Animal Rights Activists or Terrorists?

[macgamer]

A timeline of the terrorist activities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staf ... 176446.stm

These "activists" clearly have no respect for human life if they consider desacrating graves and fire bombing people acceptable and legitimate for their cause.

If they feel so strongly about it why don't they take the places of the animals, who help sciencists produce new medicine. (I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetics - that is wrong)

I consider people who carryout and support such acts terrorists and should be treated as such.

[WashingtonIrving]

I don't think you can stick all animal rights activists into a group like that, I'm sure theres plenty of people who look to publicise their views on animals by purely peaceful means. Like it would be wrong to brand all pro-life campaigners moronic and violent idiots because a few choose to murder abortion doctors. But yeah, that is a bit mental, but sometimes people are a bit crazy.

And their point is that nobody (animal or human) should be used for research isn't it? So they wouldnt see the point of them volunteering to be experimented on: they are against experimentation. Which is maybe a tiny bit short-sighted, but you should watch out that you're criticising them for the right thing.



[hr]

There's gotta be some way out of here, the joker said to the thief

[Duggeh]

Lets do exactly what these morons say and end up with more phalidimide baby mishaps. Yes clearly thats the best way to do things.



[hr]

IMAGE:www.macintyre42.plus.com/images/tubular100.jpg
[hr]Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies
[s]http://www.maxeh.co.uk [The Music Community][/s]
[s]http://www.macintyre42.plus.com [Projects Home][/s]

[The Unwilling]

I think my favourite thing about the animal rights protests so far were when a group tried to do the moral thing by releasing hoardes of mink into the British countryside.

This was then followed by a zoologist saying "That was a stupid thing to do, the North American Mink doesn't belong in our countryside as a wild animal" and then the furry little mink all went on a mass killing spree.

Ooops.

I have to agree, stealing the corpse of the mother-in-law is awful.

As a side note, like many people, I wish there was a better way to test products, but also like a lot of people (including animal rights protesters) I would be dead without the research that is carried out, so I would feel a tad hypocritical.

[flarewearer]

Even though i'm a vegetarian, as comedy dave used to say "animals have the right to be my dinner". AFIAC, vegetarians give not eating meat a bad name

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/blackback.png

[raheli]

Of course these sorts of people are criminals. Of course what they are doing is wrong. Of course they are terrorists. People are judged on their actions, not their motivations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions!!

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Great this war on terror - we absolutely will not negotiate with terrorists! Unless they're in Northern Ireland... or holding prisoners in Iraq... or called "activists" in which case we'll pretty much let them off with a cuff around the ear.

It's a wonder the government doesn't implode into a mass of hypocrisy so dense, not even Peter Mandelson himself can escape it.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[Senethro]

OMG TERRAR!

[macgamer]

[quote]Quoting WashingtonIrving from 22:19, 24th Aug 2005
I don't think you can stick all animal rights activists into a group like that, I'm sure theres plenty of people who look to publicise their views on animals by purely peaceful means. Like it would be wrong to brand all pro-life campaigners moronic and violent idiots because a few choose to murder abortion doctors. But yeah, that is a bit mental, but sometimes people are a bit crazy.

And their point is that nobody (animal or human) should be used for research isn't it? So they wouldnt see the point of them volunteering to be experimented on: they are against experimentation. Which is maybe a tiny bit short-sighted, but you should watch out that you're criticising them for the right thing.

Indeed I agree often it is the case that the minority give the majority a bad name. But I was a little inbittered when I saw an interview of an animal rights campaigner, semi-supporting the acts committed on the residents of Newchurch and the owners of the farm.

No one can justify terrorism in the name of any cause. They haven't tried all the peaceful means yet.

[Steveo]

If that were my family member dug up, and the criminals are caught, I'd see how much they enjoy being firebombed, and tormented. I'd spend ever penny I had to try and have them dead.

[Steveo]

Also, I fully advocate resaerch on humans, as well as animals, in a 'Clockwork Orange' style. Early release from prison, if they survive that is. Could rid us of a lot of scum, like the homeless and poor.

[Chain Mailer]

What ticks me off is when people use an organisation as a means to be utter twats and abusive wankers (e.g. terrorists using the muslim religion, violent idiots pretending to support football teams).

I mean, I'm totally against animal testing (we do have jails full of more useful candidates as far as I'm concerned) but digging up graves and terrorizing people is just thuggish stupidity. If retarded thugs want to be thugs then they should get their own banner, not nick other peoples and then give them all a bad name!

[hr]

Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious

[The Cellar Bar]

An interesting item on the news yesterday was from a group of scientists who have long argued the case that vivisection and animal experimentation hasn't actually made the impact that is claimed for it. And that a recent "audit" of drugs and the benefits of animal testing, alongside human testing, left it still very much in doubt.

Testing on animals probably was a benefit in the early days scientific research but there are countless examples of where an approximation to a closeness to human qualities doesn't actually produce any positive proof. And drugs still have to be tested on humans in the end anyway. One of their recent examples was when Merck did tests on animals and humans for a new arthritis drug. The testing on humans showed up dangerous side effects, the tests on chimps didn't. So Merck ignored the findings on the human study group and accented the animal results when representing their case to the Medical authorities. The consequence of which was that thousands of humans around the world died as a result.

Ultimately, all drugs need to be "tested" on humans. It's already been long accepted that testing make-up and toiletry products on animals, including the regular spraying of perfume and after shave and deodorants in their eyes, isn't acceptable. And improved genetic techniques and so-called "micro-dosing" also mean that results can be obtained safely with humans.

It also goes without saying that the vast majority of drugs are for human beings suffering from established medical conditions. Quite what the benefit of experimenting on the "select" few such as prisoners and the homeless would be is beyond me. Apart from some sort of vicarious pleasure on the part of those advocating it against a group they see as non-contibuting. Others in the past took the same view of the mentally and physically handicapped, gypsies and Jews. The CIA continued such experimentation by first recruiting Nazi scientists after WWII to work for them and also conducted a series of experiments on their own population and over here to test the efficacy of nerve gases, LSD and the like.Googling in the word "MKUltra" makes really interesting reading.

[WashingtonIrving]

Well of course you can't. My point was just that you can't lump all animal rights activists into 1 group and call them all terrorists because some of them are.

Quoting macgamer from 11:30, 25th Aug 2005

Indeed I agree often it is the case that the minority give the majority a bad name. But I was a little inbittered when I saw an interview of an animal rights campaigner, semi-supporting the acts committed on the residents of Newchurch and the owners of the farm.

No one can justify terrorism in the name of any cause. They haven't tried all the peaceful means yet.

[hr]

There's gotta be some way out of here, the joker said to the thief

[WashingtonIrving]

Some of what the US government did was quite shocking. There was this Japanese guy who did horrific things to American and european soldiers, called Ishii I think, he had great ideas like dropping plague infected rats on towns and so on. Yeah, so guess where he ended up after the war? There was 1 case where nuclear testing killed a whole load of 1 farmers cows you were down-wind from the tests, back in the 60's/70's, took him until the 90's to get any compensation from the government and in the court case the judge made a point of saying the government had lied and manipulated to try and cheat the system. So, yeah, government testing on its citizens - not a smart idea.

Quoting The Cellar Bar from 13:05, 25th Aug 2005
It also goes without saying that the vast majority of drugs are for human beings suffering from established medical conditions. Quite what the benefit of experimenting on the "select" few such as prisoners and the homeless would be is beyond me. Apart from some sort of vicarious pleasure on the part of those advocating it against a group they see as non-contibuting. Others in the past took the same view of the mentally and physically handicapped, gypsies and Jews. The CIA continued such experimentation by first recruiting Nazi scientists after WWII to work for them and also conducted a series of experiments on their own population and over here to test the efficacy of nerve gases, LSD and the like.Googling in the word "MKUltra" makes really interesting reading.

[hr]

There's gotta be some way out of here, the joker said to the thief