XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 6 Jan 2007 19:01:58 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 4 Jan 2007 18:27:43 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> 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.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >Er no, that would only be if I ever expressed an intention to play the   
   >> >game in the first place. You are the one who loses by forfeit. You   
   >> >expressed an intention to argue a point about terrorism, and then   
   >> >refused to supply a definition.   
   >>   
   >>     I did supply one. You just  didn't happen to like it because it   
   >> could include rape in the category of terrorism, which obviously   
   >> you wouldn't like to see happen for whatever reason(s).   
   >>   
   >   
   >Actually, my example was mugging.   
      
       Sorry.   
      
   >I think this is a pretty good reason   
   >to reject your definition, but okay, let's run with your definition.   
   >Using violent acts in an attempt to manipulate others is terrorism. So   
   >the Allied intervention in World War II was terrorism. Now, is   
   >terrorism always wrong?   
      
       We were terrorised first, and to return terror with terror is the   
   best approach I can think of as a way to deal with it. What   
   approach do you think might work better?   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >No, this is not the case for the rescues I am familiar with. They   
   >> >provide veterinary care to the rescued animals and find homes for them.   
   >>   
   >>     Apparently they don't for fish or mink.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Okay, so you want to focus your attention on those two actions.   
      
       So far that's all we've got. We don't have examples of anything   
   better, so...   
      
   >I'm not   
   >convinced that either action made any animal worse off.   
      
       I certainly am.   
      
   >> >I share your condemnation of actions for which this is not the case. Do   
   >> >you have any evidence of such actions, by the way, or did you just make   
   >> >that up?   
   >>   
   >>     There are the fish and mink...   
   >>   
   >> >I would suggest to you that you know very little about the   
   >> >activities of the animal rights movement and do not know what you are   
   >> >talking about.   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >> >and actions which are successful in getting research   
   >> >> >laboratories closed down.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     There's nothing good about that.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >There was one well-publicized case where the research laboratory was   
   >> >doing research into head injuries in primates which served no   
   >> >discernible useful purpose whatsoever.   
   >>   
   >>     Since you "aras" don't believe animal research has ever been   
   >> of any value,   
   >   
   >No, that belief is not universally shared.   
      
       We may find that you're not really an "ara" if you keep that up.   
      
   >> how do you think you could possibly have any   
   >> clue about when it has a useful purpose and when it doesn't?   
   >>   
   >   
   >And in any case that's a stupid argument. You have given no reason to   
   >think we would lack insight into the matter.   
      
       LOL. A person can't really believe something is always useless, and   
   also distinguish between when it is and when it's not. You should be   
   able to understand that if you really think about it.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)