I will start this by saying I am an avid supporter of animal and enviromental rights. I can see why some people view domestic direct action by groups such as the ALF and ELF as drastic and sometimes irresponsible, but I fail to understand how they can be grouped into the same category as Al-Queda and other violent terrorist groups. Numerous politicians have labeled the ALF and ELF as “domestic terrorists”. I feel that the media has hugely overlooked the fact that ALF and ELF have never hurt a human and it is written into thier doctrine that preservation and protection of human life is the first concern in any of thier actions.
My question is, do you feel the ALF and ELF are really as bad as terrorists like Al-Queda, and if not, how do you view them and how do you think the law should treat them? (Right now they can be considered enemy combatants and imprisoned without trial. It hasnt happened yet, but it can)
True ALF is not as bad as Al Queda. But that’s like saying that your random murderer isn’t as bad as the Son of Sam because he only murdered one person. Both are wrong.
Destruction of private property is still wrong, even if it’s not wrong at Al Queda levels. ALF and ELF should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no more and no less.
I would think it is a stretch to say that ALF and ELF are as bad as Al Qaeda. They have not yet harmed anyone with their idiocy. In many ways I respect them as members of my species even less than I respect Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is fed by a culture of fanatical religious and cultural beliefs, often fed by poverty and hopelessness. I can understand how these factors can lead someone to act as a fanatic.
ALF and ELF are populated by rich white kids working out their misplaced rebellious phase. They had more choices, and chose abysmally. Saving bunnies by vandalizing labs and torching my SUV are two of the stupidest uses of a human mind that I can concieve. These people had every opportunity to develop an understanding of the world that contains shades of gray. They chose to be fanatics. They choose to destroy property that does not belong to them. I have no problem with our existing criminal justice system disposing of them in the same way we deal with similar crimes. Not being a supporter of the ‘enemy combatant’ invention, I think the existing system has ways of dealing with them.
Where is your evidence that the ALF and ELF are populated by rich, white kids? It is true that some angsty teens write logos on McDonalds or break windows, but I dont’ think all the members fit into the upper class white bracket. And with the destruction of property issue, what about the Boston Tea Party? Would you say the found were fanatics made up of rich white people? I know you will say that releasing a country from bondage is different from “saving bunnies”, but what makes one cause more important to another? Both the founding fathers and the Alf work for the goal of ending suffering, and I am sure just as there are those who feel that animal rights are not important, there were those who felt america was just fine under british rule.
Also, since you feel that destroying labs and torching SUVs is a waste of good brain power, what do you feel would be an appropriate way for the ALF and ELF to reach thier goals?
The really frightening thing about ALF and EF! is that they provide breeding grounds for extremists. Where do you think future members of an American AlQ will come from?
While these groups have not yet killed anyone, it is easy to imagine that people will meet in such groups and go off on a killing spree.
The abuse of animals or the environment are arguably serious problems. It is hard to imagine they are so serious that the normal peaceful discourse of politics should be abandoned in favor of arson, bombing and vandalism.
My opinion is somewhat coloured by prejudice, I fear - the ALF burned a pet shop to the ground local to me a few years back, killing all the animals inside. Like Paul, I consider animal suffering to be a serious issue, but I cannot be persuaded by such an extreme stance - the utter denial that animal experiment has ever achieved anything useful, for example, makes it impossible to take them seriously.
I should probably qualify the above statement; the ALF were suspected of being responsible for the fire (walls nearby were freshly daubed with slogans).
All I can think of is these folks taking a bunch of lab rats and turning them loose into the bush. “Run little lab rat, be free!”
Dumbasses; this particular strain of rattus norvegicus was born and bred (or, I should say, inbred) in captivity. You may as well stomp on its head as spring it from its cage. It has no aquired immunity to common pathogens, it lacks pigment and is hence blind, it never had to forage for food, its got “Deliverance”-style mental deficits due to the fact its dad mated with its aunt; for these and many other reasons, it can’t survive in the wild, you fucking morons. Now that you’ve left the rats to suffer and die of starvation or predation, destroyed valuable property, ruined valuable research that will have to be repeated (thus killing twice as many rats as necessary), scared the bejeezus out of some scientists, and probably gotten yourselves arrested, do you feel better? Is that what you were shooting for, you nitwits? Thank you for reminding me why I like animals better than people.
I would amend my statment to remove the ‘white’. White has nothing to do with it. I should have said rich, bored people. I have known a number of sympathizers, though no actual participants. All were from comfortable suburban upbringings that gave them little to worry about other than bunnies and the sins of their parents.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of political uprising. Subjectively the cause behind the uprising was far more important than the causes espoused by ALF and ELF. Maddening though it is, the answer to why the causes of these groups are less important than the causes of the abolitionists or those involved in the American Revolution will be judged by history. I admit that it is possible that in a hundred years we will look back at the ways in which we used animals and be appalled.
My opinions are formed by doubt. I doubt that day will ever come. If we remember these groups at all I believe they will be remembered as a symptom of a culture of college kids with way too much time on their hands.
I agree that a lot of Animal rights sympathizers are bored rich people, but wouldnt you agree that bored rich people seem to sympathize with everything? They have time and money and no sense of urgency. I feel that a sense of urgency is what causes the ALF and ELF to act so quickly and sometimes rashly. From what I know, a fair share of animla rights activists who actually participate in direct actions are lower to middle class people in thier 20’s to 30’s. IN some countrys like brazil the activists are flat broke but still choose to fight. I feel that the more suffering a person feels the more the will fight, not sympathize.
Loopydoop.
Children were born into slavery and deprived of educations. Does that make them worthless like those rats you feel we should smash underfoot? They can feel pain and thats what matters. I wish they did not exsist in the form that they do, but they are here and deserve compassion. You seem very full of rage by the way, I think you should visit a petting zoo.
Whatever - I’m convinced that there is no possible way to satisfy these people - if we stopped animal experiments and all turned vegan, they’d be wailing about the plight of the poor aphids, wickedly sprayed by the evil farmer.
Loss of property, replacement or recapture of livestock, rebuilding costs, loss of research, potential to release a dangerous biological contaminant to the enviroment, etc. Yes they are terrorists. Yes they OUGHT to be treated as such and given no special rights or privilages. Anything else is splitting hairs to me. For example, if I formed an ANTI-Animal rights group and truly believed that I was serving the cause by burning down ALF and ELF group members homes, or cars, I’m SURE you wouldn’t approve of my actions. What’s the difference? Thieves, arsonists, and vandals the lot of 'em.
Read my post. I’m not advocating stomping on rats, I’m saying letting lab rats loose into the wild (which some of these PETA nuts or whoever did) is just a cruel and pointless. Plus, it did lots of other needless damage besides. I work in biotech. I sometimes kill animals for research. There I said it. I don’t like it (I don’t know anyone who does), but it’s part of my job. Someone I work with was attacked at his home because they illegally procured company documents and got his address. They vandalized his property and threatened him. That could happen to me, goddamnit, so yeah, I do get angry about it. I have a pet cat. Ever seen a cat kill a mouse? Look, life in the food chain is a bitch. I can tell you right now, NOTHING I do to mice is half as bad as what my cat obviously gets a big kick out of. But he’s being a cat, and I’m being a human being. We kill animals. We always have. What I do NOT do, as a researcher, is commit acts of wanton cruelty. I’m trying to do my part to answer some pretty fundamental questions about cellular biology, and I need relevant in vitro models. I’d much prefer to use cell lines derived from human tumors if I could (for one thing, they’re are a lot less work to deal with), but those kinds of cells bear little resemblance to the normal cells I’m trying to study, and thus I can’t get the answers I need from them. And guess what? The IACUC and the FDA require I do these proof-of-principle studies if our candidate therapeutic is to make it first to the requisite in vivo animal studies, and later to Phase I trials.
I don’t know anybody I work with who wouldn’t like alternatives. Know what? There aren’t any, except to halt biomedical research. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about. It’s literally impossible from a legal standpoint to get new drugs approved without animal research, forget about the scientific necessity of doing it.
I just want to reinforce something Loopydude said.
I work in a zoo. I’m sure some people would react to that with horror and demand that we release all of our animals “back” to the wild IMMEDIATLY. Well, it just plain wouldn’t work.
Why? Well for starters, most, if not all. of the residents where I work have never been anywhere near the outdoors. They were born in captivity, often right at the zoo. They have had their food, water and heat provided for them since birth, as have their parents, grandparents and so on back many generations. A rat isn’t just born hooded or longhaired or hairless. He’s the product of careful breeding over many years. Likewise hybred corn and kingsnakes, fancy chinchillas, albino pythons, etc etc etc.
I could run off a list pages long of animals that for reasons of coat or colour wouldn’t last five minutes in a world full of ice and predators.
I’m not going to argue wether or not the animals should have been modified in the first place. It’s done and they’re here. What I will say is that it is now our responsibility to look after them. If anyone thinks setting them free would be doing them a favour, well that person would be tragically mistaken.
For myself, I feel that the best way I can express my love for animals is to keep the one’s in my care as happy, well fed and comfortable as possible.
I agree that animals that have been domesticated beyond the ability to survive should not be let free into the wild, and one of the ALFs new guidelines is to not liberate and animal unless you have a home or farm for it to go to.
Loopydude.
I understand where you are coming from. Animal testing provides loads of help for the human race, but organizations like Huntington Life Sciences and numerous other animal testing labs keep thier animals in sub-par conditions and the animals live in fear and pain. These animals are saving human lives by giving thier own. The suffer so we can be free of pain. They deserve more respect than small cages and neglect. If people in the labs treated the animals better maybe they wouldnt get firebombed and harrassed, but until conditions change, which they can, they deserve it.
I am not saying that medicine should stop using animals to save lives, just that the way it is gone about is inhumane and plain wrong.
I follow the BBC news over here, they gave the Huntington thing a lot more play than the US media did.
I did not hear any of these terrorists advocating an upgrade of the care of animals in research labs. They seemed to simply be opposed to animal research.
I do not see how we can reason with these people. They have exited the political arena, the place where compromise is made. They are unable to win their point by vote of persuasion and so have turned to illegal, violent means.
I could be convinced to support some portions of the EF!/PETA agenda. They are not interested in convincing.
They are criminals by their own decision. Treat them like criminals.
I can’t speak specifically about Huntington, as I don’t do business with them, but where I do do work, the level of fear and pain is kept to lowest achievable level. However, some amount of pain is impossible to avoid. I do NOT at all agree that because researchers inflict pain, they deserve it in return.
However, it may encourage you to know that there’s a considerable level of debate that has grown around the issue of animal housing. The cages commonly used provide little, if any, environmental stimulation. We’re starting to come around to the idea that sensory and exercise-deprived animals may not be as healthy as they should be, and that might compromise their usefulness in animal models of disease. So life for the lab rat may be set to improve, and everybody might gain a little something. The trouble will be funding, as it will make housing animals a lot more expensive, but if clear benefits can be demonstrated (and I’m betting they can), some may see it as money well spent. I, for one, would be very happy with such a change. I doesn’t make me feel good to know these animals might be physically and mentally sick because of their limited environment. I don’t want them to suffer more than necessary. Again, I don’t know anyone I work with who does. We’re not sadists.
Let’s both hope for new housing standards, especially if those new standards are backed up by good science supporting their adoption. Nothing works as well to motivate such change as mutual benefit for the researcher and the subject of the research.