Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Animal Liberation Front thread
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

that does a scientific study that states that animal use is wrong and i will look at the data. until then show me a valid, rational argument that supports violence in protest of animal exploitation.

wow what the hell are you trying to say.

1st. saying animal use is wrong is a MORAL JUDGEMENT. It is not a scientific judgement in any way, no science study is going to find out that exploitation of cows has 54.9% wrogness or some shit.

2. okay ill give you an argument. If one were to believe that all animals deserve the same rights as humans you could say what is being done to animals is completely morally wrong. If so, animal exploiters are wrong and it is RIGHT for you to free animals just as right as it is for you to go and free slaves from the south. If this requires some violence it can be morally justifited. Just as slaves would be morally justified in using violence to stop slavery.

implode.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
prolifik



Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 488
 Reply with quote  

The laughs keep coming. So, as long as the violence is used in a protest movement, then it is kosher. The KKK blowing up a black church would according to this logic, be encouraged. Talk about needing to put more thought into what you type... Wow.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

quasifoto wrote:
Direct action really shouldn't be called violent! That's a bullshit label for it. Especially in the case here where it's used to save animals and no one is harmed. Violence on inanimate objects is just different. All the government agencies that label the ALF terrorist are complete bullshit anyway. If slaves were still around and people were fighting to free them, the government would be watching those activists too.

great post so far.


as i pointed out earlier. in a capatilist society, violence against property can be interpereted as violence against the title holder.

as far as the other point - what you are not understanding is that we the people run this country, by electing our government agents, if our agenicies have poor judgement then it is our fault and we have worse problems than mcdonalds. if the citizens of the US are unhappy with the status quo then the majority can change that - violence need not be a key in the equation - if they majority does not feel that change is a good idea then they will vote for the staus quo. the question you need to ask yourself is why are these things that you dislike still going on? is it because of the evil government, pharmaceutical companies and burger joints? or is it becuase most americans do not feel that there is a problem . if you want change in this country get the public on your side and vote for change - destroying property will get you labled as a fanatic and most people will disregard your message.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
prolifik



Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 488
 Reply with quote  

[quote="Llamasex"]
Quote:

I think it is about control, or organized voilence vs not.


Violence is violence, period. If my 5 year old son sees a guy getting his head bashed with flying objects by a group of protestors, it isn't better than if he saw a guy getting beat down by a group of gangmembers simply because the protesters happened to be "organized."
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:39 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

August Spies wrote:
that does a scientific study that states that animal use is wrong and i will look at the data. until then show me a valid, rational argument that supports violence in protest of animal exploitation.

wow what the hell are you trying to say.

1st. saying animal use is wrong is a MORAL JUDGEMENT. It is not a scientific judgement in any way, no science study is going to find out that exploitation of cows has 54.9% wrogness or some shit.

2. okay ill give you an argument. If one were to believe that all animals deserve the same rights as humans you could say what is being done to animals is completely morally wrong. If so, animal exploiters are wrong and it is RIGHT for you to free animals just as right as it is for you to go and free slaves from the south. If this requires some violence it can be morally justifited. Just as slaves would be morally justified in using violence to stop slavery.

implode.


i said UNTIL you can show a study! and if you can seperate science judgemnet and moral judgement then isn't it okay to use animal in the name of science?

how does one come to believe that human life should be weighed as equally as animal? that would be a nessacery componet to a valid philosphical argument.


and i will not shut-up, remeber there is not an angry man at the keys of this terminal. i am merely presenting my case. i have no agenda other than that.

peace
jay
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
imatopos



Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 91
Info  Reply with quote  

From the ALF:

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

The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.

It is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).

Because ALF actions are against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have any centralized organization or coordination.

The Animal Liberation Front consists of small autonomous groups of people all over the world who carry out direct action according to the ALF guidelines. Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF

The ALF guidelines are:

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

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

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

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
gerhupsom vanbone



Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 2697
 Reply with quote  

So they steel and destroy stuff.

wow.

definately instills a good image of vegetarians in everyones minds
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
quasifoto



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 975
Location: Albany
 Reply with quote  

"The laughs keep coming. So, as long as the violence is used in a protest movement, then it is kosher. The KKK blowing up a black church would according to this logic, be encouraged. Talk about needing to put more thought into what you type... Wow."
Damn that's a stretch. I've never heard that spin on this, it's out there. See this is too liberate not to oppress, but ah who cares right?

"So they steel and destroy stuff.
wow.
definately instills a good image of vegetarians in everyones minds"
is that all you see? no, it's a bullshit way to dismiss it. why do they steal and destroy? i think you know. it's not a club of theives and hooligans.

tinkle-you are a moron and your scientific morals are shit!
i'll address them in more depth later when i have time.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

prolifik:

you can't possibly be this simplistic. "Violence is violence, period. " what century are you living in?

"So, as long as the violence is used in a protest movement, then it is kosher. "

attacking strawmen does not make you intelligent. I never said this. A couple questions I hope you can answer.

1. would a slave be morally right in using violence to escape his slavery?
2. Would someone be morally right in freeing a slave, even if it required some violence?
3. Can war (violence) ever be justified?
4. is revolution ever, such as the american revolution, morally right? all revolution requires some violence remember.
5. Is a policeman morally right in using violence to subdue a criminal?
6. Would a non-policeman be morally right using violence to subdue a mass murderer?

if you are intellecutally honest and consistant you have no choice but to say all of those are wrong. Since you have posited that a. violence is wrong and b. violence is always violence.

I eagerly await your well thought out response.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

tinkleDRINKER

"how does one come to believe that human life should be weighed as equally as animal? that would be a nessacery componet to a valid philosphical argument. "

well a vegan could claim any sentient being has the same rights, at least on a basic level. This doesnt require a lot of hard logic here you know. (NOTE: this is NOT my position, but it is many peoples)

apologies if I misinterpreted your previous post on scientific studies, I think I see the problem.



Quote:

as i pointed out earlier. in a capatilist society, violence against property can be interpereted as violence against the title holder.


irrelevant. This is YOUR opinion. But it is NOT the opinion of those who conduct property damage as a tactic. Since the argument was if they could be intellecutally consistant being pacifist and advocating property destruction it is irrelevant if someone else's beliefs interpret it in another way.

It is also irrelevant because even if it is interpreted that way its twisting around the original definition and the two types of "violence" can still be seperated for intellectual purposes.

if the citizens of the US are unhappy with the status quo then the majority can change that -

untrue for these purposes. and wrong in most cases anyway.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 6:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
imatopos



Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 91
--  Reply with quote  

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate people responding to this issue--it's a very difficult one no matter where you stand. Since I'm going to write a scholarly book on this topic, it's especially nice for me to see how various people view the stakes here. Argue on!
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11613
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

and oh yeah.. my mom wears fur sometimes.. not cause we're rich (haha.. so far from it) or anythign like that.. it's just that she has one or two nice fur coats from like 30 years ago.. and some times people make asshole comments to her.. that shit pisses me off.. if someone were to do that with me there i'd knock them the phuck out..







what if they wear fur in the mc donalds thats being blown up?
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

to all who disagree:

my point is and has always been this:

1) if you are an american citizen you are contractually bound to obey the laws of this society. this is not an opinion this is fact! if you disobey the laws, the government and the society WILL take action.

2) intentional property damage and destruction is violent! this is not opinion this is true by definition!

3) in america the current economic system is capatalism. in this system the citizens are allowed the to obtain any property that they desire, as long as they have the means too.

4) because the american society is capatalist, the citizens have banded together and said that the intentional destruction of thier property is considered an attack on the individual and should be outlawed.

5) the willingful destruction of anothers property is outlawed in america.

if you are destroying the property of citizens they are going to retaliate and your message will be lost! why? because you are not obeying the rules of the society that they belong too. you will not be considered a rational member of that sciety because your actions are irrational - they are governed by emotion and desperation and they cause harm! if you want to make a change form a valid philosophical or scientific argument against the use of animals for industry. i emphasize the term VALID! you will have to go against the government, and they will not change just because a sub-culture in this society FEELS that the use of animal is wrong. get more people on your side! but don't cause property damage - this is the act of someone who believes that their cause is the correct one and the majority of citizens in the US are wrong. this will not help your cause! at the end of the day what i am saying is that even though there has never been a bloodless revoultion, there have been revoulutions where the victor won through non-violence. therfore , if you are RATIONal human being, then how can you condone the use of violence as a method for revolution. especially when there is a system in place that allows you to achieve your goals without the use of violence. do you see what i am saying? if you disagree then fine, but the fact remains that it is irrational! also please do not call me a moron - i am far from that. this is all i have to say on this subject - thanks for the discourse! but i have to work and can give any more time to this disscussion.

respectfully jay del
Post Wed Dec 18, 2002 9:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

sorry to burst your bubble.


Quote:


1) if you are an american citizen you are contractually bound to obey the laws of this society. this is not an opinion this is fact! if you disobey the laws, the government and the society WILL take action.


irrelevant. If you live in Nazi germany you are supposed to follow the laws and can be persecuted if you don't. However, merely the use of FORCE by the goverment does not IN ITSELF prove its morality. I highly doubt you believe that MIGHT relaly does make RIGHT. So perhaps you would like to expand your analysis, cause its on very weak grounds now.


Quote:

2) intentional property damage and destruction is violent! this is not opinion this is true by definition!


wrong. it can mean damage to a living being. Let me ask you a question, if you drop a glass and it shatters is it violence? of course not. anyway your poitn is again IRRELEVANT AS IT IS JUST SEMANTICS. Clearly there is a difference between stabbing someone in the heart and punching a wall. If you want to make a blanket definition of both, fine, this doens't make your argument any stronger.


Quote:

3) in america the current economic system is capatalism. in this system the citizens are allowed the to obtain any property that they desire, as long as they have the means too.


pretty poor definition of capitalism, but anyways see my first response. Merely stating the status quo does not say anything PER SE. It is normally considered that if something is morally wrong you should fight it, even if its against the law. This dates back to the founding days of liberal thought kid-o


Quote:

4) because the american society is capatalist, the citizens have banded together and said that the intentional destruction of thier property is considered an attack on the individual and should be outlawed.


we did? you seem to know little about how this goverment was formed.


Quote:

5) the willingful destruction of anothers property is outlawed in america.


true. freeing slaves was also outlawed.


Quote:

because you are not obeying the rules of the society that they belong too.


stupid logic. go tell union workers their struggle couldn't work cause they were violating laws, go tell Martin Luther King that you can't break segregation laws since they are a part of society, etc... ad infinitum.


Quote:

you will have to go against the government,


why do you feel that an animal rights movement would need to be completely different tactically than all past rights movements?


Quote:

if you are RATIONal human being, then how can you condone the use of violence as a method for revolution.


wait... are you trying to say that the FOUNDERS OF THIS FUCKING COUNTRY were IRRATIONAL!?!? Are you trying to say this country, whos laws you seem to think are golden, was FOUNDED ON IRRATIONALITY!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Quote:

especially when there is a system in place that allows you to achieve your goals without the use of violence.


fairyland?
Post Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:18 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

1) get it straight. i am talking about america - in nazi germany you had no other choice. here you have the you have them luxury of calling the shots of the government! it is not my fault if the majority says that your movemnet is wrong. perhaps instread of coming with weak arguments against me you should come up with a strong argument for yourself

2) true, but i was saying that intentional damage IS violent - to make a point that i am not baseing my argument on opinion. also definitions are relevent to anyone who is forming an argument - it narrows the room for misinterpretation

3) you are wrong here. read Locke and Marx again. this is the very essence of capatalism. also going back to my original argument - where is the moral outrage of entire country? change their minds by forming a Valid rational argument against the use of animals and gain their support to change the system WITHOUT THEJU USE OF VIOLENCE!

4) YES WE DID! how do think that laws protecting proerty owners from random destruction came to be! you seem to know little about anything!

5) yes, and now having slaves is outlawed. the american process in action! so it was terrible! the point is - the citizens spoke and the laws were changed. they used war - but it does not set precedent to be followed. the country was divided literly in half at the time. hardly the case with this issue
6) civil disobediance and direct action are two differnt methods. but yoiu are right this is weak link in my argument.

7) i don't feel it is different- i am saying " get your act together! you are going against people who are going to want better excuses than - I feel it is wrong"

8) no! i mean what the fuck buddy! understand i am talking about AMERICA not the british FUCKING empire. at that time the american system of democracy wass not in place; therefore, was no system in place that could overthrough the government. remeber disobediance lead to defense of a belief! we did not invade.

9) it's too bad yoyu feel this way! you are the reason that people resort to violence. i emplore you to remeber that this country belongs to it's citizens, and use that as ammunition in your fight!
Post Wed Dec 18, 2002 12:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:45 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon