Waagh! Relativistic streams of political wank meet each other in our Large Moonbat Collider yet again! =)

Those innocent ALF members have never done nothin' to hurt nobody. And certainly, no other groups like them use physical attacks and terrorizing tactics. And they certainly don't do bizarre and horrifying things either. Or send live bombs to people.

The first three of those links are from the very page you keep reverting to defend these people. The last was found after 30 seconds of looking on wikipedia.

Just because you buy into their agenda doesn't mean it's the truth, Absurdist.

Of course, all of that could be plausibly denied, considering they're "leaderless" but—oh look, there they go publicly taking credit for trying to set someone on fire.

Finally, you don't see how harassment, property damage, and threats of violence are terrorism? May I offer you the textbook definition of the word?

(n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Well, there was also a definition that essentially boils down to "any actions (violent or not) against the current USA policies"... <snicker>

Anyone else think this should be taken to the forums? I see an Edit War developing.

(That would be a good metal song - EDDDIITTTT WAAARRR!!)

"Finally, you don't see how harassment, property damage, and threats of violence are terrorism? May I offer you the textbook definition of the word?" Thank you "rolls eyes". I'm aware of this; my problem is that term is most often used as a scare term, I hope don't need to elaborate on that. Consider this story: a professor discovered (in Germany) that medical experiments were being performed on mentally retarded people. They were forced to walk on a treadmill by electric prodding. They were made to inhale poisonous gases which made them throw up; even still, they had walk for days. Most of them died, the rest were executed. He tried to contact the authorities, he thought it was illegal. But no. And they made no response to his inquiries. So he decided he had to burn down the research facility. He burned it down, and since they didn't have the money they couldn't rebuild; the experiments were stopped. Was this "terrorism"? We can see that this term does not make for meaningful argument.@The One Who Tropes I'll take note of that (correction, it looks you just changed it to say EDIT WAR). That said, I haven't even done anything bad <_<. Anyway, what's your medical condition? There might well be vegan alternatives for this. Consider that a pig has the same intellectual capacities, emotional capacities, and capacity to suffer as a three year old. Just a fact. Chickens, cows, pigs, etc. are treated horrifically in factory farms. Are you sure there are no alternatives?

Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwins Law! read that page. You've lost the argument, and if you keep it up, I'll have to Take It To The Forums. Comparing what we do to animals (which, by the way, is heavily regulated) to Those Wacky Nazis is not only ridiculous, but insulting to everyone who died in the Holocaust. You also have just demonstrated that this line of argument is dead. No-one should reply to Absurdist after this post - they've demonstrated a terrible lack of forum ettiquette, and Invoked one of the worst tropes around.

"Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwin Godwins Law! read that page. You've lost the argument, and if you keep it up, I'll have to Take It To The Forums. Comparing what we do to animals (which, by the way, is heavily regulated) to Those Wacky Nazis is not only ridiculous, but insulting to everyone who died in the Holocaust. You also have just demonstrated that this line of argument is dead. No-one should reply to Absurdist after this post - they've demonstrated a terrible lack of forum ettiquette, and Invoked one of the worst tropes around." Now, I'm not sure how to respond to this. First of all, I NEVER MENTIONED THE NAZIS. I did not "invoke tropes", I told a specific story (without mentioning Nazis OR the Holocaust), to make a point about the term "terrorism" when used this way. I would prefer a polite discussion, and frankly I never was even rude. Look at Mr Death's response. How is that less rude than my posts? Not that I'm angry at him. So anyway, let's get along peacefully, please ^_^.

> Consider that a pig has the same intellectual capacities, emotional capacities, and capacity to suffer as a three year old.

Who did measured this? Americans? No wonder.

> Just a fact.

Really? Then could you point me where's the methodology of measuring "intellectual capacities, emotional capacities, and capacity to suffer" is described? Should not be hard — or didn't various Vegans and Alfs protest this? The current methodology of measuring the capacity to suffer of a three year old i'm aware of, but i don't think a pig would survive that, and besides it would be against the usual research ethics.

Don't bother - he's been edit blocked for this and other misdemeanours (see Whale Wars page history). Oh and the only time that story could have happened is during ActionT4, so him saying "I didn't mention the Nazis" is a case of explicit (I call you Hitler.) vs. implicit (I compare the actions of my enemies to the Nazis.) And it annoyed me even more since there was a shadow of doubt in my mind whether it was the Nazis before I visited that Wikipedia page. I apologize to everyone on this page to the last outburst I posted, but I still say he lost the argument with that allegory. If I'd visited that wikipedia page before posting though, it may have been worse.

I have not been edit blocked, as far I can tell. "I still say he lost the argument with that allegory" OK, now I'm really frustrated with your attitude. Not this in particular, just the overall attitude. You were confrontational from the start, though I understand politics can make people, er... But anyway, please, come on. And yes, I do believe our treatment of animals is comparable to the Nazis. It is a matter of fact how we treat animals, and how the Nazis treated their victims. Indeed, a tactic of the Nazis was to deride Jews etc. as "rats" "pigs" and so on. Of course, to compare animal suffering to human suffering in any way at all (much less so great a tragedy) does often provoke reactions such as yours (violent in fact). I happen to think this makes no sense whatsoever, but I doubt I can change your mind. "Who did measured this? Americans? No wonder." There's no reason to think that other animals (much less pigs) experience any less pain than we do. At least when it comes to vertebrates. They demonstrate exactly the same kind of behaviors, and the neurological structures are quite well preserved. As far as pig intelligence goes, here some info that might interest you [1].

Jeez, T Beholder, two unwarranted snarks against Americans in a topic that doesn't even concern Americans in specific.

"Well, there was also a definition that essentially boils down to "any actions (violent or not) against the current USA policies"... <snicker> "

"Who did measured this? Americans? No wonder. "

You're quite the Single Issue Wonk Jerk Ass, aren't you? Are you trying to start a Misplaced Nationalism Flame War by bashing Americans every chance you get?

I think everyone on this site who is hostile to the idea of animal rights should watch "Earthlings," which is available online. I dare anyone to watch that and come back thinking the same thing about animal rights as they did before.

@ 65.71.237.174: No, i'm an illiterate TV-bound moonbat who makes clown of himself by pretending that "Oxygen Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant" has some mentionable impact on the world economy whatsoever and that he doesn't know "Carbon Indulgences" were actually^TM invented in... Transilvania, right? =) Why you're asking?

Re: "Earthlings," that's very nice propaganda, but has as much to do with the real world as "James Cameron's Avatar" or "What The F*** Do We Know." Anyone can put whatever they want on film, and inspire people that have no experience with the subject matter to believe all kinds of things, but that doesn't make it true.

What part of it do you not think is true? Have you actually seen the film? It's 100% real, documented footage.

@T Beholder

Wow. Really? I see you're one of those "trendy America Haters" that seem to be sprouting up everywhere. Or, to put it precisely, HIIIIIPPPPPSTERRRRSSSSS! WE'VE GOT HIPSTERS UP IN THIS BITCH!

Why are you reviving a conversation that ended well over a year ago to call someone out? Let it go, someone already called him out on his BS.

The explanation of the differences between the types of groups isn't arguments. Not all animal welfare/rights/liberation groups are equally extreme. I did cut out the links and a lot of the justification/attacks and try to make it more informational and less biased.

The explanations between the different types of groups may not be intended as arguments, but that doesn't mean they can't be inaccurate, or biased.

The idea that all self-proclaimed "animal rights" groups believe that the concept of pets should be outlawed, because owning a pet is comparable to slavery (ie, a person owning another person), is just flat-out inaccurate. There may be some self-proclaimed animal rights groups that believe this. There are many that don't. One can believe that animals should have some rights (like the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, the right to appropriate amounts of food and water and space, etc.) without believing that there should be no legal distinction between people and animals.

I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave.

That's my argument, this is just an illustration for anyone who's interested: One of the biggest debates within groups that care about animals is whether it should be legal to sue veteranarians for malpractice. (As of now in the U.S., even if a veterarian is grossly, grossly negligent to your pet, you can only sue for the market value of the pet. Which means if your dog was a mutt, you're screwed.) The groups that support the possibility of suing vets for malpractice are, essentially, arguing that animals should have some recognition under the law beyond being the property of their owners. (You can't sue a mechanic for malpractice.) Thus, these groups support animal rights. Whereas some animal welfare groups don't want to see this change happen - usually they argue that if vets need malpractice insurance, their fees will go up, and not everyone will be able to afford to get care for their sick pets. That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it?

"I'd really like to know where it says that part of the definition of "animal rights" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave. "

It was there originally as a link to Wikipedia on Animal Rights. Madrugada cut it out as part of his attempt to make the article "more informational" and "less biased." (Ironic, don't you think?)

You can read the article here. I'll copy some of the highlights for you:

"Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly."

"Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position."

"That's one description of the way that an "animal welfare" viewpoint would conflict with an "animal rights" viewpoint. That's pretty different from, "if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves," isn't it? "

If people are going to accuse the description of the three different schools of animal welfare/rights as "inaccurate" because someone removed the links describing various movements' philosophies, then I may well just restore those links.

(removed, unrelated to topic)

I disagree. The explanation between the difference in philosophies between animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation isn't something well known (as evidenced by lemler's claims above) and deserves some attention.

It's pretty sad that there even needs to be such a long disclaimer to prevent page defacement by drama queens who believe things that any person that has actually lived among wild animals would know to be dead wrong (for both the activists and the animals they think they're protecting). Animals simply don't process information the way humans do. When a human feeds a wild animal, the animal doesn't think, "Humans are nice!" Instead, the animal thinks, "Humans are edible!" and eventually becomes trained to act accordingly. Even herbivores like deer will eventually start attacking humans if they are fed enough to overcome their fear of predation.

It still makes the main description too long for easy reading is the thing. I've moved it to a Real Life section at the top of the example list that should hopefully help dissuade anyone from trying to add their own Truth In Television examples.

@216.226.180.3: Surely, though, that little fact doesn't justify factory farming, vivisection, animals in entertainment, etc., does it?

@Luna87 Begging The Question there, much?

216.226.180.3

...the question is, whether ever-present Drama Queens don't know what any PETA member (each of these is a freakin' Tarzan who "lived among wild animals" in jungles, that's why they are renowned for confronting big nasty leather-wearing bikers) knows or what anyone remotely sane understands?

Go back to ED.

Ingrid Newkirk (PETA founder) has been quoted describing pet ownership as "an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation", but a) the provenance of the quote is a bit iffy (the searches on Google tend to pop up a lot of anti-PETA sites) and b) even if it's true, Newkirk's approach to animal rights is a bit... special.

That might be a good idea, though the "no Real Life examples" blurb should probably call attention to it. Something like, "In Real Life, there's three primary flavors of animal activism you should know about; see the Analysis tab for more. Beyond that, No Real Life Examples Please."