XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 28 Dec 2006 16:58:43 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >That's a fairly broad definition. So every act of mugging is an act of   
   >terrorism. I think you need to work on that definition a bit.   
      
       Since you're the one who's trying to make "ar" terrorism seem   
   okay, why don't you provide a definition that makes it okay instead   
   of pretending some interest in my interpretation. Good luck.   
      
   >Anyway, the next question is what counts as a violent act,   
      
       Go ahead and try to justify it that way too if you think you can.   
      
   >and what about   
   >actions where the intention is to help animals,   
      
       In any rare situation where "ar" terrorism might possibly have   
   been of some benefit to an animal instead of making its particular   
   life worse than it had been, we only have reason to believe the   
   stolen animal would be replace by another, and any experiments   
   would have to be repeated causing as always MORE suffering,   
   not less.   
      
   >rather than to manipulate others?   
      
       We have yet to see any example(s) of that, so we have   
   nothing to consider.   
      
   >> >Why shouldn't he say something   
   >> >about it?   
   >>   
   >>     About what?   
   >>   
   >   
   >You said "why are you saying anything about it?" What were *you*   
   >referring to?   
   >   
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >That might be a reason to refuse to accept his claim, it's not a reason   
   >to ask why he made it in the first place.   
      
       I'd like to see him explain why...LOL...especially if he's honest   
   about it.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Wouldn't it be reasonable to say an act of property damage is somewhat   
   >less bad if the value of the property damaged is less?   
      
       Certainly not to the extent that it would make it okay, *IF!* it   
   made it any less bad at all. But we have no reason to believe   
   it makes it any less bad anyway, so as usual/always you provide   
   nothing to consider.   
      
   >> >> >>  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".   
   >>   
   >   
   >I see. Well, could you please help poor little bewildered me out and   
   >explain exactly how you came by information about how much he knows or   
   >ever will know about fish.   
      
       I consider him ignorant until proven educated. You too.   
      
   >Perhaps you could also discuss your level of   
   >insight into how much the fishery owners know about fish.   
      
       They have to know about fish in order to be successful. Duh.   
      
   >Do you know anything about the industry?   
      
       Nothing to speak of. Neither do you if you're not aware that   
   fishery owners have to know about fish in order to be successful.   
      
   >> . . .   
   >>   
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >They are not my heroes.   
      
       Doubtful.   
      
   >The additional point needs to be taken into   
   >account that the farmed fish were spared additional suffering.   
      
       How?   
      
   >You may   
   >or may not be right about wild fish being harmed, as far as I am aware   
   >you are not a marine biologist, and you don't know the nature of the   
   >disease the fish were suffering from and how widespread it was.   
      
       LOL. So we should think it's okay for "ar" terrorists to release   
   other people's diseased fish into rivers and streams whenever they   
   want to simply because we don't know how MUCH damage it will   
   do to wild fish? I can't go along with that at all. So far it's all bad,   
   so far all they do is make things worse (because that's all they do).   
      
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I don't have to imagine. I've seen footage. You are the one who has the   
   >twisted view of reality.   
      
       You have given, and are capable of giving, NO reason to believe   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)