XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 8 Jan 2007 15:35:24 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Yes, that might be. I was more talking about the Allies.   
   >   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I think you overestimate the adverse impact of AR terrorism on the   
   >well-being of humans and nonhumans,   
      
       It always makes things worse. It slows down progress, including   
   progress towards finding alternatives to animal testing. It make things   
   more expensive, again slowing everything down. It makes things   
   harder because of increased security, which makes things more   
   expensive and slows things down. It makes experiments need to be   
   repeated, causing more suffering to animals while it backs things up   
   in general. All of that will and almost certainly already has caused   
   more suffering by delaying when things become available. Even an   
   "ara" should be able to understand all that, which is why I wonder   
   if they ever actually believe they're doing anything good.   
      
   >but in any case property damage and   
   >violence are against the law, and I'm not advocating that that law   
   >should be changed. However, I also advocate that harmful experiments on   
   >animals should be stopped. Claiming that the researchers are trying to   
   >help humans and other animals doesn't resolve that debate. If they were   
   >doing their experiments on mentally impaired humans, you wouldn't   
   >accept that as a justification.   
      
       They do it on animals to avoid doing it to humans, because most of us   
   hold human interests above those of animals. Many animals do benefit from   
   it as well though.   
      
   >> >> >> >> >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've talked about rescues where the animals are provided with   
   >veterinary care and rehomed, and the action which led to the closure of   
   >the Head Injury Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania.   
      
       You haven't provided examples of either.   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >What I said was that I'm not convinced. That's different to actually   
   >denying it. Even if I did deny it, there would be no reason why you   
   >couldn't persuade me to change my mind.   
      
       Stealing and releasing the mink sure made some neighbors' birds   
   worse off. It also made many if not all of the mink worse off. It also   
   made some of the local wildlife worse off. Can't you understand how   
   any of that happened?   
      
   >> >> >> >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)