XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 2 Jan 2007 21:45:27 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >No, I am not.   
      
       LOL. Loss by forfeit.   
      
   >You are the one who brought up the subject of terrorism,   
   >so it is your responsibility to define the term.   
   >   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >There are some exceptions to this, such as rescues which will not be   
   >noticed,   
      
       We have noticed that the animals they "rescue" often end up   
   terrified and suffering worse deaths, plus they die sooner.   
      
   >and actions which are successful in getting research   
   >laboratories closed down.   
      
       There's nothing good about that.   
      
   >In any event, it was not my intention to   
   >defend any particular action,   
      
       You apparently had hoped to but couldn't pull it off, because   
   as we've noticed their actions are always bad.   
      
   >I was simply pointing out that your   
   >attempt to define terrorism by means of intentions might fail to catch   
   >a few cases you would prefer to be included under "terrorism".   
      
       I'll consider any actions to be terrorism that I consider to be   
   terrorist actions.   
      
   >> >rather than to manipulate others?   
   >>   
   >>     We have yet to see any example(s) of that, so we have   
   >> nothing to consider.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Obviously false.   
      
       LOL!!! The fact that we have no example(s) at all proves   
   me right. The fact that you can provide no example(s) proves   
   me right that we have none. Your amusingly absurd denial is   
   just a desperate reaction to your cognitive dissonance, caused   
   by presentation of information that conflicts with what you want   
   to believe.   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Because you made a claim that he disagreed with, and he wanted to set   
   >the record straight?   
      
       It was because he wanted to make the terrorist actions seem less   
   contemptible by the lame trick of criticising the report of the terrorism,   
   and I would find it very amusing if he--or you--were honest enough   
   to admit that. Neither of you are of course, but think how amusing   
   it would be if you were...LOL...it would be great :-)   
      
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >So your short answer is "No", but you don't feel the need to provide an   
   >argument.   
      
       I didn't feel the need since you're not likely to agree anyway, but   
   since you mentioned it I'll point out that a few thousand dollars of   
   damage to one business, is often harder on that business and/or   
   its employees than much more expensive damage would be to   
   some others. If you can grasp that much, then you should have   
   some understanding of that particular argument against your   
   suggestion.   
      
   >> >> >> >>  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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)