|
pB0t
Registered: 04/25/03
Posts: 2,556
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists *DELETED* [Re: rogue_pixie]
#2952024 - 08/01/04 01:38 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by pB0tReason for deletion: .
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: pB0t]
#2952108 - 08/01/04 02:05 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Good on you, ditto.
I'm a pacifist ..which means violence is a no from me too.
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2952994 - 08/01/04 05:14 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said: Fetuses can't enter into legally binding contracts untill they are 18. How is a fetus going to make a "choice" about what to do with their bodies?
this gives me hope that there is still a chance for Post-Birth abortions
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: retread]
#2956004 - 08/02/04 11:30 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The whole argument you're making about killing pot is ridiculous, and I already explained why. It's a crop you can grow inside your damn house, it certainly isn't a unique and complex ecosystem that has taken hundreds of years to mature and become the entity it is. You can plant more pot and get the same thing you had before within less than a year. It isn't wrong to kill a living being, the issue at hand is the context, the consequences, the scale and the purpose. There's a difference between cutting down one tree and razing acre upon acre and leaving a desolate wasteland in your wake. If you really don't understand that then we have a problem. You are trying to shove ridiculous moralities at me, which I don't subscribe to. There is a difference between snaring a rabbit, eating its flesh and making its fur into clothing... and slitting it's vocal cords and pouring corrosive chemicals down it's throat to discover what happens when you drink drano.
Here is some of the information I offered. I just grabbed the first few sites I could find and could probably be more extensive but I'll have too look harder later.
This link is about COINTELPRO, a secret FBI organization which was exposed in the 70's intended to "neutralize" political dissidents. Targets included the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, the Communist Party of the USA and many others. http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
Judi Bari info http://www.judibari.org/default.html
Leonard Peltier http://www.freepeltier.org/
John Graham http://www.grahamdefense.org/
There is a bit of a start.
Back to the argument at hand. Yeah, I do realize that ecosystems will tend to rebuild after several hundred years, but is it worth losing diverse and spectacular ecosystems for that long so that we can have toothpicks and coffee stir sticks? There is also the fact that many species require a large and intact habitat in order to survive and many of them will not be able to wait 500 years for things to stabilize. Extinct is forever, and although some species are resiliant many are not. We are losing major species right now, not just endiscovered bacteria or insects, we're talking large predators who simply can't sit dormant and wait 500 years for thier forest to come back to life.
The earth will most likely continue to live after the human species goes extinct (which will be sooner rather than later at this rate.) Personally I'd like to see the human species thrive. I'd like to see us remember that we are part of the earth and not some alien creature placed here to dominate it. It's this pathological desire for domination that's getting us to a point where the necessities for survival are getting more and more difficult to maintain. If we all die off there would probably be a period of turmoil but yeah, the earth would probably restore biodiversity after time and then thrive without our destructive habits preventing that. I'd not only prefer if we didn't have a human extinction, I'd also like to see as many other species survive into the future as possible. If we've got an ecological catastrophe on the way I'd like to protect what I can now so there's a better chance of there being *something* other than cockroaches and mosquitos to begin again with.
The recognition that ecological collapse is iminent is not some wierdo extremist idea that we pulled out of our asses to justify radicalism. A whole lot of mainstream scientists are figuring this stuff out and attempting to wake people up to the fact that we are on a suicide mission. Give it 20 years or give it 200, we are close enough to a collapse to warrant doing whatever we can to prevent it, or soften the impact.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: NiamhNyx]
#2956050 - 08/02/04 11:43 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
As a secondary note, what is even worse than right wing bastards demonizing those of us that take radical direct action is the fucking mainstream "environmentalists" "animal rights activists" and similar groups that play the dissociation game to appeal to the mainstream right. You are playing thier game by agreeing that ALF or ELF types are terrorists and that you'd never stoop to their level. No, you'd rather write up petitions and carry signs begging the right to please listen and please stop doing bad things. It's bullshit, and it makes me sick to my stomache that people who claim to have similar goals are so desperate to appeal to and beg thier enemies for recognition that they would alienate themselves from thier real allies.
What about respect for tactical diversity? What about recognizing who actually shares your goals and respecting that thier analysis and life experience has brought them into a different sphere of strategy than yours has brought you? Pacifism is an excuse to cling to class, gender and race privilege and attempt to associate yourself with the mainstream rather than actually recognizing who is a real ally and respecting people's diversity of tactical choices.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: NiamhNyx]
#2956090 - 08/02/04 11:55 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said: As a secondary note, what is even worse than right wing bastards demonizing those of us that take radical direct action is the fucking mainstream "environmentalists" "animal rights activists" and similar groups that play the dissociation game to appeal to the mainstream right. You are playing thier game by agreeing that ALF or ELF types are terrorists and that you'd never stoop to their level. No, you'd rather write up petitions and carry signs begging the right to please listen and please stop doing bad things. It's bullshit, and it makes me sick to my stomache that people who claim to have similar goals are so desperate to appeal to and beg thier enemies for recognition that they would alienate themselves from thier real allies.
What about respect for tactical diversity? What about recognizing who actually shares your goals and respecting that thier analysis and life experience has brought them into a different sphere of strategy than yours has brought you? Pacifism is an excuse to cling to class, gender and race privilege and attempt to associate yourself with the mainstream rather than actually recognizing who is a real ally and respecting people's diversity of tactical choices.
I certainly wasn't condemning your actions, I admire you. I simply do not believe that violence will achieve peace. Pacifism isn't an excuse for anything, it is a personal belief, I openly acknowledge who the enemies in this world are and believe me, I'm on the same side as you are. "Peace force" - what is wrong with that phrase? I really don't believe that we'll ever achieve a peaceful society by using force and violence, how can you even begin to imagine such a society will exist if you try to achieve it through violence? I think you and I are very similiar and want the same things ... we just don't agree with the same tactics for achieving it.
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
Meat_Log_Smurf
FumbDuck
Registered: 01/31/03
Posts: 1,144
Loc: BFE
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: silversoul7]
#2958330 - 08/02/04 10:38 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Wow Silver have you been taking meds lately? I find myself agreeing with about 80% of what you have been saying lately. Scary.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: New Laws Against Animal Rights Activists [Re: rogue_pixie]
#2969575 - 08/05/04 07:33 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Rogue Pixie, I totally get where you're coming from, but I've come to disagree wholeheartedly with it over the past couple of years. The state and ruling elite are the greatest perpetrators of violence to ever exist, it is not violent to use whatever means are most effective at combating thier use of oppressive force. A non-pacifist anarchist is not using violence because they think its fun or glorious, but because they have analysed the hell out of a set of circumstances and come to realize that a certain course of action is the most useful for the particular situation at hand. I am not jumping to assasinate George Bush because I don't believe it will achieve the results I would hope for, someone would merely fill his space and the kind of backlash that would occur would be insane. However, that isn't ruling out that perhaps a similar course of action is appropriate under other circumstances. I don't desire to hurt any living being, but when I'm threatened I reserve the right to use whatever means I'm capable of to defend myself (and I extend myself to include my wider community. As well as extending self defence beyond reactionism.) If you get to close to a momma bears cubs she'll warn you, then threaten you, then rip your face off if you still insist on threatening her cubs. The same goes for pretty much every other creature on the planet. To deny ourselves the room to chose our means of action based on the situation at hand, due to some abstract morality, is a bad idea.
I really highly recommend reading Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchil. I'm not expecting that you'll agree with it, but perhaps it will clarify why non-pacifists are non-pacifists. It's a really compelling book. I don't know anyone who was still a pacifist after reading it.
Oh, I also didn't necessarily mean that you specifically were the kind of pacifist that condemns nonpacifists but there are a lot of them out there. We like to call them the "peace police", and they're worse than real cops coz you never know who's gonna be one. In Seattle there were instances in which the peace police would punch members of the black bloc in the face for smashing corporate windows, and attempt to coerce them into a fist fight. Seriously now, that is absolutely ludicrous. Hurting a real human being because that person damaged a piece of property owned by the common enemy?
|
|