# "I just feel so angry that these animal rights activists have won"



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

"In yer face tory boy!" remarked Dave the guinea pig​




> "The activities of a few animal rights extremists have placed impossible pressure on those going about their *legitimate business*," said ruddy faced tory farmer



Legitimate but cuntish, so 'unlucky' my old chestnut.   


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176094.stm


Que the flames!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

A friend of mine emailed me on a different subject a couple of weeks ago and in passing happend to say:

_I was recently attacked by animal rights activicts who sent hate mail, put posters up in the town and put acid on my car because I accidentally bought shares in a company that experimented on animals. I sold the shares but didn't feel safe until I had moved._

I'm not fond of people who do things like that.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> A friend of mine emailed me on a different subject a couple of weeks ago and in passing happend to say:
> 
> _I was recently attacked by animal rights activicts who sent hate mail, put posters up in the town and put acid on my car because I accidentally bought shares in a company that experimented on animals. I sold the shares but didn't feel safe until I had moved._
> 
> I'm not fond of people who do things like that.


Yeah, it's harsh.  But I respect their tactics, they seem to be successful.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

I'm not fond of people who profit from torture either.

I personally wouldn't feel the need to attack that person, although limited liability boils my blood.

Next dig please!


----------



## cemertyone (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> A friend of mine emailed me on a different subject a couple of weeks ago and in passing happend to say:
> 
> _I was recently attacked by animal rights activicts who sent hate mail, put posters up in the town and put acid on my car because I accidentally bought shares in a company that experimented on animals. I sold the shares but didn't feel safe until I had moved._
> 
> I'm not fond of people who do things like that.




Oh really can you answer me this Donna....just how do you go about " accidentially buying shares"..i mean i thought the whole process about buying shares was all intelligence lead..( know the market as it where) could you or your friend be so kind as to explain that PLEASE....


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

Well, if you buy shares in a parent it can be difficult to know what all the subsidiaries are.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, if you buy shares in a parent it can be difficult to know what all the subsidiaries are.


Donna's friend said they "bought shares in a company that experimented on animals" - and presumably a large number of shares if it got them noticed.


----------



## cemertyone (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, if you buy shares in a parent it can be difficult to know what all the subsidiaries are.




Doesn`t that make you kinda STUPID........your buying shares in a company and you dont know the full extent of its business......
i ask because on a personell level i would never stoop so low as to profit from such exploition.....


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Well, if you buy shares in a parent it can be difficult to know what all the subsidiaries are.



It's called 'responsibility'.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Oh really can you answer me this Donna....just how do you go about " accidentially buying shares"..i mean i thought the whole process about buying shares was all intelligence lead..( know the market as it where) could you or your friend be so kind as to explain that PLEASE....


Well, possibly they saw a tip in the newspaper and had no idea what the company did?

Who in God's name are these little bastards who think it's OK to hurt and intimidate people who they don't even know? Who the fuck are the people who act as apologists for these thugs?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

> Donna's friend said they "bought shares in a company that experimented on animals" - and presumably a large number of shares if it got them noticed.



It does sound somewhat unlikely. Time to get better investment advice maybe....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> It's called 'responsibility'.


Jesus Christ. And what is threatening and intimidating people anonymously?


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2005)

Many people who use the stock markets buy and sell so many shares that they find it hard to keep track of the process.  In fact, most investments are managed by portfolio rather than by industry/company specific dealings -- however I find it hard to sympathise with this small number of stock market racketeers very much.

What we have to aks ourselves is _why_ only animal liberation activists seem motivated to take such militant action?  Aren't the lives of human beings as or more important?  I have yet to see any similarly effective campaign directed against political or corporate mass (human) murderers.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

That's because these kind of tactics only work on extremely soft targets like family-owned farms etc - try it with the big boys and they'll just blow you out of the water. Even in the former case they're completely counterproductive and merely encourage the state into more active suppression of legitimate protest and dissent. Hands up who thinks there'll be a shortage of guinea pigs for research because of this fantastically successful action? Didn't think so...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> What we have to aks ourselves is _why_ only animal liberation activists seem motivated to take such militant action?  Aren't the lives of human beings as or more important?  I have yet to see any similarly effective campaign directed against political or corporate mass (human) murderers.


Good point.  I've very up for transferring their tactics to other targets.  Though I guess their tactics are only successful in very limited, specific targets - shutting down one company etc.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

And what entitles _you_ to decide who should be the subject of intimidation? Why should anybody else consider that acceptable conduct? Are all of us entitled to decide to threaten people of whose jobs we disapprove?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ. And what is threatening and intimidating people anonymously?



Low level guerilla warfare.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> And what entitles _you_ to decide who should be the subject of intimidation? Why should anybody else consider that acceptable conduct? Are all of us entitled to decide to threaten people of whose jobs we disapprove?


I feel perfectly "entitled" to decide for myself what acceptable conduct is.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I feel perfectly "entitled" to decide for myself what acceptable conduct is.


Well, you're not. Because what you do affects other people.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well, you're not. Because what you do affects other people.


And I certainly take that into account when deciding what conduct is acceptable - I don't feel you have any authority to dictate my behaviour to me.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> And I certainly take that into account when deciding what conduct is acceptable - I don't feel you have any authority to dictate my behaviour to me.


No, society does. Society has every right to protect itself from arrogant, irresponsible little thugs who think they can inflict violence on other people if they feel like it.

As so often with people who insist on the right to decide for themselves, what's being actually insisted on is the right to decide _for other people too_.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 23, 2005)

A million dead guinea pigs doesn't equal one humans life.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, society does. Society has every right to protect itself from arrogant, irresponsible little thugs who think they can inflict violence on other people if they feel like it.


I don't for a second believe that at the moment we live in a society that has the power to decide anything collectively.  We do have plenty of organised, legally protected, state sanctioned thugs who inflict violence on other people when ever they feel like it however.  How can we protect ourselves from that?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> What we have to aks ourselves is _why_ only animal liberation activists seem motivated to take such militant action?  Aren't the lives of human beings as or more important?  I have yet to see any similarly effective campaign directed against political or corporate mass (human) murderers.




I'd like to see campaigns against individuals and business as a whole using any tactic appropriate.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> And I certainly take that into account when deciding what conduct is acceptable - I don't feel you have any authority to dictate my behaviour to me.


Thora - how do you feel about people who go around beating people up or mugging them? Maybe they are doing it because they don't like someone's skin colour? Are you saying we don't have the right to say that this behaviour is unacceptable?

You are some kind of anarchist aren't you? If you don't like the word "authority", how exactly do you go about phrasing the concept that it is wrong for people to go around mugging and beating people up, for example for racist reasons (I assume you think that it is wrong)?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I don't for a second believe that at the moment we live in a society that has the power to decide anything collectively.  We do have plenty of organised, legally protected, state sanctioned thugs who inflict violence on other people when ever they feel like it however.  How can we protect ourselves from that?


You tell me. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with your "right" to decide that you can inflict violence on other people in the name of your right to make your own choices.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> Low level guerilla warfare.


Glam it up all you like, but the people who resort to such tactics are invariably cowards and bullies whatever their politics - it's not the ideology that makes them violent, just their cuntishness.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> A million dead guinea pigs doesn't equal one humans life.









"Oil be the judge of that yer tosser"​


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Glam it up all you like, but the people who resort to such tactics are invariably cowards and bullies whatever their politics



I would be so sure. The sentences dished out to people who fight this cruelty are _extremely_ severe and anybody involved will be aware of this.


----------



## nogoodboyo (Aug 23, 2005)

I admire DUAF's lighter touch in these debates!

That's all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> I would be so sure. The sentences dished out to people who fight this cruelty are _extremely_ severe and anybody involved will be aware of this.



What cruelty? It's just a few little rodents who might help us cure cancer by dying horribly.


----------



## grosun (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> I would be so sure. The sentences dished out to people who fight this cruelty are _extremely_ severe and anybody involved will be aware of this.



You *should* get severe sentences for doing shit like digging up someone's granny in an attempt to make people change their behaviour. Fuck 'em. No sympathy.

Got no problem with peaceful protest & picketing, & can understand how one might gain a moral perspective which justifies violence etc., but still think it's utterly wrong.

edit:
... & further does nowt to help their cause; in fact prob. marginalises the whole thing further. Much more likely to make people sympathise with the guineapig breeders than make them think about animal cruelty, & the only way you're really going to change any of this is if you get mass support.


----------



## Loki (Aug 23, 2005)

I'm a bit surprised this is the BBC's leading story.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

Why? It serves the 'protestors=terrorists' agenda perfectly.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 23, 2005)

Talking of Animal Fash wheres R2D2 recently?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Why? It serves the 'protestors=terrorists' agenda perfectly.


This is true.


----------



## grosun (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> Why? It serves the 'protestors=terrorists' agenda perfectly.



There's a big diff. between being a 'protestor' & violently attacking people & digging up their relatives' remains. Haven't seen the beeb portraying peaceful protestors in any particularly negative light, & if they condemn violent protest, that's just reflecting the views of society at large, not some crazy-ass conspiracy to suppress all dissent (well, imho anyway! feel free to explain why i'm wrong if you think i am)

Oh, & nowhere do they say they're terrorists... fact, they're very cautious about calling anyone a terrorist, to the annoyance of many right-wing sites.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> Got no problem with peaceful protest & picketing, & can understand how one might gain a moral perspective which justifies violence etc., but still think it's utterly wrong.


Yes, and the state's got no problem with peaceful protesting because it presents no challenge.  If you're fighting a violent system, how can you expect to do so by sitting in the road or supergluing your face to a tree or whatever.  Violence is a tactic, often a successful one.


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> You *should* get severe sentences for doing shit like digging up someone's granny in an attempt to make people change their behaviour. Fuck 'em. No sympathy.



when will people do some reading and understand that no-one from the AR movement has been convicted of this...the police had people on bail for months but there was nothing to convict them on


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Violence is a tactic, often a successful one.


Particularly when employed against helpless individuals.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

> There's a big diff. between being a 'protestor' & violently attacking people & digging up their relatives' remains. Haven't seen the beeb portraying peaceful protestors in any particularly negative light, & if they condemn violent protest, that's just reflecting the views of society at large, not some crazy-ass conspiracy to suppress all dissent (well, imho anyway! feel free to explain why i'm wrong if you think i am)
> 
> Oh, & nowhere do they say they're terrorists... fact, they're very cautious about calling anyone a terrorist, to the annoyance of many right-wing sites.




There's definitely been moves from government, supported slightly erraticly by the media, to narrow the definition of what constitutes acceptable protest. This article seems pretty typical;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm 

In addition to this we've increasingly seen anti-terror legislation used against protestors and new surveillance powers will doubtless be used in the same way. However, I think that what the govt has done so far is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they have planned, and these fucking AR cretins are playing right into their hands.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Particularly when employed against helpless individuals.


There's a difference between helpless and innocent.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> There's a difference between helpless and innocent.


Jesus. You really do think you're God, don't you. How utterly vile.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Jesus. You really do think you're God, don't you. How utterly vile.


Not God, just _right_


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Not God, just _right_


Not right, just irresponsible, stupid and wicked.


----------



## grosun (Aug 23, 2005)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> There's definitely been moves from government, supported slightly erraticly by the media, to narrow the definition of what constitutes acceptable protest. This article seems pretty typical;
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm
> 
> In addition to this we've increasingly seen anti-terror legislation used against protestors and new surveillance powers will doubtless be used in the same way. However, I think that what the govt has done so far is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they have planned, and these fucking AR cretins are playing right into their hands.



Agreed; the govt. definitely seems to have an agenda towards trying to criminalise perfectly peaceful protest; their stupid outlawing of protest in parliament sq. for one. I'm in no way suggesting they don't have a sinister authoritarian bent.

& yeah, I think you're right about the AR peeps playing into their hands. Not sure about the media colluding tho', beyond just reporting what's going on, unless the facts they're reporting in that article are dubious (which I'm perfectly prepared to believe, but would need evidence).

On the "conflating protest with terrorism" front tho', if 'protestors' get into sending letter bombs, blowing up cars or threatening people with death, I think it's them who're flirting with that line, more than the media.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Not right, just irresponsible, stupid and wicked.


Is that wicked in the down-with-kids, actually means cool way?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Whenever you are ready Thora, how about answering this question:  

_You are some kind of anarchist aren't you? If you don't like the word "authority", how exactly do you go about phrasing the concept that it is wrong for people to go around mugging and beating people up, for example for racist reasons (I assume you think that it is wrong)?_

Or are you just someone who likes to be a "rebel" as a fashionably ironic shocking pose while you get through university and before you go off to some rah-rah job in publishing?

Do you even really believe in animal rights? Or is it yet another rebellious lifetsyle pose to piss off your country-sports mummy and daddy (and/or annoy people here on urban)? 

Also, have you really super-glued your face to a tree? Wow! Wicked 'ardcore innit lolooloollo!!!111!!1!!!!1!!


----------



## tim (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's harsh.  But I respect their tactics, they seem to be successful.



Respect the tactics of a bunch of demented bunny huggers. Plenty of other more sensible campaigns they could get involved in. And whilst they're happy to lay into those involved in  experimentation on animals that lead to more effective medical treatments, you never see them digging up the grannies of Dewhurt customers who just eat meat for fun. As a personal protest against this "victory", and I shall also stop buying free-range eggs, and start revelling in the suffering the little cluckers who provide the raw materials for my omlettes.


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

tim said:
			
		

> you never see them digging up the grannies of Dewhurt customers who just eat meat for fun.



there's no proof AR activists dug up anyones remains in this case...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 23, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Talking of Animal Fash wheres R2D2 recently?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> there's no proof AR activists dug up anyones remains in this case...



Who do you reckon did it then?


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

dunno...I'm not investigating it, are you?

but it could even be kids ffs....


----------



## grosun (Aug 23, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> there's no proof AR activists dug up anyones remains in this case...



Weird though... I'm assuming there's at least proof that *someone* dug up someone's remains... in which case I'm taking it as safe to assume that either 

a) it's some loony smear campaign by the secret services or other people with an interest in discrediting AR activists (possible, I guess... depending what level of conspiracy theories you're comfortable with), or

b) it's AR activists.

oh, or the long-shot bet: c) it's someone who wanted to indulge in a spot of munging (or whatever the term was), or just random grave-robbing.


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

or d) local yoof gone bad


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

or e) it could be any-fucking-body!


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Whether AR activists did it or not is a moot point really - many AR activists and their supporters are, whilst distancing themselves from the crime, seem to be suggesting that it is an acceptable tactic.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Whenever you are ready Thora, how about answering this question:


Sorry TeeJay - wasn't ignoring you deliberately.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> _You are some kind of anarchist aren't you? If you don't like the word "authority", how exactly do you go about phrasing the concept that it is wrong for people to go around mugging and beating people up, for example for racist reasons (I assume you think that it is wrong)?_


I indeed think it's wrong, and would have no objection to some mob justice dealing with the problem.  I would love to see a world where communities deal with problems of anti-social behave themselves.




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> Or are you just someone who likes to be a "rebel" as a fashionably ironic shocking pose while you get through university and before you go off to some rah-rah job in publishing?
> 
> Do you even really believe in animal rights? Or is it yet another rebellious lifetsyle pose to piss off your country-sports mummy and daddy (and/or annoy people here on urban)?


I am indeed very rebellious, but intend to grow up and get a job in local government by the time I'm 30.

Actually no, I don't believe in animal rights - I think "rights" as a concept is ridiculous.  I think the way animals are treated by the research, fur and agricultural industries is shit, but I don't think they are problems that can be tackled in isolation from capitalism etc.  IMO the domination/exploitation of animals and the environment is inextricably linked to the domination/exploitation of humans.

However, I do think the AR movement is really interesting tactically, and I certainly won't condemn the tactics they use - of targetting support companies or shareholders for example.  I'd like to see if those tactics could be used successfully against other targets. 




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> Also, have you really super-glued your face to a tree? Wow! Wicked 'ardcore innit lolooloollo!!!111!!1!!!!1!!


No, I haven't.  I was simply using that as an example of ineffective fluffy protest.  It was an exageration to make a point - as far as I know, no one has _actually_ superglued their face to a tree.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I certainly won't condemn the tactics they use - of targetting support companies or shareholders for example.  I'd like to see if those tactics could be used successfully against other targets.


And tell me, do you think that if other people have moral objections to what _you_ do, it would be all right for them to firebomb where you live?


----------



## FreddyB (Aug 23, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> or e) it could be any-fucking-body!



or f. The dead are rising from their graves, she's just ahead fo the rest.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I do think the AR movement is really interesting tactically, and I certainly won't condemn the tactics they use - of targetting support companies or shareholders for example.  I'd like to see if those tactics could be used successfully against other targets.


Targetted in what way? Letter writing, carbombs, really cross words?


----------



## jæd (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I indeed think it's wrong, and would have no objection to some mob justice dealing with the problem.  I would love to see a world where communities deal with problems of anti-social behave themselves.



Ever heard of the "police". Guess what who the community of the people known as "the Uuu-Kay" have to deal with anti-social behaviour...?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> And tell me, do you think that if other people have moral objections to what _you_ do, it would be all right for them to firebomb where you live?


Of course not.  I don't think the police would be right in arresting me, or the judicial system imprisoning me, for doing something illegal (or morally objectionable), that I believe was the right thing to do.  But at some point you have to accept that you believe you are right, and other people are wrong - and you have to consider how far you'll go in fighting that wrong.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I indeed think it's wrong, and would have no objection to some mob justice dealing with the problem.  I would love to see a world where communities deal with problems of anti-social behave themselves.


Really? Go visit Lagos and I am sure you will eventually see someone getting beaten to death or burnt with a tyre around their neck for nicking something worth a dollar or so. I didn't see this when I was there but was told about it in graphic detail by a young guy who had. I could see that it had really disgusted and upset him, even tho' he was one of the tough 'beach-boys' who we were paying to protect us while we camped out on Bar Beach.  

I think you have a very rose-tinted view of mob "justice" aka "lynching", and I can't believe that if you really saw it in action you would support it at all.  

_"...I do think the AR movement is really interesting tactically..."_ 

If you are purely interested in the tactics of using violence why not look at far right and fascist groups as well? Or people who bomb abortion clinics?



> as far as I know, no one has _actually_ superglued their face to a tree.


Because that would be like rilly rilly cruel to trees man!


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

jæd said:
			
		

> Ever heard of the "police". Guess what who the community of the people known as "the Uuu-Kay" have to deal with anti-social behaviour...?


But ideally I wouldn't want the authority of the police/state imposed on myself or my community.  I'd like to see a society where communities are autonomous and self-governing.


----------



## tim (Aug 23, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> there's no proof AR activists dug up anyones remains in this case...



Well there's certyainly lots of evidence that they intimidated and terrorised plenty of the living. Including the farm's cleaning lady.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Of course not.  I don't think the police would be right in arresting me, or the judicial system imprisoning me, for doing something illegal (or morally objectionable), that I believe was the right thing to do.  But at some point you have to accept that you believe you are right, and other people are wrong - and you have to consider how far you'll go in fighting that wrong.


Yes, but as you've decided to abrogate to yourself the right to decide whether or not other people should be threatened or assaulted, why the fuck should _other_ people not adopt exactly the same position?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Really? Go visit Lagos and I am sure you will eventually see someone getting beaten to death or burnt with a tyre around their neck for nicking something worth a dollar or so. I didn't see this when I was there but was told about it in graphic detail by a young guy who had. I could see that it had really disgusted and upset him, even tho' he was one of the tough 'beach-boys' who we were paying to protect us while we camped out on Bar Beach.
> 
> I think you have a very rose-tinted view of mob "justice" aka "lynching", and I can't believe that if you really saw it in action you would support it at all.


OK, maybe that comment was a little flippant.  We live in really fucked up times, civilisation has distorted humanity.  




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> _"...I do think the AR movement is really interesting tactically..."_
> 
> If you are purely interested in the tactics of using violence why not look at far right and fascist groups as well? Or people who bomb abortion clinics


Or the actions of states and governments etc etc.

I don't think violence in itself has an ideology, I see it as a tactic.  And I don't see how it is possible or practical to fight a system built and maintained with violence with exclusively non-violent means.


----------



## Techno303 (Aug 23, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Talking of Animal Fash wheres R2D2 recently?



She was banned. AR29836475 was another username she adopted having caused some trouble before...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a society where communities are autonomous and self-governing.


So would I, but I wouldn't want it to be achieved through the coercion of innocent and powerless people.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yes, but as you've decided to abrogate to yourself the right to decide whether or not other people should be threatened or assaulted, why the fuck should _other_ people not adopt exactly the same position?


But the difference is I'm right.  I'd just have to hope my side was more vicious and violent than theirs.


----------



## subversplat (Aug 23, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> A million dead guinea pigs doesn't equal one humans life.


Well it's a good thing nobody got killed to protect these Guinea Pigs then, isn't it? 

But where does your argument lead? Is 1,000,000 rodents > Someone's Ford Mondeo, how about 1,000,000 > someone getting a nasty letter? Is there no value on any life other than human life, in your opinion? Do you have pets?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> But the difference is I'm right.  I'd just have to hope my side was more vicious and violent than theirs.


Great. So the rest of us, we just head for the hills while the different vicious and violent factions fight it out?

Or do we, instead, have social rules which say that we don't tolerate this kind of thing? And which observe that people who think those social rules are optional are not "right" at all, because they've already shown that they're vicious and antisocial?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> So would I, but I wouldn't want it to be achieved through the coercion of innocent and powerless people.


Neither would I.  But I don't believe people who encourage, facilitate and profit from the exploitation and destruction of humanity or the environment are innocent.

It may be a bit of a cheesy quote nowadays, but I think it applies here:
_“The earth is not dying -- it is being killed. And the people killing it have names and addresses.”
_


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I don't think violence in itself has an ideology, I see it as a tactic.  And I don't see how it is possible or practical to fight a system built and maintained with violence with exclusively non-violent means.


I don't want to seem patronisng, but I would think about this violence thing  a little more.
Interestingly, I was once a pacifist, but (funnily enough, after shooting my mouth off here and getting an earful) have softened my line on violence cos I actually started thinking about its legitimate/illegitimate use, rather than unthinkingly spouting out the party line, which you seem to be doing here from the anarchist perspective.


----------



## jæd (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> But ideally I wouldn't want the authority of the police/state imposed on myself or my community.  I'd like to see a society where communities are autonomous and self-governing.



Ok, so if you were in a self-governing community  with its own judicial system, what would happen if you didn't agree with their decisions...?


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Glam it up all you like, but the people who resort to such tactics are invariably cowards and bullies whatever their politics - it's not the ideology that makes them violent, just their cuntishness.


 Ditto

I don't think you make a better world by treating particular people you don't agree with as subhuman.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't want to seem patronisng, but I would think about this violence thing  a little more.
> Interestingly, I was once a pacifist, but (funnily enough, after shooting my mouth off here and getting an earful) have softened my line on violence cos I actually started thinking about its legitimate/illegitimate use, rather than unthinkingly spouting out the party line, which you seem to be doing here from the anarchist perspective.


It's not just that. It's that she's decided that she's got the right to make up any rules she likes and inflict them on other poeple, all because she's "right". And she's not considered the practical or logical consequences of this _at all_.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I don't believe people who encourage, facilitate and profit from the exploitation and destruction of humanity or the environment are innocent.


But this would make us all legitimate targets for the unspecified action you are talking about here - this reminds me of those Islamist rebels in Algeria who took their beliefs so far that they deemed anyone not in their _corps_ (ie the rest of the world) an infidel who should be killed.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> But this would make us all legitimate targets for the unspecified action you are talking about here - this reminds me of those Islamist rebels in Algeria who took their beliefs so far that they deemed anyone not in their _corps_ (ie the rest of the world) an infidel who should be killed.


 Again the orange one talks sense


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> But this would make us all legitimate targets for the unspecified action you are talking about here - this reminds me of those Islamist rebels in Algeria who took their beliefs so far that they deemed anyone not in their _corps_ (ie the rest of the world) an infidel who should be killed.


Exactly.  Though I prefer the term "collaborator" to "infidel".


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Though I prefer the term "collaborator" to "infidel".


 And you've never participated in the system in any way? Pure as the driven snow, untainted by, say, buying products made in sweatshops?

HAve you become your own target?


----------



## jæd (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's not just that. It's that she's decided that she's got the right to make up any rules she likes and inflict them on other poeple, all because she's "right". And she's not considered the practical or logical consequences of this _at all_.



Thats because you're dealing with a tweenage webel:




			
				Thora said:
			
		

> I am indeed very rebellious, but intend to grow up and get a job in local government by the time I'm 30.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Mmm, but I'm not sure I don't prefer her teenage rebellion to your teenage conceit.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Who do you reckon did it then?



Quite possibly...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> And you've never participated in the system in any way? Pure as the driven snow, untainted by, say, buying products made in sweatshops?
> 
> HAve you become your own target?


Am I going to have to start firebombing my own house?   

I was joking with the collaborator thing - obviously none of us are living outside the system.  It's a totality, you can't boycott capitalism.  But that doesn't mean we don't have choices within that, and I guess there are no hard and fast rules as to where those lines are drawn in terms of legitimate targets.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Is that wicked in the down-with-kids, actually means cool way?



.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I guess there are no hard and fast rules as to where those lines are drawn in terms of legitimate targets.


Well,there's some pretty hard and fast rules. One of these is that there are not any legitimate targets, because you do not make the rules.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> OK, maybe that comment was a little flippant.  We live in really fucked up times, civilisation has distorted humanity.


Really? Maybe lychings and mob justice are what happens when there aren't any functioning police forces, courts or systems of law? In fact "civilisation" allows more and better justice and your rose-tinted golden age before civilisation was actually pretty nasty and brutal?

I really suggest you go and spend some time in a country where there is no real functioning police or justice system. I think it will really open your eyes to what it is like to live in such a place.





> I don't think violence in itself has an ideology, I see it as a tactic.  And I don't see how it is possible or practical to fight a system built and maintained with violence with exclusively non-violent means.


What is the most violent thing you have ever done or had done to you? I am not a pacifist - in fact I supported the military invasion of Iraq. However, when it comes down to guinea pigs or wanting to persuade the UK public to support my political ideas, I am not interested in picking up a gun - I don't even have fights down the pub if someone starts behaving like a cunt. I will support force if it is proportionate, necessary, aimed at valid targets, for the purpose of valid objectives and there are no viable alternatives that will achieve a similar result. Your advocacy of violence as a valid tactic and your "flippant" comments about "mob justice" suggest that you neither are involved in using violence and force in a serious way nor have really thought it thought in any serious and coherent way. It sounds like you are parrotting a load of "rebel" verbiage as some kind of pose or role-play where you see yourself as some dashing anti-authority hero - little more than play-ground dressing up.

You shouldn't wait till your 30 to "grow up": you should grow up now.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Well,there's some pretty hard and fast rules. One of these is that there are not any legitimate targets, because you do not make the rules.


I disagree with you on that.  Who does make those rules?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I disagree with you on that.  Who does make those rules?


Not you. That's point A. _Not you_. You live in a society and until and unless you are prepared to live outside that society, you do not inflict your rules on other people. Nor do you use the shortage of real democracy in society as an alibi for appointing yourself as rule maker. You are not above other people and you are not entitled to make decisions for them.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You shouldn't wait till your 30 to "grow up": you should grow up now.


I don't think I've been impolite or patronising towards you TeeJay, so I don't see why you feel the need to resort to that rather than just argue your point.

I'm not a violent person - I'm not even very aggressive or confrontational.  But I don't object to violence as a tool or tactic, and I think it's a necessary one - one we should consider as an option.  Obviously its not ideal, and I'd rather things could be resolved non-violently.  But as I've said, we live in a violent system, the state has a monopoly on violence, and I see no moral objection to defending ourselves - and that includes defending the earth from destruction pro-actively.

I'm totally anti-violence, but not non-violence.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Aug 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> Weird though... I'm assuming there's at least proof that *someone* dug up someone's remains... in which case I'm taking it as safe to assume that either
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I don't think I've been impolite or patronising towards you TeeJay, so I don't see why you feel the need to resort to that rather than just argue your point.
> 
> I'm not a violent person - I'm not even very aggressive or confrontational.  But I don't object to violence as a tool or tactic, and I think it's a necessary one - one we should consider as an option.  Obviously its not ideal, and I'd rather things could be resolved non-violently.  But as I've said, we live in a violent system, the state has a monopoly on violence, and I see no moral objection to defending ourselves - and that includes defending the earth from destruction pro-actively.
> 
> I'm totally anti-violence, but not non-violence.



Fuck me the plastic revolutionaries are out today aint they


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> ...we live in a violent system, the state has a monopoly on violence, and I see no moral objection to defending ourselves...


UK law allows self-defence. Its true that the police have a monopoly on going around arresting people and locking them up. You want to extend this right to everyone? You really do want to live somewhere where people get lynched and "mob justice" rules?

You say we live in "a violent system". Where are you comparing the UK to when you say this? What non-violent system or country or community are you thinking about and comparing it with? Is it by any chance a theoretical one that exists only in your rather naive imagination? And in order to get to this non-existant state of affairs you want to deploy any level of violence that you see fit?

_"I'm totally anti-violence, but not non-violence."_

I don't think you really have a clue what you think - you just string phrases together.


----------



## subversplat (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ. And what is threatening and intimidating people anonymously?


"Saving Lives".


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

I've just mentioned this on another thread, but seeing as it is relevant I'll repeat it here:

A few weeks ago everyone in our street got an anonymous letter denouncing one of our neighbours as a child abuser. The person who wrote it claimed they had been abused by this person some years before and 'just wanted to warn people about him'. IIRC they also claimed that the person had bee prosecuted (I might try and find the letter to check the exact details, but the general message was that this guy was a paedophile)

A few people smelt a rat and contacted the police. This guy was in fact beoing targetted by AR people because of his work.

Thora, I wonder if you think this is an "interesting tactic" that you want to defend? Personally I think these people are fucking scum.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

subversplat said:
			
		

> "Saving Lives".


Or, if you damage medical research, destroying them.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Thora, I wonder if you think this is an "interesting tactic" that you want to defend? Personally I think these people are fucking scum.


As I said on the other thread - bet it made him reconsider his line of work.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

Do you think this is an "interesting tactic" that you want to defend?

(I didn't ask you what you think the outcome was: The outcome of shooting someone in the head is that they die. Merely pointing this out doesn't mean you support or object.)


----------



## subversplat (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Or, if you damage medical research, destroying them.


Not really, the people who may or may not benefit from torturing animals were dying anyway, these are healthy happy guinea pigs (unless they've been bred to have cancer or something, which is equally abhorrent).


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> As I said on the other thread - bet it made him reconsider his line of work.


And tell me. If somebody decided that Thora was an irresponsible individual who was giving aid and comfort to thugs, and as a result they came and smashed in your windows and firebombed your house, would you reconsider your line of thinking? Would it be all right if they gave it a try?




			
				subversplat said:
			
		

> Not really, the people who may or may not benefit from torturing animals were dying anyway


Jesus. What a foul argument.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Do you think this is an "interesting tactic" that you want to defend?
> 
> (I didn't ask you what you think the outcome was)


It's not a tactic I'd use for an animal rights campaign (as they aren't campaigns I'm particularly interested in), but it's certainly not something I'd rule out.  I'd be cheering if something like this happened to the chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc for example.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> And tell me. If somebody decided that Thora was an irresponsible individual who was giving aid and comfort to thugs, and as a result they came and smashed in your windows and firebombed your house, would you reconsider your line of thinking? Would it be all right if they gave it a try?


This is a rubbish argument.  I'm sure that if someone shot a copper the police would think it was pretty crap.  I don't see it making them reconsider their shoot to kill policy though


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

> It's not a tactic I'd use for an animal rights campaign (as they aren't campaigns I'm particularly interested in), but it's certainly not something I'd rule out. I'd be cheering if something like this happened to the chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc for example.



I'd be heading for the fucking hills. The govt might let AR wankstains get away with this kind of thing against ferret-farmers and their cleaners, but if they started offing important (i.e. rich) people there'd be hell to pay.


----------



## FreddyB (Aug 23, 2005)

Do peopel here think that the apparent success of grave robbery in this case will lead to more instances of it in the future? Whether it was the AR loons or not, the family have said they hope the desicion to close the farm will prompt the return of their relatives body.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> This is a rubbish argument.  I'm sure that if someone shot a copper the police would think it was pretty crap.  I don't see it making them reconsider their shoot to kill policy though


The point, as you really ought to be aware by now, is that if you've decided it's good for somebody else, somebody else may decide that it's good for you. And there's no reason to take your opinion above theirs. Nobody has appointed you the lawmaker, except yourself.

Before you decide what's good for other people and society, you want to develop a sense of responsibility towards other people and towards society. Chief among the requirements for this is that you are not their master and not entitled to act as a vigilante.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> The point, as you' really opught to be aware by now, is that if ytou've decided it's good for somebody else, somebody else may decide that it's good for you. And there's no reason to take your opinion above theirs. Nobody has appointed you the lawmaker, except yourself.
> 
> Before you decide what's good for other people and society, you want to develop a sense of responsibility towards other people and towards society. Chief among the requirements for this is that you are not their master and not entitled to act as a vigilante.




What if the society we live in is corrupt.

Just because the Guardian says everything is okay really, doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> What if the society we live in is corrupt.


What if it is? That still doesn't mean people want you to act as God, does it?


----------



## treefrog (Aug 23, 2005)

This whole episode does bugger-all good for the AR movement IMO. If the reason they're closing is so they might get a relatives remains back (an idea that makes me queasy) what punter reading that statement is going to think "good on the AR, that'll teach that family!"? Even if it wasn't AR (and that seems very unlikely) then the point is made to the public that AR activists are people with no regard for human beings, the law or society in general. Which will do very little to persuade people on to the cause.

The same goes for other types of activism. Most people dislike the idea of letterbombs, hatemail and, in some cases, murder (anti-abortionists). The more extreme these campaigners act, the more people decide that they do not want to be associated with that campaign in any way, and so public favour turns against them. I'm convinced that these battles must be fought on the opponents home turf, and that activists must accept that change happens over time, not immediately after some minor employee is blinded by a letterbomb. 

Just my 2p.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 23, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> What if it is? That still doesn't mean people want you to act as God, does it?




Will you stop banging on about god, it's called personal responsibility.

The government is in the pockets of the biotech firms and so it is highly unlikely vivesection could be banned.

What was the phrase?? "People who make peaceful change
impossible make violent change inevitable......"


or summit loik tha


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 23, 2005)

DoUsAFavour said:
			
		

> Will you stop banging on about god, it's called personal responsibility.


No, it's not. It's called irresponsibility. People looking after their own behaviour is personal responsbility. People acting as secret judge, jury and executioner against other people is something else entirely.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 23, 2005)

> The government is in the pockets of the biotech firms and so it is highly unlikely vivesection could be banned.



No government can support a practise once the political cost became to high for them to bear. The reason why this will never happen for the use of animals in medical research is the the AR lot aren't capable of winning the argument in public discourse at the moment - hence the counter-productive desparation tactics that they now employ. That and the fact that they seem to be a bunch of utter fuckheads, that is.


----------



## grosun (Aug 23, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> This whole episode does bugger-all good for the AR movement IMO. If the reason they're closing is so they might get a relatives remains back (an idea that makes me queasy) what punter reading that statement is going to think "good on the AR, that'll teach that family!"? Even if it wasn't AR (and that seems very unlikely) then the point is made to the public that AR activists are people with no regard for human beings, the law or society in general. Which will do very little to persuade people on to the cause.
> 
> The same goes for other types of activism. Most people dislike the idea of letterbombs, hatemail and, in some cases, murder (anti-abortionists). The more extreme these campaigners act, the more people decide that they do not want to be associated with that campaign in any way, and so public favour turns against them. I'm convinced that these battles must be fought on the opponents home turf, and that activists must accept that change happens over time, not immediately after some minor employee is blinded by a letterbomb.



Well said to all of that. That's the stupidest thing about it; not only is it a foul way to act, but (because it is) it's also probably harming the credibility of the cause they're claiming to support.


----------



## Spandex (Aug 23, 2005)

A friend of a friend is a stage magician. Lovely bloke, old leftie. For some of his acts he used a rabbit. He loved that rabbit as much as any of his friends - it was his pet and companion. Then one day while he was giving a performance, some AR activists stormed the stage, took the rabbit and denounced him as an animal abuser. A few days later he received an anonimous note saying that his beloved rabbit had been sent to an animal sanctuary, where it would be safe. He never got the rabbit back.

Where they got the idea he abused his rabbit from is anyones guess - probably gossip that they worked themselves into a state over.

And there is the problem - some AR activists are so obsessive that they'll instantly accept any sugestion of animal cruelty as the truth and once they have identified such 'abuse' they will stop at nothing to campaign against it - not letting little things like being wrong stop them. 

This 'victory' can only encourage more violent intimidation by such AR idiots.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2005)

Spandex said:
			
		

> This 'victory' can only encourage more violent intimidation by such AR idiots.



I appreciate your concerns, but are you seriously saying that you would rather that this farm was still breeding aminals for vivisection?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> are you seriously saying that you would rather that this farm was still breeding aminals for vivisection?


Dunno about him, but I am. There's nothing wrong with vivisection.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 23, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> I appreciate your concerns, but are you seriously saying that you would rather that this farm was still breeding aminals for vivisection?


 I wonder where all the guinea pigs will go? Are they going to swamp local sanctuaries and rescue centres, will they be sold for medical research or will they be put down?

No doubt some AR loon will release them all into the wild or something equally ridiculous...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> No doubt some AR loon will release them all into the wild or something equally ridiculous...


They make excellent kebabs


----------



## Techno303 (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Dunno about him, but I am. There's nothing wrong with vivisection.



That is my view too. As I've mentioned on other AR threads - I am a research scientist. I have done animal research.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Dunno about him, but I am. There's nothing wrong with vivisection.



Thanks --
There's a big different between disagreeing with tactics while supporting the aims, and disagreeing with the aims entirely.


----------



## Spandex (Aug 23, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> I appreciate your concerns, but are you seriously saying that you would rather that this farm was still breeding aminals for vivisection?



I don't know all the facts about this farm - how well/badly they treated the animals - but I do grudgingly accept the need for animals in medical tests. I used to be against all animal testing, but having been exposed to some of the more idiotic AR types and talking to people who conduct medical tests on animals I've changed my mind.


----------



## Wookey (Aug 23, 2005)

I went through a blind, staunch AR phase in my teens, hated horse racing even I was that bad. I believed I was right, they were wrong, and that when it came to  living things being killed cruelly there was a tactical excuse for violence. If it came to that.

Explaining this stance to some wise auld get one day, he asked me: Well, if you believe in violence, why aren't you doing it?

I could get caught, I said. It's dangerous. I don't feel that strongly anyway.

He told me that using violence could be understood, if not justified, if you felt desperate enough to use it. But to make the mental leap to this stage, this moral freewheeling, and yet not feel equally as drawn to actually commit the act was a bogus stance.

It's quite intellectually lazy to inhabit that moral ground. You are so affected by the issue at hand, you believe violence should be used - and yet you don't care strongly enough to actually use that violence.

So yeah, anyway, then I grew up. And a huge deal of what I was saying back then was down to juvenile absolutism, lack of knowledge about affecting change, and a misplaced joy at having thought I'd found an unassailable answer.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 23, 2005)

*Well...*

..at a risk of getting hunted down off these boards, on the basis of the pro-animal abusive tenor that seems to be _flavour du jour_ in these parts, I say it is a jolly good thing that the Newchurch Torture Facility has been closed, and that no amount of abusive posts will make me think different.

Tally Ho--on to HLS....


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2005)

Wookey said:
			
		

> It's quite intellectually lazy to inhabit that moral ground. You are so affected by the issue at hand, you believe violence should be used - and yet you don't care strongly enough to actually use that violence.



And isn't that the state that much of the UK left is in?  They accept that violence is OK if used against UK forces, corporations, etc. in far off lands, but don't feel up for doing it themselves.

What is surprising -- and almost unique in UK politics -- is that so many animal liberation people are willing to cross out of that middle ground.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 23, 2005)

barstard scum why can' t the police shoot some of them


----------



## Wookey (Aug 23, 2005)

> is that so many animal liberation people are willing to cross out of that middle ground.



Indeed. And I'd find it more interesing to read the opinions of someone who was actually involved to that extent, rather than someone just philosophically playing their part.



> And isn't that the state that much of the UK left is in? They accept that violence is OK if used against UK forces, corporations, etc. in far off lands, but don't feel up for doing it themselves.



You'll have to explain what you maen by OK, if you don't mind!  It could mean accept it, support it, regret it but not reject it, all sorts. I find it pays to be specific about what level of action you're prepared to accept/allow/financially support/democratically support, etc.


----------



## Random (Aug 23, 2005)

Wookey said:
			
		

> You'll have to explain what you maen by OK, if you don't mind!



Well, the SWP#s 'Victory to the [Iraqi] resistance! for one.  presumably, if asked by an older gent why they themselves didn't go and attack army bases, a Brit SWPer would react much like you did, and stammer that the historical conditions weren't right, that they'd get caught, etc...


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 23, 2005)

likesfish said:
			
		

> barstard scum why can' t the police shoot some of them


you're being a bit harsh on animal abusers here--surely they can be reasoned with?


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They make excellent kebabs


 This is true. I remember seeing them roasting on spits in South America


----------



## Japey (Aug 23, 2005)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> ..at a risk of getting hunted down off these boards, on the basis of the pro-animal abusive tenor that seems to be _flavour du jour_ in these parts, I say it is a jolly good thing that the Newchurch Torture Facility has been closed, and that no amount of abusive posts will make me think different.
> 
> Tally Ho--on to HLS....



What it will mean is a general escalation.  The lunatic fringe of the AR lobby will be able to recruit more people prepared to use violence to achieve their goals - so the government will respond with tougher penalties, with the perfect excuse that the crackdown is targetted against mal-adjusted extremists.

I expect the government will be more willing to improve conditions for animals in such places - to show they care about the issue.  And perhaps it will be harder to open similar new facilities - people will be thinking about whether the profit margins justify the possible backlash.

But the price to pay for this is that it will get tougher for any kind of campaign that wants to make use of direct action type tactics.

Is it a price worth paying?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Aug 23, 2005)

Japey said:
			
		

> But the price to pay for this is that it will get tougher for any kind of campaign that wants to make use of direct action type tactics.
> 
> Is it a price worth paying?



so, the consequence of successful direct action is that the other side might respond? Of course they will--and like it or not AR activists have been at the forefront of creative and successful actions that puts the Last Century Left to shame.


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

tim said:
			
		

> Well there's certyainly lots of evidence that they intimidated and terrorised plenty of the living. Including the farm's cleaning lady.



I'm just pointing out that people are bandieing the grave robbing as the work of AR people and there is no proof at all....that was if you read my remarks in context...


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Whether AR activists did it or not is a moot point really - many AR activists and their supporters are, whilst distancing themselves from the crime, seem to be suggesting that it is an acceptable tactic.



it's not moot when 'outraged of London' is using the grave robbing as a target and talking about it as if it is point of fact


----------



## easy g (Aug 23, 2005)

FreddyB said:
			
		

> or f. The dead are rising from their graves, she's just ahead fo the rest.



it's George A Romero doing it for a publicity stunt....


----------



## tobyjug (Aug 23, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> I'm just pointing out that people are bandieing the grave robbing as the work of AR people and there is no proof at all....that was if you read my remarks in context...




I was under the impression they had claimed responsibility for it.
There was a TV documentary a few weeks ago about the farm and the threats intimidation and violence, the farmer his employees and businesses supplying the farm with goods and services had had. This including CCTV footage of attacks on property which came very close to seriously injuring people.


----------



## Japey (Aug 23, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I was under the impression they had claimed responsibility for it.



So was I.  A few seconds on google brought up the name of the Animal Rights Militia - which supposedly claimed responsibility.  Maybe they have an agent provocateur element to them but at least some of them will be genuine animal rights activists


----------



## likesfish (Aug 23, 2005)

just round the lot of the ar types up and experment on them they won't mind as no animals will be hurt   
 how about Barry horne could you go for a Beanburger


----------



## treefrog (Aug 23, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I was under the impression they had claimed responsibility for it.
> There was a TV documentary a few weeks ago about the farm and the threats intimidation and violence, the farmer his employees and businesses supplying the farm with goods and services had had. This including CCTV footage of attacks on property which came very close to seriously injuring people.


 they said on the news that AR had claimed responsibilty, and that the remains would be returned when the farm closed.


Where the hell were they storing the remains? You'd need something like a big meat freezer or something...


----------



## tobyjug (Aug 23, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> they said on the news that AR had claimed responsibilty, and that the remains would be returned when the farm closed.
> 
> 
> Where the hell were they storing the remains? You'd need something like a big meat freezer or something...



It depends how long the body had been in the ground.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 24, 2005)

animal rights activists can suck my fucking balls!

what the fuck will any of their moralistic preaching and general hysterical rantings achieve?

Someone told me some wankers had a banner on an anti iraq war march saying "animals die in wars too, you know!".

What sort of deranged fuckwit would even contemplate such a slogan yet alone be arsed painting and carrying it around central london?

Im in no way in favour of the brutal industrialisation of animals but the only way we can end that is by looking around at our own shit. How the fuck can we hope to end factory farming when we ourselves are stuck in a fucking factory, when we are reduced to a cost variable?

Anyone who protests live cattle exports should be forced to ride the tube 14 hours a day for a week, maybe then they'd begin to look at stuff in a different light. 

Of course animals are great aren't they, what other sort of campaigning lets you engage in such moralistic patronising bollocks? I mean the animals aren't exactly going to accuse you of using them as a hobby horse or as sad attempt at forming a social life.


----------



## FifthFromFront (Aug 24, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> animal rights activists can suck my fucking balls!  <rant snipped.>




Did your girlfriend run off with an AR type then?

FFF


----------



## revol68 (Aug 24, 2005)

no cos she isn't some 17 year old lil rich kid who loves ponies and hates "capitalism!!!11111!!!!!"*

By capitalism it must be understood they are referring to the evil corporations like mc donalds etc.

I've just never seen the point in animal rights bollocks, i mean i see the point in stopping kids tying bangers to cats tales but I really don't see how people can be so fucking hysterical about animal abuse when we live in such a fucked up world.


----------



## FifthFromFront (Aug 24, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> s but I really don't see how people can be so fucking hysterical about animal abuse when we live in such a fucked up world.



But the animal abuses are PART of this fucked up world.  SO by fighting against them they are fighting  against some of  the fucked-uppedness. Others may choose other issues such as housing issues or environmental, but AR are usually the most dedicated people and actually put themselves on the line for their beliefs rather than just spout shit and go on walk a to b marches.

I'd much rather be in the company of AR people who actually do something than that of say a Trot who just talks a good game but doesn't have the courage to put their freedom on the line to take action against the wrong they see/talk about.


----------



## james_walsh (Aug 24, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> no cos she isn't some 17 year old lil rich kid who loves ponies and hates "capitalism!!!11111!!!!!"*
> 
> By capitalism it must be understood they are referring to the evil corporations like mc donalds etc.
> 
> I've just never seen the point in animal rights bollocks, i mean i see the point in stopping kids tying bangers to cats tales but I really don't see how people can be so fucking hysterical about animal abuse when we live in such a fucked up world.


Top Post! Watership down has a lot to answer for. I guess that was the fucked up and mad authors intention.
Also, when on demo's half our side look like they need a proper dinner.


----------



## FifthFromFront (Aug 24, 2005)

james_walsh said:
			
		

> Also, when on demo's half our side look like they need a proper dinner.



AR has linked groups across the world working in solidarity with others aims. There is little of the infighting, arguing and petty squabbles about others tactics unlike what a lot of the armchair left has. Each person does what THEY think is for the best and will rarely condemn anothers tactic. AR has got the government and its backers scared why else would they bring legislation out directly aimed at AR activities. 

AR has fought some of the biggest capitalist companies going such as Marsh one of worlds largest insurance brokers and HSBC bank and got them to ditch HLS for example.

Alot of the left I see condeming them have done what? Sold a few papers and argued about all the other left groups.  I've seen people who are not AR but are actually involved in doing things in their local communtiy for example saying well done to each and every AR success. It seems to be those that actually *do* things are happy to praise others but those that talk aren't

The only people on the left who seem to be whinging tend to be those who talk more than they do. (from whatI've seen at any rate). These people will always whinge about what other left groups do. Why I don't know, maybe its jealousy, so aren't really worth worry about.

FFF


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 24, 2005)

That's not my experience of AR. The ones I have net are one-issue muppets stupid enough to stick their collective heads above the parapet when it's plain to see that the current administration has protest and DA directly in its sights anyway.

If the rest of the left seem too tame for your tastes, bear in mind that this caution comes in the most part from an awareness of years of struggle and from seeing which tactics work and which don't. Leftists of various hues tried various tactics involving violence in '68, with a far higher degree of public and union support than the bunny-bothers currently enjoy, and failed, so it's really a mystery to me what makes AR people think they're so fucking special.

I must say I'm suprised at Larry O'Hara. If the disproportion between what an action might achieve and the likely response from those already holding the reins of power doesn't matter, then let's just meet in Parliament square now and start the revolution shall we?


----------



## cemertyone (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, society does. Society has every right to protect itself from arrogant, irresponsible little thugs who think they can inflict violence on other people if they feel like it.
> [/I].




I take it you mean Mr Blair and Mr Bush when you say that....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> I take it you mean Mr Blair and Mr Bush when you say that....


I mean all sorts of people.

It's such a crappy excuse to say "it's OK for me to be an irreponsible thug, because Mr Blair is a bigger and more irresponsible thug than I am".


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2005)

I think it's fair to say that, in a variable extent for each of us, we almost all belong to a system that does more collective harm than good to a number of other entities and situations, such as the third world or people in the Middle East to name but a few.

I think it's fair to say that many of us - purely by our existence and no particular conscious intention - contribute in a similar magnitude to those problems as a cleaner does to the continuation of business at an animal research facility.

I think it's fair to say that this incident means the aforementioned cleaner and many like them have been forced to change their lives after violent intimidation, and you have hailed this as a victory.

What then, in your view, is laudable about the average Londoner attempting to continue with their lives after the recent terrorist attacks?

Why then do you not wish to see them cower and give in to those whose beliefs and motivations are as strong as yours? Is it not hypocrisy to support terrorism for your beliefs but not terrorism for all? Whilst I would never compare the two in significance, I cannot really see a fundamental difference with the thinking behind them.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> A friend of mine emailed me on a different subject a couple of weeks ago and in passing happend to say:
> 
> _I was recently attacked by animal rights activicts who sent hate mail, put posters up in the town and put acid on my car because I accidentally bought shares in a company that experimented on animals. I sold the shares but didn't feel safe until I had moved._
> 
> I'm not fond of people who do things like that.



I normally hate animal rights activists but i might become a supporter now  

serves your (friend) right for buying shares, you should have had it done not because of the animals but because you continue to support an economic system that is repressive, responsible for the uncountable deaths of workers and the eventual destruction of the planet. Plus for ( your friend) being greedy and trying to make a quick profit of anothers work.

Class one parasite


----------



## treefrog (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I normally hate animal rights activists but i might become a supporter now
> 
> serves you right for buying shares, you should have had it done not because of the animals but because you continue to support an economic system that is repressive, responsible for the uncountable deaths of workers and the eventual destruction of the planet. Plus for being greedy and trying to make a quick profit of anothers work.
> 
> Class one parasite flying your true colours donna nice one


 erm, it wasn't actually Donna who bought the shares, which is obvious if you read the post...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2005)

Wow.

Anyhow, can you please give evidence for how buying shares in any random company is any more contributory to the demise of the planet than investing your money in a high street bank? Where shall it be kept, under your fairtrade bed?

Can you also please give evidence for how you, when shopping, you carefully research and trace back to source each and literally every product you buy or otherwise consume, for the purpose of examining and subsequently avoiding any similar unpleasant exploitation?

Edit: I don't actually know if he was serious or not, but plenty are


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

So Herb - when are you going to give them the body back?  Bet Mrs. Read will be glad to get some space back in the freezer.


----------



## easy g (Aug 24, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I was under the impression they had claimed responsibility for it.



the police had a call claiming they were AR people and would give up the precise location of the remains using gpsr(?) technology, no more contact was made and the police extensively searched the area where the remains were claimed to bue buried in but nothing was found...


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> erm, it wasn't actually Donna who bought the shares, which is obvious if you read the post...



sorry im attempting to work and skive and read  

same applies to any one who buys shares   watch it!


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> So Herb - when are you going to give them the body back?  Bet Mrs. Read will be glad to get some space back in the freezer.



i was going to cook it when you and dirtie crustie were supposed to come to mine but you lunched out


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> i was going to cook it when you and dirtie crustie were supposed to come to mine but you lunched out


Damn!  And old lady is almost as tasty as guinea pig


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Note how Herbert, in his stupidity, helps to demonstrate my point. He can't even be  bothred to read a posting properly and therefore screams "serve you right" _at the wrong person_. And can't even be bothered to make a retraction afterwards. i wonder how many people have been threatened and attacked by the self-appointed vigilantes _on the wrong information entirely_?

Which is what happens when people think they can do what they like because they're only responsible to themselves.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Note how Herbert, in his stupidity, helps to demonstrate my point. He can't even be  bothred to read a posting properly and therefore screams "serve you right" _at the wrong person_. And can't even be bothered to make a retraction afterwards. i wonder how many people have been threatened and attacked by the self-appointed vigilantes _on the wrong information entirely_?
> 
> Which is what happens when people think they can do what they like because they're only responsible to themselves.



I apolgise, im working its more imporatnt that i pay attention to my work than your ramblings. Follow your own advice (see post 156) i did make a retraction regarding you but my points stands about shares.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> my points stands about shares.


No it doesn't. People don't deserve to be intimidated out of their homes because they buy shares.

Who's more wicked? Somebody who buys a few shares, or somebody who employs threats and violence?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2005)

As it appears you weren't purely taking the piss, can I please have an answer about where to sensibly invest/hold money and how your own existence is demonstrably in no way damaging to anyone?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

It certainly wouldn't include my pension or my bank account. When can I expect the firebombs?


----------



## Andy the Don (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> same applies to any one who buys shares   watch it!



So that will be all of us in a company pension scheme then..


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. People don't deserve to be intimidated out of their homes because they buy shares.
> 
> Who's more wicked? Somebody who buys a few shares, or somebody who employs threats and violence?



Since the shares support and colude with a  system that is built on capital and war, this includes murder pillage and rape of all the worlds natural resources, as well as genocide of indiginoeos populations. This also includes supression of labour and the institution of a prison system. Then i support the minor threat to the safety of the individual. I would not involve myself in this tactic and think AR people are blinkered and this rule should be appied to all shareholders not just those linked to animal cruelty. If you buy shares you are a war criminal in the class war.

So was it ok to own shares in a company that traded slaves, just because it was legal and part of the economic system at the time. 

Im an anarchist and a nihilist i want to fuck, destroy and twist your system and its supporters into submission.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> If you buy shares you are a war criminal in the class war.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> So that will be all of us in a company pension scheme then..



pretty much allthough you really dont have a choice unless you want to starve in old age. Buying shares willingly and for profit is despicable. company pensions are shades of grey as you can be forced into a econmoic relationship due to your employers contract. It is possible to invest a pension in a mutual aid bank!


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> If you buy shares you are a war criminal in the class war.


  




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Im an anarchist and a nihilist i want to fuck, destroy and twist your system and its supporters into submission.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2005)

So... you're a nihilist. Well, that was easy. No more questions, thanks.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> So... you're a nihilist. Well, that was easy. No more questions, thanks.



do you actually understand nihilism or referring to a comic book imagery 

Nihilism is to    for school


----------



## Andy the Don (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Im an anarchist and a nihilist i want to fuck, destroy and twist your system and its supporters into submission.



Sorry cannot resist

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 24, 2005)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> Sorry cannot resist
> 
> Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I apolgise, im working its more imporatnt that i pay attention to my work than your ramblings.



And what work is that, pray tell?


----------



## treelover (Aug 24, 2005)

quite often the path of radicals and such like...



```
Thora posted 'I am indeed very rebellious, but intend to grow up and get a job in local government by the time I'm 30.'
```


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Damn!  And old lady is almost as tasty as guinea pig


was she a free range granny?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

treelover said:
			
		

> quite often the path of radicals and such like...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that's what makes it funny.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

>



Is there some level of share-holding above which you will not defend?  Is all share ownership OK?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Im an anarchist and a nihilist i want to fuck, destroy and twist your system and its supporters into submission.


Seeing as you have declared war on 90% plus of the UK population, what do you think they should do to you when they find out who you are? I know you engage in "revolutionary shoplifting" but have you ever gone out and physically attacked any of these "war criminals"? Or does your fucking, destroying and twisting merely involve winding up people on u75 and listening to angry music in your bedroom while squeezing your spots? How seriously should the security and intelligence services take you? Do they need to send round SO19 or a cleaner with rubber gloves and a jay cloth?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Is there some level of share-holding above which you will not defend?  Is all share ownership OK?


No.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> And that's what makes it funny.


You think you faux-rebellion is ironic and funny? The trouble is you fail to either be persuasively radical or do a decent piss-take of it - you seem to be undecided which way to go. I'd suggest that you either get stuck into some real effective and serious campaigning/actions or that you polish up your 'Cyberdelic' act and create a *really* ridiculous and stupid rah-rah-pony-club-anarchist persona to wind everyone up with.

Irony and piss-taking is often a way that people with feeble and shallow beliefs deal with their uncertainty and lack of confidence - if they refuse to be serious they can avoid any serious debate, by taking the piss out of themselves they feel they have beaten any critics to the punch. This might make them feel better on a personal level and provides a security blanket for their little clique, defusing any potential for people to get 'serious' but it cuts their own political legs off. Of course if the whole point of the exercise is a lifestyle choice - a grungy alternative to being a ski-resort chalet-groupie - then of course avoiding 'boring' politics is the whole point - it might upset the cool 'anti-everything' pose.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think you faux-rebellion is ironic and funny? The trouble is you fail to either be persuasively radical or do a decent piss-take of it - you seem to be undecided which way to go.



Look, TJ, the day you either
a)  develop a sense of humour or

b) do some effective campaigning

is the day I'll start to take your contributions seriously.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Wow! Pamphlets at dawn is it?

I have actually been involved in a range of successful campaigns - including Green Party stuff in London, drugs/cannabis campaigning, local green issues in Lambeth, various other protests, actions, community centres, permaculture projects and so forth. A lot of these things have achieved measurable and concrete results that have directly improved people's lives. On a more personal level I try and help out various people with disabilities and other problems they are dealing with in their life and help out with local community groups etc. 

As for being a piss-taking ironic rah-rah plastic anarchist - I'll leave that to someone else. You're welcome to it if that's your thing - but ernesto has set the standard for piss-taking wind-up personas. There are a few other so-fuckwitted-surely-they-must-be-faking-it 'webel' charicatures around here but sadly they actually probably aren't fake, hence are less funny than sad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think you faux-rebellion is ironic and funny? The trouble is you fail to either be persuasively radical or do a decent piss-take of it - you seem to be undecided which way to go. I'd suggest that you either get stuck into some real effective and serious campaigning/actions or that you polish up your 'Cyberdelic' act and create a *really* ridiculous and stupid rah-rah-pony-club-anarchist persona to wind everyone up with.
> 
> Irony and piss-taking is often a way that people with feeble and shallow beliefs deal with their uncertainty and lack of confidence - if they refuse to be serious they can avoid any serious debate, by taking the piss out of themselves they feel they have beaten any critics to the punch. This might make them feel better on a personal level and provides a security blanket for their little clique, defusing any potential for people to get 'serious' but it cuts their own political legs off. Of course if the whole point of the exercise is a lifestyle choice - a grungy alternative to being a ski-resort chalet-groupie - then of course avoiding 'boring' politics is the whole point - it might upset the cool 'anti-everything' pose.


on this one you really are a million miles out.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think you faux-rebellion is ironic and funny? The trouble is you fail to either be persuasively radical or do a decent piss-take of it - you seem to be undecided which way to go. I'd suggest that you either get stuck into some real effective and serious campaigning/actions or that you polish up your 'Cyberdelic' act and create a *really* ridiculous and stupid rah-rah-pony-club-anarchist persona to wind everyone up with.
> 
> Irony and piss-taking is often a way that people with feeble and shallow beliefs deal with their uncertainty and lack of confidence - if they refuse to be serious they can avoid any serious debate, by taking the piss out of themselves they feel they have beaten any critics to the punch. This might make them feel better on a personal level and provides a security blanket for their little clique, defusing any potential for people to get 'serious' but it cuts their own political legs off. Of course if the whole point of the exercise is a lifestyle choice - a grungy alternative to being a ski-resort chalet-groupie - then of course avoiding 'boring' politics is the whole point - it might upset the cool 'anti-everything' pose.



Whoah whoah whoah - you're sticking the boot in a bit hard here - that's not very nice - I know who I'd rather get ranted it in the pub anyday.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> And what work is that, pray tell?



I work in addiction and drug treatment services


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Seeing as you have declared war on 90% plus of the UK population, what do you think they should do to you when they find out who you are? I know you engage in "revolutionary shoplifting" but have you ever gone out and physically attacked any of these "war criminals"? Or does your fucking, destroying and twisting merely involve winding up people on u75 and listening to angry music in your bedroom while squeezing your spots? How seriously should the security and intelligence services take you? Do they need to send round SO19 or a cleaner with rubber gloves and a jay cloth?



You are a fuck wit with limited a nil understanding of insurrection, nihilism, and wilful disobedience  

Who have i declared war on the state and corporations, share holders CEOs politicians, none of them are from the working class or the unpeople who are the vast majority of the worlds opulation.

Im not a teenager and havent had acne for a good ten years and have been involved in real direct action more times than you have wanked!

get a life get a grip and get off the computer you socailly isolated fool, who lashes out before he/sshe can walk and talk politically. You reactionary idiot!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Who have i declared war on the state and corporations, share holders CEOs politicians, none of them are from the working class or the unpeople who are the vast majority of people.


i've heard a rumour there's more than one mp - and indeed peer - from a working class background.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i've heard a rumour there's more than one mp - and indeed peer - from a working class background.



class traitors shall be shot


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> class traitors shall be shot


shurely "hanged"?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i've heard a rumour there's more than one mp - and indeed peer - from a working class background.


"Background" is irrelevant though, isn't it?  Or are we going to get into some tedious definitions of class


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> "Background" is irrelevant though, isn't it?  Or are we going to get into some tedious definitions of class


eh? 

people choose sides in the class war and some people have blatantly chosen the wrong one!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Who have i declared war on the state and corporations, share holders CEOs politicians, none of them are from the working class or the unpeople who are the vast majority of the worlds opulation.


Unless any of them were so unfortunate as to buy a few shares, of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Unless any of them were so unfortunate as to buy a few shares, of course.


i can think of one former labour mp who most likely has a fair portfolio of stocks'n'shares...

d'you know who i mean?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Whoah whoah whoah - you're sticking the boot in a bit hard here - that's not very nice - I know who I'd rather get ranted it in the pub anyday.


Maybe that's my reaction to Thora saying that she supports falsely denouncing people as paedophiles, that she admires mob justice and lynching and the rest of the bollocks she spouts only to pretend she is being 'flippant'. 

Just as an addendum to my recent experince of AR people accusing my neighbour of being a paedophile: I have found out that his son was in hosiptal with severe depression and/or other problems. He had recently improved slightly and come home, only for these letters to arrive. Apparently as I now understand it (I don't have the letter as it was passed on to neighbour and then to the police) the son was mentioned or implicated as being involved in the abuse (as a supposed victim maybe?).

In any case the son was very badly affected by this has had to go back into hospital. 

I was thinking of this when Thora was going on about this being an "interesting tactic" and saying she would welcome it beiong directed against various executives.

You are welcome to go and have drinks with whomever you want to. I have found that when I have met peope in real life they hardly ever come out with the same kinds of stuff they do here online, nor do they often live up to the rough-tough-baby-eating personas they create for themselves. I'm probably the same, and in fact I don't usually talk much about politics etc when I turn up at Offline, bookgroups or wherever.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> eh?
> 
> people choose sides in the class war and some people have blatantly chosen the wrong one!


Am I going mad, or did you just edit that and add in a load of angry smilies?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)




----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i can think of one former labour mp who most likely has a fair portfolio of stocks'n'shares...
> 
> d'you know who i mean?


Personally I was thinking of my grandfather.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Am I going mad, or did you just edit that and add in a load of angry smilies?


both.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Who have i declared war on the state and corporations, share holders CEOs politicians, none of them are from the working class or the unpeople who are the vast majority of the worlds opulation.


A vast number of the UK population have pensions - including local authorities, public sector workers, trades unions and so on. Most people have insurance policies. These pension funds and insurance companies are the main shareholders on the FTSE. The whole UK population in general benefits directly from the UK economy and the state, and most people "support" this system - inluding the NHS, schools, legal system and consumer society in general which you have 'declared war' on. You said you were at war with 'supporters'. Since this includes generally speaking someone like me - what would it be reasonable for me to do if I came across you, seeing as we are "at war"? Or are you just full of hot air and bullshit? Please feel free to come and tell me to my face: I should be at Offline at the Dogstar tomorrow night. We could discuss it over a pint.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No.


Er which one of the questions were you answering?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

The more recent of the two.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2005)

Do we have a reason why some sorts of terrorism are alright yet?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2005)

I'll change my mind and oppose animal testing the moment these "brave" Animal Rights activists volunteer to take the place of the cute little furry animals in life saving medical experimentation. Until then, I resolve to eat more burgers every time some AR goons pull a stunt like this.

Does anyone know of any pro-animal experimentation charities I can donate money to?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2005)

Jesus, as bad as a handful of animal rights extremists sometimes get, this is     Don't you think the same multinationals would carry out experiments on the proles if they could get away with it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2005)

I suggest you learn to differentiate between serious suggestions and ones which are made tongue in cheek. Still, some nasty chemicals in the eye really does seem like a fitting punishment for people who go around digging up dead grannies or intimidating cleaners.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

Mmm, Nigel, don't replicate their stupidities.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> "Background" is irrelevant though, isn't it?  Or are we going to get into some tedious definitions of class



If i like you than you will be saved  

its that simple and that basic, i make class


----------



## likesfish (Aug 25, 2005)

more likey there do the animal experements in greece or spain or china.
 the first two don't have the same point of view as the UK re animals.
 china will probably allow the use of prisoners or peasants


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Wow! Pamphlets at dawn is it?
> 
> I have actually been involved in a range of successful campaigns - including Green Party stuff in London, drugs/cannabis campaigning, local green issues in Lambeth, various other protests, actions, community centres, permaculture projects and so forth. A lot of these things have achieved measurable and concrete results that have directly improved people's lives. On a more personal level I try and help out various people with disabilities and other problems they are dealing with in their life and help out with local community groups etc.
> 
> As for being a piss-taking ironic rah-rah plastic anarchist - I'll leave that to someone else. You're welcome to it if that's your thing - but ernesto has set the standard for piss-taking wind-up personas. There are a few other so-fuckwitted-surely-they-must-be-faking-it 'webel' charicatures around here but sadly they actually probably aren't fake, hence are less funny than sad.




Im glad you patronise the disabled and the local community you sound like a plastic middle class fuck with who interferes in the community for there own personal gain. Go smoke some weed and be wadical with your flip flop wearing
, yoghurt weaving green mates.

Its beyond understanding that some one can actually back up there statements with action, you have spent to long in your floaty bubble world with right on mates typing on the internet to realise there is thopse who have the courage of there convictions.

I would put you on ignore, but your miserable existence gives me humour and keeps me smiling through an otherwise annoying day of work.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Do we have a reason why some sorts of terrorism are alright yet?



Yes we do, to overthrow and destroy the current system and destroy all its political and social structures.

It is very unlikely that any terrorist group will do that so most are utterly pointless, most are a minor threat to public order or safety but none truly capable of unleashing a social revolution.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2005)

Anyway, ignoring _that_, what you seem to be saying is terrorism's alright if it can actually make a difference. Were the 7/7 attacks therefore only wrong because they were insignificant?


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

end justifies the means


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> end justifies the means


   I well loves you Herb.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2005)

Lovely. Ho ho ho terrorism's funny.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Lovely. Ho ho ho terrorism's funny.


 Apparently so. 

This thread has been a real shock to me, I had no idea that supposedly sane people would advocate terrorism in such a way


----------



## Crispy (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Im glad you patronise the disabled and the local community you sound like a plastic middle class fuck with who interferes in the community for there own personal gain. Go smoke some weed and be wadical with your flip flop wearing
> , yoghurt weaving green mates.
> 
> Its beyond understanding that some one can actually back up there statements with action, you have spent to long in your floaty bubble world with right on mates typing on the internet to realise there is thopse who have the courage of there convictions.
> ...



When you do overthrow the state, you can stay the fuck away from *my* autonomous community, if that's how you go about getting on with people.


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> When you do overthrow the state, you can stay the fuck away from *my* autonomous community, if that's how you go about getting on with people.


 Don't forget Crispy, the community can be autonomous after the revolution as long as it's _their_ kind of autonomy.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> Don't forget Crispy, the community can be autonomous after the revolution as long as it's _their_ kind of autonomy.



Well, that's ok. He'll have his and I'll have mine. Let's just hope we don't disagree over something enough to have a ruck then eh?


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> When you do overthrow the state, you can stay the fuck away from *my* autonomous community, if that's how you go about getting on with people.



if you are a right on hippy autonomous community me and my black clad, roll up smking nihilsts will infaltrate you, breed with you and marganilise your happy life to all we see is chaos.

nah serious id neck shoot you


----------



## Crispy (Aug 25, 2005)

This has put a  in my day


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> if you are a right on hippy autonomous community me and my black clad, roll up smking nihilsts will infaltrate you, breed with you and marganilise your happy life to all we see is chaos.
> 
> nah serious id neck shoot you









"We believe in Nossing, Lebowski. Nossing!"


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> This has put a  in my day



im serious were well cool  

Glad i cheered you up nihilism not all despair you know, if you want to join ill send you the club card


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> im serious were well cool
> 
> Glad i cheered you up nihilism not all despair you know, if you want to join ill send you the club card


 how can nihilists have a club? I'd have thought that a mission statement or club rules would be somewhat tricky to write...


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> "We believe in Nossing, Lebowski. Nossing!"



Mock but you will beg before the knees of chaos and it shall absolve you!

I love a tease but seriously watch it, nihilism is the choice for a new generation....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I love a tease but seriously watch it, nihilism is teh choice for a new generation....


shurely "pepsi"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)




----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> how can nihilists have a club? I'd have thought that a mission statement or club rules would be somewhat tricky to write...



Its a joke bakunin and some other russian nihilists made up delusional and fantasy organisations and issued cards with numbers on very funny..  

On a serious note we did assainate the Tsar and had some success with helping orgainise russian peaseants, some nihilists told the peseants they were officials of the tsar and to bear arm to then fight the state. the peseants did rise and fight though. True chaos.. they (nihilists) were hanged.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> shurely "pepsi"?



If you want in the club you better keep it schtum


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Mock but you will beg before the knees of chaos and it shall absolve you!
> 
> I love a tease but seriously watch it, nihilism is the choice for a new generation....


 I get my knees for only only one reason, and as he's not here Chaos will have to go elsewhere for gratification.

What generation would that be then? Last I heard Girls Aloud's new album was not going to be called "God is Dead"...


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> I get my knees for only only one reason, and as he's not here Chaos will have to go elsewhere for gratification.
> 
> What generation would that be then? Last I heard Girls Aloud's new album was not going to be called "God is Dead"...



we are winning


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

er.... how exactly? And who's we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> If you want in the club you better keep it schtum


"the club"! 

a fine nihilist _you_ are!


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> er.... how exactly? And who's we?



girls aloud acknowledge god is dead... the insipid power of nihilism.

Just wait till they start the propganda by deed bombs thrown into 10 down street by pop cuties.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> "the club"!
> 
> a fine nihilist _you_ are!



Actually the same as bakunin the other mad nihilist who issued club cards the had an action group which was secret called 'hell'


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2005)

well I don't know about anyone else but I'm convinced. Nihilism for all!


So can I can a ci-chi black poloneck as well? I really believe in this cause!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Actually the same as bakunin the other mad nihilist who issued club cards the had an action group which was secret called 'hell'


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

treefrog said:
			
		

> well I don't know about anyone else but I'm convinced. Nihilism for all!
> 
> 
> So can I can a ci-chi black poloneck as well? I really believe in this cause!



if you want i prefer bomber jacket & hoodie, and doccers better for stamping the life out of hippies!


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>



joking asisde nihilism is a serious contact sport, can you handle it, you still in shape well meet and have a discussion at the book fair


----------



## pk (Aug 25, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> the police had a call claiming they were AR people and would give up the precise location of the remains using gpsr(?) technology, no more contact was made and the police extensively searched the area where the remains were claimed to bue buried in but nothing was found...



Oh come off it, the corpse was dug up by AR twats, no question.

The only positive possible outcome is that they contracted some horiffic disease from handling the corpse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Oh come off it, the corpse was dug up by AR twats, no question.
> 
> The only positive possible outcome is that they contracted some horiffic disease from handling the corpse.


i suspect your hope may be unfounded as unless she died of some unspeakable ailment like ebola virus they'll still be as healthy as you or me. well, you anyway.


----------



## pk (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> end justifies the means



Tell that to the Hiroshima survivors, you absolute fucking tool...


----------



## pk (Aug 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i suspect your hope may be unfounded as unless she died of some unspeakable ailment like ebola virus they'll still be as healthy as you or me. well, you anyway.



I live in optimism...

Personnel who handle or come in contact with human remains are at risk of acquiring infections. 

Bloodborne pathogens, infectious aerosols, or other potentially infectious materials may transmit the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C virus (HBV, HCV), and tuberculosis, to name a few. 

Graves registration personnel should receive the hepatitis B vaccine (a 3-shot series which takes 6 months to complete) in addition to the other vaccines listed in this document. 

Evidence indicates that direct contact with bloodborne pathogens poses a significant hazard to personnel. 

Exposure to infectious aerosols (droplets in the air which may contain infectious material) also places personnel at risk, but to a lesser degree than bloodborne pathogens. 

Since a single exposure may cause infection, the best way to reduce the risk is to prevent or minimize exposures.

http://www.usariem.army.mil/


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> I live in optimism...
> 
> Personnel who handle or come in contact with human remains are at risk of acquiring infections.
> 
> ...


i think _someone_ would have noticed an outbreak of ebola virus in staffordshire...


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 25, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> ...my black clad, roll up smking nihilsts will infaltrate you, breed with you and marganilise your happy life to all we see is chaos...


Rargh!


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 26, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Hiroshima survivors, you absolute fucking tool...



Im sure they understand. The very fact that the USA bombed them with nuclear bombs and is the dominant superpower in the world is a striking reminder of state power and the prevailing government belief that the end justifies the means.

How i am responsible for state murder is beyond me. I merely pointed out a glaring fact and a mode of operating for govts and miliatray power.


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>



Probably not according to the bloke with the Stalin t-shirt I saw in moscow a few weeks back.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 26, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Probably not according to the bloke with the Stalin t-shirt I saw in moscow a few weeks back.




I wondered where ernesto was.


----------



## cemertyone (Aug 26, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I'll change my mind and oppose animal testing the moment these "brave" Animal Rights activists volunteer to take the place of the cute little furry animals in life saving medical experimentation. Until then, I resolve to eat more burgers every time some AR goons pull a stunt like this.
> 
> Does anyone know of any pro-animal experimentation charities I can donate money to?




Well you can always fuck of to Porton-down and offer your services there wanker.....i believe it was idiots like you who actually " Offered their services to the army for a cure for the common cold...oops guess what they ended up dying.....now be a good boy of you go then.....do you want their number..happy to oblige....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Probably not according to the bloke with the Stalin t-shirt I saw in moscow a few weeks back.


You saw this bloke the other week?

You don't expect me to believe that, do you?


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 30, 2005)

He was indeed wearing a Stalin T-shirt.  One of those awful Socialist Realism portraits on the front with Stalin in red Cyrillic letters on the back.


----------

