Eco Terrorist Now On FBI Most Wanted List

"People resort to terrorism when their voices have gone unheeded"

I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit argument that can be used to justify any form of extremism (including religious) and justify any actions because they aren't getting their way.

lucidstone--I'm sorry, but I was neither positing an argument nor attempting to justify anything...I was merely stating a fact, a cause and effect relationship.

Therefore, according to your logic, stating that a toothbrush can be used to gouge another person's eye out is a justification of said behavior.

Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.

A dictionary hardly covers every aspect of a term, it is only useful for telling a basic outline, and how to use it in a sentence, it hardly covers cultural and personal perspectives. Which, from case to case, can change everything on weather or not someone is a terrorist to a group of people.

the term of terrorist is opinionated, don't get me wrong, this guy broke the law, destroyed property and should be charged with making an illegal destructive device, and for premeditated destruction of property...but he should not be charged with an opinionated term.

I personally don't like the "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" defense.

Whether or not people want to justify the actions is one thing (and a questionable thing at that), but the core definition of terrorism is pretty solid despite any "cultural factors" and I'm surprised people are even arguing about this.

According to the definitions (from multiple established dictionaries) these bombings are an act of terrorism . . . and that doesn't get any clearer when I can read VERBATIM what he allegedly did in the definition itself.

I'm honestly stunned people are arguing over whether or not this definition fits.

And personally, if I was an "animal rights" guy I would avoid this issue like it was the plague and agree it's terrorism, condemn it, and move on.

I really don't think that having this as the poster child for the animal rights activists is going to help them at all.

We're trying to have an honest discussion about it, not simply tell you what you want to hear.

Any act of war, however defensive, could fall under a literalist definition of terrorism. But people tend to draw a line, as they don't consider the defense of innocents as "coercive," rather forceful resistance to coercion.

Fair point numinant, and so far I think it's been a good discussion. =)

And I wouldn't want people to tell me what they'd think I'd want to hear . . . after all, no one ever learned anything by preaching to the quire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, Saladin sort of hijacked my convo in the other section (which is cool), so I just let it go since he was making the same point that I would have made.

But to answer your question in regards to Princess Mononoke, I got from it the enjoyment of magic in nature and I've always believed that nature needs to be protected in many regards (I personally live a minimalist, anti-consumerism lifestyle and I practice "leave no trace" backpacking) . . . though that doesn't lead me to the same conclusions as a lot of the "greenies" on this site.

(and just to clarify because it's open to misinterpretation . . . I enjoy the "concept" of magic in nature, but I don't logically believe in magic and I don't believe in the "sacred earth" dogma that I've seen thrown around so much here on current . . . my sense of the magic in nature is more of the feeling of wonder it provokes, if that makes any sense.)

"not a danger to others"?

If the guy messed up somewhere in his planning . . . he could have killed someone, regardless if he meant to or not.

What if there was a late night janitor that he didn't know about? Or anyone else that was going to be unexpectedly arriving to do some work after hours?

I agree that he had no intentions to cause anyone physical harm . . . but I really disagree with that statement, this guy is definitely a danger to the public.

I'd say the golden rule remains pretty clear. If it's submerged in murky water, it resides in our minds. As does the notion that animals are inferior to us.

The notion that animals are equal to humans ALSO resides in our minds.

A point worth remembering before people start blowing up buildings.

Not really. We're more or less inherently equal until we begin projecting our conceptions of hierarchy (and attribute, by the way, that's located in the more primitive parts of our brains).

Strange avatar, by the way. Just what was the message that you took away from Princess Mononoke?

I'm sure you don't mourn and hold a funeral when you swat a mosquito numinant.

Nor do we have much sympathy for bacteria, parasites or other pestersome creatures.

It's all nice and cute to pretend like you don't have an animal hierarchy, but you do. You just have set it in a different place than most people have.

I never claimed that it didn't factor into my worldview. However, I do make an effort to at least be aware of it.

It's also very hard to empathize with a mosquito. At the same time, instantaneously killing a mosquito isn't going to cause any suffering, for itself or others.

Now, bacteria and parasites and the like have no way, that we know of, to experience, lacking a nervous system, so there's really no reason that I can see to show them the sort of respect you would for another mammal, say.

But you have a valid enough point.

:)

As usual, you missed the point entirely libero.

The point is people care more about certain animals than others.

You care more about say, sentient chimpanzees than you do say about poisonous toads.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Oh why do I even bother? You're just a fucking propagandist, you don't care to think about this stuff on anything but a superficial level.

Numinant and I may not agree like 90% of the time and he may not like me, but at least we think about this shit and can concede points when we're proven wrong.

Never seen you do that. I wonder why?

I conceded that you had a point, but not that I was wrong. And just because we habitually give preferential treatment to one species over another doesn't mean it's justified. Although it is important to recognize differences among different species, we make a habit of also applying double standards.

What I wish people would consider is, how would YOU feel if you were that specific creature. If you were a chimpanzee, you wouldn't appreciate being vivisected. If you were a mosquito, I'm sure you'd hate to have your legs pulled out by a sadistic toddler, but if you were suddenly squished, I don't think you'd notice, and as a solitary creature, it's not as if you'd leave a widow and dependent offspring behind.

So it isn't that one creature is superior or inferior to another, but that different animals have varying interests, and those interests should be respected.

The biggest barrier to putting yourself in an animal's shoes is trying to figure out the format which the specific animal thinks in.

How much does the animal understand? Does it think at best like we think while in dream state? Does it have any sense of self? Does it think in symbols or does it think in pure stimulatory impulses based off of base emotions? And so on . . .

I try and think about all of these variables when trying to put myself in an animal's shoes . . . though I am unsure as to what to degree each variable is true or not.

I would caution against people just putting themselves into the shoes of animals as I think this runs the risk of anthropomorphizing, and will give a jaded sense of reality by default. The problem, I think, is much more complex . . . at least from my point of view.

Btw to Saladin, you're not alone in suspecting said person of being a propagandist . . . though in my mind it's still an open possibility either way.

And how would you feel if you were a parasite that was hideously murdered by prescribed medicine! Huh?! Huh?!

Oh that doesn't apply right because parasites can't feel anything?

Uh oh, looks like we've found the bottom of the hierarchy.

Sentient or semi-sentient creatures that can feel pain and remember it should not be harmed. That's usually fucked up. But a mosquito? Dude it hardly KNOWS the difference between when one of its legs is attached and when it's not.

Lucid summarized it above, you cannot transfer human characteristics to things that aren't human. You have no idea how they think or feel, if they think or feel at all.

Look, the bottom line is that the natural world is to be respected, but not given the same treatment as human beings.

A cobra is not your friend. If a hundred of them live in your backyard, it's really not a bad thing to kill them all to ensure your safety.

Your existence in a civilized society ensures situations like that, it's impossible to live like we do and still support a large animal population. So shouldn't you apply this standard to yourself? Simply by choosing to exist in an industrial country with a large population, you are responsible for mass extinction.

That's not a question of how much we care, it's just a basic fact of resources. More of us equals less of them.

And really, there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that animals need to be respected more and there's certainly a deficit of that attitude around today. But we DO come first, and when it comes to a situation like that I guarantee you you're not going to sacrifice yourself to save some animals.

It's not that I don't care. I volunteer at an animal shelter, I do care. It's that I recognize these facts and my experience with animals has made me understand that you need to apply different moral standards with each of them. You can't treat a cat the same way you treat a python etc.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, don't confuse my standard for animals as a pro-cruelty argument.

A cobra is not an animal?

Oooooook, then. I'm guessing you only think only mammals are animals.

SOMEBODY'S an animal fascist.

animalia, open up a biology book.

Many parasites are insects, including the ones discussed, and insects fall under the animal kingdom (and they have a nervous system).

Seriously, as a representative of the animal rights activists . . . you really should be better informed academically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insecta

[edit] I also think it's almost comical that someone with the name animalia_libero is going to discriminate against the most diverse class of "animalia" on the planet . . . just saying.

"And who's to say he wouldn't kill somebody if this method didn't work?"

Exactly. What if someone wasnt able to evacuate the building in time? There are examples of people who were killed in abortion clinic bombings after receiving a warning. Terrorism is terrorism even if it has a nice friendly face on it.

"Anyone who thinks animal testing to save humans is right needs to donate themselves to be "tested to destruction" so some "human" can have tear free make-up."

Ok well maybe you should strip naked and live with the animals then because you obviously value you them more than you do your own species. Personally id rather have medication tested on animals who are not sentient than people. Maybe im just a "crazy" human lover though.

"Same with "Police Officers" who shoot a dog because they were scared. Fuck all you little pussies who are scared of a dog. They aren't very big and they have no thumbs."

Yeah too bad dogs have strong jaws and razor sharp teeth to bite the shit out of you with. This goes double for guard dogs. Would you feel better if the cops just clubbed the animal to death rather than shoot it?

This person who replied to me is getting their info from the preacher and their imaginary friend in the sky. What a dumbshit. Yes, I do believe animals should have the same right not to be tortured as a human. And yes, Anyone who is scared of a dog while carrying mace and a gun is a fucking PUSSY. And you are a retard for thinking like a 5 year old. WAAAA!! the big bad scary doggie might bite me. Boo-Hoo you stupid fuck. Go play with your diaper pins.

For the sake of argument I would refine my statement to "Any civilian or group of civilians that bombs a building for ideological or political goals is a terrorist" . . . but you really are getting into semantics over what is state sanctioned war between states, terrorist actions by a state that coerce the population through violence, and what are the terrorist actions of rogue civilian groups.

So let's concentrate on this specific case.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
terrorism
n. 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.
-American Heritage Dictionary

terrorism
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
-dictionary.com

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

The definition is pretty clear cut, this particular action is a case of terrorism. You don't have to kill people to be a terrorist, you only have to use violence and/or the threat of violence for political or ideological goals (like animal rights).

Yes, this was a well thought out "protest" that incorporated violence and destruction as a means of coercing people to give in to the group's demands . . . and that is the very essence of the definition of terrorism.

I do see where you are coming from and it is a thin line. But this is in response to the lack of laws that allow companies to do as they please. We could say vandalism is terrorism too, but we know it is not. Sometimes resorting to violence is all that is left. Most people, and I say "most" that are in this mindset will do their homework and see to it that nobody is hurt, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the act. He was not targeting any person or persons to physically hurt, he stood up and acted for himself (and many others who feel the same way but don't do anything about it),on an issue that needs addressing. Not an evil agenda, but a morally sound purpose.

You gave links as an example, I have links too, well I only fetched 1 because this is not a conversation that should be based on what others say. Anyone can spin their own answers and stories. But this is short and to the point, so check it out: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004526.html

A lot of things could be construed as terrorism, but they just are not terrorism. There are just times when people need to stand against what is wrong. Just because the law says one thing, doesn't make it the right thing. Things get changed by our actions, and when we just let the powers that be lead us, things don't always go the way they should, as we see with so many issues right now. Slavery used to be common. Women used to not be able to vote. Blacks were treated as secondary citizens. Those are just a few items that off the top of my head used to be law. Would you stand against those laws? They are wrong. But they changed; because people stood up against the laws. And broke the laws. The laws are still learning, and the laws will still change if we keep standing up to them.

Check out a book called: Eco-Defense: A field Guide To Monkeywrenching. It is not about terror. It is somewhat what this guy is. A Monkey Wrencher.

That was much longer than I anticipated... oh well.

After all this posting, what this conversation is really about is: does he deserve to be "FBI's Most Wanted"? no.

I would absolutely love to see an endeavor by activists to peacefully change the laws. However, society will and must draw the line here, if nowhere else.

We can not have every extreme ideology be "justified" in bombing something because they "feel" that is the only avenue left to them. Society will not and must not accept this.

I briefly skimmed your link since I saw that it was related to AETA, and I've already read that legislation first hand (since it's been brought up before in another thread) and would agree that in some aspects it is to broad in what it classifies as terrorism.

So, on that I would definitely agree with you to a point . . . and say that is a very valid point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

However, this particular case is NOT vague:

n. 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.

That describes EXACTLY what this man allegedly did, and if the shoe fits . . . I mean, come on.

The bottom line is, is that we have laws in this country so that people will not take justice into their own hands. Society can not support vigilantism, and I personally won't support it at all . . . and that's the problem with the quote/unquote "eco-terrorist", they're breaking the laws and trying to take justice DIRECTLY into their own hands.

But thank you for not just sticking to talking points like another person on this thread and demonstrating a thoughtful mind. I really believe it's important that this is an honest discussion and not just the delivery of propaganda from either side, so I do appreciate that. =)

agree with MonkeyWrench...the real argument here is does he deserve to be on FBI's most wanted list...HELL NO!

of course we cannot ignore the fact that the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party were also on King George's Most Wanted List, and their's was a similar act of property destruction attempting to make a statement to a government that refused to listen...

That was fun... too bad it even needed to be a topic, but at least (most) everyone was respectful in their responses. I can see both sides; although this "terrorist" does not belong in the FBI's Most Wanted, but I still side with taking action against what needs to be changed. These companies should not be torturing animals, especially for reasons of vanity. Things change by people standing up. The government won't always have our best interest in mind, so sometimes we need to let them know we are here.
A great song "Fourteen Black Paintings" by Peter Gabriel. Check out the lyrics.

2nd paragraph:
"Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California."

Here's more details from CNN:
"The sophisticated homemade bombs had ammonium nitrate brand explosives and relied on 'kitchen timer style mechanical timer devices,' according to an FBI affidavit. After both bombings, e-mails from a group called 'The Revolutionary Cells-Liberation Brigade' claimed responsibility for the acts."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/21/fbi.domestic.terror.suspect/

No, needs to be more specific.

Anyone who targets CIVILIAN infrastructure (or people) for the purpose of coercing governments to adopt policies is a terrorist.

If you're bombing military buildings, you're not a terrorist.

I'll concede (like I did to Monkeywrench) that my statement was to broad not to exempt military actions.

However, if you are a civilian bombing a military/government building, you are still a terrorist. That William Heirs guy was in fact a terrorist for bombing the Pentagon . . . and also the guy that bombed the FBI building in Oklahoma City was also legitimately a terrorist.

The disclaimer I think you were referring to is if the military attacks a military building.

There is also a vague line between civilian resistance groups in occupied countries and terrorist groups . . . and in that case, if the groups stuck to military targets then they wouldn't be terrorists. (that might also have been what you were getting at).

However, no military/government bases or buildings are legitimate targets in the US since this isn't an occupied country at war.

But thanks for not letting me get away with an overly broad statement, it was incorrect as it stood. =)

fuck that, our armed forces are terrorists to the civilian Iraqis who die every day.

all armed forces are terrorists, they just wear uniforms.

You're right, the word terrorism is used quite excessively today.

However, the key is whether or not violence or the threat of violence is being used to further a political or ideological goal.

When the activists begin to engage in violence or making threats of violence . . . they are becoming terrorists.

Pharm companies would not be terrorists if they are not engaging violence (or threats of) to further a "political or ideological" goal.

If they commit heinous crimes against humanity in the name of greed, then that is not terrorism but a different and also a very serious crime.

Please, try to be logical/rational in your arguments and don't blur the definitions.

actually, terrorism is not a definable term, as what is "terror" changes from person to person. it is not something you can choose so easily.

Close, but not a true analysis of my thought process.

I do keep logic and rationality separate from emotion. I don't think emotionally. I "feel" emotionally, but I don't let those feelings flood my thought processes. I actively switch off my emotions and then actively switch them on. If that's abnormal, then maybe I'm just weird. =)

(The reason I do that is because emotions corrupt logic and distorts a person's rationale, at least from my own experience.)

However, I don't exclude ethics or morality from my logical or rational thought processes. The reverse is actually true since my ethics and morality are based on my personal sense of logic and reasoning.

But emotion plays a very very minor role in forming my sense of ethics and morality.

Again, more false statements from you Animalia.

I have clearly showed that my ethics are not devoid in terms of animals, they are tilted in a way that is not agreeable with your "personal" point of view.

Rational arguments are based on logic, not emotion . . . if you don't know that or can not accept that, then I entirely give up on you.

I would add a fourth definition: to terrorize in an eco-friendly manner.

Dude, I have that eco-terrorist truck on my shirt!

I can't believe that you would directly attempt to justify bombings . . . there's a line that we might dispute over in regards to what's legit activism and what is criminal . . . but this is so incredibly far past that line, it's ridiculous.

And I would really rethink your statements. As it is, you sound like an apologist for this kind of terrorism . . . and using violence as a means to fulfill the ideological and political goals of these activists IS terrorism, regardless of your attempt to try to justify it.

Your argument is based on the same exact mentality that was used by abortion clinic bombers . . . and it's an argument based on an ideological point of view that I don't agree with.

I reject the notion that all animals are equal, and I for one have no qualms with exploiting lesser animals for human benefit.

Sorry, but that's my point of view . . . and it's absolutely despicable to condone the use of violence as a mean to change a person's point of view.

well to be fair, no one was harmed.

and to be fair as well....slave owners thought black people were lesser than them, and had no qualms exploiting them...

To: Aswego

The first point "no one was harmed" is true only if you include the word 'physically'.

Many employees would have been been financially harmed by not being able to go to work. Then there is the psychological harm that is meant to be the intimidation factor. I for one would be scared to go to work if I was concerned that the person would bomb the place again . . . and what If a project required me to work late and after normal office hours?

The second point is fair and I'll give you that the mentalities are somewhat similar.

My only counter to that would be that we aren't talking about different groups of people, but entirely different species. I personally/ideologically value human life from the standpoint of the degree of consciousness. That is also my basis for being completely fine with abortion.

The brains of various animals have very different degrees in magnitudes between the complexity of their brains, and in turn I believe that limits the magnitude to which they can be conscious, if conscious at all.

But, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I wouldn't resort to violence to coerce people into agreeing with me.

However, your second point was a fair one. =)

To: Animalia

I said the mentalities were the same, not the actions. Both groups of people see from an ideological viewpoint that a gross inhumane crime is allowed to be legally committed and both groups of people feel that it is their responsibility to stop this perceived injustice.

There are also people of both groups that feel violence and the threat of violence is a valid tool to reach their goal.

The only distinction is that no one has been killed yet in regards to the animal rights activists.

The mentality is the same, though the actions differ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As to your question abut if it was humans in a Nazi-fashioned concentration camp that experimented on humans for research:

First of all, I don't like this analogy as you are discussing two completely different things. In my opinion, humans have a much higher level of consciousness than animals . . . some of which I don't believe to be conscious at all.

But if I believed that there were humans undergoing those kinds of experiments . . . then I would support attempts to free the humans, even if they required arms.

However, this is a flawed analogy and I would not apply it to "animal rights" activism. The connection to equate other animals to humans is an ideological one, and one that I don't agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to whether or not is a good thing to "torture and kill" animals over mascara:

Personally, I have no problem with the killing aspect at all. My concern would personally be over the degree of suffering inflicted on what I would consider to be higher mammals, but the line for which animals I would personally want to protect from some experiments is a vague one.

For instance, vivisection on primates without anesthesia I find to be absolutely horrible and would sign a petition to end that . . . but even then I don't value the welfare of primates on the same level as humans.

I don't mean to dodge any questions. I try to answer all of them, though I may miss one at times or misinterpret it as a rhetorical one (as I thought that one was).

PS, I'm now going to look at your video post, so this is a response to your other post.

Good video.

I don't want those kinds of experiments to be taken place on dogs or monkeys. Send me a petition in Current Mail and I'll sign and forward it to my representatives (seriously). But i still wouldn't condone violence or the threat of violence to stop this.

Personally, I view dogs and monkeys to be conscious enough to warrant protection against stuff like that.

Lab mice on the other hand, not so much.

I do demand rational explanations, and my explanations of my moral standards are somewhat subjective. My view is based off of my interpretation on varying levels of complexity found in the EEG's of different animals.

However, since there isn't agreement in the scientific community on that, I can't state it as fact.

you must remember that we diverged from the evolutionary tree into the beings we are today. There is no difference between you and a monkey in terms of evolutionary ancestry. Genetically we are so similar to other organisms that its hard to draw a fine line between what is or isn't human. We share 70% of our DNA with bananas so anatomically we are all made of similar organic compounds.
What causes us to feel emotion which is ironically defined as a human virtue is actually located deep in the oldest part of the brain located around the cerebellum or the part of the brain that is embedded into every single blooded organism. So to say that another animal doesn't have a consciousness because it can't talk is to blatantly ignore the facts.

Why make an arbitrary exception for only dogs and monkeys? Are you basing that on any criteria beyond personal preference?

It's subjective perhaps, but it's not arbitrary.

The part of a life form that I value is the part of consciousness. I don't care at all about automatons that have no sphere of consciousness (like ants).

My personal viewpoint is that consciousness arises from the complexity of the processes in the brain. The biology of the brain is different in different animals, showing varying degrees of complexity.

Susan Greenfield touches on this in the following video:
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/74

(there's also some great lectures from Feynman on that site)

This idea of varying magnitudes of consciousness through various degrees of complexity is also supported by analyzing EEG scans. Dogs are close to humans, but fish are a couple degrees of magnitude lower.

One particular study done in this regard (though I disagree with them in parts and think some of their key interpretations are wrong) was done by a pair of anesthesiologists in Texas.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1201004

(I think there's the possibility that consciousness begins around the FD number of 4 under this data set and then grows as the number grows)

I think there is a very real metric in determining the magnitude of consciousness in an animal.

So my personal feelings on this aren't exactly arbitrary, it's supported by a hypothesis that does have supporting evidence . . . but it is far from being proven correct.

That's all theoretical, and while I don't think it should be dismissed entirely, there's little science can currently do to have us experience another's perspective.

I don't think that complexity is the best indicator of consciousness. Intelligence, perhaps, but not to gauge the extent to which an animal experiences and feels. Other animals with simpler brains may very well experience the world much more lucidly and intensely without having an analytic mind to temper their experience.

So tell me this, if you could hypothetically experience what it's like to be, say, a mouse, or a fish, or whatever animal you deem inferior enough to vivisect and exploit, and found that the experience was no less potent than human experience, would you change your outlook?

To: Numinant

Yes, I recognize it's all theoretical and that's why I don't push the idea . . . and there's actually more supporting theory behind why complexity would be a good indicator (though it's considerably more abstract and academic).

But to my credit, I do have a complex viewpoint on consciousness that is based on interpretation of actual evidence . . . making it a solid endeavor to have an understanding that isn't arbitrary or subjective (though it is unfinished).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"So tell me this, if you could hypothetically experience what it's like to be, say, a mouse, or a fish, or whatever animal you deem inferior enough to vivisect and exploit, and found that the experience was no less potent than human experience, would you change your outlook?"

This is a very good question, and a difficult one for me.

I think my answer to this would come down to the difference between pain and torment. Pain without understanding is just a stimulus, pain with understanding is torment . . . if that makes any sense.

I think some of the lesser animals may experience pain, and experience it rather vividly; but, if there's no understanding behind this pain . . . then I would continue to support the experiments where pain would be unavoidable.

I think higher animals like dogs, monkeys, and dolphins (and others) actually begin to have a sense of understanding of what is going on in the world around them.

If I am wrong, and that the lab mice do have a sense of greater understanding behind their pain . . . and that it's actually torment to a somewhat conscious mind . . . then I would reverse my opinion on whichever animals I'm mistaken about.

But, I think many of us are anthropomorphizing our view of other animals and are projecting ourselves onto other animals . . . which I think is incorrect in determining how animals think and feel.

(For the record, I disapprove of causing pain to any lifeform "needlessly" . . . I will sooner scoop up a spider with paper and put it outside versus killing it and I'll stop and get out of my car to move a turtle off a road that isn't busy; but, I won't hesitate to break out the poisons to keep out an army of ants or set traps for rats)

PS. Animalia_libero, I think this answers your question as well behind why not to protect rats as well.

Lucid:

I just can't believe that you don't feel pain and compassion for those animals.

It Is Life. and Life is valuable. from what you're saying, i would think that you don't believe in sustainibilty either, and that we should just do whatever we want to this planet because WE have a "higher level of consciousness" than our fellow species and this planet. that just sounds ridiculous. I guess you could bring the food chain into this, but that is part of Nature. Torturing animals for aesthetic, temporary, unecessary gain is Wrong, not Natural at all. It's Wrong. Absolutely.

fuck the world, right? we live here and we rule. let's destroy everything because we can. because we're SMARTER!!!

Hi Beeker_b

From the get go, I really don't believe that all life is valuable and that all life is equal (I do believe in at least some form of hierarchy, the value of ant is certainly less then a squirrel in my view) . . . so that may be a source of disagreement from the very beginning.

As for sustainability, I think sustainability should be the end goal of whatever avenue we pursue as a species . . . if for no other reason then it's in the best interest of the human race.

In regards to feeling compassion for the animals, well my compassion is set to scale to which degree I think an animal is sentient.

It's kind of an odd system of ethics I guess that many, if not most, people wouldn't get. But, I find it useful in the attempt to not fool myself by projecting human characteristics onto animals and distorting reality.

I very much do feel compassion for suffering of the more sentient animals. There's a video floating around on the web that showed the Japanese rounding up an entire pod of dolphins, dragging them out of the water, and slicing their throats (just because they are competition to the fishermen) . . . that made my blood run cold.

I also feel enough compassion for dogs and monkeys, being semi-sentient, to say that the experiments being done on those particular animals in the video above should be banned. (which is why I asked animalia to send me a petition if he/she has one, being an activist, so I can sign it and send to my representatives)

However, despite Douglass Adams, I very much don't think that lab mice are sentient beings . . . so I keep myself from thinking of them as having conscious properties . . . and in turn I don't have a problem with experimenting on them.

I may be wrong, but that's my world view, and I would very much appreciate it if people didn't resort to violence to change it (which is the crux behind this entire thread).

Lastly, I don't say fuck the world at all . . . I think the world is in very real trouble of going around a dark corner (and I think humans are grossly overpopulating the planet).

Yet, I don't think we will kill the planet. Life is strong and it will continue to go on in spite of us, in some form or another . . . even if we don't (though I honestly think we'll be able to engineer a solution for the human race to survive no matter how bad it gets).

Anywho, that's my personal world-view.

alright. i understand attempting to classify life situations with an objective formula, but you just don't get it, Lucid. as Human Beings, we have a great advantage over all other living things on this planet. but it is our Responsibility to protect and care and live harmoniously with life here. nowadays, we have no need to test on animals: our technology is far advanced beyond those cruel and obsolete methods. and as far as all life being valuable, it sounds as though it isn't important to you: to each his own. ants, squirrels, dogs, whatever: we should not be purposefully killing and torturing for menial things like make-up.

Animalia, again you are making flawed conclusions.

First of all, not all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are created on emotion, some on false premises, some on logic and rational thought processes that are supported by evidence.

Second, I have no problem with eating meat whatsoever. Like I said before, I'm not concerned with killing aspect. There are billions of carnivores and omnivores on this planet that eat other organisms.

Third, lesser animals can still be good test subjects if they have biological similarities without having th mental similarities. That's a HUGE difference, and a very basic point that you miss.

In regards to the mentally handicapped and the infants, our society demands basic treatments of people of all mentalities in our species. That wasn't always so. In past times we use to kill infants that were born with defects (think Sparta). From a logical standpoint I don't see a problem with that since humans are born seriously underdeveloped mentally and don't yet have the mental ability which makes a person cognitively human.

As for the rats, like I said before: I believe you are anthropomorphizing your human characteristics onto rats and mice.

Your arguments make a plea on emotions in order to substantiate them . . . and that alone is a red herring that something is logically wrong with them, and I'm not impressed with your thought process or your arguments. To me and people like me, they are not convincing at all.

So again, I would kindly ask people like you (since you clearly tried to justify the bombings) not to resort to a campaign of violence and intimidation to try and change our points of view.

Thank you.

to: beeker_b

That is an ideological point of view that you hold, and it's one that I respect . . . but it's not one that I agree with 100%.

I also think you mischaracterize my world-view. My point of view is really much more complex than that you expressed. But no worries, communication is never perfect. =)