Animal Rights Extremists

Denerick

I like animals. I like dogs. I like my steak. I can understand somebody who has strong views on animal welfare and/or veganism. I can even understand somebody objecting to medical tests on animals. I can even understand them making irritatingly loud and camp protests about this. However I cannot understand, on any level, how some jumped up little fascist thinks its ok to dig up the body of a grandmother because their family has a guinea pig farm, or for these groups to harass and intimidate employees of companies who have links to animal testing.

Are we too permissive about this? Britain sent five of these extremists to jail today, thankfully. I have no problem with their right to protest but these extremities are part and parcel of the movement and are positively condoned. These extremists reach such a state of righteous fervour that they genuinely believe any course of action is justified if it means some primates or guinea pigs survive.

What is most important to bear in mind is that these people do not protest in front of slaughterhouses or butchers. They realise the overwhelming majority of people think they are absolute loons and protesting around these places would simply highlight how marginalised and extreme they are, as the vast majority of people are meat eaters. So for very cynical reasons they hold up pictures of puppies in immense pain and stand in front of huge companies with sinister looking posters.

I guess the point of this thread is to find out whether there is any virtue to their movement whatsoever. I personally don't believe there is.

southsiderosie

Digging up grandmas? What? Can you add some links, please? Yikes.

To be honest, I think some of the few animal rights protesters that make any sense are the ones that involve meat processing. The conditions the animals are kept in are often dreadful, especially on factory farms, and they are pumped full of antibiotics so they can survive long enough to be slaughtered. Not to mention the hormones. What is bad for the animals in these cases is bad for humans as well.

I know PETA wants us to think that eating meat is bad and that is why they make those slaughterhouse videos, but I don't have any problem with it as long as they are raised and slaughtered in a humane, chemical and hormone-free way. Not to mention the fact that ham from a pig that has roamed through field and forest tastes INFINITELY better than ham from a pig raised in a pen on a factory farm in rural Arkansas.

GarlicBread

Well, believe it or not these people care about animals and they feel they cant sit around and just let it happen.

Protesting about food production is completely pointless because the world needs meat particularly in the age we live in. All other uses for animals such as fur, experimentation and non essential stuff is very immoral at the least.

I dont think digging up grannies is acceptable, but you must understand that many people feel that animals(whatever type) feel just as much physical and emotional pain as people do, they are therefore justified in their actions as would you or i would be if we were trying to save a human from torture or death.

Take that lemur farm up in donegal a few weeks back. Did you know they kill them by sticking electro devices up their asses? It makes the fur nicer or somthing. Id like to try that technique out on the owner of the farm and see how she/he likes it.

My own opinion would be that it is acceptable for rats and a few other rodents to be used for very important medical testing as long as it is done humanly and contributes to saving human lives. All other uses for animals (apart from food) should be off the table and should be criminal.

gurramok

Animals have no rights in Ireland, we are still a third world country in introducing proper animal welfare laws. We are the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to animal welfare, its no wonder puppy farms were st up here after the UK banned them :mad:

Eliot Rosewater

southsiderosie wrote: »

Digging up grandmas? What? Can you add some links, please? Yikes.

"The most infamous case saw animal rights extremists exhume and steal the body of an elderly woman whose family ran a farm breeding guinea pigs for research. Three people were later jailed." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/01/animalwelfare.ukcrime

More recently: "Five animal rights activists who waged a relentless campaign of "violence and terror" against companies and individuals linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences were jailed today." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/25/animal-research-animal-welfare

Denerick wrote: »

I guess the point of this thread is to find out whether there is any virtue to their movement whatsoever. I personally don't believe there is.

Any extremist wing of a movement discredits the movement as a whole. By being abusive the campaigners in question alienated potential sympathisers of their cause.

I care deeply about animals, and probably fit in that wierd-cat-lover category. Animal abuse really frustrates me, but that's not an excuse for reckless protest.

PanchoVilla

I strongly believe in animal rights and welfare but the ALF are just violent thugs using animal welfare as an excuse to commit violent crimes.

"Rolf Anderssons mink farm in Ardara, Killybegs, was raided by the ALF.
Huge hole cut through the fencing, making it an easy escape route for the 4000 mink liberated from their cages.
The message to fur scum: close down now or more raids will come.
ALF Ireland"

http://www.directaction.info/news_sep29_10.htm

Feral mink are a threat to a wide range of indigenous Irish wildlife, from fish to waterfowl. By "saving" these 4000 mink they have condemned countless native animals to death. Great job ALF, but at least you're not branding "ALF" into people's backs anymore. The ALF are just scumbags who will do this type of thing for any reason.

southsiderosie

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

"The most infamous case saw animal rights extremists exhume and steal the body of an elderly woman whose family ran a farm breeding guinea pigs for research. Three people were later jailed." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/01/animalwelfare.ukcrime

More recently: "Five animal rights activists who waged a relentless campaign of "violence and terror" against companies and individuals linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences were jailed today." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/25/animal-research-animal-welfare

Oh my goodness! That's insane!

My old roommate was a biomedical researcher working on treatments for Parkinson's disease. The angriest I have ever seen him was the day that someone did not property anesthetize one of the lab rats, causing it to suffer unnecessarily. There are very strong norms against this kind of thing among researchers today.

I also met someone once (a friend of a co-worker) who was a radical animal rights activist, but then also campaigned for the distribution of generic AIDS drugs in Africa. When I asked her who or what she thought those drugs were tested on, I just got a rant in response. :rolleyes:

Denerick

I made it clear in my OP how much I love dogs. And cats. And pigs. But I somehow manage to achieve some strange moral dissociation; ie, I can love the idea of having a pet pig whilst simultaneously enjoying an Ulster fry. Just like most people.

The point about animal rights extremists is the levels to which they are prepared to go to achieve their aims. Since animals suffer, clearly it is morally comparable to hurt a human for inducing such suffering. I don't believe that naturally follows. The entirety of society engages in mass murder of animals, causing untold physical and emotional harm*

I think this is the problem with politically active people in general. You see it in small core movements across the world, be it the more exhibitionist fathers rights movement, the 'anti war' movement, the Republican movement - so long as you manage to convince yourself that your opponent is so rotten, so corrupt, and so intrinsically evil, you can convince yourself that almost any action is justified in order to lend justice to a perceived outrage. The limitations of this mentality are incredibly dangerous. To paraphrase Burke, extremism is the natural consequence of the intoxication of righteousness of the masses.

*You are bound to suffer pain if you're going to be murdered, no matter how humane the 'process' is.

20Cent

Denerick wrote: »

I made it clear in my OP how much I love dogs. And cats. And pigs. But I somehow manage to achieve some strange moral dissociation; ie, I can love the idea of having a pet pig whilst simultaneously enjoying an Ulster fry. Just like most people.

The point about animal rights extremists is the levels to which they are prepared to go to achieve their aims. Since animals suffer, clearly it is morally comparable to hurt a human for inducing such suffering. I don't believe that naturally follows. The entirety of society engages in mass murder of animals, causing untold physical and emotional harm*

I think this is the problem with politically active people in general. You see it in small core movements across the world, be it the more exhibitionist fathers rights movement, the 'anti war' movement, the Republican movement - so long as you manage to convince yourself that your opponent is so rotten, so corrupt, and so intrinsically evil, you can convince yourself that almost any action is justified in order to lend justice to a perceived outrage. The limitations of this mentality are incredibly dangerous. To paraphrase Burke, extremism is the natural consequence of the intoxication of righteousness of the masses.

*You are bound to suffer pain if you're going to be murdered, no matter how humane the 'process' is.

The extremes of movements get the most publicity, thats why they do it. Can't write off legitimate concerns because of the behavior of a small extreme.

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

I think this is the problem with politically active people in general. You see it in small core movements across the world, be it the more exhibitionist fathers rights movement, the 'anti war' movement, the Republican movement - so long as you manage to convince yourself that your opponent is so rotten, so corrupt, and so intrinsically evil, you can convince yourself that almost any action is justified in order to lend justive to a perceived outrage. The limitations of this mentality are incredibly dangerous. To paraphrase Burke, extremism is the natural consequence of the intoxication of righteousness of the masses.

I think that is an unfair criticism of politically active people. Not all dedicated activists believe in violence: look at the civil rights movement in the US. Yes there were violent black nationalists at the fringes, but the very brave people who engaged in the sit-down protests in cafeterias and marched in the face of police dogs and fire hoses were so committed to peaceful, dignified collective action, that anyone who could not conduct themselves accordingly and control themselves could not participate. And these people were in the majority.

Most political movements are started by a small, dedicated core of activists. But there is no reason to think that this means they will adopt militant or violent political positions.

Denerick

To be fair I was talking about more fringe movements - which is what the Republicans, the animal rights movement, (OK, fathers rights was a poor example, but a very small number of people did go all black panther all of a sudden)

Face it. Even the largely peaceful civil rights movement exploded with riots across American cities, the tragic death of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, 'white flight' from inner city America, deeper ghettoisation... Of course the civil rights movement was a righteous struggle - perhaps the single most righteous one of the past half century - but this is not to say that political activism doesn't have its profound social consequences.

PanchoVilla

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think that is an unfair criticism of politically active people. Not all dedicated activists believe in violence: look at the civil rights movement in the US. Yes there were violent black nationalists at the fringes, but the very brave people who engaged in the sit-down protests in cafeterias and marched in the face of police dogs and fire hoses were so committed to peaceful, dignified collective action, that anyone who could not conduct themselves accordingly and control themselves could not participate. And these people were in the majority.

Most political movements are started by a small, dedicated core of activists. But there is no reason to think that this means they will adopt militant or violent political positions.

I agree completely. If anything, the extremists do considerable damage to any protest or movement. You talk to anyone about a united Ireland and their mind automatically links it to violence and terrorism. You talk to anyone about animal rights and they think of the ALF or similar extremist groups and the crimes they commit. These extremists make it very difficult to convince people to do the right thing because of the fear of being associated with extremist groups. Moderation and the democratic process is the key to success for any political movement.

Denerick

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I agree completely. If anything, the extremists do considerable damage to any protest or movement. You talk to anyone about a united Ireland and their mind automatically links it to violence and terrorism. You talk to anyone about animal rights and they think of the ALF or similar extremist groups and the crimes they commit. These extremists make it very difficult to convince people to do the right thing because of the fear of being associated with extremist groups. Moderation and the democratic process is the key to success for any political movement.

I fully agree with that last line. The perfect government is one which aims at social harmony - thus it should pre-empt the rise of politically active groups of this nature by providing a liberal and all round permissive society. Nip grievance in the bud. I accept some amount of mass political agitation is natural and indeed essential in a democracy, but it must come in a dignified and enlightened manner. All too often the hipster twats ruin it for everyone, with their pathetic pretensions and claims of tortured genius. (You know the ones I'm talking about)

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

I fully agree with that last line. The perfect government is one which aims at social harmony - thus it should pre-empt the rise of politically active groups of this nature by providing a liberal and all round permissive society. Nip grievance in the bud. I accept some amount of mass political agitation is natural and indeed essential in a democracy, but it must come in a dignified and enlightened manner. All too often the hipster twats ruin it for everyone, with their pathetic pretensions and claims of tortured genius. (You know the ones I'm talking about)

But who gets to decide what kind of groups or protests are "dignified and enlightened"? In democracies, people have a right to complain. And somebody is ALWAYS going to complain about something

Frankly I think the "careful now" approach to dissent presents more of a danger to democracy than mangy hipsters.

Denerick wrote: »

Face it. Even the largely peaceful civil rights movement exploded with riots across American cities, the tragic death of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, 'white flight' from inner city America, deeper ghettoisation... Of course the civil rights movement was a righteous struggle - perhaps the single most righteous one of the past half century - but this is not to say that political activism doesn't have its profound social consequences.

Yes, it is supposed to have profound social consequences, that is the point.

PanchoVilla

southsiderosie wrote: »

But who gets to decide what kind of groups or protests are "dignified and enlightened"? In democracies, people have a right to complain. And somebody is ALWAYS going to complain about something

Frankly I think the "careful now" approach to dissent presents more of a danger to democracy than mangy hipsters.



Yes, it is supposed to have profound social consequences, that is the point.

I think you misunderstood. "Dignified and enlightened" refers to the actions taken by any protesters, not necessarily what they are protesting about. You can achieve more through a campaign of education and awareness that you can through a campaign of terror and intimidation.

As far as the government is concerned, they should have the knowledge and foresight to anticipate any potential issues and be prepared to take the necessary actions to remedy those issues. In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Irish government is they wait until an issue becomes a serious problem then make the minimum effort to actually solve the problem. Politicians are paid to make difficult decisions, which rarely happens in this country.

southsiderosie

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I think you misunderstood. "Dignified and enlightened" refers to the actions taken by any protesters, not necessarily what they are protesting about. You can achieve more through a campaign of education and awareness that you can through a campaign of terror and intimidation.

As far as the government is concerned, they should have the knowledge and foresight to anticipate any potential issues and be prepared to take the necessary actions to remedy those issues. In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Irish government is they wait until an issue becomes a serious problem then make the minimum effort to actually solve the problem. Politicians are paid to make difficult decisions, which rarely happens in this country.

No, I understood completely. Who gets to say what kind of protests are dignified and enlightened? Speaking from personal experience, some of the best and most effective protests are undignified and hilarious.

I'm not saying that protests should turn into fistfights or terror or anything like that. But the "you can have 20 people and they can stand behind this line from 4-4:30 and sound must not go over 50 decibels" approach is problematic as well (and I am not making this up).

I also see government as working differently. Inertia is the default position. They will not address issues unless the population pushes them to. Democracy cannot work without an engaged citizenry, and the Irish population is extraordinarily disengaged from electoral politics. Government can't have perfect foresight, because they would need perfect information. The few things they can be proactive about are maintaining steady macroeconomic policies, balancing the budget, maintaining basic infrastructure, and having enough in the rainy day fund; sadly Ireland fails on multiple accounts here.

djpbarry

GarlicBread wrote: »

Protesting about food production is completely pointless because the world needs meat particularly in the age we live in. All other uses for animals such as fur, experimentation and non essential stuff is very immoral at the least.

I’d seriously question whether meat is essential.

I’m not trying to sound morally superior – I’m not vegetarian.

It wasn't me!

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d seriously question whether meat is essential.

I’m not trying to sound morally superior – I’m not vegetarian.

Hell, I'm a hunter and I don't believe meat is essential. It's a luxury we choose to have, at the expense of the animals. Once you're prepared to use animals totally unnecessarily for meat, it's a little difficult to object to their use for milk, skins, testing and so forth.

seamus

Their rationale actually makes sense in their heads. And it's not entirely without basis.

Many view it as an offence against a being which has no morality, no ability to understand what is going on and which is un-offensive by nature. In effect, they see cruelty against animals in the same light as you would view cruelty against children. Not necessarily because animals and children are "the same", but because it both cases you are inflicting pain on a being which possesses pure innocence and is unable to comprehend and process the pain that you are inflicting on it.

We do view cruelty against children and adults in a different light. Crimes and assaults against children are more morally reprehensible. Suffering children are seem as more "urgent" than suffering adults. So you can see why similar brutality against an animal with a capacity for understanding comparable to a child's, would be viewed as equally morally reprehensible.

Hence they can justify their crimes on the basis that it's the lesser of two evils. That digging up someone's granny in order to upset them is less of a crime than keeping thousands of Guinea Pigs in horrendous conditions. Which I would agree it is, but like many other forms of civil disobedience, it's ill thought-out and directed at the wrong people.

sensibleken

In fairness, these are the most extreme of the lot. And rightfully have been sent to jail for an horific crime.

Im veggie but have no problem with anyone else eating meat. I also have no problem with hunt sabs ruining someones fox hunt,

Executive Steve

Denerick wrote: »

I guess the point of this thread is to find out whether there is any virtue to their movement whatsoever. I personally don't believe there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_%28book%29


^ Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" is the defining theoretical work on the subject; it's by no means unassailable (it's mainly a utilitarian argument to diminish needless suffering) and there have been some excellent critiques of it, but for a lucid and even handed discussion of the topic from the point of view of a trained ethicist it's the finest book in the field by some distance.

As for the ALF and the lunatic hunt saboteur brigade (which in fairness has always been far more of a class-struggle thing than anything genuinely motivated by animal rights, certainly in the UK where hunting is a far more rarefied pursuit than it is over here), well the less said the better. See also the sort of nutjobs who feel the need to protest outside fur shops etc.

doctor evil

I believe in and fully support Animal Welfare, not animal rights. Rights include things like the right to vote. Food, water and general proper management comes under animal welfare. I find it uneasy when people compare animal suffering to that of a child, of course I woult not want either to happen but that child could be someone known to you, an animal cannot be someones parent/brother/sister etc. Of course we as humans are animals but the common parlance is to refer to us as humans/people . I would help a human charity before an animal one. I am cynical about a lot of charities (chuggers) but there are two core ones I donate to, St VDP and guide dogs for the blind.

I'm glad these thugs have been sent to prison. Animal rights include such bizzare beliefs that pet ownership is a form of slavery and that spaying/neutering is done against the animals rights. Hunt sabs are thugs too. There are peaceful ways to demonstrate and sabbing is not one of them. I agree that in the UK it is much more of a class issue, but lots of different people, they use their disposable income on it as opposed to other stuff.

As for testing on animals I would not use any medicine/procedure that was not proven to be safe and effective.

Animal testing benefits veterinary medicine too, it is a necessary evil.