Animals don't have today the same status in society as Jews did in 1930s Germany. If you're going to make that kind of (very crude) analogy with human society it might be better to look at African slaves in Western society during the period up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, at which point it began to be recognised by some that slaves had the same rights as other humans. Would it have been better to attack single operators of slaves by perhaps digging up their forebears, or graffitiing their property, than to press for changes in law recognising the rights of slaves? Would it have been better to dig up their forebears at the same time as pressing for such legislative changes? Would the one help or hinder the other? I genuinely don't know what the most efficacious route would be. But I am reasonably certain that only legislative change provides for the kind of long term solution we require.
What I have gained from this is that it has been done because this person has caused pain and suffering to animals...and is being done to cause him pain and suffering...I am sorry but when did two wrongs make a right...When did it become ok to do what you want because you don't agree with what someone is doing, when did it become ok to desecrate graves?? It is ok saying they are just "bones"...well fine then...Lets dig up Anne Frank/all the dead babies/insert name here and parade them around on a float...."is ok we didn't klill them we just dressed them for the float"....The people in here supporting these activists are intelligent rational people who are pro human rights, anti death penalty etc and yet are supporting here an outdated christian dogma of an eye for eye, which as a certain Mr Ghandi once said "leaves us all blind"... I am sorry but when did we run out of idea's...?? (I did define this much better in a longer post, but the stupid thing didn't save)
But I wasn't making an analogy. I was seeking to determine whether your position was morally consistent. Would you, in all circumstances, advocate legislative change as the only means by which to redress a moral inequity? I've already advised you that I don't agree with the desecration of graves (mainly because I don't think it's particularly productive), so if you want to pursue this argument you'll need to do so with someone else. My point was a more general point relating to the wider principle of direct action, which you seemed to disparage on the basis that legislative change was the only realistic means for achieving a political goal. While I agree that in the long-term this is the case, in the short term, animals are being tortured. If people are able to reduce this suffering through direct action, then I applaud their efforts. That's not to say that I don't remain critical of particular actions though, and I feel that the exhumation of corpses is counterproductive. In the long term, I absolutely agree with you. At this point, I will make a crude analogy with the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany: if you were able to save Jewish lives through the use of violent or non-violent direct action, would you pursue this recourse or would you argue that their lives should be sacrificed since legislative change was the better solution? I would agree that any action carried out for the purpose of revenge is pointless. The dark side that way lies!
What was required in Nazi Germany was concerted effort to stop Hitler pursuing the policies he was. Clearly this was a completely different situation from the one we are discussing, the analogy is so crude as to be a pretty useless comparison. Saving a few individual Jewish lives by intervention would have had no impact on the outcome of the war. Yes, some good could have been achieved by doing this but it was the war itself which finally stopped the slaughter. In the situation we are discussing we are dealing with ingrained attitudes stretching back millenia, and the only way of finally stopping animal cruelty - our "war", if you like - is to change attitudes. One of the many differences between Nazi Germany and this situation is that extreme direct action such as this event may well affect the outcome of the "war" by making our society, these companies, individuals, and our lawmakers, even more determined to resist such tactics. Instead of, as we should be doing, highlighting the issue and helping to change minds. Extremism is not going to change society's attitudes about cruelty, arguably it's going to hinder the animals rights cause and therefore prolong animal suffering. No, I don't think I would make a blanket generalisation and state that criminal direct action is never right. Clearly it depends absolutely on the circumstances. In this case I agree with you that it was very counter-productive.
You have misunderstood this completely. I wish you'd have read the previous posts before jumping to conclusions *sigh* The animals rights activists have not done this out of some "eye for an eye" logic. It is part of a campaign to make this man's life so awkward that he reconsiders whether it is worth all the agro and leaves the business he is in. Noones seeking revenge, it is purely tactical.
Its pure fucking bollocks thats what it is...Think about it rationally..Digging up someones dead relative cos you don't agree with what they are doing..Fuck me...There has to be a better way to get your point across than doing that.....and even if it is not revenge it is causing unecessary hurt to a human being in the same way he is causing uneccesary hurt to these animals.. I must admit this has made me question the morals of these (only these!! not all the people out there doing good) animals rights protesters and given me less sympathy for their plight than anything else I have read or heard...Most of the general public think it is also sick (from people I have talked to about it)..This has put back the animal rights movement a long way I feel... and sorry but whatever anyone has done, they do not deserve to have their relatives dug up, period..end of story...Jesus christ where the fuck do we stop!!!
Yes, because it's such a taboo, public sympathy instantly goes to the relatives of the dead granny - not to the protestors, their cause, or indeed the guinea pigs.
am with you totally on this one. i am all in favour of animal rights but my sympathy goes to the family of the grandma. especially to the relatives that have nothing to do with the guinea pig farm in the first place. i think it is a really heartless suggestion that they are "just bones". if someone dug up someone i loved because another member of the family had pissed them off i would be distraught. the protestors have gone way over the line with this one. what they have done will have changed nothing apart from for them to lose public sympathy for the cause. things have to change as far as the animal rights are concerned, but this is not the way to go about it. if they make this guys life so unbearable that he stops what he's doing then someone else will take his place and the suffering wont stop. the key seems to be to stop the demand rather than stop those who are fulfilling a demand. peace and love stardust xxx
I don't agree that it's "pure fucking bollocks" and I can assure you I am thinking about it rationally thankyou The "unecessary hurt" inflicted on him is not quite in the same league as the hurt inflicted on the animals.. But this isn't about tit for tat. Whatever the animals rights activists do has no bearing on whether I support the rights of animals or not. If it has bearing on whether you do, I question your reasoning. It seems you are jumping on the moral outrage band waggon we see fed to us by the media on a daily basis. Fair enough disagree with this act, but don't take it out on the animals, they are completely innocent in all of this.
I was trying to illustrate that no one living has been physically harmed by this act. Of course it wont work just to stop this one person from commiting animal rights abuses, but it is just one part of a much larger and multi faceted campaign
what difference does it make whether its physical or emotional harm? it is still causing a huge amount of distress for no reason. i dont mean no reason as in to say the cause is worthless, but to say that it wont acheive anything. so why focus on just the one person when it wont acheive anything? isn't it better to target the people who can actually make things change? i realise its a multi faceted campaign, but acts like this do more harm than good imho because i'm sure it will have turned alot of people against the protesters. and although its publicity for their campaign, i wouldnt say its particularly good publicity. peace and love stardust xxx
Well the "emotional distress" is for a very good reason in my opinion and I'm not convinced it isn't achieving anything. Yes, the point that it turns people against the protesters is a good point and not one I am disputing.
Well I think I'd rather have my grans bones dug up than get tied up and tortured for years then executed.
how can it be acheiving anything? until we stop the demand for animals to be tested on, then people are going to provide them. i'm not debating the cause and saying its not a good reason, i'm saying the emotional distress is unneccessary and not worth it coz it wont change anything. if these guys were serious about stopping it they would go to the root of the problem (i.e. the demand for these animals) and fight that, not the people supplying the demand. i think alot (though not all) of these people just like a fight and pick a cause without thinking it through. these people have shown they're willing to go to extremes for their cause, so why not put that energy towards something constructive rather than something that causes distress to people who dont deserve it (i.e. other family members) and acheives nothing? peace and love stardust xxx
They are going to the root of the problem Claire. As I say, they are tackling the issue from many different angles. This is just one of them. You are within your rights to believe this does no good, but I disagree. Direct Action works but not on it's own. I can assure you these people are not in this just to pick a fight, they have fully thought it through (IMO) Whether I agree or not with their particular form of direct action or not is not really relevant. They have brought the cause into the spotlight. They have put pressure on a person that abuses animals. That was all they wished to achieve in this particular instance IMO. ... and so it continues...
I would think (as has been the case before with responsible animal rights groups) that the animals will be rehomed. Or would you prefer they were left there so we didn't have to deal with the issue of what to do with them when they were free?
well thats ok.. as long as those thousands of guineapigs can be found loving homes and not left to the torture of neglect.. why not let them into the wild.. it would make a change from seeing dead rabbits on the side of the roads
this is a serious issue man....why are you just coming in here to take the piss? even if the animals couldnt be rehomed, putting them to sleep would be more humane than what they're going through right now. besides, the issue of who would care for the animals wouldnt exist if these places didnt exist. the process of putting an end to this inhumanity wont happen overnight, it will be a slow thing, so there arent likely to be that many animals rescued anyway. the ideal scenario would be that as society was re-educated to the idea that animal suffering is not neccessary these places would slowly go out of buisness then the animals wouldnt be bred for the purpose. therefore they would not exist to need rescuing and rehoming. peace and love stardust xxx
