www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Every animal researcher should live in fear and shadows.
You mean like the cowardly miscreants who terrorize them?
Direct action activists are not "cowards",
they risk their lives and their freedom.
What do they accomplish? Nothing but harm, destruction, and imprisonment for themselves. That's not too dang smart.
Naturally, they take steps to prevent capture.
They hide in the shadows and in fear of imprisonment. Which is just how you think researchers should live.
They can't continue their valuable work if they're in prison.
It's not valuable. At least in prison they get some job training so they can be productive -- not destructive -- members of society if and when they're released. Too bad they tend to be recidivist criminals.
If you want to mutilate and kill animals, get a bodyguard.
And when you need to cure whatever ailment you or a loved one contracts, you'll be an ingrate for all the research it took.
I don't have any control over what a "loved one" chooses to do. I can and do refuse medical intervention for myself by wearing a medical bracelet that reads, "Refuses all substances and procedures derived from animal research."
Better hope you don't suffer a debilitating injury or illness without someone to intervene on your behalf. I don't think doctors or EMTs will waste time verifying the history of procedures or medicine if your life's in jeopardy (God forbid).
That won't stop you from taking the medicine.
In a crisis, I sincerely hope I have the courage to stick to my
convictions.
So do many Jehovah's Witnesses, but you'd be surprised how much love of one's life and family can do to absurd doctrines against blood "transfusions" (which under their teachings includes any derivative taken from blood).
You're right to be concerned for your safety; their agenda is radical, and their concern for others is non-existent.
Not true, our understanding of "others" is more expansive than yours.
I said your concern is non-existent;
And I said our concern is easily apparent, though the focus of our concern extends beyond human beings.
your understanding is a different issue. This isn't about radicalizing definitions. It's about how you treat other citizens.
That's an odd choice of words, "citizens". Do you treat citizens and non-citizens differently?
Yup ;)
Winking about it is cowardly.
Why?
(snip)It makes me wonder how they can see this as empathy and compassion.
Why should animal torturers and killers be recipients of empathy and compassion?
Because they're human beings. The law kind of demands it.
There is no law requiring people to exhibit empathy and compassion.
I said "kind of" -- meaning that there's a spirit of the law to consider, too, not merely the letter. The letter of the law says you cannot physically harm or kill another citizen, but its spirit is that we should live peaceably with each other. Of course, rogues (like AR terrorists) who think they're laws unto themselves have no regard for either the letter or the spirit. Their anti-social, misanthropic drive them, not any concern or respect for anything.
They should be treated the same way they treat their laboratory tools, with cold, controlled indifference.
I don't accept that researchers treat lab animals with indifference.
You wouldn't because you are an apologist for the abominations humans commit against animals.
Which abominations would those be? I've written many posts in support of AW laws *and* enforcement of them.
I do accept, though, that AR terrorists treat others that way. They've
decided that two wrongs make a right even when the rest of society has determined that the only wrong in the equation is the one that harms humans.
I regard humans and non-humans as equal in all important ways.
When I weigh the harm of property damage against the harm of medical mutilation of living beings, there can be no question which is 'more wrong'.
Both have intended purposes. The purpose of the vigilante-terrorists is to score a cheap political point which cannot be won in the court of public opinion. The intended purpose of research is to produce benefits for humans *and* animals. I agree, though, there's no question which is more wrong. I just disagree with you over which one takes that blame.
I was going to personalize all of this paragraph, but I don't
want to make you feel like you're a terrorist.
I don't.
As I alluded, it would be beside the point. Both the terrorist and his/her enabler share in cowardice. The terrorist has some measure of courage, but hides in the shadows of society. The enabler is seen in society, but is too cowardly to act on his/her "convictions." In that sense, both are only half-human.
I can always be hit on for contributions to legal defense funds.
Your little efforts with the bait stations are meaningless.
It would never occur to me to call bait station demolition "terrorism".
How absurd.
I don't do it to coerce property owners to look more kindly on rodents, I do it first to protect cats and, secondly, to mitigate the damage cats do to rodent populations at a given location.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
