ZEFRANK.COM - message board

ZEFRANK.COM - message board (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/index.php)
-   DEBATE HALL (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   ELF & ALF (http://www.zefrank.com/bulletin_new/showthread.php?t=2737)

Miss Malevolent 09-12-2003 12:27 AM

Tune in Saturday evening/Sunday morning from 12am-2am Eastern Standard Time for another installment of the Union Bitch Talk Show.

The topic discussed will be: ELF & ALF: We sure as hell ain't talking about cute little pointed earred beings who help old lard ass up at the North Pole nor are we talking about a hairy alien from outer space schlepping a 10-10 commercial.

We're talking about those whackos from the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. We'll talk about some of their exploits, and whether you're a whack...I mean agreeable to their way of thinking.

To participate on air, you will need to follow the instructions found on my DJ Page

If you have Winamp and just want to listen to the show rather than participate:

If you're on dialup, click here.

If you have a cable, DSL or other high bandwidth modem, click here.

If you don't have Winamp, Go to this page and click the [color=royal blue]online popup player link[/color]. Make sure you accept the pop up or disable your pop up killer so that you can hear the broadcast.

I hope to see you then

dinzdale 09-12-2003 02:18 PM

Sorry I dont have the computer stuff to participate.
Complete bunch of wankers with so little concept of the real world, I would have quite a bit to say. Anyone around for debating these idiots?

ambo 09-15-2003 01:45 PM


Originally posted by dinzdale
Complete bunch of wankers with so little concept of the real world
i know you and i are at odds on this subject dinz, and i am not at all familiar with ALF, but i just found this on their website:

ALF Mission Statement / Credo

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.

i can't help but wonder what's wrong with trying to change a "real world" where animals are abused by the greed and apathy of humans ?

ambo 09-15-2003 03:15 PM


Originally posted by nycwriters
...I do not support any movement that uses violence and destruction as its means for action. Violence is the resort of the non-thinker.
I agree. This is also from the ALF Mission Statement:

It is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).


Originally posted by nycwriters
Our priorities are a just a little bit fvcked up when we are considering the lives of animals without examining what is happening with human beings in the world.
Why can't we do both ?

ambo 09-15-2003 03:39 PM

well if what you say is true (and i don't know that it is), there would seem to be a discrepancy between what they say they do and what actually happens. i was defending their mission statement, which seems fine to me. i don't know any other way to protect animals from abuse than to remove the institutions that abuse them....

as for your last statement, to whit:
"I think you cure the abuses to humans and it will follow with better lives for animals"

this is fuzzy logic in its purest form. humans have always used animals for whatever purpose they deemed necessary. better conditions for humans will not translate into better conditions for animals. animals are simply not considered important, and that is why organizations like this need to exist - to remind humans that there are other forms of life on this planet that have every bit as much right to exist as we do.

catbelly 09-15-2003 04:14 PM

nice edit ambo
Maybe we can agree that humans need to become more respecful to all beings.

ambo 09-15-2003 04:47 PM

i don't see the need to "agree" at all - this is a debate thread.

and i don't need to be given dictionary definitions - we are well beyond the vanilla definition of terms here - damage or destruction of property is IMO a fair price to pay to restore rights to animals that should never have been taken away.

and i don't think Darwin could ever have visualized the Draize test.

the thought of rabbits having caustic materials dropped into their eyes for days on end without any way of removing it or any relief from the pain (pain so bad that they sometimes break their spines trying to break free from their restraints) makes me want to DESTROY the devices that administer such tests, and DESTROY the institutions that utilize those devices. if that makes me Machiavellian, so be it.

and i don't think it is necessary to belittle (heh) me. it certainly doesn't help make any point.

catbelly 09-15-2003 04:51 PM

Not sure if you are speaking to me re: the belittling, ambo. I think the edits are dirty pool though.

ambo 09-15-2003 04:54 PM

i was not referring to you

i edited something i wrote after thinking better of it after a few minutes

what's wrong with that ?

catbelly 09-15-2003 04:57 PM

I guess if that's the case I suppose what you did is thoughtful. I've seen people do that to take passive-aggressive shots at other posters, though, and given the tone of your posts perhaps I assumed too much re: your motives. If that's the case I apologize.

ambo 09-15-2003 05:01 PM

my motive was to correct that one line to be more accurate and less emotional (which is hard consdering my passion for the subject)

catbelly 09-15-2003 05:08 PM

OK ambo :) I'm off your ass re: the edits.

So... NYC... when you said that Darwin wasn't wrong, surely you didn't mean that since humans can effectively do what they want on earth, that they shouldn't take care? That seems pretty harsh :(

ambo 09-15-2003 06:03 PM


Originally posted by nycwriters
If the lion out on the plains of Africa didn't eat the gazelle to feed it through the food chain process, there would be an over-population...
i apologize if i misinterpreted your 'heh'.

i did think your logic was "fuzzy", but did not consider the use of the term a slight. after all, we are debating here. my reference to "vanilla" simply referred to the literal definition of a word, and i thought i was debating an idea here, not a word.

as far as your quote above, i didn't think any of us were talking about eating here, but about animal "abuse" - there are humane (an ironic term to be sure) ways of taking what we need, yet in our greed to have more and more for less and less, we rarely use "humane" methods.

and while we are on the subject of over-population, the only animal on this planet for which there is no population control within the food chain is man, and since the human race is the biggest abuser of the natural gifts this planet has to offer, i find that highly disturbing.....

catbelly 09-15-2003 06:05 PM

Yah I understand Darwin, Peg - but I don't know that I understand your point in the context of whether people should / shouldn't do horrendous things to animals. What is your reason for acknowledging Darwin in this context?

catbelly 09-15-2003 06:52 PM

So, horrendousness as a fact of life. OK.

BTW, I haven't really come out for or against - I was just asking for clarification on your post.

Yah I must admit I haven't read Malthus. I might not have time before my next post so forgive me if I sound iggernant :)

All times are GMT -3. The time now is 01:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.