XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 7 Jan 2007 17:39:41 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 6 Jan 2007 19:01:58 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >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?   
   >>   
   >   
   >I agree it was justified. We actually hadn't been terrorised yet,   
      
       Well I had thought that the attack on Pearl Harbor is what   
   interested the US in responding with their own terror.   
      
   >though we were likely to be before too long. We were intervening on   
   >behalf of others. So, if nonhuman animals are being terrorised, the   
   >question arises what sort of actions are justified in trying to help   
   >them.   
      
       And if researchers who are trying to help humans and other   
   animals are being terrorised--which we know they are since we're   
   discussing that too--then the same question must arise. And if the   
   wellbeing of the human race as well as other beings is in danger   
   of suffering due to the influence of "ar" terrorism--which it certainly   
   is and always will be--then the question arises even more.   
      
   >> >> >> >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...   
   >>   
   >   
   >No, that's not true, I've discussed other actions.   
      
       Which one(s)?   
      
   >> >I'm not   
   >> >convinced that either action made any animal worse off.   
   >>   
   >>     I certainly am.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Well, you haven't presented your case in a way that convinces me.   
      
       If you deny that either action "made any animal worse off", then   
   you really aren't ready for much of a discussion about it.   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >   
   >Yes, they can.I  believe the sky is always blue. I am capable of   
   >distinguishing between the cases when it's blue and when it's green.   
      
       When we get down to details about it you're more wrong than you   
   know. The sky is *not* blue or any other color. Different frequencies   
   of light (photons) react in different ways to our atmosphere. Bluer   
   light is prone to bounce around while redder frequencies come   
   through more directly. Those facts are part of what make the sky   
   appear to be blue, and also why the sun appears to be red at rise   
   and set...because when light travels through more atmosphere the   
   atmosphere has more of a filtering effect.   
      
   >> You should be   
   >> able to understand that if you really think about it.   
   >>   
   >> >You want to defend those experiments (when you've actually found out   
   >> >something about them), fine, go ahead. You don't have to be an animal   
   >> >rights activist to think there's a problem with them. The court found   
   >> >them to be unlawful, and the general public were horrified by them.   
   >>   
   >>     They must have done worse than just make jokes and smoke   
   >> cigarettes then.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Well, they were inflicting serious head injuries on innocent primates   
   >for one thing. Yes, it would be interesting to know exactly what the   
   >basis of the judge's finding was.   
      
       Also why they were doing it, and what they learned from it.   
      
   >> >> >The video footage showed the   
   >> >> >experimenters smoking cigarettes in the laboratory and laughing at   
   >> >> >frightened and suffering animals.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     That more than likely had nothing to do with the research.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >Look, you're a fool.   
   >>   
   >>     Whether or no, it still wasn't part of the research.   
   >   
   >Big deal. So what?   
      
       So you can't criticise the research by complaining about something   
   that wasn't part of the research.   
      
   >> It's looking more   
   >> and more like you're in no position to make a realistic judgement   
   >> about much of anything.   
   >>   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)