ELF & ALF

[ambo]

Originally posted by nycwriters
In the context of this discussion .. the harsh reality is that some weaker animals will be consumed for all kinds of purposes .. from testing makeup to finding a cure for cancer. That's life....

They do even harsher things to animals when searching for a cure for cancer. Are you suggesting that should be abandoned when there are no other options for feesibility studies?

i am well aware that the example i provided is only one of many, many methods in which we torture and abuse animals for our purposes. you say "that's life". i say that is exactly the kind of "life" organizations such as ALF are trying to change. i for one, do not accept that life should be that way. change is possible, if not always easy (or pretty) to achieve.

if you really want my opinion (and you are not going to like it), i don't believe animals should be used in medical research. period. they are living beings just like us, and their lives are worth as much as ours (actually i believe they are worth more, since i have little respect for the greed and ugliness of the human race). so no, (gasp) i don't believe we have the right to experiment on animals. if there are currently no other options, then we need to find them. if we can't find them, too bad for us. i will not contribute to any organization that funds research using animals.

and here's the part you are really not going to like. remember my question about population control in humans ? what do you think cancer is ? disease is the only way nature has of controlling the human race as we have no other natural predator. if we cure cancer and aids, to what ridiculous levels will our numbers grow ? how will we feed ourselves (we can't do it now) ? how much more will we need to take from this planet ? instead of curing diseases that will allow us to live longer, i think we should be researching methods of reducing our numbers.

told you you weren't going to like it.

[ambo]

well, it's pretty ugly
but so is the subject

[ambo]

first of all, i don't give a damn about our judicial system. i answer to my own set of ethics. so the fact that it was "murder", and i'm not at all sure that the example you cited would be, would have no impact whatsoever on my choice. if the decision was mine to make, i would like to think that i would not kill an animal to save a human life, even my own. having never been in that position, i can't say for sure. i could end up being "only human", and give in to my selfishness. i am after all, as imperfect as the next flawed human being.

i don't think i advocated Darwinian theory for humans and not animals. i believe we have the right to eat animals, as all carnivorous animals do. i just don't think we have the right to abuse or torture them in the process. additionally, as the "intelligent" species on the planet (another day, another debate), i believe we have the responsibility to find merciful ways to do so.

in general, all species have the right to survive, it's just drawing where that line begins and ends that is the issue with me. do we have the right to maintain animals in unnatural and often physically restrictive environments so that we can eat them when we feel like it ? do we have the right to mistreat them in the process of raising them, to give them no respect or dignity, or to kill them inhumanely (there's that ridiculous word again) ? do we have the right to experiment on them to unnaturally lengthen our lives ? do we have the right to torture them to prove that our shampoo is safe ? arguments could be made for all of these things being within the category of "survival", but i think that would be stretching the point beyond reason.

[Miss Malevolent]

Originally posted by ambo
first of all, i don't give a damn about our judicial system. i answer to my own set of ethics. so the fact that it was "murder", and i'm not at all sure that the example you cited would be, would have no impact whatsoever on my choice. if the decision was mine to make, i would like to think that i would not kill an animal to save a human life, even my own. having never been in that position, i can't say for sure. i could end up being "only human", and give in to my selfishness. i am after all, as imperfect as the next flawed human being.

Okay, but wether you follow the law or not, you're held to that judicial standard because you live in a society governed by that law.

So a doctor COULD be tried for murder for killing your mother or father by using some untested material on them and possibly YOU as an accessory to that murder for signing off on it.

Here is information on ALF's terroist activities.

[ambo]

Originally posted by nycwriters
Would you tell the doctors not to run the experiment, thereby ending your father or mother's life? Or would you say, yes, do it?

read the question again, miss m. i never said i would allow an untested material to be used. that was never an option.

i read a handful of the articles on the site you posted, and i found none that mentioned loss of or damage to human life. in all cases, property damage was all that occurred, and as i have already said, i do not consider property more valuable than the life of a living being. until abuse of animals is made unprofitable, it will never stop.

[catbelly]

Destruction of property... I am wondering how it is possible to turn a blind eye to the potential harm to bystanders when destruction is a matter of course? It's just a matter of time before someone (as in a human) is hurt. I guarantee you that although there's no mention of human injury, countless cats and rats and bats are already dead because of the activities of the destruction - do you think that a paper/article would write that 15 stray cats that were holed up in a building were killed? Or that the firebombing at McDonald resulted in the death of fifty rats? If you care about animals dying needless deaths, how can you choose to overlook that?

[ambo]

good point

and i can only hope and pray that no innocent lives were taken in those acts of destruction

perhaps they will get better with practice, and find ways to destroy the businesses that fund these atrocities without actually destroying any living thing

i hope for many things, and don't expect to see them any time soon

[catbelly]

Or, destroy through boycotting and media exposure? Without the recourse to violence? I am totally for that.

[ambo]

Originally posted by catbelly
Or, destroy through boycotting and media exposure? Without the recourse to violence? I am totally for that.

well my personal methods are using as much as i can that isn't tested on animals, and sending money to organizations that work on media exposure and lobbying. i don't send money to a.l.f., and don't know if i would, but i do support p.e.t.a., and they do some controversial things too. when all's said and done, nothing anyone is doing is enough. animals are still being wiped off the face of this earth in alarming numbers by the human race, and i can understand the anger that some people feel at not being able to change that.

[catbelly]

I don't send money, but I try to be a responsible consumer.

I guess nothing will be enough until the world is perfect, right? I'm not being sarcastic... it's true IMO. I think we have to strive for that, if we don't get there that's something else again ... but to not try, that's awful.

What do you think about positive changes that have been made? For example, Draize testing (where they put whatever goop in a rabbit's eye to see if it's irritating - HELLO) used to be common, now I'm under the impression that it's not used at all - that the same results can be gathered using a cell culture (not involving live animals). Do you recognize that things are getting better, even if they're not the way you want them to be?

I am annoyed when people buy shampoo that doesn’t say it isn’t tested on animals-- humane shampoo is easy to come by, cheap (most Big! Lots! stores carry shampoos that aren’t tested on animals), and every bit as good as (in fact better than) non-humane shampoos. Read the labels, people!

I believe in the importance of treating animals humanely and being responsible about the environment. I draw the line at setting cars on fire and otherwise damaging property and injuring people. Actions such as this do not further the cause. They hurt the cause, because afterwards, people forever associate the cause the group stands for with the stupid criminal act the group did in said cause’s name.

Tangentially, I think it’s kind of strange that people who are in favor of protecting the environment are mostly called liberals, while conservatives are interested in using up resources, to the neglect of the environment, to fuel the machine. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t people who want to CONSERVE our natural resources be called CONSERVATIVE? Shouldn’t the people who want to (liberally) spend money on bombs and buildings be called LIBERAL? Maybe not though-- Conservative means you want things to stay the same. And things cannot stay the same. It goes against the laws of nature. Change is not only necessary; it’s inevitable, and we might as well anticipate and work with it-- by taking care of the environment and curbing population growth, yadada yadada.

I guess such monikers should never be taken too seriously, because they’re usually bound in fallacy. The “healthy forest” initiative is an example of that. How healthy is a forest that is overseen by a logging company? Or “Pro-Life.” Who would want to be called anti-life? Yeah, I know… you’ve already heard this. So have I. It’s worth reiterating, though. It’s exactly this kind of misleading nominalization that leads to things like fascism.

Okay I’m done now.

[Miss Malevolent]

Originally posted by ambo
read the question again, miss m. i never said i would allow an untested material to be used. that was never an option.

i read a handful of the articles on the site you posted, and i found none that mentioned loss of or damage to human life. in all cases, property damage was all that occurred, and as i have already said, i do not consider property more valuable than the life of a living being. until abuse of animals is made unprofitable, it will never stop.

Terrorism is more than if a human loses their life.

In those articles they have examples of ALF harassing a group of scientists and their families for FOUR years. Physically going to their homes and threatening them and their families.

Now, I dunno about you...But that doesn't sit well with me.

[ambo]

Originally posted by Miss Malevolent
In those articles they have examples of ALF harassing a group of scientists and their families for FOUR years. Physically going to their homes and threatening them and their families.

Now, I dunno about you...But that doesn't sit well with me.

that depends. what were the scientists doing ? if they were performing cruel and torturous experiments on animals, then i want them terrorized. hell yeah. until they stop. i would do it myself if i weren't such a chicken shit.

[ambo]

Originally posted by catbelly
What do you think about positive changes that have been made? For example, Draize testing (where they put whatever goop in a rabbit's eye to see if it's irritating - HELLO) used to be common, now I'm under the impression that it's not used at all - that the same results can be gathered using a cell culture (not involving live animals). Do you recognize that things are getting better, even if they're not the way you want them to be?

yes, things are getting better, but far too slowly. the Draize test is just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, that the human race has dreamed up. every week, i get literature about things that make my stomach turn, make me cry, make me hate. the fact that animals are raised for the express purpose of torture and abuse makes me want to puke. and it's not just in the scientific industry, it's in the food industry. and there is no accountablility, because in the eyes of most, animals simply DON'T MATTER. and changes to these practices are heavily opposed by the industries that are making billions and can well afford to find alternate methods. they spend their money instead paying lawyers and politicians to make laws that protect them and their evil practices.

sometimes, passive methods just aren't enough. some things are just too ugly to stand by and watch.

[Miss Malevolent]

Originally posted by ambo
that depends. what were the scientists doing ? if they were performing cruel and torturous experiments on animals, then i want them terrorized. hell yeah. until they stop. i would do it myself if i weren't such a chicken shit.

Then you wouldn't mind someone harassing you because of who you are then?

Be it Christian, atheist, gay, straight, male, female.

Cause someone somewhere will have a justification for harassing or harming you.

I don't want to live in a world like that.

There are MANY other avenues that humans can take to get messages across.

But whether they be Osama Bin Laden, Hamas, ELF or ALF, destruction is usually the route they take.