Did anyone see a cnn bit on tv last week warning that there was an animal rights group planning terrorist activities possibly on Thanksgiving? I can't remember the name of the group, but it struck me as odd that they labelled an american animal rights activist group as 'terrorists' and gave their website and everything..with no hard proof of any action they might take, just a vague suspicion of 'terrorist' activities and an FBI issued alert.

Just wondering if anyone else caught this and what they thought.

The "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" are the most extreme animal rights group around. They do some pretty stupid stuff in the name of animal rights, including "liberating" tame animals (sending them off into the forest. The animals have no idea how to feed themselves and starve) and have burned down labs and facilities.

Show your support......


Please contact President George W. Bush and demand an immediate end to U.S. military experiments on animals:

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20515

HONORABLE??

[Edited on 3-12-2002 by Tyler]

As far as I am concerned, animal rights is just a cause for rebels without one. Who cares if foxes get hunted? Who cares if mice are being used to treat cancer?

Animals can be used as humans wish as long as we a responsible and do not endanger species and habitats.

The ALF et al need to get a real cause.

i entirely agree. and whilst we're at it we can test genetically modified food to see if its safe, by putting it into burgers and feeding it to the americans. soon find out if there's anything wrong with it ...

- qo.

I mean, does it bother anyone that animal rights groups - ie, AMERICANS, typically labelled as 'dissidents', are being called TERRORISTS.

And actually, it wasn't PETA that was fingered..it was some other name I'd never heard of. I just wonder if anyone who is a part of any 'dissident' group (I'm hearing the word ECO terrorism going around too) will soon be seen as a dissident and labelled as extremist soon..

I dont think animal rights groups should performe acts of vandalism, but i do not think animals shoud be treated the way they are. Humans have no right to use animals as test subjects.

If you want to test something test it on a human being who says ok to the study not some poor little mouse who is studed aganist his own will!!!

Im not an animal rights actavists, but i do believe in treating all animals with the same respect we treat each other.

If you become ill with cancer, will you ignore treatments that have been testing on animals?

"Who cares if foxes get hunted? "

me.
I'm fine with animal testing, that makes logical sense so long as a few humane precautions are put in place and usually they are.

However a bunch of aristocratic #tards rideing their horses through my private land thinking they have the god given right to do so simply because they get their jollys from seeing a terrified wild animal get torn to shreds by a bunch of dogs in the name of "sport" can bite my hairy Lupine Butt.

Is it possible for you to express your thoughts without such inane and juvenile language references? The "---tard" bastard word you used only helps others to gauge that perhaps you may lack cognitive ability to properly express yourself.

Certainly, you can do better when discussing such a subject.

"The "---tard" bastard word you used only helps others to gauge that perhaps you may lack cognitive ability to properly express yourself"

odd isn't it, because that sort of reaction to guttural language at the cost of acknowledging or discussing the point made always makes me think the person who took offence must lack the cognitive ability to understand the importance of emotive linguistic semiotics in digital communication.

May I suggest you check out some articles on language repair and self actualisation in the digital age.

The "digital age" has not escaped my notice, fear not.

I have participated in "animal rights" discussion on both sides of the "fence". Have you participated at any constructive level other than inserting disruptive commentary into existing discussion? That is the primary pastime of discussion forum trolls of the digital age.

"Have you participated at any constructive level other than inserting disruptive commentary into existing discussion?"

yes.
now will you post on topic please your muddying the thread.

As I inferred before your highly sanctimonious and irrelevant comment, there's a massive personal and political difference between the use of animals for the benefit of medical science and the inhumane destruction of animals in the name of "sport"

If you want to discuss that, or any other aspects of this thread, be my guest, if you want to lambaste people for their attitude with your own rather arrogant and immature brand of social commentary may I suggest a playground or the Garrick.

Cheers.

According the information I read on this website, you are not policy maker here. Consider the mirror when looking for immaturity.

What classifies as "sport" in your mind? If one hunts for food, is that sport? Certainly the chase of a singular fox with a team of hounds and riders is not what many would consider humane. However, it evolves from a past need to roust predator foxes from the estate to preserve docile food supply. Today's sport is yesterday's survival practice. While it makes it no more palatable to know this, perhaps historical prospect might temper the faux offensiveness of your online persona. For it seems you do not react well to constructive criticism, and resort to juvenile name calling for lack of an informed response.

Do you kill spiders in your home?

Have you pulled worms out of the ground to use for bait?

To what extent to you practice avoidance of "inhumane destruction of animals"?

"While it makes it no more palatable to know this, perhaps historical prospect might temper the faux offensiveness of your online persona. For it seems you do not react well to constructive criticism, and resort to juvenile name calling for lack of an informed response. "

you are aware that

a) the first part of that sentance doesn't actually make sense
b) the second part is simple hypocracy.

regardless:

What classifies as "sport" in your mind? If one hunts for food, is that sport?

no, thats hunting for food, a sport is somthing one indulges in for the reward of competeing.

Certainly the chase of a singular fox with a team of hounds and riders is not what many would consider humane. However, it evolves from a past need to roust predator foxes from the estate to preserve docile food supply.

*blink* It has as much to do today with the practice of game preservation as Bull fighting has to do with removing rogue bulls.

It is not a practice that has evolved into an actual sport, it is a practical situation done by several men and their dogs which, through a series of symbolic hunts by the lord of the manour to demonstrate a common touch, hunting prowess and social solidarity in the country has evolved into a tradition.

you could place an argument suggesting that traditions should be kept alive and we can argue that but to suggest it has modern relevance as a sport because it has historical ties to actual culling is pretty bloody stupid.

Do you kill spiders in your home?
nope.....why would I?

Have you pulled worms out of the ground to use for bait?
Not personally but I see your point.

To what extent do you practice avoidance of "inhumane destruction of animals"?

any civilised person practices it as much as possible.

I've squished a fly.
I've had to break the necks of rabbits and drown hedge hogs.

you do it with minimal fuss and with as much respect for the creature as you can.

what you don't do is dress up in your finery and ride your horse though other peoples land indulging in a practice reserved exclusively for the rich to pretend they still live in a feudal society.

The second part is simply a matter of legality. they no longer have the right to ride through private land.
the first is simply a matter of taste and civility.

I don't think we're gonna see a worm liberation front any time soon.

How is killing a worm or an ant any different to killing a fox?

The answer is that foxes are furry and have cute ickle puppies. Awwwww!!!

Doesnt mean they have individual rights though.

"How is killing a worm or an ant any different to killing a fox? "

yes and by the same argument how is killing a worm any different from killing a person? There aren't levels to this, and its not about "what" you kill, its about "why" and "how"

"The answer is that foxes are furry and have cute ickle puppies. Awwwww!!! "

you've obviously never spent much time in the country. Fox's are vicious disease ridden destructive vermin, they need to be culled pretty much whenever they're spotted.

I never said don't kill foxes, I said stop fox hunting.

you swat a fly, fair enough, trap a rat, shoot a rabid dog fair enough.

but in my opinion, pinning a fly down and pulling each of its legs off one by one before pouring acid on it isn't an act of sport, self preservation or pest control, its an act of sadistic inhumanity.

You don't grab the rat and throw it to a team of fire ants to get rid of it, you don't take the rabid dog and put it in a pit full of other rabid dogs and watch them rip each other to shreds, thats just cruelty pure and simple.

and a fox is the same. Cull them, hire people to shoot them, poison them. these are effective ways of removing a disease carrying predator.

getting dressed up in red velvet, having a champagne breakfast before running a fox until its physically and mentally exhausted, letting dogs slowly rip it to shreds and then bathing your youngest son in blood from its tail is ~not~ an effective form of pest control. Its just a bunch of toffs being barbarous because they enjoy the blood lust.

[Edited on 10-12-2002 by Lupe_101]

how about animals with different levels of intelligence or life span? killing a dolphin is a hell load worse then killing a fly, not because the dolphins 'cuter'. now if they turned around and did it to us ppl you wouldnt sit there goin "oh yeah its ok"
anyway, if cloning cells is mastered and allowed, animal testing wont have to be a problem. as for those toffy nosed snobs that hunt foxes, thats still gona be a problem. i still dont get whats so fun about ripping them to death. sadistic b-tards (mumble munble complain hmph)

Just because people have different moral standards to you doesnt necessarily mean that they are wrong.

How do u decide what individual rights a certain creature has? Can I see the rule book?

Do donkeys have more rights than elephants?

My belief is that species have a collective right to exist without man threatening their existence. Animals do not, however, have individual rights because they cannot be treated on a level with humans.

Especially nowadays when there are animals in Britain with more rights than people in Africa and Asia.

[Edited on 10-12-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]