cock fighting, bull fighting, etc. The use of animals for our own amusement is not necessary...we have many other ways to amuse ourselves.

We don&#39;t seem to have a reasonable substitute for leather yet -- though I don&#39;t see why, in principle, one could not be developed.

But why would anyone want to wear fur?

In other words, ALF, keep it reasonable and you&#39;ll have a lot more support than you imagine.

ELF, as I read them, are quite another kettle of fish. It&#39;s not capitalism they oppose, it&#39;s industrial civilization that they would eliminate if they could.

They don&#39;t mind if you eat meat...just as long as you go out in the wild with a spear and kill it yourself.

They want us all to live like savages or, better yet, go extinct.

I have no problem with ELF if they want to save old-growth forests by "terroristic" means or burn down an SUV dealership.

But ELF&#39;s ideas are shit on a stick...and I don&#39;t see them ever developing a significant base of support.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[SupportTheALF]

Eating the flesh of animals if fun, just as its fun for the boss to live off the sweat of his worker.


Everything you want to abolish in society, you do the same to animals. Youre just as bad. Sorry to say it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 03:29 AM


no, you can live without it.

You can live without electricity too, but it makes more sense to live with it.


true, electricity inhances our lives, makes things easier. meat does not. it doesnt help us in any way, doesnt provide anything you cant get elsewhere. i believe all living things should have the right to live. but this does not mean that if a bear was attacking me i wouldnt defend myself, etc. i just dont understand the point of killing animals if we can coexist with them.

oh and when you said meat is fun, what the hell :huh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What a pile of anti-humanist wank this thread has become&#33;


Eating the flesh of animals if fun, just as its fun for the boss to live off the sweat of his worker.

Do you suffer from reading incomprehension? Because that&#39;s the only explaination for you being so dense and simply repeating your comparisons of meat eating to worker exploitation.

They are not the same&#33; Animals are biologically incapable of mentalising rights&#33;


Everything you want to abolish in society, you do the same to animals. Youre just as bad. Sorry to say it.

Stop trolling this board with your reactionary nonsense&#33;


oh and when you said meat is fun, what the hell :huh:

It&#39;s fun to eat, and easy to cook. I take it you&#39;ve never made yourself chicken vindaloo?


But why would anyone want to wear fur?

Because it&#39;s warm. You could use synthetics, but they are often petroleum derived and not as comfortable. Besides, is there actually a good reason to compel people not to wear them?

[SupportTheALF]

Exploiting another for your own greed. Are you that daft? Or can you just not get your head around that the way we treat animals can be compared too the way the state/ authority figures treats the regular people?

[socialistfuture]

if its logical to kill and eat animals s it logical to kill and eat humans?
if its terrorism to care and defend the planet then terrorism is the new communism.

the masses will not just rise up and take over, we are not living in revolutionary times. well definatly not in the west anyway - blair, howard and bush have all been voted back in. afghanistan happened, iraq happened. cuba still has sanctions. there are still many authoritarian regimes who deny their people a voice and decent human rights. and lets not even get started on pollution and wages.

you have to make a stand and fight the fight. yeah sure u can say that it will alienate people from the cause. but people are already alienated and feel lost and dont see a way out of the current new world disorder. resistance comes in all forms. come of us are more utopian and idealistic, some more violent and impatient, some more academic. our strength is diversity, our weakness division and secterianism. everyone seems to want to take the lead and the the right one/ the particular brand of leftism that can take us to where we want to be.

if injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty - nelson mandela

without animals and the earth we are machines without roots

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exploiting another for your own greed. Are you that daft? Or can you just not get your head around that the way we treat animals can be compared too the way the state/ authority figures treats the regular people?

There&#39;s a major difference between humans eating animals and humans exploiting other humans - the former is a predator-prey relationship common in nature, the latter is an economic relationship within a species.

Animals are not humans&#33; they cannot be a part of society in the same way that humans can, they are truly genetically incapable of doing so&#33;

How many times do I have to repeat myself?


if its logical to kill and eat animals s it logical to kill and eat humans?

No, because cannibalism is rarely voluntary and has been shown to be detrimental to one&#39;s health.


if its terrorism to care and defend the planet then terrorism is the new communism.

No, it&#39;s not. Communism is about class struggle, not the middle class values of naive animal liberationists.
How is killing thousands of animals instead of rehoming them, burning SUVs and releasing pollution into the atmosphere, releasing mink into the wild who cannot possibly survive on their own and disrupting native animal populations, and terrorising ordinary people be defending the planet? It&#39;s quite obvious that PETA, ALF and ELF have missed the point entirely and merely want to enforce their unrealistic agenda on the majority who disagree.


the masses will not just rise up and take over, we are not living in revolutionary times. well definatly not in the west anyway - blair, howard and bush have all been voted back in. afghanistan happened, iraq happened. cuba still has sanctions. there are still many authoritarian regimes who deny their people a voice and decent human rights. and lets not even get started on pollution and wages.

Animal liberationists are not interested in class struggle and you know it&#33; They never mention it in their garbled communiques, or in their websites, or in their pamphlets&#33;
They only seek to shock people into accepting their outright fascist attitudes toward humanity, and they are failing at that&#33;
The ELF are fucking nuts, they want to destroy the very thing that has prevented mankind&#39;s extinction, civilisation itself&#33; The ALF want nothing more than the complete non-interference of humans in the animal world, which is impossible to any reasonable mind. PETA produce propoganda that is frankly disgusting.


you have to make a stand and fight the fight. yeah sure u can say that it will alienate people from the cause. but people are already alienated and feel lost and dont see a way out of the current new world disorder. resistance comes in all forms. come of us are more utopian and idealistic, some more violent and impatient, some more academic. our strength is diversity, our weakness division and secterianism. everyone seems to want to take the lead and the the right one/ the particular brand of leftism that can take us to where we want to be.

PETA, ELF and ALF are not leftists. Why the fuck should we associate with these asshats?


without animals and the earth we are machines without roots

Without animals and the Earth we are fucked, I am not proposing that we drive every animal to extinction, I&#39;m saying that animal liberationists go too fucking far and have messed up priorities.

[LSD]

true, electricity inhances our lives, makes things easier. meat does not. it doesnt help us in any way, doesnt provide anything you cant get elsewhere.

Meat gives us nutrition that is difficult to get elswehere and it tastes good. I gives us pleasure, it makes our lives easier. Which is all, ultimately, that electricity is about as well.


Exploiting another for your own greed. Are you that daft? Or can you just not get your head around that the way we treat animals can be compared too the way the state/ authority figures treats the regular people?

I don&#39;t see why I should "get my head around" a ludicrous comparison that you just made up.

How many times does it have to pointed out that animals are not a part of human society and cannot be?&#33;?

Animals are not "another" in the way that other people are.

Your problem is that you are imagining that "rights" come from some higher source and are inbued to every living thing. They&#39;re not. They are a human creation, one of our better ones, and apply to humans. If you want to apply human societal rights to nonhumans, you must provide evidence that the animals in question are capable of interacting and participating in human society.

You can&#39;t do that. You&#39;re comming from emotionalism. You don&#39;t like seeing animals get hurt, it bothers you, but you don&#39;t actually have a logical argument against it. So fine, don&#39;t eat meat. Don&#39;t wear fur. don&#39;t kill animals&#33; Again, I have nothing but respect if you want to eat vegetarian.

But don&#39;t impose your emotions on me&#33;


you have to make a stand and fight the fight. yeah sure u can say that it will alienate people from the cause. but people are already alienated and feel lost and dont see a way out of the current new world disorder. resistance comes in all forms. come of us are more utopian and idealistic, some more violent and impatient, some more academic. our strength is diversity, our weakness division and secterianism. everyone seems to want to take the lead and the the right one/ the particular brand of leftism that can take us to where we want to be.

NeoNazis are out there fighting too. Should we support them?

The ALF wasnd Total Animal Liberation which, again, is INSANE. They&#39;re goals are diametrically opposed to communism and to reason. Yeah, they&#39;re out there blowing stuff up ...but their blowing up the wrong things for the wrong reasons&#33;


if its terrorism to care and defend the planet then terrorism is the new communism.

What&#33;?

The ELF are primitivists, they want to destroy civilization. Nothing could be further from communism.


if injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty - nelson mandela

Are you suggesting that we compare the treatment of chickens to that of blacks in Apartheid South Africa?

:o


Everything you want to abolish in society, you do the same to animals. Youre just as bad. Sorry to say it.

Do you actually have arguments or are you just going to continue repeating catch phrases?

[SupportTheALF]

My arguements have been laid out on the table for you,

Your only response is "Animals arent apart of society&#33; Therefore who gives a toss what happens to them&#33;"

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 11:02 AM

true, electricity inhances our lives, makes things easier. meat does not. it doesnt help us in any way, doesnt provide anything you cant get elsewhere.

Meat gives us nutrition that is difficult to get elswehere and it tastes good. I gives us pleasure, it makes our lives easier. Which is all, ultimately, that electricity is about as well.


how is our life easier by eating meat?? tell me. id like to know. what does it give us that we need to live that i cant get elsewhere, hmmm? id like to know that too because if it is sooooo important and necessary howcome thousands of people live without it just fine??

[LSD]

My arguements have been laid out on the table for you,

What arguments?

That we have a "moral" responsibility to animals? WHY?


Your only response is "Animals arent apart of society&#33;

That was one of my critical points yes. I defended it logically and rationaly. You have been unable to refute it therefore it stands.


how is our life easier by eating meat?? tell me. id like to know.

Again, it makes it easier to get protein and essential amino acids. It tastes good and gives us pleasure.


what does it give us that we need to live that i cant get elsewhere, hmmm?

What does pizza give us that we can&#39;t get elsewhere?

Does that mean that we shouldn&#39;t eat pizza?

This is a nonargument, and you know it. You oppose meat, not because it&#39;s "useless", but because your particular morality forbids the killing of animals. Again, fine. But if you want to impose that morality upon me, you need to logically justify it.


id like to know that too because if it is sooooo important and necessary howcome thousands of people live without it just fine??

Thousands or people live without electricity "just fine". For most of human history we didn&#39;t have it and we lived "just fine".

Who cares&#33;

[SupportTheALF]

Why? Because they are sentient beings just like you and I. Why can you not get that through your head?

Your only arguement is "They do nothing for society". I know personally I would be lost without my companion animals, theyre some of my best friends.

Lonely people love to have animal companions keep them company. Is helping a person feel better not a decent enough thing to do for society?

What about animal therapy?

You have the same opinion about animals that white men had about black people 200 years ago, the same opinion men had about women 100 years ago, the same opinion Hitler had about Jews and mentally handicapped people 60 years ago.

It CAN be compared. Compare images of the holocaust with images of a factory farm, it&#39;s exactly the same except a different species of animal.

As for "Would you tell a holocaust surviver a chicken&#39;s life is as important as his or hers", of course I would.

Every life is important, no matter what species.

[SupportTheALF]

Oh, and as for "meat makes it easier to get protein", another load of crap. Our body uses 70% of the proteins found in meat, and 65-70% percent of the SAME protein found in soy.

[LSD]

Why? Because they are sentient beings just like you and I. Why can you not get that through your head?

Because it isn&#39;t an argument for societal rights. Sentience is entirely irrelevent to our discussion unless you can prove otherwise.

Rights were created by human society to make human life better. Animals have no conception of rights and are genetically incapable of understanding said rights or respecting those of others. We cannot grant societal rights to creatures which lack the fundamental capability to participate in the society granting them&#33;

And what&#39;s this trip about "sentience" anyways? Firstly, you haven&#39;t even defined the term, and if you think that that&#39;s a clear cut issue, you&#39;re wrong. But secondly, you haven&#39;t offered a single reason why sentiences is a prerequisite for human societal rights.

Again, this is emotionallism on your part. You love animals, You "would be lost without [your] companion animals, theyre some of [your] best friends". Fine. That&#39;s absolutely your right. But your love is not an argument and it isn&#39;t enforceable on me.

Now, again, if you want to give animals rights such as those accorded to people you need to give a reason why.

What are the bennefits of doing so. What are the logical reasons for doing so. What are the costs and how are those costs counterbalanced.

The purpose of society is to maximize the bennefit of it&#39;s members. Society only exists to help those who join it. Therefore, a society must grant equal protection and liberties to all members of said society such that all are able to maxmize their respective bennefits. That is why society must help it&#39;s members. It&#39;s logcal.

Now, you want society to help those who are not only not a part of it, but are physiologically incapable of ever being a part of it.

What is the logical justification for this?


Your only arguement is "They do nothing for society".

That was not my argument&#33;

Animals do a great deal for society, my argument was that animals are not a part of society and hence cannot be afforded privaleges and freedoms that only exist within the confines of that society.


You have the same opinion about animals that white men had about black people 200 years ago, the same opinion men had about women 100 years ago, the same opinion Hitler had about Jews and mentally handicapped people 60 years ago.

Except that those opinions were demonstrably false.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JEWS OR BLACKS OR WOMEN ARE INFERIOR. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT ANIMALS ARE INFERIOR.

Comprehend?


It CAN be compared. Compare images of the holocaust with images of a factory farm, it&#39;s exactly the same except a different species of animal.

As for "Would you tell a holocaust surviver a chicken&#39;s life is as important as his or hers", of course I would.

And you call me heartless&#33; :lol:

[TC]

How many times does it have to pointed out that animals are not a part of human society

Of course animals are part of human society. Domesticated animals that are used for their bodies in factory farms are clearly part of society because society interacts with them and depends on them and exploits them;they are simply the lowest rung in society. What you mean isn&#39;t that animals aren&#39;t part of society but rather that animals aren&#39;t equal citizens in society, they&#39;re there, they just aren&#39;t treated decently. The same thing could be said of slaves. The fact that they are denied their rights doesn&#39;t make it right to do so, which is in essence what yo &#39;ure arguing.


But secondly, you haven&#39;t offered a single reason why sentiences is a prerequisite for human societal rights.

Nor have you offered a single reason why being genetically human is nessessary and sufficent for human societal rights.


Now, you want society to help those who are not only not a part of it, but are physiologically incapable of ever being a part of it.


Severely retarted people are equally physiologically incapable of ever being part of society, those whose retardation is caused by a genetic disorder are &#39;genetically incapable&#39; as well...i don&#39;t suppose you want to eat them?


Now, again, if you want to give animals rights such as those accorded to people you need to give a reason why.


The reason why animals should have the right to bodily integrity and the right to be free from torture and murder is the same as why humans deserve those rights, because its nessessary to prevent suffering, and fundemental exploitation otherwise. Plants and organisms lacking a central nervous system on the other hand don&#39;t have those rights because they are not nessessary to prevent suffering; they wont suffer either way.

No one is talking about giving animals human rights, rights to vote, hold office, have free speech, own property, ect. We&#39;re only talking about much more basic dignity.



What are the bennefits of doing so. What are the logical reasons for doing so. What are the costs and how are those costs counterbalanced.


The costs to who? Ask a slave owner &#39;what the cost of ending slavery is&#39; and he&#39;ll say its an unacceptable cost, because he&#39;s thinking about what it costs to him not what it costs to his slaves. There are no real benefits to people for ending mass animal slaughter, the benefits are for the animals just as the animals are paying all of the &#39;costs&#39; of the meat industry.

In fact if someone wanted to kill you, for say, money or personal reasons and based their consideration of whether you had a right to live based on how your life or death would benefit him, and not yourself, he would already be assuming that only he had any rights. No ethical or moral theory or perspective from any ideology anywhere would ever justify that type of &#39;logic&#39; which is percisely what you&#39;re trying to use.



THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JEWS OR BLACKS OR WOMEN ARE INFERIOR. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT ANIMALS ARE INFERIOR.


Inferiority isn&#39;t an empirical concept though its a subjective claim...there can never be any &#39;evidence&#39; that anyone is morally inferior to anyone else. You can say that there is "significant evidence" that animals are intellectually inferior or have inferior language skills or whatever, but those are claims that can just as easily be made of people. Even if its not true, if Blacks were intellectually inferior to Asians, as in say they don&#39;t perform as well on standardized tests, would that make them less worthy of having their basic dignity and life (let alone human rights) protected? I really don&#39;t think so.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Once more into the muck...


Of course animals are part of human society. Domesticated animals that are used for their bodies in factory farms are clearly part of society because society interacts with them and depends on them and exploits them;they are simply the lowest rung in society. What you mean isn&#39;t that animals aren&#39;t part of society but rather that animals aren&#39;t equal citizens in society, they&#39;re there, they just aren&#39;t treated decently. The same thing could be said of slaves. The fact that they are denied their rights doesn&#39;t make it right to do so, which is in essence what yo &#39;ure arguing.

They&#39;re animals. In nature, animals get eaten by other animals. We&#39;re better than nature, because we actually make companions out of some animals. That does not however compel us to treat all animals as companions
You are just repeating what SupportTheALF has said earlier in different words.
Animals cannot participate in society to the same level humans do. Therefore they do not have right because they do not have any potential.


Nor have you offered a single reason why being genetically human is nessessary and sufficent for human societal rights.

Because human rights were created by humans to ensure human dignity. Animals don&#39;t even have the concept of dignity.


Severely retarted people are equally physiologically incapable of ever being part of society, those whose retardation is caused by a genetic disorder are &#39;genetically incapable&#39; as well...i don&#39;t suppose you want to eat them?

Strawman. Retards are the exception not the rule.


No one is talking about giving animals human rights, rights to vote, hold office, have free speech, own property, ect. We&#39;re only talking about much more basic dignity.

But animals don&#39;t have a concept of dignity and thus it is not necessary to do so.


The costs to who? Ask a slave owner &#39;what the cost of ending slavery is&#39; and he&#39;ll say its an unacceptable cost, because he&#39;s thinking about what it costs to him not what it costs to his slaves. There are no real benefits to people for ending mass animal slaughter, the benefits are for the animals just as the animals are paying all of the &#39;costs&#39; of the meat industry.

If we ended animal &#39;exploitation&#39; the animals would barely notice and humans would suffer. We are omnivores, we eat meat as well as vegetables. We also use wool, leather, fur, and dairy products which are ubiquitous. Do you realise the impact that ending animal &#39;exploitation&#39; would have? No more wool means more use of synthetic fibres and cotton, stretching our limited oil reserves and placing further strain on the cotton industry. No more leather means the end of hard-wearing shoes, boots and protective clothing. No more fur means people in arctic regions freeze. And you would be surprised at the amount of foods that would disappear or be rendered disgusting by the abolishment of animal products. I don&#39;t mind soy, but I like soy because it&#39;s soy, not because it&#39;s an alternative to meat. Trying to force your own morals down my throat might result in me breaking your morals anyway.

[LSD]

Inferiority isn&#39;t an empirical concept though its a subjective claim...there can never be any &#39;evidence&#39; that anyone is morally inferior to anyone else. You can say that there is "significant evidence" that animals are intellectually inferior or have inferior language skills or whatever, but those are claims that can just as easily be made of people. Even if its not true, if Blacks were intellectually inferior to Asians, as in say they don&#39;t perform as well on standardized tests, would that make them less worthy of having their basic dignity and life (let alone human rights) protected?

No, because they are still capable of concieving of said rights and are still capable of fully participating in human society.

Look, this is very simple. In order to be protected by rights invented by human society for human society, you must be a part of human society.


Nor have you offered a single reason why being genetically human is nessessary and sufficent for human societal rights.

Yes I have. Several times. It&#39;s not being genetically human, per se, it&#39;s being genetically capable of comples rational thought such that one can participate in, communicate with, and be responsible to society.


Severely retarted people are equally physiologically incapable of ever being part of society, those whose retardation is caused by a genetic disorder are &#39;genetically incapable&#39; as well...i don&#39;t suppose you want to eat them?

Don&#39;t be obtuse.

Those with such disorders are still precapable of rational thought, they are just often prevented from doing so by a disease.

And, by the way, it&#39;s worth noting that 99% of those with a mental disorder are still capable of conciecing of concepts like rights and laws and dignity and society.

Fine me a chipmunk that can say the same&#33;


The reason why animals should have the right to bodily integrity and the right to be free from torture and murder is the same as why humans deserve those rights, because its nessessary to prevent suffering, and fundemental exploitation otherwise

Firstly, exploitating is a meaningless concept if the thing being exploited does not even understand the meaning of the concept.

Secondly, WHY is "suffering" sufficient for human societal rights? Again, the reason that humans have said rights is not to "prevent suffering", it&#39;s because they are a part of society and as a part of society maximize their benefits from society.

This "preventing suffering" line is a blatant appeal to emotion.


The costs to who? Ask a slave owner &#39;what the cost of ending slavery is&#39; and he&#39;ll say its an unacceptable cost, because he&#39;s thinking about what it costs to him not what it costs to his slaves. There are no real benefits to people for ending mass animal slaughter, the benefits are for the animals just as the animals are paying all of the &#39;costs&#39; of the meat industry.

You&#39;re correct, there is no bennefit for people to end killing animals. So why do it? You&#39;re asking human society to hurt itself to help other species, many of which would kill us in a second if they got the chance.

This isn&#39;t disey fairyland. There aren&#39;t talking pigs and laughing cows all dancing together singing Elton John songs.

Slavery is wrong because the slave is a rational human being being treated like an animal. "Animal slavery" is an animal being treated like an animal.

...which kind of makes sense.

[Xvall]

How can you mentally (or "spiritually") burden a creature that is incapable of complex rational thought?

Some retarded people are incapable of complex rational thought. Can we use them as test subjects?

[LSD]

Some retarded people are incapable of complex rational thought. Can we use them as test subjects?

We&#39;ve already been through this several times.

There&#39;s a difference between someone who is capable of rational thought but unable to do so due to a condition, and something that is genetically and physiologically inacapable.

In time, we may be able to fix the neuronic or cortical or cognitive problems that prevent the seriously disabled from such thought. We will never be able to make a chipmunk understand complex concepts, however. It is simply not within its phsyiological make-up.

[SupportTheALF]

Has anyone ever heard of the story of the 2 piglets who escaped a British slaughter house and kept running until they couldnt be found?

Or the piglet who saved the little boy from drowning in a river?


Animals are amazing.

[LSD]

Animals are amazing.

Yes they are. They are incredible and beautiful and fascinating and wonderful, and I don&#39;t think anyone here disagrees with that.

[Xvall]

We&#39;ve already been through this several times.

There&#39;s a difference between someone who is capable of rational thought but unable to do so due to a condition, and something that genetically and physiologically inacapable.

In time, we may be able to fix the neuronic or cortical or cognitive problems that prevent the seriously disabled from such thought. We will never be able to make a chipmunk understand complex concepts, however. It is simply not within its phsyiological make-up.

K.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 11:55 AM

Animals are amazing.

Yes they are. They are incredible and beautiful and fascinating and wonderful, and I don&#39;t think anyone here disagrees with that.
Agreed.

I mean, it&#39;s not like scientists are out there to be cruel, or that anyone here is condoning unnecessary cruelty. Every research project has to be approved by an ethics committee, it&#39;s not some crazy animal slaughterhouse in the lab.

[SupportTheALF]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+Jun 17 2005, 12:12 PM--> (Mujer Libre &#064; Jun 17 2005, 12:12 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2005, 11:55 AM

Animals are amazing.

Yes they are. They are incredible and beautiful and fascinating and wonderful, and I don&#39;t think anyone here disagrees with that.
Agreed.

I mean, it&#39;s not like scientists are out there to be cruel, or that anyone here is condoning unnecessary cruelty. Every research project has to be approved by an ethics committee, it&#39;s not some crazy animal slaughterhouse in the lab. [/b]
:lol:


Have you ever seen footage from a lab?

Animals being abused? Have their faces punched by lab workers? Being kicked, stepped on, dragged around on leashes? Monkeys being so stressed their mutilating their own bodies? Animals being dissected alive? Rabbits being blinded just so you feel safe using your soap?

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?vi...ce_main&pos=fp1 (http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=covance_main&feat=covance_main&pos=fp1)
http://www.shac.net/MERCHANDISE/videos.html

Watch them, and then tell me animal experiments arent cruel.

http://www.shac.net/movies/crueltyfootage.mov

If you can watch that without being upset, youre a waste of air.

[workersunity]

calling those groups reactionary is naive.

I support certain actions i cant say that i will always support all their actions, i wrote an essay about elf for my Environmental ethics midterm

[SupportTheALF]

Theres always going to be actions not everyone in the movement will like.

When the animal activists dug up the grave of the grandmother of a family which breeds guinea pigs for experiments, i thought that was horrible. But if it makes a change, more power to them.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by SupportTheALF
Have you ever seen footage from a lab?

Animals being abused? Have their faces punched by lab workers? Being kicked, stepped on, dragged around on leashes?
What you&#39;re describing there are ABUSES, which none of us here support. That has NOTHING to do with scientific research, at ALL, and I&#39;m sure we all agree, should not happen.

Animals being dissected alive?
Again, abuses. I mean, I&#39;ve seen dissections, although they were more like surgery, since the mouse was anaesthetised.


Rabbits being blinded just so you feel safe using your soap?

Ah, you&#39;re talking about the cosmetic industry, and I agree that most testing in that field is unnecessary since I mean... Are they really putting new stuff in products?

I was referring to scientific research, where we&#39;d basically be in the stoneage (ok, a slight exagerration) without research on animals. Would you really like to live in a world with little or no healthcare because a) we have little understanding of elements of human physiology and b) we are unable to make many medicines?

I think, from reading your posts, you are taking abusive elements of animal testing and painting ALL animal testing with the same brush.

Also, I think it&#39;s a good idea to make the distinction between animal studies for research, and for cosmetic purposes.

[SupportTheALF]

Read through the thread, and look at what has gone wrong because of animal experiments when it comes to medicine.

Read through the thread, and look at the links to sites with doctors opinions on why vivisection should be abolished. Especially Jerry Vlasak, an EX vivisector, heart/trauma surgeon, who is now compaigning against animal experiments.

Read through the thread, and read the small amount(theres over 150) alternatives listed.



Vivisection is nothing put scientific fraud. If you support it, youre supporting the exploitation of both animals AND humans.

Open your eyes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Vivisection is nothing put scientific fraud. If you support it, youre supporting the exploitation of both animals AND humans.

And we should believe you... why?

Face it, we have made gains through animal research, whether you like it or not. All the other methods of testing you listed have their faults as well. That&#39;s why it is important to try as many lines of enquiry as possible. This includes animal testing and if needs be, vivisection.

[SupportTheALF]

Do your research.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:57 PM
Do your research.
You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

[SupportTheALF]

As I said, do your research. Don&#39;t believe me? Research it yourself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fine then, your assertions have no basis and as such can be rejected.

My original statement:


Face it, we have made gains through animal research, whether you like it or not. All the other methods of testing you listed have their faults as well. That&#39;s why it is important to try as many lines of enquiry as possible. This includes animal testing and if needs be, vivisection.

Still stands.

[SupportTheALF]

For people who are "anti capitalism" you seem to have no problem with supporting industries which exploit other beings out of selfishness and greed.

Just as bad as the people you fight against.

Im done.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For people who are "anti capitalism" you seem to have no problem with supporting industries which exploit other beings out of selfishness and greed.

If you actually bothered reading what people have said on this very thread, then you will notice an opposition to unnecessary research.
It really pisses me off when environmentalists try to tie in their anti-humanist agenda with the abolition of capitalism - despite the fact that most &#39;animal rights&#39; groups do not make any such claims, but are either reformist in nature or wish to see civilisation destroyed.


Just as bad as the people you fight against.

Here the truly reactionary nature of ultra-environmentalism comes to light; we don&#39;t wish to destroy ourselves with impossible goals, so we&#39;re &#39;just as bad&#39; as the ones who are actually detrimental to the environment.


Im done.

Don&#39;t try coming back&#33;

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2005, 08:23 PM

ALF- they fight against capitalism by making them use safer chemicals... or no chemicals at alll cause they have to test the shit on the scientists them selves.

:angry:

The ALF does not fight capitalism, it fights progress.

The ALF is a disgusting organization with no understanding of how science or medicine work.

Without animal testing, medical research would stop. Not slow down, not cost more, not be more difficult, stop.

Do you know many vaccines and cures and medicines have been developed from animal research? THOUSANDS.

There are, litterally, billions of people who would be dead right now if it was not for animal research.

Do we have any diabetics in the house? Just thought you should all know that the ALF wants you to die.


Thats a good point. I beleive in some ALF protests such as KFC, but I&#39;m not against certain animal testing. Certain testings are ok, but not commercial objects such as tobbacoo or cigarettes or whatever. The animal testing that are for vaccenes are fine.

I don&#39;t know much about ELF.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:37 AM
For people who are "anti capitalism" you seem to have no problem with supporting industries which exploit other beings out of selfishness and greed.

Just as bad as the people you fight against.

Im done.
I suggest that it&#39;s quite impossible to take seriously the views of someone who has spent more than &#036;1,000 on tatoos.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291897577 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37415&view=findpost&p=1291897577)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 9 2005, 05:29 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 9 2005, 05:29 AM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 05:37 AM
For people who are "anti capitalism" you seem to have no problem with supporting industries which exploit other beings out of selfishness and greed.

Just as bad as the people you fight against.

Im done.
I suggest that it&#39;s quite impossible to take seriously the views of someone who has spent more than &#036;1,000 on tatoos.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291897577 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37415&view=findpost&p=1291897577)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Be fair Redstar. As much as I dislike SupportTheALF&#39;s goals, I hardly think that the tattooing industry is a hotbed of oppression.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Primitivism how cute. :lol:


Considering the ELF is primitivist and anyone with half a brain would reject primitivism for all it stands for.The only way for Primitivism to possibly conceive itself would for a total nuclear apoclypse. Even then the possibilty of this occuring are slim to none. If primitivists ever acheive there goals and abolish civilization I will eat my pants.

Michael Albert Vs. John Zerzan (Debating Primitivism) (http://www.zmag.org/debateprim.htm)


when your biggest voice from your movement cant live the lifestyle he supports. Then you have essentially completely abonded all hope of being taken serious. Unless john zerzan lived in the woods killed all his food gardend his own veggies used something from nature to create an ink substitute and didnt use technology. THen he could be taken seriously. But Primitivism cant and NEVER WILL WORK&#33; It just defies how we humans are used to living. I can gaurentee nobdody wants to go back to living in the time before electricity before heat without technology without medicine. Primitivism is completely and utterly irrational political ideology.

Primitivism should be activaly discouraged at all costs as it is completely and utterly insane and impossible.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 03:52 PM
Primitivism how cute. :lol:


Considering the ELF is primitivist and anyone with half a brain would reject primitivism for all it stands for.The only way for Primitivism to possibly conceive itself would for a total nuclear apoclypse. Even then the possibilty of this occuring are slim to none. If primitivists ever acheive there goals and abolish civilization I will eat my pants.

Michael Albert Vs. John Zerzan (Debating Primitivism) (http://www.zmag.org/debateprim.htm)


when your biggest voice from your movement cant live the lifestyle he supports. Then you have essentially completely abonded all hope of being taken serious. Unless john zerzan lived in the woods killed all his food gardend his own veggies used something from nature to create an ink substitute and didnt use technology. THen he could be taken seriously. But Primitivism cant and NEVER WILL WORK&#33; It just defies how we humans are used to living. I can gaurentee nobdody wants to go back to living in the time before electricity before heat without technology without medicine. Primitivism is completely and utterly irrational political ideology.

Primitivism should be activaly discouraged at all costs as it is completely and utterly insane and impossible.
i noticed the crimethinc link in your profile. in the crimethinc phamplet with the half city half countryside on the cover, it says something like, forget theory forget the old guys with beards. now they must mean, forget their theory. so they are promoting lifestylism. and also primitivism since they have no theory for how anarchism will work in an industrial society, since they dismiss previous theory of the classic anarhcists, and provide none of their own. so if you hold that view on primitivism you might want to rethink crimethinc, since lifestylism/primitvism isnt helping our movement.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I like some of what CrimethInc Has to say not all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 08:48 PM
I like some of what CrimethInc has to say, not all.
That&#39;s a good point.

If someone has a good idea, it doesn&#39;t really matter if all the rest of their ideas are crap...we should still appropriate that good idea and use it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

Exactly.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:50 PM
Or the piglet who saved the little boy from drowning in a river?



Whinnie the Pooh?

Nah all seriousness did this really happen?


Animals are amazing.

And tastey. One of my main arguments for eating animals are their taste.

[TC]

This thread is so depressing.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Hiero+Jul 13 2005, 03:54 AM--> (Hiero @ Jul 13 2005, 03:54 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 10:50 PM
Or the piglet who saved the little boy from drowning in a river?



Whinnie the Pooh?

Nah all seriousness did this really happen?


Animals are amazing.

And tastey. One of my main arguments for eating animals are their taste. [/b]
Winnie the pooh you never knew it was a true story&#33;? :lol:



I also love the taste of meat as well its my major reason for eating it.