Seriously. I mean, Greenpeace kicked out Paul Watson (who founded the Sea Shepherd group that gets into tussles with Japanese ships) because he espoused those sorts of confrontations, which went against their nonviolence policy.
Public dissociation is to be expected. I wonder how deep the real dissociation goes.
Anyway, to answer John Mace’s question, they’re obviously on the same continuum with Greenpeace and PETA and ALF and any number of others. The ASPCA isn’t. Do you see the obvious distinctions?
Also, every animal rights activist isn’t to blame. Every animal rights activist is associated with this, however, as long as people can find stuff like this online and quote it to the masses.
Considering that part of the schism appears to have been due to his massive ego, I’d say it’s probably real.
And no, I don’t see the distinction why one is part of a particular continuum and another isn’t. The ASPCA started with a focus on slaughterhouse conditions and cockfighting, among other issues, though they’ve trended more towards domestic pets since then. Meanwhile, Greenpeace is very much an environmental group, with animals being ideal symbols of those efforts to show to the general public. ALF is about the farthest thing from an environmental group, plus there isn’t any actual leadership so any idiot can say they’re with the ALF and do whatever they want in it’s name. (Not that I’m defending the ALF.)
So every pro-life activist is associated with murderers? Every tax-cutter is associated with folks that fly planes into IRS buildings? Everybody who likes Catcher in the Rye is associated with assassins?
You know, I’d have thought it would be hard to find anything stupider than the Newt Gingrich quote that you started a thread about today. But you just topped it yourself.
The ASPCA is focused on doing things that help both animals and humans, as opposed to media grandstanding that helps neither. It’s their public image. That’s what this is about.
I mean, do none of you understand the idea of public image? None of you? Amazing.
Greenpeace is an environmental group. They are not anywhere on the continuum of animal rights. There is some overlap between the two movements, but there’s also active opposition between segments of each, too. More than a few environmentalists, including a set of the most radical, are hunters. Many environmentalists have no problem with animal research.
Of course reasonable people–whatever their view of animal rights–will condemn terroristic threats in such a cause. But the OP shoots itself in the foot by linking in Greenpeace.
I understand the idea of public image, and I do see where you’re coming at - there are always going to be people who take the actions of the fringe and identify it as the actions of the mainstream of that person’s affiliations. Just as there are people who take the actions of this guy and use them to reach assumptions about blacks in general, or the antics of this guy and draw conclusions about all gays, there are people who will look at the actions of the guy you linked to, and draw conclusions about all animal rights organizations. We know this is true, because you’ve done it in your OP.
What, I think, is puzzling most of us is what you expect anyone (other than law enforcement) to do about this. If his words are somehow tainting Greenpeace, what is Greenpeace supposed to do about that? They’ve already publicly disavowed violent action, and taken steps to purge such people from their ranks. What else can they do? Give up on environmental activism? Because some random nutjob on the outer edges of their political axis said some stupid, reprehensible bullshit? That seems a tad unreasonable to me, but I’m generally not sure what else you’re looking for, here.
I’m just giving a heads-up, and an excuse to laugh at something. Pointing and laughing at the clowns is a time-honored tradition around here.
Also: Greenpeace is linked in because of their public image as media grandstanders with essentially nothing worthwhile to their name. If you’re going to be out in the public eye, either do something worthwhile and substantial, like the ASPCA, or risk being grouped with other, less savory media grandstanders who’ve also done nothing substantial.
