Terrorism in action

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

It obviously works

[G_frog]

At least maybe now I won't get those morons leafleting me in the market square every time i try to go into town.

[1-X]

The security costs were one of many reasons why it wasn't economically viable. It's just a priceless opportunity for some anti-vivisectionist spin.

In November, Cambridge pro vice-Chancellor Professor Tony Minson admitted the project faced financial problems. He said: "....the costs have increased considerably. These increases are due to inflation, regulatory changes and changes to the financial position of the university."

[pablissimo]

Why can't we just test things on the animal rights activists dammit, they seem to be all for the idea in a roundabout sort of way.

We can give them all cancer then experiment on them to find cures for hamsters.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Why can't we just test things on the animal rights activists dammit, they seem to be all for the idea in a roundabout sort of way.

We can give them all cancer then experiment on them to find cures for hamsters.

and AIDS!


word.

[Radical Edward]

Animal rights activists are stupid. if animals really cared that much, they would have evolved to complain about it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Animal rights activists are stupid.

[MrL_JaKiri]

It's a violent minority though

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

They are stuipid, but they represent such a small minority I'm prepared to let it slide.

Anyone who supports any notion of animal rights on non-utilitarian grounds is stupid. That's pretty much most people.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I don't think that is fair. People like animals, that is their right.

Indeed. And I like books. That is my right.

Trying to establish my opinion as law however, is an entirely different matter.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well there is some violence, not really enough to worry me though. No more than your average Arsenal squad.

It worries the staff of Huntingdon Life Sciences, and other such institutes.

They don't like having their cars firebombed, or being sent death threats.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Are you saying that if books were to banned (for example) you would just shrug?

No, because there's a proper argument to defend books, not 'animals are cute and wuffly!'

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well that's surely a matter for the police.

The police are involved. But the AR activists are so generic (they're just regular people) it's impossible to stop.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What laws are people who like animals establishing?

Animal cruelty laws.

Don't be silly on the books point. Banning books is not an affront to books, it's an affront to human liberty.

edit : What I'm saying is, I like books and I don't like the idea of books being damaged or whatever. But I clearly can't advocate passing a law which restricts what you do with your books.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

They are different subjects. i think it is a straw man to compare the two.

I know.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and I don't see how you can dismiss violence by saying that 'it's a matter for the police'. ANY crime would be a matter for the police, so this is a dismissal of violence of any level, and thus your post about them being insufficiently violent is redundant.

[MrL_JaKiri]

http://www.animalrights.net/faq/orga..._sciences.html

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well there is some violence, not really enough to worry me though. No more than your average Arsenal squad.

Was the point at hand, I thought.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes but it has been characterised as terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Looks like terrorism to me.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well terrorism is a loaded term in that case then, no doubt the protestors against HLS wanted to influence society from a broader perspective but were they saying "we're gonna beat up employees of HLs unless the government changes its policy."?

It's more likely to be 'we'll beat you up unless you stop animal testing', which is also covered by the definition.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Unless "who" stops animal testing?

I think it was pretty obvious that both the instances of 'you' in my sentence referred to the same group, HLS.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

but it is an understandable emotional response, much of legisdlation is based on similar premises.

Are there any instances of freedom curtailing legislation based on purely emotional* responses being good or worthwhile? Not that justifies animal rights (if there is precedent, I mean).

I think I'll generally stick to my original point which states that anyone who wants to restrict human freedom simply because of emotional attachment to non-human objects.

* = Obviously some ethical theories like emotivism would say that all of ethics is purely emotional or subjective opinions anyway. And yes, I'm a hypocrite about this * thing, so think of this as a footnote.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And yes, I'm a hypocrite about this * thing, so think of this as a footnote.

I thought you were more for* this kind of thing, as opposed to legitimate uses.





*against

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I thought you were more for* this kind of thing, as opposed to legitimate uses.

Well, yeah but someone was bound to mention it so I thought I'd head them off at the pass.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So not against the government, ergo not terorism, merely harrasment.

Are you reading a different definition from me?

My OED says something similar as well (ie not restricted to international or political action against governments)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So not against the government, ergo not terorism, merely harrasment.

Political pressure is not just against governments. Anti-abortionists who engage in violence can be engaged in terrorism. Or people against corporations, etc, etc. The Colombian government engages in terrorism against it's own people, yet it's not pressuring government per se, etc.

I don't think there's anything special inherent in governments which gives them a special category of crime.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You're blanket, "Anyone who supports any notion of animal rights" as stupid claim thus becomes somewhat unfair.

Yes, people who oppose animal cruelty are absolutley correct to do so. I have no problem with this attitude.

Promoting animal RIGHTS (i.e. legal protection) is an entirely different matter.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I was using MrL 's definition of terrorism, clearly mine is different.

No you weren't

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I was using MrL 's definition of terrorism, clearly mine is different.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. (emphasis added)

What?

[queball]

Dante, what about laws for or government spending on conservation? I cringed at T&F putting "protection of species" alongside animal cruelty but it is the same sort of thing in a way, arguments about scientific value aside.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

it is merely an expression not of the animals self but of societies preference for such behaviour not to be conducted within its borders.

Being against animal cruelty is merely a subjective opinion. I don't really like animal cruelty per se. I also don't like hip hop music. Neither of these opinions are particularly objectional.

However, making a law to enforce either opinion would be wrong, and yes, stupid.

"Societies preference for such behaviour not to be conducted within its borders" is a rather worrying term. How far we taking that? What if society doesn't like homosexuality or mixed-marriages or whatever in it's borders?

[queball]

oh

Have we done the analogy to rocks, mention of Stonehenge/National Heritage thing before? I forget. Anyway yeah those fliers suck, and there's graffiti everywhere (which would be ok if it was graffiti but it isn't), and grr.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Dante, what about laws for or government spending on conservation?

Species preservation can be defended on utilitarian grounds (See my first post). Conservation laws (to do with animals, plant-life or buildings) are best handled through some kind of property type rules.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

They may certainly be conducting criminal acts, this would come under assault and harrasment unless it were to escualte significantly unless we care going to significantly broaden the quantty of violence we call terror.

Well, that's merely an issue of quantity. Perhaps the common usage of the word does imply a greater scale, but I'd say the fundamentals are in the definition, not the scale.

Quite clearly when people say "trying to influence society" they do not mean the whole of society. Assaulting women who wear the Muslim veil in an attempt to terrorise a minority would be a very mild form of terrorism, but still would be terrorism nonetheless.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You are saying "I should be able to do as I please as long as it doesn't affect anyone else"

Yes. And people who wish to pass laws to stop me from doing this I'm not going to like. Sorry.

Well the relationsip between you and a song is different that your relationship between you and animal, the two are not worth comparing.

Obviously everything is different, but I don't see why the two are incomparable. That's merely begging the question isn't it? "The relationship with animals is very special, and it's very special because I think it is."

Since that issue has not been resolved yet you can't blame people for seeking legal regress on one hand whilst blaming them for going beyond the law on the other.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "resolved"? Has the homosexuality argument been resolved? Just because a bunch of people have idiotic views doesn't make their freedom-hating ways any better.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

As for assaulting individuals I agree it is a crime, again though is it terror or is is harrasment, we don't call racist assault terrorism do we?

I would posit that this depends on your motives. Terrorism tends to have some militaristic, or political aim to it, in this case the abolition of animal testing, and the attempt to get it to stop by means of fear. Harrassment is the targetting of an individual or group, but with no real political aim (except perhaps to make them go away, or just be annoying)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes but then the threat is really saying "being aggressively against something in action" Are you trying to tell me that's what you read?

As for assaulting individuals I agree it is a crime, again though is it terror or is is harrasment, we don't call racist assault terrorism do we?

The difference between terrorism and assault (or harrasment) is the desired ends (and motive). If you assault Muslims in your area because you want them all to leave then yes, that is a form of terrorism (to inspire terror for political ends). If however you just beat up a Jewish person because he looked at you funny then no, that wouldn't be terrorism.

Harassment is a personal thing - and implies a personal motive. Someone who phones their ex-girlfriend 100 times a night is a harrasser. Someone who conducts organised political violence against non-military personnel is a terrorist.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The difference between terrorism and assault (or harrasment) is the desired ends (and motive). If you assault Muslims in your area because you want them all to leave then yes, that is a form of terrorism (to inspire terror for political ends). If however you just beat up a Jewish person because he looked at you funny then no, that wouldn't be terrorism.

Harassment is a personal thing - and implies a personal motive. Someone who phones their ex-girlfriend 100 times a night is a harrasser. Someone who conducts organised political violence against non-military personnel is a terrorist.

Bit of a semantic difference though isn't it? I mean nobody beats up a Jewish person because they looked at them funny, they beat them up because they were Jewish andhey looked at them funny. So obviously they dislike Jewish people and don't want them to be around. People always have a purpose to their actions, however shit it is.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

People always have a purpose to their actions, however shit it is.

Yeah, but it depends what those purposes are. Even if your a Jew hater, you might simply do it because you enjoy beating on semites. Or you might have a broader political agenda.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, but it depends what those purposes are. Even if your a Jew hater, you might simply do it because you enjoy beating on semites. Or you might have a broader political agenda.

Often these two are related though. As in you have a broader political agenda because you enjoy beating up Jews.

[Deciduous]

Sorry to jump back a few posts, I've not been keeping up.

"Societies preference for such behaviour not to be conducted within its borders" is a rather worrying term. How far we taking that? What if society doesn't like homosexuality or mixed-marriages or whatever in it's borders?

Isn't that exactly why there used to be laws against homosexual sodomy and why there still are in some countries. Doesn't make it right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Also I've never a book protest against cruelty inflicted on it. Dante's argument before seemed like it was a case of both book and animal being your property do with as you please. Clarification if I'm wrong plsthx Dante

[edit] Just found :
"NEW DELHI: The Centre on Monday told the Delhi High Court that homosexuality cannot be legalised in India as the society disapproves of it.
Justifying the provision against homosexuality, the Centre said: ``The purpose of Section 377 is to provide a healthy environment in the society by criminalising unnatural sexual activities against the order of the nature.''

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well I don't either of these issues have been fully resolved, if they have I would be interested in the argument.

What would you classify as "resolved"?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Isn't that exactly why there used to be laws against homosexual sodomy and why there still are in some countries. Doesn't make it right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Indeed, but I would hope we're beyond that. I'm not arguing what does happen, I'm arguing what should (as usual). My arguments against homophobia would be the same -it's fine as an opinion (if irrational) but stupid to force into law.

Dante's argument before seemed like it was a case of both book and animal being your property do with as you please. Clarification if I'm wrong plsthx Dante

Yup, pretty much.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well that seems like a new definiton to me, departing from the orignal definitio and thus not really aplicable to my original points, but thanks for sharing.

Well you seemed to ignore Mark's original definition so I just presumed this was a free for all

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

That's pretty weak since I followed it and then made it clear how I followed it.

Except the bit about society.

Mark then commented on this, and then you changed your usage to imply terrorists had to be trying to influence the whole of society.

Neither of which seem to be in the spirit of the original definition.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well we taslked about quanityt I posited that if you regard society as anyone or any small group then that seems to deviate from what was the common assumption of terrorism

OK. But are you saying that it's not possible to be a "terrorist" against a minority group (or small group)?

[Deciduous]

Society doesn't have to mean a whole nation, it's just a term used to distinguish one group of humans from another.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

however I believe this is only being applied to them in order to queer the animal rights debate

Possibly, but considering the vast majority of people in this country support animal rights, I'd hardly be worried about their view being somehow silenced.