Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

"Stunts" is a bit of an understatement when referring to PETA's activities, which includes allying themselves with terrorist organisations in the name of 'animal rights'.

Please source.

Thank you.

 

[Rat]

Please source.

Thank you.

I wasn't aware anyone disputed this, unless you believe that the activities of the ALF are not terrorism.

 

[IDB87]

Please source.

Thank you.

Animal Liberation Front

Rodney Coronado

Rodney Coronado instructing College students on how to make incendiary devices.



PETA and the ALF

Today's liberationists know that the ice has been broken. Television and newspaper stories have shown the extent of the suffering, over and over again. People know that there are kind alternatives to every cruel thing, from veggie burgers and 'pleather' to virtual organs. Perhaps that's why the 'new ALF' has lost patience with the foot draggers and spends scant time explaining. Determined to cause economic injury to the exploiters, ALF members burn down their emptied buildings and smash their vehicles to smithereens. Perhaps, after reading this book, you will find that you cannot blame them.

Source for Newkirk's quote

 

[sgtbaker]

And as I've said constantly in these threads, I guess vegans in the US must be very different to those here. Either that or both Travis and MikeyX are incapable of recognizing confirmation bias.

I only know one vegan IRL, so this really isn't anything but my personal experience. When it comes to talking about food, he doesn't get smug, he gets lecturous (is that even a word), as though I was born yesterday and have no clue on nutritional values. I nod my head and let him say what he needs to say. In all other areas he is pleasant and conversational. He's human, just like everyone else I know. It's highly unlikely but it's certainly possible that I, too, have this one annoying little trait that people around me over look because overall, the good outweighs the bad. I just don't think that vegan is anymore of a character defining word than an atheist.

 

[citizenzen]

I wasn't aware anyone disputed this, unless you believe that the activities of the ALF are not terrorism.

I can neither dispute nor confirm these links. But I prefer that when somebody alleges connections to terrorist groups that a source is included.

I will be happy to look into them.

 

[Dessi]

Animal Liberation Front

Indicates PETA used video footage stolen by ALF to show severe animal rights abuses in the Silver Spring Monkeys case. I say this is a point in favor of PETA, not against it.

Rodney Coronado

This guy has no affiliation to PETA.

PETA and the ALF

PETA indicates that some of AFLs actions have resulted in severe criminal penalties for experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

Today's liberationists know that the ice has been broken. Television and newspaper stories have shown the extent of the suffering, over and over again. People know that there are kind alternatives to every cruel thing, from veggie burgers and 'pleather' to virtual organs. Perhaps that's why the 'new ALF' has lost patience with the foot draggers and spends scant time explaining. Determined to cause economic injury to the exploiters, ALF members burn down their emptied buildings and smash their vehicles to smithereens. Perhaps, after reading this book, you will find that you cannot blame them.

Source for Newkirk's quote

"Guide to the Political Left", which contains cute gems linking the "agendas of the political Left" to Jihad, that the Democratic party is a front for socialism. The quote is lifted from a non-existent page on AnimalRights.net, a site which itself "exposes the truth on the animal rights movement". I'd be pretty impressed if you can track down an actual source of the quote.

In any case, the comment itself is not particularly damning. At best it expresses a view I've seen myself in the AR community: that almost anyone would support direct action if humans were victims of the exact same treatment that animals endure every single day.

Color me skeptical, but I don't think info above is particularly damaging to PETA at all. I would go a bit further and say that the sort of direct action PETA engages in -- undercover investigations with hidden cameras -- is actually pretty tame, actually pretty sensible, several times media coverage of these investigations have been explosively effective. That's how you do direct action.

 

[bookitty]

"Stunts" is a bit of an understatement when referring to PETA's activities, which includes allying themselves with terrorist organisations in the name of 'animal rights'.

Este

I have far too much experience with being linked to extremists when trying to discuss anything political to believe that radical elements make up some huge majority in any popular movement.

I just, personally, feel that PETA is a little heavy on naked chicks and a little light on actions which enlighten instead of merely challenge.

 

[citizenzen]

Rodney Coronado[/url]

Excerpts from the article on Coronado ...

Indictments and convictions

Earth First! Lion hunt
On December 2, 2004, Coronado was indicted on three charges related to Earth First! hunt saboteur actions to disrupt a hunt of mountain lions in Sabino Canyon, near Tucson by dismantling a lion trap and spreading mountain lion urine. On December 13, 2005, he and co-defendant Matthew Crozier, 33, were found guilty of felony conspiracy to interfere with or injure a government official, misdemeanor interference with or injury to a forest officer, and misdemeanor depredation (theft, destruction, or the attempt to do so) of government property. Coronado was sentenced on August 6, 2006 to eight months in prison, three years supervised probation, and fined $100. Crozier was sentenced to 100 hours community service, three years probation, and a $1,000 fine.


Demonstrating an incendiary device
In February 2006, Coronado was arrested on a felony charge of demonstrating the use of an incendiary device at a public gathering in the Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego. The indictment indirectly relates to an August 1, 2003 fire in San Diego that destroyed an apartment complex causing an estimated $50 million worth of damage. A banner was found at the scene inscribed with the initials of the ELF. Coronado, a self-described "unofficial ELF spokesman," gave a talk on militant environmental activism in San Diego 15 hours later, where he explained how to make incendiary devices. He denies any role in the incident, and investigators do not consider him a suspect in starting the fire.
His arrest was associated with the FBI's Operation Backfire, a sweep of grand jury indictments against alleged ALF and ELF members, termed the "Green Scare" by activists. Some alternative media sources say Coronado was simply exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech when "in response to a question from an audience member" he "demonstrated how he had constructed a non-explosive, incendiary device out of a plastic jug filled with gasoline to commit the old arson for which he did his time."

In September 2006, Coronado sent an open letter to supporters from his prison cell in Florence, Arizona, before his release on March 23, 2007. In the letter, he announced his commitment to social change through non-destructive means. Citing his desire to raise his young son without teaching him that "violence is a necessary evil", Coronado expressed hope that others in the earth and animal liberation movements would consider more peaceful methods:

“In my years past I have argued that economic sabotage was an appropriate tactic for our time. Like all strategists I have also been forced to recognize that times have changed and it is now my belief that the movements to protect earth and animals have achieved enough with this strategy to now consider an approach that does not compromise objectives, but increases the likelihood of real social change. Let our opposition who believe in violence carry the burden for its justification, but let those who believe in peace and love practice a way of life that our society sorely needs now more than ever.”​

Hillcrest trial
In 2007, Coronado stood trial in San Diego on charges related to his speech in 2003 in Hillcrest. After two days of deliberations, the jury remained deadlocked, and on September 19, 2007, Judge Jeffrey Miller declared a mistrial. Coronado subsequently entered a guilty plea, accepting a deal for a one year prison term, as a result of which he was sentenced on March 27, 2008 to one year and one day. He was released from El Reno FCI on December 25, 2008.[24] Regarding his guilty plea, he said in an open e-mail on his website:

“It has long been my desire to put my past behind me and instead build a sustainable existence for myself, my wife, Chrysta, and two children, Anheles and Maya. This decision to take a plea bargain comes only after much careful consideration and a sincere desire to do what is best for my family. Such unconstitutional assaults on my free speech beg for a continued legal battle and defense, but I am instead choosing to reach a settlement that will allow me to move on with my life rather than face years of litigation that might lead to many years in prison.”​

Parole violation
In August 2010, Coronado was sentenced to four months in federal prison in Michigan for violating the terms of his probation. Coronado, who had been on parole since his release from prison, joined the social networking site Facebook. He was sentenced for the use of an unauthorized computer, and for "friending" former Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle. Coronado entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, MI on September 16.​

OMG. Is this all you have to call this man a terrorist? eight months for showing people how he poured gasoline into a plastic jug?! And four months for going on Facebook and friending someone?!!!

He is one baaad dude.

I wonder how much time the following people spent in jail for this demonstration of incendiaries. I'm guessing ... ummm ... none.

 

[RandFan]

What is the state of not being born?

Thanks to abstract thinking I can delineate my existence from nonexistence. Before I was conceived I didn't exist (a state of not being).

Thanks to abstract thought I can think of situations where I would rather be dead than experiencing the situation. At the moment that is not the case. I'm glad I'm alive. I'm glad I was born. But, I get your point. Perhaps we can formulate a better argument.

• I value the existence of animals.
• I value the existence of animals that do not daily suffer predation, the elements, diseases and/or starvation.
• *As Dennett says, how clever of it was of the sheep to adapt the shepherd.
• I agree with that idea. There is utility to the animals to provide something in return for protection and maintenance. I think that there is value in bringing to life animals that can lead a productive life in exchange for them providing food or other commodities.
• I think that to do so we must mitigate as much as possible suffering and indifference to the animals.

*Dennett did not A.) mean that the sheep were actually clever and B.) was not trying to justify eating animals.

 

[citizenzen]

Thanks to abstract thinking I can delineate my existence from nonexistence.

I'm not that clever.

What's nonexistence like?

 

[IDB87]

Indicates PETA used video footage stolen by ALF to show severe animal rights abuses in the Silver Spring Monkeys case. I say this is a point in favor of PETA, not against it.

Would you also say Operation Backfire, as one example, is a point in favor of PETA, or against it?

This guy has no affiliation to PETA.

Citizenzen was asking about the ALF. Do you wish to argue that Coronado has no prominence in the ALF/ELF?

PETA indicates that some of AFLs actions have resulted in severe criminal penalties for experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

Do you also agree that arson is a violation of the law?

I'd be pretty impressed if you can track down an actual source of the quote.

I'll admit I haven't read the book it was lifted from. But I tell you what-I will pick it up [somehow] and try to find it. If I can't, I will retract the claim.

In any case, the comment itself is not particularly damning. At best it expresses a view I've seen myself in the AR community: that almost anyone would support direct action if humans were victims of the exact same treatment that animals endure every single day.

I support action that ensures buildings aren't torched when ideologies like this conflict. I support action that guarantees progressive, and most important of all, peaceful change if there is to be any.

Color me skeptical, but I don't think info above is particularly damaging to PETA at all. I would go a bit further and say that the sort of direct action PETA engages in -- undercover investigations with hidden cameras -- is actually pretty tame, actually pretty sensible, several times media coverage of these investigations have been explosively effective. That's how you do direct action.

We aren't talking about PETA's action. We are talking about their moral (and quite possibly monetary) support of a domestic terrorist group like ALF/ELF.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not that clever.

Yeah, I understand. I struggle with quantum mechanics and relativity. It's not intuitive. I don't expect most people to be able to use abstract thinking to imagine that which we did not evolve to understand. In case you are thinking I'm being snarky, don't. I take your question seriously.

What's nonexistence like?

The absence of conscious thought and feelings.

I think the best I could do for you is to get you to imagine what it would be for your faculties to be turned off a bit at a time. You can imagine not being able to see. Then not being able to hear. Not being able to think coherently or have what Blackmore and Dennett et al call the illusion of self. If you can abstractly think what it would be like to be schizophrenic, paranoid, dissociative then you are beginning to work your way down the rabbit hole. Now imagine increased doses of Thorazine, bit by bit until the light of awareness dissipates until you reach a state of being catatonic.

It's not easy and not everyone can do it. For some the illusion of self is just a bit too strong. It's like those who have a visceral and strongly negative response to the transporter problem.

Anyway, I don't want to appear obtuse. I really do understand your point. I can see why you might think it clever but it's really just an argument from ignorance. It's like the kid who covers his eyes and thinks everyone's brains stop working because he can't imagine that the world cannot exist outside of his existence.

 

[citizenzen]

I think the best I could do for you is to get you to imagine what it would be for your faculties to be turned off a bit at a time. You can imagine not being able to see. Then not being able to hear. Not being able to think coherently or have what Blackmore and Dennett et al call the illusion of self. If you can abstractly think what it would be like to be schizophrenic, paranoid, dissociative then you are beginning to work your way down the rabbit hole. Now imagine increased doses of Thorazine, bit by bit until the light of awareness dissipates until you reach a state of being catatonic.

I think what you just described it the process towards and to nonexistence.

What happens next?

What happens the moment after I actually cease to exist as the animate being typing this post?

 

[RandFan]

I think what you just described it the process towards and to nonexistence.

Yes.

What happens next?

You are going to have to get a bit more creative in your questions. Again, I know you think them clever but they are not. I accept that you cannot imagine non-existence. I find many people who cannot accept violations of the law of non-contradiction, spooky action at a distance, twin paradox, etc., Now,one could berate me all day for not being able to get them to imagine quantum effects and relativity. Their lack of imagination would not be my problem however.

So, are we at the point of arguing ad nauseam?

 

[citizenzen]

Again, I know you think them clever but they are not.

I see them as more "matter of fact" than clever.

So, are we at the point of arguing ad nauseam?

Because now two people have claimed to know something about the state of nonexistence, and I find that fascinating.

 

[RandFan]

I see them as more "matter of fact" than clever.

Ego has a way of doing that. Geocentrism, "matter of fact". Flat earth, "matter of fact". The law of non-contradiction was viewed by many as matter of fact for over two thousand years. What is matter of fact is that thinking something is "matter of fact" likely kept humans blind to the facts. In any event, let me summarize, Things are not always what they seem.

Because now two people have claimed to know something about the state of nonexistence, and I find that fascinating.

That's fine. Many people find those that claim to know something about relativity and quantum mechanics fascinating also. It might be fascinating. I wouldn't know. I don't understand why some people find the game of croquet fascinating but hey, there's no accounting for taste, right?

 

[IDB87]

The OP reminds me of why some Straight Edge kids get on my nerves.

The edgers in my high school were mostly against drugs, smoking and drinking. I never heard anything about food being a hot-topic.

 

[Dessi]

Indicates PETA used video footage stolen by ALF to show severe animal rights abuses in the Silver Spring Monkeys case. I say this is a point in favor of PETA, not against it.

Would you also say Operation Backfire, as one example, is a point in favor of PETA, or against it?

That depends, did Operation Backfire have any connection to PETA whatsoever?

Citizenzen was asking about the ALF. Do you wish to argue that Coronado has no prominence in the ALF/ELF?

citzenzen asked which of PETA's activities appear to ally themselves with terrorist organizations. I'm asking you what the connection is between PETA and the Coronado.

More to the point, following up on citizenzen's commentary above, I'd be interested to know why an association to the guy would be that damnable in the first place.

PETA indicates that some of AFLs actions have resulted in severe criminal penalties for experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

Do you also agree that arson is a violation of the law?

Its obviously against the law. Its not obvious how your question is even remotely connected to my comment.

Maybe the problem here is a simple category error: it sounds like the argument is, if PETA supports direct action, the organization must by definition support every single form of it from under cover investigations to arson... except it doesn't.

For that matter, I know several vegans like myself who approve of a few PETA actions. For a start, General Motors used to perform crash tests using live animals up to 1993. Following tremendous pressure from the ASPCA and PETA campaigns, GM stopped using live animals, crash test dummies were developed instead. This, I think, is commendable. Does that necessarily mean I support the round robin of PETA campaigns, like the highly inflammatory Holocaust On Your Plate or Your Mommy Kills Animals pamphlets? Well, no.

I support action that ensures buildings aren't torched when ideologies like this conflict. I support action that guarantees progressive, and most important of all, peaceful change if there is to be any.

I agree. Arson bad.

Direct action can still be effective. Whale Wars seems put the subject of commercial whaling into the mainstream, there's huge international pressure to cease whaling in Japan, I think their actions have even saved a few hundred whales. This would have been impossible without the Sea Shepard Society (who has that guy Coronado as a crew member) engaging in its own form of direct action. I gave a $300 charitable donation to the group earlier this year.

We aren't talking about PETA's action. We are talking about their moral (and quite possibly monetary) support of a domestic terrorist group like ALF/ELF.

I've only ever heard of members of PETA giving money to the Animal Liberation Press Office, which is a newsletter that publishes articles related to direct action, but does not engage in direct action itself.

I'm not aware of PETA ever condoning arson.

 

[Cain]

As I've said before, I'm a fan of the ALF. Modern-day abolitionists, and real heroes. There's no G.I. Bill for anonymously saving animals.

Anyway, you know who financial links to terrorists? U.S. taxpayers. Our government has also openly supported known dictators. We fund oppressive forces. Does that make the ALF's policies hunky-dory? No. Does it make many people in this thread self-righteous hypocrites. You bet.

 

[jj]

As I've said before, I'm a fan of the ALF. Modern-day abolitionists, and real heroes. There's no G.I. Bill for anonymously saving animals.

Anyway, you know who financial links to terrorists? U.S. taxpayers. Our government has also openly supported known dictators. We fund oppressive forces. Does that make the ALF's policies hunky-dory? No. Does it make many people in this thread self-righteous hypocrites. You bet.

Sso why is ALF so determined to wipe out so many species? For instance, of killifish whose natural habitat has been wiped out by a volcano, but that are kept in captivity. ALF demands the return of the fish to their habitat, which is now a black, dry, hot, rough pile of cooled lava.

ALF simply hates everything. ALF has nothing going for it but hate, hate, and more hate.