XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 27 Dec 2006 20:42:28 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:45:55 +0000, Geoff  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:21:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >>    This is old news, but it really displays the true mentality--or   
   >> >>lack of mentality--of "aras":   
   >> >¯   
   >> >>Here's another little gem from the deluded freaks:   
   >> >>_________________________________________________________   
   >> >>September 14, 2006, Argyll, Scotland:  ALF extremists released   
   >> >>thousands of farmed halibut and caused £500,000 worth of damage   
   >> >>at a fish farm.   
   >> >   
   >> >That price was hiked up for insurance purposes. It was a scam on   
   >> >behalf of the fishery.   
   >>   
   >>     If they get anything out of it, then good.   
   >>   
   >> >> Pens were destroyed,   
   >> >   
   >> >Crates!   
   >> >   
   >> >> and offices,   
   >> >   
   >> >Sheds, in very bad condition.   
   >> >   
   >> >> a boat   
   >> >   
   >> >£50 worth!   
   >> >   
   >> >> and a crane   
   >> >>were wrecked.   
   >> >   
   >> >Hoist!   
   >>   
   >>     So what? "ar" terrorists destroy high level expensive stuff   
   >> as well as sheds and crates. They don't care how much the   
   >> stuff costs, so why are you saying anything about it? Do you   
   >> actually think it's okay to wreck hoists and cabins, but not to   
   >> wreck cranes and offices?   
   >>   
   >   
   >What's your definition of terrorism?   
      
       Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others.   
      
   >Why shouldn't he say something   
   >about it?   
      
       About what?   
      
   >You were the one who brought the subject up. You quoted a   
   >claim which he believes is false. Why shouldn't he correct it?   
      
       For one thing I'd need reason to believe him, which I   
   certainly don't have. For another he would need to explain   
   what makes it any better either way, before I even could   
   think the terrorists were any less stupid because of what   
   he wrote.   
      
   >> >>  Marine experts said it was unlikely the fish could   
   >> >>survive in the wild,   
   >> >   
   >> >Not marine experts, the crooked fishery people,   
   >>   
   >>     They know more about their fish than you ever will.   
   >>   
   >   
   >How do you know?   
      
       Some things are very obvious, but even those are   
   often a confusing bewilderment to "aras".   
      
   . . .   
      
   >> This fish farm is a good example: At the farm they were kept   
   >> alive, but after the "aras" imposed their influence on them   
   >> they died by the thousands in nasty ways.   
   >   
   >Well, that's the point at issue. Did more fish die as a result of the   
   >action? I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to   
   >see some evidence for yours.   
      
       They would die either way, even if the terrorists hadn't stolen   
   them. If they were diseased, then there's no telling how many   
   more wild fish suffered from your heros' actions. Your heros   
   didn't save any fish, but are likely to have killed many more.   
      
   >> Can you see how   
   >> that works? And the same is true when "aras" have their   
   >> influence on fur farms: The animals are alive and comfortable   
   >   
   >Nonsense.   
      
       There's a perfect example of one of your twisted views of   
   reality. You can't even imagine how animals in a fur farm could   
   be alive and comfortable, meaning that what little you're able   
   to imagine is a twisted distortion of how things are.   
      
   >> ...the "aras" impose their influence...the animals are and   
   >> remain terrified, they're fighting for their lives, killing native   
   >> wildlife, starving, freezing, being killed by cars, getting shot,   
   >> getting poisoned, getting killed by other animals, etc...   
   >>   
   >   
   >Without necessarily wishing to say that letting them loose into the   
   >wild is the best solution, I don't accept your claim that they are   
   >worse off for being freed.   
      
       There's another perfect example of one of your twisted   
   views, being no doubt somewhat dependant on the last   
   one we looked at.   
      
   >I've seen footage of fur farms   
      
       Undoubtedly from a group of people who are twisted and   
   dishonest.   
      
   >and I know what the animals suffer.   
      
       Here's a simple fact about lifestock farming, and pretty   
   much ALL conditions where beings exist:   
      
   Some of them have decent lives of positive value, and   
   some of them don't. To say that none of them do is as   
   stupid as saying that they all do. That's probably the most   
   basic and significant aspect of the whole issue, but you   
   can only grasp half of it.   
      
   >>     "aras" make things worse, and that's how that works.   
   >   
   >No, this is not always the case   
      
       It is always the case. Just through the cost increase   
   alone that your heros force on everybody is enough waste   
   and stupidity to completely overwhelm some minute bit of   
   good a terrorist act might possibly have done. But they don't do   
   any good anyway, so there's no point fantasising. It's all bad!   
      
   >even if we restrict our attention to   
   >those who conduct illegal actions, who are in any case a small part of   
   >the animal rights movement as a whole.   
      
       The less violent are encouraged to write support letters   
   to terrorists in prison, and even some normal people who   
   don't understand what's going on fund your heros through   
   organizations like PeTA.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)