If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Welcome to SERAPH how can we help you today?
Is Terrorism in the Eye of the Beholder? Animal Rights Extremists Think So.
5 comments
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
I will say that I don’t condone the harm or killing of humans unless you actually caught them in the act of trying to harm someone else (human or non-human) and you were trying to defend that animal(human or non-human). I see humans as animals and to claim to oppose harm to animals but not humans is inconsistent. This is one of the many reasons I stand by the ALF. The prevention of harm to any animal “human or non-human” is written right into their credo. If you violate the credo then you are not acting on behalf of the ALF no matter what you claim. Anyone who considers them a terrorist threat is someone who is profiting from the suffering of animals or has been fooled by propaganda. You cannot terrorize inanimate objects and the only two things ALF activists are guilty of are property damage and “theft”. Then again I hate even using the word theft when talking about sentient beings because that implies ownership and I oppose slavery and the objectification of animals.
This was my first clue that this article was a load of bs: “anti-science animal rights protesters”. I watched the news report and there was no indication that these protesters are generally “anti-science” though they are probably anti-scientific fraud. If these experiments were being conducted using unwilling human subjects would the activists fighting for their freedoms be recognized as being “anti-science” in a general sense?
I am not an animal welfare activist, vegetarian or a ‘bunny hugger’ nor do I sympathize with protesters and activists that act illegally. However this sensationalist nonsense needs to be challenged. The fact is not a single person in the USA or UK has ever been killed in an animal rights action. The fact that Dr. Vlasak thinks it is acceptable to use deadly force is simply a viewpoint and nothing more as he has not used any violence nor has he incited anyone directly to do any act of violence. I think we all have different views on what is acceptable as a last resort, many of us would use violence to stop a person kicking a dog to death in the street for example. Whatever his view he has a First Amendment right to express it, this is not ‘terrorism’.
I do not feel that this view in anyway effects Dr. Vlasak’s work. If we are to accept the premise that Vlasak’s view effects his work no NRA member who would kill trespassers on their property could be a doctor, what if a burglar came in for treatment? I think we all know very well people can separate their professional and personal lives.
I am very disappointed at the tone of this scaremongering article. I hope intellectual people will see through it and it’s hidden communist agenda to do with censoring speech.
Didn’t sarah palin and the fox newspuppets advise killing julian assange was an imperitive?
Didnt the U.S. just assassinate Osama bin Laden? Or, hey, how about the approximately one million iraqis and 10,000s of Afganis the u.s govt has murdered?
Is that terrorism? Is expressing viewpoints terrorism, or acting on these viewpoints? Is the U.S govt’s actions terrorism or the good kind of killing? I have so much difficulty distinguishing between bad murder for political ends and good murder. thankfully we have authority figures to call the bad, terrorism, and the good, security and render them entirely different sorts of actions, altogether.
Can you imagine if we were obliged to use some consistent moral rubric to distinguish between right and wrong?