ALF activist sentencing for freeing 7,000 minks

[coda]

AP: Animal Activist Faces Prison Term

By TODD RICHMOND

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - An animal rights activist who faces a potential two-year prison term for freeing thousands of mink from Midwest fur farms says he has no regrets.

Peter Daniel Young, 28, told The Associated Press during a jailhouse interview that serving time will be nothing compared to what caged animals suffer.

``As bad as it could get, it will never be as bad as it was for those mink,'' Young said. ``I would do it all over again.''

Prosecutors believe Young and an accomplice were acting on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front when they broke onto mink farms in Iowa, South Dakota and Wisconsin in 1997 and freed about 7,000 mink. The FBI considers groups like ALF among the nation's top domestic terrorist threats.

Young, 28, scoffed at the comparison.

``If saving thousands of lives makes a terrorist, then I certainly embrace the label,'' Young said. ``I would have been just as fast to act if those cages had been filled with human beings.''

But Teresa Platt, executive director of Fur Commission USA, a national association of fur farmers, called Young's philosophy nonsense, saying he has ``been fed a steady string of propaganda for 10 years.''

Alex Ott, owner of a fur farm Young raided in Tomahawk, said he treats his mink well and has every right to make a living. He said such activists ``attack and they terrorize.''

Young and accomplice Justin Samuel were indicted in 1998 but disappeared soon after. Samuel was captured in Belgium in 1999, while Young eluded authorities until his arrest in March for shoplifting CDs from a Starbucks in San Jose, Calif.

Young pleaded guilty to animal enterprise terrorism and faces up to two years in prison. Sentencing was set for Nov. 8.

Samuel pleaded guilty in 2000 and was sentenced to two years in prison.

Young said he and Samuel targeted Midwest fur farms because authorities in the Northwest were putting too much heat on them. Wisconsin also had the largest concentration of mink farms in the nation, he said.

He gets 10 letters a day, he said, and activists from around the country show up for his court appearances. Someone is selling T-shirts emblazoned with Young's face online.

``Most people are just appalled I'd be put in prison for freeing the animals,'' he said. ``I wish nothing short of the end of the entire (fur) industry ... they kill for what they do.''

Platt said Young represents a disconnect between urban and rural America. City dwellers don't realize how much people depend on animals, she said.

``One hundred years ago when we all lived on the farm, we would have laughed Peter Young out of the room,'' she said.


10/06/05 05:02

[rioters bloc]

haha thats hilarious, 'terrorists'

its like when the guys who painted no war on the sydney opera house got labelled terrorists too. yes, the anti-waractivists are the terrorists here.

good on him.

i love liberation fronts.

[coda]

yeah, that must have been a good break out. 7,000 minks running down the road running for their lives. Those mink coats are very crude. On those fur boa things they leave the heads intact... eyes and all. Bleeeshhhhh.

[Scars]

You do realise that the majority of those 7000 mink would slowly starve right? In addition to this it could severely fuck up the ecosystem that they're released into. Now, I know that this is simply Darwinism in action and all, but personally I think that if a load of mink are gonna die their deaths shouldn't be entirely pointless. Plus most Greenies tend to get pretty touchy regarding Darwinistic principles. In addition to this most of them ***** about the state of the environment, then live in cities and cause severe imbalances in ecosystems causing unpredictable amounts of damage of an unpredictable severity by doing dumbass things like this.

Fucking townies. I don't trust them to grow anything legal, I don't trust them with guns and I don't trust any greenie who hasn't lived in rural areas for a minimum of 5 years.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good riddance to eco-terrorist scum.

[Severian]

A good example of how animal rights is anti-environmental: releasing 7000 hyperactive predators with oversized appetites...all at once.

But it's true this is not terrorism; it is a crime against property not violence against people. The FBI's expansion of the definition of terrorism should be opposed.

[coda]

well, actually, according to the article - these incidents happened in 1997 -- 8 years ago, and on various fur farms in three different states in the Mid-West... apparently nothing catastrophic happened to the ecosystem as much as it did to the Corporate fur industry.

[Unity85]

well honestly i think bunnie hugers are dumb asses but they have the drive and the curage to help in the revolution to free the world of capitalism if only they realized that if they fought a goverment that allows that then they could change alot more then let out 7000 minks they could totaly stop that well they live in places were animals are in zoos and there living rooms and not living right next to them

[bcbm]

You do realise that the majority of those 7000 mink would slowly starve right? In addition to this it could severely fuck up the ecosystem that they're released into.

Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees, right? The ecosystem will recover, the mink farmers won't. Actually, that farm is probably just as destructive.


I think that if a load of mink are gonna die their deaths shouldn't be entirely pointless.

Making fur coats for rich fucks is not dying for a "point." Fuck fur farmers and fuck the pieces of shit who wear the coats they make.


In addition to this most of them ***** about the state of the environment, then live in cities and cause severe imbalances in ecosystems causing unpredictable amounts of damage of an unpredictable severity by doing dumbass things like this.

And most of us ***** about capitalism and the state, but here we are.


Good riddance to eco-terrorist scum.

Fuck you.


A good example of how animal rights is anti-environmental: releasing 7000 hyperactive predators with oversized appetites...all at once.

Destroying the animal industry would help the environment quite a bit. Stop trying to divide people.

Peter's a great guy, everyone should consider writing to him. He usually replies pretty quick and is happy to get letters. Careful though, he's very opinionated about music.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

lol @ this idiot..

lol @ the charges against him "animal enterprise terrorism"

lol @ most rapists getting 2 years & this guy getting 2 years.

and most of all LOL @ Young eluded authorities until his arrest in March for shoplifting CDs from a Starbucks in San Jose, Calif.

[Scars]

<<Better to die on one&#39;s feet than live on one&#39;s knees, right? The ecosystem will recover, the mink farmers won&#39;t. Actually, that farm is probably just as destructive.>>

Starving to death is one of the worst ways that you can die, in my opinion. In addition, those who didn&#39;t starve would most likely end up being poisoned/shot/caught in traps/etc. Eating 1080 pellets is also a fairly crappy way to die.

Farms generally aren&#39;t particularly destructive as it&#39;s not in their best interest to do so. The main damage that agriculture has on the envirnment is run off into waterways. Let me guess, you live in a city right? And you&#39;ve never spent any time in rural areas?

<<Making fur coats for rich fucks is not dying for a "point." Fuck fur farmers and fuck the pieces of shit who wear the coats they make.>>

Actually the mink farmers themselves will not be rolling in cash. Most money made from agricultural products goes to the processors, that is, the people who make the coats themselves. The farmers have nothing to do with what happens to the minks. Chances are they don&#39;t even kill or skin them. It won&#39;t change a fucking thing, the farmer will lose money, the fur company will find the furs elsewhere and mink coats will still appear in trendy stores the world over. Congradulations, you&#39;ve achived nothing.

<<And most of us ***** about capitalism and the state, but here we are.>>

Slightly different. We live in a capitalist society, thus we can&#39;t avoid aiding capitalism in various ways. Environmentalists can limit the effect that they have on the environment dramatically by leaving the cities and living a 16th century style life.

<<Destroying the animal industry would help the environment quite a bit. Stop trying to divide people.>>

And hurt hundreds of millions of people at the same time. You can pop down to your local supermarket and buy your 100% organic, GE free mung beans so you don&#39;t go enemic due to a lack of iron in your diet but some peasant in the back ass of China does not have this luxury.

I repeat:
Fucking townies.

[bcbm]

Starving to death is one of the worst ways that you can die, in my opinion. In addition, those who didn&#39;t starve would most likely end up being poisoned/shot/caught in traps/etc. Eating 1080 pellets is also a fairly crappy way to die.

I&#39;d rather starved then be electrocuted up the ass, but hey, maybe that&#39;s just me. Why don&#39;t we let the mink decide. I mean, since they obviously love it in the cages they&#39;ll stay, right?


Farms generally aren&#39;t particularly destructive as it&#39;s not in their best interest to do so. The main damage that agriculture has on the envirnment is run off into waterways. Let me guess, you live in a city right? And you&#39;ve never spent any time in rural areas?

Is the environment currently any more damaged by the mink being released? I haven&#39;t heard anything to suggest it is other than speculation.


Actually the mink farmers themselves will not be rolling in cash.

I don&#39;t recall saying they would. I only said "fuck them."


Chances are they don&#39;t even kill or skin them. It won&#39;t change a fucking thing, the farmer will lose money, the fur company will find the furs elsewhere and mink coats will still appear in trendy stores the world over. Congradulations, you&#39;ve achived nothing.

One mink farm shut down is one less mink farm they can go to for mink. 7,000 mink freed are 7,000 mink who won&#39;t end up on rich people&#39;s backs. Change is slow, but it can happen. Look at HLS.


Slightly different. We live in a capitalist society, thus we can&#39;t avoid aiding capitalism in various ways. Environmentalists can limit the effect that they have on the environment dramatically by leaving the cities and living a 16th century style life.

Living in the woods doesn&#39;t make action very easily. I don&#39;t think we should drop out because then society will continue to destroy the environment. Though, to be fair, plenty of environmentalists are living in the woods via tree sits and similar projects. And Peter was probably contributing far less to this destructive society than any of us before he got caught.


And hurt hundreds of millions of people at the same time. You can pop down to your local supermarket and buy your 100% organic, GE free mung beans so you don&#39;t go enemic due to a lack of iron in your diet but some peasant in the back ass of China does not have this luxury.

I&#39;m talking about giant factory farmers, not everyone who owns a fucking goat. I have no problem with eating meat or raising animals, but I do have a problem with gigantic, destructive "farms."

[coda]

<<Starving to death is one of the worst ways that you can die, in my opinion. In addition, those who didn&#39;t starve would most likely end up being poisoned/shot/caught in traps/etc. Eating 1080 pellets is also a fairly crappy way to die. >>>

being made into a coat is a preferrable way to to die??&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yeah, it&#39;s all fluffy that the Alf do these operations with the intent to save the poor animals,--- but they are alternatively confronting a much larger and vital environmental issue caused by the fur industry -- and it&#39;s not in introducing minks into their natural habitats. The problem is the vast toxic chemical processing the pelts undergo and these toxic chemicals then being dumped back into the ecosystem running off into the soil, groundwater and water systems----- ala Love Canal or the Hudson River GE PCB contamination or any of the US contaminated Superfund sites. All due to Corporate dumping of toxic chemicals. The fur industry is not the only malefactor.. there are plenty of corporations guilty of making the US a toxic wasteland. This should be the operation of the ELF and I support their direct actions in trying to taking these offenders down one by one.

[rioters bloc]

yeah, slaves shouldn&#39;t be freed either hey, cos then they might go out and start eating food and shit. and like, fuck up the economy or something. better they be kept in captivity and that way we don&#39;t have to worry about them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Animals and humans are completely different and I hope you realize that before ever trying to compare rodents to enslaved humans again.

[Scars]

<<I&#39;d rather starved then be electrocuted up the ass, but hey, maybe that&#39;s just me. Why don&#39;t we let the mink decide. I mean, since they obviously love it in the cages they&#39;ll stay, right?>>

Never gone without food for very long have you?

<<Is the environment currently any more damaged by the mink being released? I haven&#39;t heard anything to suggest it is other than speculation.>>

And I haven&#39;t heard anything to say it wasn&#39;t. A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. Releasing 7000 vicious predators into an ecosystem will do somthing. However chances are most of them wouldn&#39;t be use to hunting (having never needed to do so), so would just starve.

<<One mink farm shut down is one less mink farm they can go to for mink. 7,000 mink freed are 7,000 mink who won&#39;t end up on rich people&#39;s backs. Change is slow, but it can happen. Look at HLS.>>

I see you&#39;ve never done economics. Go read up on supply and demand. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. Destroying supply is stupid as it does not destroy demand. So, shutting down mink farms (which it failed to do anyway. Insurance is a wonderful thing) won&#39;t achive anything as a new one will simply be opened elsewhere. If things got incredibly bad they would simply put up big no trespassing signs everywhere and have people sitting with guns waiting for the next load of townies to swoop in.

<<Living in the woods doesn&#39;t make action very easily. I don&#39;t think we should drop out because then society will continue to destroy the environment.>>

I&#39;m not suggesting dropping out, I&#39;m saying that if you personally wish to reduce the harm that you inflict on the environment then you should not live in cities, let alone large cities. As I&#39;ve already said, no demand, no supply. More over, it might help if you lot had some real experience with rural life and agriculture.

<<Though, to be fair, plenty of environmentalists are living in the woods via tree sits and similar projects.>>

Not sustainable.

<<And Peter was probably contributing far less to this destructive society than any of us before he got caught.>>

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I know he lived in a city though.

<<being made into a coat is a preferrable way to to die??&#33;&#33;&#33;>>

I&#39;m not familar with how mink are killed, because you have to preserve their fur, so I&#39;d say it&#39;d probably be poisoning or being electrified. And I was saything that it&#39;s preferable to starving/being shot/being caught in a trap/being poisoned by 1080.

<<Yeah, it&#39;s all fluffy that the Alf do these operations with the intent to save the poor animals,--- but they are alternatively confronting a much larger and vital environmental issue caused by the fur industry -- and it&#39;s not in introducing minks into their natural habitats.>>

They&#39;re not releasing them into their natural habitats. To do so requires more planning and thought that opening a few gates. Ecosystems are very fragile and delicate things. For instance, introducing 7000 predators into an area where there previously wasn&#39;t many predators would cause havoc.

<<The problem is the vast toxic chemical processing the pelts undergo and these toxic chemicals then being dumped back into the ecosystem running off into the soil, groundwater and water systems>>

They are allowed to do this because the government says that they&#39;re allowed to do this. More over, this is not universal for all countries as not all countries have such lax laws as the US. More over, it&#39;s less harmful than all those people living in cities and atleast you get treated furs out of tanneries.

<<All due to Corporate dumping of toxic chemicals. The fur industry is not the only malefactor.. there are plenty of corporations guilty of making the US a toxic wasteland. This should be the operation of the ELF and I support their direct actions in trying to taking these offenders down one by one. >>

Oh yes. Letting 7000 mink escape is going to do just that. Fur farms aren&#39;t tanneries, you do realise this right?

<<yeah, slaves shouldn&#39;t be freed either hey, cos then they might go out and start eating food and shit. and like, fuck up the economy or something. better they be kept in captivity and that way we don&#39;t have to worry about them.>>

Anyone who compares slavery to farming is an idiot.

[coda]

Well, I gotta say, this is the best overwrought defense of the Corporate fur industry I&#39;ve ever witnessed in my life&#33; and filled with mink droppings too&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

< For instance, introducing 7000 predators into an area where there previously wasn&#39;t many predators would cause havoc.>

If you re-Read the article-- the "area consists" of three Mid-West States and alluded to several, if not more, factories.

Come on--Give it up&#33; Dumping toxic & carcinogenic chemicals into the environment has a much greater negative impact on the environment than the speculative impact of a small weasle-ish type mammal foraging for food in the wild&#33; Just ridiculous to say otherwise. Even taken to it&#39;s worst case scenario-- any enviornmental repercussions would not be sustained because the average life span for a mink in the outdoors is less than 1 Year.


<<Fur farms aren&#39;t tanneries, you do realise this right?>>

Right. They are the first link in the fur chain that incurs chemical degradation of the environment. They are correct to hit that first. No minks--no fur -- No chemicals seeping into the groundwater.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes because we all know that minks can&#39;t reproduce.. LOL

Scars is on point with everything he&#39;s said.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Petit-bourgeouis animal liberationism is no substitute for real class action.
ALF want "total animal liberation" a ludicrous and suicidal goal.

Seriously, who gives a shit about mink when we have christian and islamic fundamentalism on the rise, the USA having imperalist adventures around the world, and our own rights and freedoms being surpressed by Patriot acts and ID cards?

Fuck ALF, and fuck the pretentious high horse they rode in on.

Oh by the way; they are terrorists, because they use intimidation tactics for political ends.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:48 PM
Animals and humans are completely different and I hope you realize that before ever trying to compare rodents to enslaved humans again.
of course they&#39;re different.

you don&#39;t see animals enslaving other animals, systematically eradicating entire species of other animals, destroying the natural environment.

[coda]

What are you the animal control agents or the mouthpiece of the fur industry? Yeah, they reproduce, ---what&#39;s the point&#33;&#33;&#33;? All animals do. And all have instinct to survive and forage for food. Being Breeded in a factory doesn&#39;t make them domesticated. And That&#39;s not the issue. The issue is that the fur industry is environmentally and economically deleterious to society. That particular incident happened 8 years ago, long enough to show impact. Show me the hard data of where those minks and their prolific offspring fucked up the ecosystem --- not lame conjecture. Subsequently, There IS hard data of how the chemicals used in tanning factories have seeped into the environment and fucked up the water systems in the US and have made some superfund sites.


http://epa.gov

Title &Summary Format

1 Fact Sheet: Revisions to Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Explains the regulation that eliminates the federal standard for the upper (alkaline) pH limit for wastewaters from leather tanning and finishing facilities.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/OST/guide/leather.html
2 Leather Tanning
This PDF document describes leather tanning processes, emissions information and references for further information.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/final/c9s15.pdf
3 NPL Site Narrative for Pownal Tannery
Description of conditions and status of superfund site, Pownal, Vermont, as of January, 1999.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1529.htm
4 EPA Announces &#036;200000 Brownfield Assessment Pilot Grant for City of Salem
The city of Salem has been chosen to receive a &#036;200000 Brownfield assessment pilot grant.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/region01/pr/1999/062199e.html
5 Chromium and Compounds
Chromium (VI) compounds are much more toxic than chromium (III) compounds.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/chromium.html
6 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study Clean Products and Processes (Phase I): 1998 Annual Report Number 230
The concept of sustainable development demands that future marketing technologies must be cleaner, yet economically sound.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/pubs...5/600r98065.pdf (http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r98065/600r98065.pdf)
7 Quality Criteria for Water 1986
This document includes summaries of all the contaminants for which EPA has developed criteria recommendations
URL: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf
8 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study on Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 2000 Annual Report
Contains updated summaries of the 29 projects as well as reports on the legislative, regulatory, programmatic, and research issues related to contaminated land in each participating country.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/2000annualreport.pdf
9 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 2001 Annual Report
This report lists progress on ongoing projects and a country Tour de Table of current work.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/2001annualreport.pdf
10 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study for the Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 2002 Annual Report
This report lists progress on ongoing projects and a country Tour de Table of current work. This is the final report for Phase III.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/20...nual_report.pdf (http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/2002_annual_report.pdf)

Title &Summary Format

11 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study: Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III): 2002 Annual Report
Provides an evaluation of technologies for treatment and cleanup of groundwater and contaminated land.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/20...nual_report.pdf (http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/2002_annual_report.pdf)
12 Appendix: HAP Profiles
This Appendix includes profiles for each of the 33 urban hazardous air pollutants.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/urban/natpapp.pdf
13 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study on Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 1998 Annual Report
Contains national status reports from 18 countries on hazardous waste remediation, abstracts of 15 demonstration pilots accepted for Phase III, and contacts for participating countries.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/nat98ann.pdf
14 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study on Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase II Final Report)
Describes the performance and results of 52 different remediation projects / demonstrations from 14 countries during the five - year Phase II study.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/phase-2.pdf
15 NATO / CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) 1999 Annual Report
This publication represents the second Annual Report of the Phase III Pilot Study.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/finalnato99.pdf
16 Managing Common Estuarine Environmental Problems
This discussion provides examples of how different NEPs around the country are tackling common environmental problems.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/about4.htm
17 Emergency Planning and Community Right - to - Know Act Section 313 Reporting Guidance for Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry
Document is intended to assist establishments and facilities performing leather tanning and finishing in complying with the Emergency Planning and Community Right - To - Know Act Section 313 and Pollution Prevention Act Section 6607 reporting requirements
URL: http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide_docs/2000/leather.pdf
18 Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force: Final Report to the Administrator
Task Force is part of EPA&#39;s industrial waste pretreatment and control mission as stated in Title III of FWPCA.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0020.pdf
19 Industrial User Inspection and Sampling Manual for POTWs
Provides framework for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works inspector for conducting inspections and wastewater sampling.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0025.pdf
20 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium
This revised criteria for water quality covers chromium and the effects of chromium found in a body of water.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/ost/pc/ambientwqc/chromium80.pdf

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What are you the animal control agents or the mouthpiece of the fur industry?

I&#39;m a communist.


Yeah, they reproduce, ---what&#39;s the point&#33;&#33;&#33;? All animals do.

"Even taken to it&#39;s worst case scenario-- any enviornmental repercussions would not be sustained because the average life span for a mink in the outdoors is less than 1 Year." - You


Subsequently, There IS hard data of how the chemicals used in tanning factories have seeped into the environment and fucked up the water systems in the US and have made some superfund sites.

These places weren&#39;t tanneries.


of course they&#39;re different.

you don&#39;t see animals enslaving other animals, systematically eradicating entire species of other animals, destroying the natural environment.

:rolleyes:

You forgot something: some of them also taste good.

[coda]

ha&#33; Good then, 8 years later then they should have multiplied by the hundreds of thousands ---- show me the data of there is overpopulation and where they fucked up the ecosystem.

They were headed off to be tanned. ALF hit the right place at the right time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By that logic, people for the abolotion of guns should attack iron works since that iron may be used in guns.

[coda]

No, the same logic would be they should attack an ammunitions factory before the bullets can be manufactured to be put into guns.

[h&s]

Its comon knowledge that releasing mink into areas they are not native to leads to the extinction of local species.
In the UK people go around trapping mink to try and let indigenous species survive.

And why the fuck would anyone want to rick two years in the nick for the sake of a few little animals?
Animals like mink are not important enough. So what if their bread to die?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 7 2005, 08:06 AM
Its comon knowledge that releasing mink into areas they are not native to leads to the extinction of local species.
In the UK people go around trapping mink to try and let indigenous species survive.

And why the fuck would anyone want to rick two years in the nick for the sake of a few little animals?
Animals like mink are not important enough. So what if their bread to die?
7000 is more than a few. I&#39;d imagine Peter is from the abolitionist mindset. They&#39;re suffering now, so we can&#39;t wait until new laws are passed or whatever, somebody has to be stopping it right now. If you want to know his thoughts about it, write him, I&#39;m sure he&#39;d be happy to tell you. He can be a lot more open now that he&#39;s about to be sentenced.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Abolitionist?

I don&#39;t whether to laugh or cry.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 6 2005, 11:18 AM
i love liberation fronts.
Me too, but this one is obviously a speciesist plant.

None of its cadres are animals, all of them are humans. Would you take in serious a Black liberation front composed exclusively of whites?

Seriously, the point of those guys is that oppressed people are equal to animals - even if they express that backwards, like &#39;animals are equal to oppressed people&#39;.

Luís Henrique

[Xvall]

Oh by the way; they are terrorists, because they use intimidation tactics for political ends.

I think EVERYONE does that.

[deak]

I&#39;ve noticed a silly trend throughout these posts. People keep saying that we shouldn&#39;t live in cities and it&#39;s better to all move out into the woods in order to "protect" the environment.... UM...... urban sprawl is what is killing this country and destroying our environment.... Everyone wants to flee the poor and get away from the blacks so they keep moving further and further away and destroying more and more of our forest, poluting NEW rivers, dropping murcurey in NEW lakes, and putting chemicals on NEW fake lawns. The best would more likely be that we concentrate on building UPWARDS not outwards. I know, you won&#39;t get to have your own 3 story houses and chemlawns but it&#39;s much better that way. There&#39;s less comuting (thus less pollution) for jobs, public transportation, more mom and pop buisnesses, and generaly there are more environmental restrictions in urban areas than in rural areas.

Now if you&#39;re suggesting that we somehow all leave and live in the wilderness like Native Americans and coop with the earth and all that shit, well, come on. Can you imagine if everyone in new york city and L.A. decided to go out to the midwest, northwest, and North East and live umong the trees..... WELL there would be no more anything.... people killing NEW animals, people shitting in rivers (or did you not want to give up your plumbing?) and more disease.

I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;m not scared of my urban community and I&#39;m not scared of the bums that ask me for change everyday. I&#39;m happy that no new streches of woods were destroyed to accomidate my ass and happy to live in a building that is the size of most suburban houses but houses 5 different apartment units with 5 different family&#39;s in it instead of 5 different new houses built that each destroyed a NEW area and used NEW wood. SO, yeah, I&#39;m damn proud to live in a city.

[tambourine_man]

``As bad as it could get, it will never be as bad as it was for those mink,&#39;&#39; Young said. ``I would do it all over again.&#39;&#39;


what a good and nice man&#33;

[coda]

<<Its comon knowledge that releasing mink into areas they are not native to leads to the extinction of local species.
In the UK people go around trapping mink to try and let indigenous species survive.>>

What do you think, HS. Are minks indiginous to the mid-west areas of the US? Obviously living in the UK and NZ give you guys proximate knowledge of the flora, fauna and wildlife and environmental status of the US. (Yes, minks are indigenous to Mid-west.) All of you living on the other side of the hemisphere, -- your input is appreciated, but since you don&#39;t have to live in the chemical cesspool that is the US and our environment doesn&#39;t effect you, you should refrain from weighing in on the US&#39;s local environmental issues. It is quite galling.

<<None of its cadres are animals, all of them are humans. Would you take in serious a Black liberation front composed exclusively of whites?>>

Are whites and blacks separate species now?

This is a classic example of being blindsided by ideology, along with the rest of the crap stated here. If it doesn&#39;t fall into the narrow 2-point predicate of the communist party - it&#39;s a non-issue, vulgar Marxism and should be rejected. OH, yeah, with the exception that if an animal is leading the vanguard for animal liberation.. ----or if the people are WORKING while they are being poisoned by Corporate chemicals, ---if they are sitting at home... reject the premise, for it doesn&#39;t count.

[Scars]

<<Well, I gotta say, this is the best overwrought defense of the Corporate fur industry I&#39;ve ever witnessed in my life&#33; and filled with mink droppings too&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;>>

I&#39;m not defending the &#39;corporate fur industry&#39; (actually most farmers are indepenent landholders, but &#39;corportae fur industry&#39; is catchy) I&#39;m attacking stupid townie environmentalists who wouldn&#39;t know one end of a horse from another, and wouldn&#39;t be able to identify wheat if they saw it.

<<If you re-Read the article-- the "area consists" of three Mid-West States and alluded to several, if not more, factories.>>

It was an made up example created to illustrate a biological point.

<<Come on--Give it up&#33; Dumping toxic & carcinogenic chemicals into the environment has a much greater negative impact on the environment than the speculative impact of a small weasle-ish type mammal foraging for food in the wild&#33; Just ridiculous to say otherwise.>>

That depends where they are, how many there are and what they do. For instance in New Zealand certain species of algie blooming damages waterways just as much as run off from diary farms. I&#39;m not claiming that the chemicals being dumped doesn&#39;t do anything, because it does. I&#39;m pointing out that you can damage the environment in many ways- releasing large numbers of pests into an environment is one of them.

<<Even taken to it&#39;s worst case scenario-- any enviornmental repercussions would not be sustained because the average life span for a mink in the outdoors is less than 1 Year.>>

And minks can&#39;t breed? Besides, life spans depend on conditions. The conditions of that particular area coudl cause them to live 5 years, for example. This would allow the species to become deeply established in an area where they previously didn&#39;t exist. There are wild guniea pigs in one part of New Zealand for just this reason.

<<Right. They are the first link in the fur chain that incurs chemical degradation of the environment. They are correct to hit that first. No minks--no fur -- No chemicals seeping into the groundwater.>>

Actually humans are the first link because they demand fur coats. So according to your logic we should kill all humans. No demand, no fur trade, no chemicals seeping into the ground water.

<<What are you the animal control agents or the mouthpiece of the fur industry? >>

I see myself as a mouthpiece of reality, as much as it may harm your townie impressions of rural reality.

<<Yeah, they reproduce, ---what&#39;s the point&#33;&#33;&#33;? All animals do.>>

That the minks will not necessarly just die out.

<<and all have instinct to survive and forage for food. Being Breeded in a factory doesn&#39;t make them domesticated. And That&#39;s not the issue.>>

No, they have the instinct to eat. They learn these skills from their mother, however in fur factories they do not have this experience or need it as they just have food dumped infront of their furry little noses, hence most would starve as they would not be able to hunt, thus would not be able to feed themselves.

<<he issue is that the fur industry is environmentally and economically deleterious to society.>>

This is mainly due to an emphasis on profit. It is cheaper to simply dump chemicals into a river than it is to dispose of them properly. Besides, the fur industry only exists due to demand for furs. Attacking any sort of supply is pointless because the demand still exists and as long as demand exists there will be supply. Fucking hell, this is basic economics.


<<hat particular incident happened 8 years ago, long enough to show impact. Show me the hard data of where those minks and their prolific offspring fucked up the ecosystem --- not lame conjecture.>>

Said data isn&#39;t available and it&#39;s an example of why releasing such animals enmass is a stupid thing to do. For instance a few weeks ago some dumbfuck greenies &#39;liberated&#39; some dogs from a university which. Unfortunately these dogs were at the university because they had contracted a uncurable contagious and deadly disease, and thus were being studied to see teh effect that said disease was having on them. The next day they were found dumped on the side of the road in a cardboard box. Now, lets say Some ALF retards go to a lab at some university and end up releasing a bunch of rats infected with the embola for scientific purposes. These rats run out of the lab and into the university hostals, where people start contracting this disease. Soon there is an epidemic and many people die of this horrible disease. It is an extreme example, yes, but it&#39;s just a matter of time before somthing like this happens.

<<Subsequently, There IS hard data of how the chemicals used in tanning factories have seeped into the environment and fucked up the water systems in the US and have made some superfund sites.>>

Yes, but this is because the chemicals are not disposed of properly because it&#39;s cheaper not to. Besides it depends on the level of reguation, inspection etc. Most tanneries will not be having a significant impact on the environment, no more than countless other things, however a minority will be doing so.

<<No, the same logic would be they should attack an ammunitions factory before the bullets can be manufactured to be put into guns.>>

Again, basic economics. Fur is a secondary product, steel is a secondary product. Ammunition is a tertiary product. And what ammunition is manufactured not to be put into guns, just out of interest?

<<I&#39;ve noticed a silly trend throughout these posts. People keep saying that we shouldn&#39;t live in cities and it&#39;s better to all move out into the woods in order to "protect" the environment>>

No, I&#39;m pointing out that cities have a massive impact on the environment, far more than any farm and because of this hardcore environmentalists living in cities is highly ironic.

<<urban sprawl is what is killing this country and destroying our environment>>

Yes...cities...

<<Everyone wants to flee the poor and get away from the blacks so they keep moving further and further away and destroying more and more of our forest, poluting NEW rivers, dropping murcurey in NEW lakes, and putting chemicals on NEW fake lawns.>>

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read up on the Burgess model.

<<The best would more likely be that we concentrate on building UPWARDS not outwards.>>

Because cramped slums are all the rage.

<<I know, you won&#39;t get to have your own 3 story houses and chemlawns but it&#39;s much better that way.>>

Slumification is not a good thing.

<<There&#39;s less comuting (thus less pollution) for jobs, public transportation, more mom and pop buisnesses, and generaly there are more environmental restrictions in urban areas than in rural areas.>>

No, there are generally more planning regulation in urban areas because of the way that zoning works. You&#39;re only looking at one model, the other model is the geographic decentralisation of the country based around ending the distinction between urban and rural areas. Instead of having several massive areas of population having a lower population density across the world.

<<Now if you&#39;re suggesting that we somehow all leave and live in the wilderness like Native Americans and coop with the earth and all that shit, well, come on. Can you imagine if everyone in new york city and L.A. decided to go out to the midwest, northwest, and North East and live umong the trees..... WELL there would be no more anything.... people killing NEW animals, people shitting in rivers (or did you not want to give up your plumbing?) and more disease.>>

I&#39;m not proposing emptying the cities and saying that we should all live in the woods and talk to the possums and the birds. I&#39;m saying that the population should be redistributed more evenly. The size of communities would be reduced and the ultimate goal would be each town to have its basic amenities (clean water, sewage treatment, food, power etc) supplied by its hinterland. This would also reduce transport costs etc as you wouldn&#39;t have to ship food 1000km to a town or suck water out of a river 500km down the road.

<< don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;m not scared of my urban community and I&#39;m not scared of the bums that ask me for change everyday. I&#39;m happy that no new streches of woods were destroyed to accomidate my ass and happy to live in a building that is the size of most suburban houses but houses 5 different apartment units with 5 different family&#39;s in it instead of 5 different new houses built that each destroyed a NEW area and used NEW wood. SO, yeah, I&#39;m damn proud to live in a city.>>

I&#39;m not &#39;scared&#39; of my urban community either. I like cities, however I think that in the long term reducing the size of cities and ending the tendency for a handful of simply massive cities to develop (a quater of the population of New Zealand lives in one city, for instance).

[coda]

Look Scars, you are way out of your league here to presume to know the environmental decay of the United States. The environmental problems here are regional specific to the U.S and it&#39;s particular biology & topography, which is VERY diverse; just as the local environmental problems of New Zealand are specific to New Zealand. I, myself would not be so pompous and presumptuous in telling New Zealand what they should and should not be environmentally concerned about and make unequivocal sweeping statements, albeit, also wrong, indicating what poses the more significant ecological threat and damage there. You do not know the environmental problems in the U.S. and well, for the most part--- it has no bearing on you anyway.

Instead of calling everyone a "townie" why don&#39;t you look through the links I posted and you will see the effects tanneries have imposed on the ecology here. One tannery in Vermont is a superfund site. Do you even know what a U.S. superfund is?

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1529.htm

[workersunity]

I wrote an essay for Environmental Ethics class, in which i justified the actions of ELF Earth liberation front, I got an A- on it. I support that guy all the way

END THE FUR BUSINESS&#33;&#33;&#33;

[rioters bloc]

perhaps post it here? if it&#39;s cool and not too long :P

i&#39;d be interested in learning more about it

[praxis1966]

That depends where they are, how many there are and what they do. For instance in New Zealand certain species of algie blooming damages waterways just as much as run off from diary farms.

Such algae blooms are increasing in frequency. When cars, machinery, hairspray, and cow farts release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it&#39;s not just the air that gets heated. The surface temperatures of bodies of water are heated as well. This in turn cause the algae blooms to last longer and to be larger.

In the case of my hometown, which survives primarily off of tourism and the fishing industry, we&#39;ve had a horrendous red tide epidemic (which is caused by red algae blooms). Not only has this caused a good many environmental illnesses to people like myself who live near the coastline, but it essentially has cancelled a good amount of the seafood industry. (This includes the harvesting of Appalachicola oysters, which you probably eat even in NZ.)

Not only that, but I just watched a PBS documentary the other day addressing that very issue from a slightly different angle. Apparently, the commercial fishing industry of many Mediterranean countries is being killed off. According to the documentary, the normally cold waters there have warmed to the point where a species of sea grass usually native to the tropics has moved in. It&#39;s spread like wildfire over there, but it&#39;s toxic to fish. The fish have been eating and dieing off in record numbers.


Said data isn&#39;t available and it&#39;s an example of why releasing such animals enmass is a stupid thing to do. For instance a few weeks ago some dumbfuck greenies &#39;liberated&#39; some dogs from a university which. Unfortunately these dogs were at the university because they had contracted a uncurable contagious and deadly disease, and thus were being studied to see teh effect that said disease was having on them. The next day they were found dumped on the side of the road in a cardboard box. Now, lets say Some ALF retards go to a lab at some university and end up releasing a bunch of rats infected with the embola for scientific purposes. These rats run out of the lab and into the university hostals, where people start contracting this disease. Soon there is an epidemic and many people die of this horrible disease. It is an extreme example, yes, but it&#39;s just a matter of time before somthing like this happens.

You&#39;ve seen 28 Days Later one too many times. I&#39;m sure that most environmentalists, myself included, have wherewithal enough to research the sites that they plan on attacking.


Because cramped slums are all the rage.

Slumification is not a good thing.

Not all apartment complexes are slums. I don&#39;t think even you are stupid enough to believe that.

At any rate, you seem to think that this has something to do with food. The mink industry is totally unecessary and has nothing to do with feeding people, except maybe the people who profit from it.

In any case, my gripe is not really with farming in general. It is a necessary industry. However, things like mink and beef are not. I wonder if you&#39;re aware that with the amount of grain and water necessary to produce one hamburger patty you could feed a family of four for a year. Not only that, but one can&#39;t help but wonder about all the antibiotics that get pumped into cattle each year. In the U&#036;, 90% of the antibiotics which are produced get injected into cows. I can&#39;t help but think that this accelerates the rate at which many viruses mutate and become immune to their antitheses given to humans. But, I digress.

[coda]

I am interested in seeing the essay too, if you saved it in a file on your computer.

[Scars]

<<Look Scars, you are way out of your league here to presume to know the environmental decay of the United States.>>

And you are way out of your league to presume that people from elsewhere in the world are as ignorant as your average American (not an attack at you, just a general statement)

<<The environmental problems here are regional specific to the U.S and it&#39;s particular biology & topography, which is VERY diverse; just as the local environmental problems of New Zealand are specific to New Zealand.>>

Yes, I understand this.

<<I, myself would not be so pompous and presumptuous in telling New Zealand what they should and should not be environmentally concerned about and make unequivocal sweeping statements, albeit, also wrong, indicating what poses the more significant ecological threat and damage there. You do not know the environmental problems in the U.S. and well, for the most part--- it has no bearing on you anyway.>>

Actually what happens in the US is of great importance to me. The US owns large hunks of my country and the US is one of our biggest trading partners. In addition to this the massive intergration of the global economy means that what happens to the US has a big bearing on everyone.

<<Instead of calling everyone a "townie" why don&#39;t you look through the links I posted and you will see the effects tanneries have imposed on the ecology here. One tannery in Vermont is a superfund site.>>

I did. However, as I&#39;ve said, most of these chemicals can be disposed of, but it is costly and thus is not done. In addition other chemicals can be used that aren&#39;t as damaging, however often these are not cheap. Or you could simply go back to using older, perfectly good methods, involving using salt to preserve skins. The tanneries are not the issue, capitalism is. Why? Because the emphasis on profits causes the environment to be neglected, as taking measures to protect the environment is often costly.

As for the townie thing, I&#39;ll stop when you honest answer. Do you live in a city? Have you ever spent any time in rural areas? Do you have any practical knowledge of the agricultural sector? Have you ever seen a paddock?

<<Do you even know what a U.S. superfund is?>>

Yes, I do know what a US superfund is.

<<You&#39;ve seen 28 Days Later one too many times. I&#39;m sure that most environmentalists, myself included, have wherewithal enough to research the sites that they plan on attacking>>

I haven&#39;t seen 28 days later. Apparantly it was shit.

Anyway, this presumes that the research is known of. It also presumes that the people doing these things are intelligent. The majority of greenies wouldn&#39;t be dumb enough to do this, I&#39;ll admit, however the ALF has no vetting process for members, no training, no discipline and no enforcable regulations. Because of this one retard with a crowbar could do somthing like this. As I&#39;ve said, greenies recently &#39;liberated&#39; some highly infectious dogs about 500m down the road from me.

<<Not all apartment complexes are slums. I don&#39;t think even you are stupid enough to believe that>>

No, however I don&#39;t like high density housing and most people would agree with me on this issue. I like having a garden, I have a thing for growing corn (I watched children of the corn far too many times as a child). Shouldn&#39;t greenies be praising me?

<<At any rate, you seem to think that this has something to do with food. The mink industry is totally unecessary and has nothing to do with feeding people, except maybe the people who profit from it.>>

This goes past simply the mink industry. I doubt there is much to eat on a mink, the corpses will probably be turned into blood and bone (a fertiliser). Such ideas effect all sectors of the rural economy.

<<In any case, my gripe is not really with farming in general. It is a necessary industry. However, things like mink and beef are not. I wonder if you&#39;re aware that with the amount of grain and water necessary to produce one hamburger patty you could feed a family of four for a year.>>

The meat industry is necessary as it is the easiest way for humans to get iron. Yes, there are alternatives, but they will not be able to replace meat. And iron deficencies suck. As for grain, this is why beef shouldn&#39;t be kept in winter. Plus the meat is disgusting marbled shit.

<<Not only that, but one can&#39;t help but wonder about all the antibiotics that get pumped into cattle each year.>>

What antibiotics are you refering to? Worming and the like? Would you rather that the cows had bellies full of worms and have other sicknesses? Growth hormones are not needed if the conditions are good.

<<In the U&#036;, 90% of the antibiotics which are produced get injected into cows. I can&#39;t help but think that this accelerates the rate at which many viruses mutate and become immune to their antitheses given to humans. But, I digress.>>

That depends on whether or not the virus can infect both species.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You see this is what pisses me off about the left today - too much treehugging and too much association with wacko ecofascists. Either that or they&#39;re too busy fellating the bourgeuois political system to care about the working class. Or they are crazy fascists like MIM and the Third Positionists.

It makes me fucking sick.

Fuck ELF, ALF, and all other hypocritical liberation fronts. They do jack fucking shit about animal conditions, they alienate the normal person, and they bring a bad name to real animal welfare campaigners.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Noxion, I don&#39;t often agree with you, but "Either that or they&#39;re too busy fellating the bourgeuois political system to care about the working class" may be one of the best quotes/descriptions ever.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:29 PM
You see this is what pisses me off about the left today - too much treehugging and too much association with wacko ecofascists. Either that or they&#39;re too busy fellating the bourgeuois political system to care about the working class. Or they are crazy fascists like MIM and the Third Positionists.

It makes me fucking sick.

Fuck ELF, ALF, and all other hypocritical liberation fronts. They do jack fucking shit about animal conditions, they alienate the normal person, and they bring a bad name to real animal welfare campaigners.
this is what pisses me off about the left today - thinking that any compassionate action that isn&#39;t solely focused on the plight of the working class is not only futile and worthless, but &#39;bourgeois&#39;. people throw that around so much nowadays [particularly on this forum] it&#39;s practically ceased to hold any real meaning.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To be fair, there is alot of bourgeous & petit-bourgeois bullshit on this forum.

This thread itself contains some prime examples.

[rioters bloc]

i agree. but it shouldn&#39;t be used as a common insult - &#39;i disagree with your views so i will call you bourgeois... suck on THAT, fucker&#33; hwa&#33;&#39;

[Severian]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 6 2005, 10:10 PM
Is the environment currently any more damaged by the mink being released? I haven&#39;t heard anything to suggest it is other than speculation.
This is called an "argument from ignorance." It is a fallacy.

Just because you don&#39;t know about the environmental effects, doesn&#39;t mean there aren&#39;t any.

But the fact that animal rights people don&#39;t bother to learn the environmental effects before releasing these legions of ravenous predators.....tells me that they don&#39;t care. And the fact that you don&#39;t bother to find out what they are before endorsing these actions...tells me you don&#39;t either.

There certainly have been negative effects in Britain, the world capital of animal rights wackiness. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4555779.stm)


I&#39;m talking about giant factory farmers, not everyone who owns a fucking goat. I have no problem with eating meat or raising animals, but I do have a problem with gigantic, destructive "farms."

Most agricultural production in the U.S. is done by working farmers. Do you have a "problem" with these people whose labor feeds you?

Wouldn&#39;t surprise me if that was true of fur farms as well...have you bothered to check?

[Severian]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 8 2005, 05:40 AM
this is what pisses me off about the left today - thinking that any compassionate action that isn&#39;t solely focused on the plight of the working class is not only futile and worthless, but &#39;bourgeois&#39;.
See, this is what pisses me off about the left today - people who get all "compassionate", that is pitying, about the "plight of the working class." Of course on that basis some cute furry animal is going to be more pitiful every time. Especially since people, however pitiful, always have their own ideas and goals which interfere with you heroically "rescuing" them.

The important thing about the working class is we&#39;re a fighting class, not that we&#39;re a suffering class in a "plight". We don&#39;t need your fucking "compassion." We need solidarity from fellow fighters among the oppressed and exploited.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And that&#39;s the ballgame.

[Ian]

I&#39;m not very full of beans tonight, so I&#39;m gonna lay it out, y&#39;all can throw it back at me if you want.

- I&#39;m not the biggest fan of PETA or ELF/ALF, but fur industry isn&#39;t my favourite either, this dude is aight in my books even if he does seem like a crazy hippie
- But here&#39;s a cliche- Animal liberation isn&#39;t my dream, my dream is the liberation of the working class, no matter how misdirected you may think I am, trust me, I think 100% work towards Animal Liberation is much more misdirected.
-In New Zealand it may be similar to the Australian situation on the Hawkesbury River, it is considered to be overflowing with algae and marine flora, but the people saying it is overflowing are the people who cannot function commercially on the river anymore, so the balance of the ecosystem has interrupted the commercial operation of shit, but its not actiually over-populated with algae in the natural sense.

(first drunk post thats made sense from me i hope)

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 8 2005, 10:07 PM--> (Severian @ Oct 8 2005, 10:07 PM)
rioters [email protected] 8 2005, 05:40 AM
this is what pisses me off about the left today - thinking that any compassionate action that isn&#39;t solely focused on the plight of the working class is not only futile and worthless, but &#39;bourgeois&#39;.
See, this is what pisses me off about the left today - people who get all "compassionate", that is pitying, about the "plight of the working class." Of course on that basis some cute furry animal is going to be more pitiful every time. Especially since people, however pitiful, always have their own ideas and goals which interfere with you heroically "rescuing" them.

The important thing about the working class is we&#39;re a fighting class, not that we&#39;re a suffering class in a "plight". We don&#39;t need your fucking "compassion." We need solidarity from fellow fighters among the oppressed and exploited. [/b]
1. compassion does not equate to pity. because i&#39;m not a big fan of semantics games i won&#39;t get into it, but please don&#39;t try and twist my words by making up your own definitions.

2. my use of the word plight was satirical. perhaps i should have made that clearer by using "quotation marks" like "you"

3. if you&#39;re committed to fighting against only one form of oppression, thats fine. its better than nothing. but ridiculing and degrading the efforts of other activists is hardly worthwhile to your/our cause. seems to me that you&#39;re saying you&#39;ll only help fight for opressed and exploited people if you can expect total solidarity from them, which clearly minks can&#39;t give you - so fuck them, right?&#33;

i am committed to fighting for freedom of the working class. just ask anyone who knows me, knows of my involvement in certain movements, people on this board even. i am also committed to fighting sexism, racism, homophobia, climate change and the continuing oppression and exploitation of animals. do i put the rights of animals above that of humans? no. but i will fight for the rights of both.

i respect your right to fight for the things you believe in. please respect mine.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

so fuck them, right?&#33;

Right.

[coda]

<<And you are way out of your league to presume that people from elsewhere in the world are as ignorant as your average American (not an attack at you, just a general statement) >>

There&#39;s a difference between ignorance and indifference. The average US Republican citizen (1/2 the population) is indifferent to the effects of Capitalism. I didn&#39;t say you are ignorant of general environmental problems.. but you are ignorant to the specific regional environmental conditions of the US. I wouldn&#39;t expect otherwise-- there is no reason why you shouldn&#39;t be, unless you are an environmental engineer. But, I&#39;ll give you the opportunity to refute my assertion-- just tell me how many US superfunds sites there are, the top 5 offenders of toxic waste dumping and where those top 5 sites are in the US. The Task shouldn&#39;t be too hard for an avowed environmentalist&#33;&#33;&#33; Good luck with your research&#33; :)


<<Actually what happens in the US is of great importance to me. The US owns large hunks of my country and the US is one of our biggest trading partners. In addition to this the massive intergration of the global economy means that what happens to the US has a big bearing on everyone.>>

The US holds no territory in NZ. Yes, The global enconomy has a bearing on everyone and what the US imposes on other nations. The local contaminated drinking water does not have a global impact. Neither does setting mink free in Tomahawk, WI.

<<However, as I&#39;ve said, most of these chemicals can be disposed of, but it is costly and thus is not done. In addition other chemicals can be used that aren&#39;t as damaging, however often these are not cheap. Or you could simply go back to using older, perfectly good methods, involving using salt to preserve skins. The tanneries are not the issue, capitalism is. Why? Because the emphasis on profits causes the environment to be neglected, as taking measures to protect the environment is often costly.>>

That is all incidentals. It doesn&#39;t matter WHY they dump the chemicals improperly. Yeah, we know Capitalism is a factor in why they do it. However, the issue is that THEY DO IT. US environmental laws are lax and getting laxer, and as long as they remain lax and encroaching a threat on people, the ELF and others groups will continue to do what they do --- and with my full support.

Anyway, Regardless of what YOU think the criteria is in having a legit environmental consciousness -- none of it makes a bit of difference. Environmental problems occur all over the place. I don&#39;t even consider myself an environmentalist.. but I start to care when the shit is encroaching in my backyard.

Same with you, Noxion, Nobody expects you to give a shit about their local environmental problems. I wouldn&#39;t give a shit either if the Queen shit in the Thames River and contaminated it. But why does it "piss you off" so much if people get involved with local issues that effect them. Is the working class suppose to sit back while the corporations poison their drinking water? I&#39;m actually involved with a lot of local actions in the community -- all one can really do is Act locally while thinking globally and have solidarity for what everyone else is working on and help when they can.


And Scars, I just want to correct something you said earlier. Minks will indeed hunt for food. It is insinct. Even abadoned housecats, who have always lived as indoor house cats, will have instinct to kill birds, mice or will sift through garbage to find food. Animals have instict to eat.. it is not "learned from their mothers."


Edit: Hope you saw all of this post, Scars, because I edited out my location.

[Xvall]

What pissses me off about the left is that it&#39;s so divided and conflicted with itself that conversations about minks often end up resulting in accusations of fascism and counter-revolutionary activity.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Good riddance to reactionaries.

[Free Palestine]

Maybe someday when the only true suffering of society exists solely in the animal population and the pain and suffering of the working class is nonexistant will I even entertain the thought of giving a shit about animals.

[workersunity]

ill post the essay i guess in Politics...


correction: I posted it in the article sections

[Luís Henrique]

See, this is what pisses me off about the left today - people who get all "compassionate", that is pitying, about the "plight of the working class." Of course on that basis some cute furry animal is going to be more pitiful every time. Especially since people, however pitiful, always have their own ideas and goals which interfere with you heroically "rescuing" them.

The important thing about the working class is we&#39;re a fighting class, not that we&#39;re a suffering class in a "plight". We don&#39;t need your fucking "compassion." We need solidarity from fellow fighters among the oppressed and exploited.

Severian

May I print this in huge capital letters and pin it into my wall?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

this is what pisses me off about the left today - thinking that any compassionate action that isn&#39;t solely focused on the plight of the working class is not only futile and worthless, but &#39;bourgeois&#39;. people throw that around so much nowadays [particularly on this forum] it&#39;s practically ceased to hold any real meaning.

Compassionate actions, in their selves, are a fine thing. Freeing minks is a compassionate action? Possibly.

But compassionate actions are not political actions. To free minks and call that a political act of resistance against oppression is very stupid. Minks cannot be liberated from oppression. If they are not raised for fur, they will go around being eaten by larger predators and parasites, while killing (I suppose we should say murdering?) other critters for a life. Minks cannot be free, because they are not rational.

What is extremely revulsive in the argument that fighting against "oppression" of animals is a political act somehow in the same way than fighting against oppressionn of workers (or blacks, women, gay people, slaves, kurds or basques, for instance) is that it seems to show a blind spot in the views of the activists who so argue: that workers, women, basques, gay people, prostitutes, etc, are themselves subjects of history. Minks, or roaches, are not. If you belive fighting for the freedom of minks or roaches is comparable to fighting the opressionn of workers, you quite probably are missing the same points all blanquists miss.

Luís Henrique