My old dead grandfather was in Bomber Command during WWII. I strongly disagree with Bomber Harris's methods, with which he was complicit, but feel there are better ways to make the point than offending his children and grandchildren by digging him up.
That's upside down Jon They are digging up this guy's relatives bones to fuck him off and try to get him to stop torturing animals in the present day. They aren't making a retro protest
True, I'm just explaining how the action is extremely offensive. I'm certain this woman also has relatives who are not involved in the same industry that she was.
True, but it's still an effective way of making the twat think twice about what he's doing. I find him far more offensive, infact I would find it hard to piss on him if he was on fire, than these animal rights activists who are realy just trying there best in a cruel society to speak up for animals that have no voice of their own.
but its the industry thats at fault... if this has any moral changing effect on the guy then he wont close his farm he'll just sell it to some1 else... he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't making him money.. and for some reason the world has an obsession with money.. so someone will fill his shoes
or he could just close it.. would you want money made off the back of such blatent abuse? We may disagree on methods but don't start trying to stick up for the guy doing what he does man, that's kinda sick
no i wasn't sticking up for him.. you have misconstrude my meaning. i probably didn't word it very well.. i was just saying that the guy, if he did stop working would probably only do it to stop futher abuse.. and so sell it as not to lose out.. i din't really mean "moral changing" i dont think... no.. dont think so.
Yeah I agree ... targeting the lickspittle practitioners is the wrong approach, there are always people who will do this as long as it is legal to do so. What is required is a concerted effort to change legislation. Attacking individuals is not going to change the attitudes of wider society, in fact it may well prove counter-productive as innate sympathy is shown to those who are being targeted by this kind of protest.
Well that's why the pressure is kept up on all of the little weirdo's that perpertrate abuse I would imagine.
Yeah, OK. I can just see it now.... look Winston old bean, all this talk of violence is a bit much..... we know there's Jews dying and all, but really, if we could just get Adolf to pass a bit of welfare legislation. Not that I particularly agree with digging up corpses, but it's a bit facile to argue that the only valid way forward is legislative change.
Why on earth not? Is it not of pivotal importance to try to change wider societal attitudes on this issue? People who practice such cruelty are simply unaware that it is wrong and no amount of pressure will make them change this attitude. If it forces them out of business, others will come along to take their place. It requires a large shift of social consciousness and conscience to ensure that compassionate attitudes are accepted as the norm. And I don't see how that will come about unless we have a legitimate national debate resulting in legislative measures ensuring the prevention of cruelty to animals.
1. Stopping immediate abuse on a short term basis 2. Stopping abuse on a long term level through lobbying and legislation They are doing both
Fair enough. I'd expect such a position to be morally consistent in all circumstances then. So, would you have argued the same in Nazi Germany?
fanatics????? This isn't some leftie worthy cause to be right on about and say you are "into animal rights man" about... people don;t do this for fun, they do it to end suffering... they put there freedom at risk to help animals without a voice of their own If you opened your eyes the abuse without the social cnditioning we are all under I think you may see this issue far more clearly. www.meetyourmeat.com
I think that's a bit harsh of them to do that considering she obviously has family who will be traumatised by such an experience. I know I'd be pretty devastated if anyone dug up my dead relatives or friends! I agree with their cause in many ways, but I think their methods are hypocritical. If you accept that animals are fundamentally equal, as living beings, to humans, the argument should be about causing no harm to any living creature, human or otherwise. And this may just be the thin end of the wedge. I may not agree with animal testing, but I don't think the scientists who do it should be physically attacked or threatened with death themselves. The message should be about tolerance, respect and appreciation for all creatures, and indeed plant life, on this planet as part of a natural cycle of inter-dependence. If people are prepared to go to such extremes as abusing human rights to promote animal rights then I think they undermine their own cause, and sink to the same levels as those animal rights abusers. The same as revolutionaries who are prepared to torture and kill to usher in a beautiful new era for all humanity. How many people have to die before you lose sight of what you're fighting for? It's hard to be pure to a cause I'm sure, but I think there will be a lot of liberal animal rights activists out there who will be worried about this act, as I think it quite strongly undermines their cause, not least in gaining popular support....
How many people have died? We are talking about the digging up of some bones... no ones saying killing people is ok. How many animals have to die before people take animal life seriously? Sal, you eat meat so it's clear that you don't feel that animals have as much of a right to life as you do. Although you do eat organic so that's ok then
The how many people have to die was a comment on revolutions and killing, not about animal rights activists. The fact that I eat meat doesn't undermine the arguments I've made. I was talking about a natural cycle. The reason I eat organic, free range meat is because I do respect animal rights, and am not in favour of cruel practices. But I do accept that eating meat is part of a natural cycle, which affects us as much as it affects Hyenas, Cats or Bears. Being an environmentalist, doesn't mean you stop eating plant life. I suppose in some sense we are unique in that we do have the choice not to eat meat. And yes, in some sense, it's a form of human chauvanism. I've argued the completely opposite case to the one I'm making with people who support animal testing. But it is a natural survival instinct for people to put their own lives above others, and to put their own species above other species. I don't think humans are superior to animals. From an objective point of view, we're no more important than insects or bacteria. But I can't have an objective view, I'm a human. If I had the choice between saving the life of an insect or dog and saving a human, then I'd save the human's life. It's human chauvanism, and it's not a good thing, but how can you objectively remove yourself from it? Is that possible? I'd like it to be....
