"No kill" shelters
ta
1. A dead dog will never have the opportunity to suffer through a
lifetime of abuse by assholes who don't have the sense to take proper
care of a dog . . . and there are many of them out there, trust me.
2. A dead dog feels no pain. Death = no suffering . . . Abuse =
suffering . . . no suffering is preferable to suffering. The problem
is that people are hung up on death, which is merely a projection of
their own irrational fear of death. If I get hit by a bus or killed in
a drive-by, I will suffer no more. A dead man cares not. Of course, I
don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead if my
alternative was a lifetime of suffering. Unfortunately, we cling to
primitive, irrational beliefs about death and dying.
3. The only way a "no kill" shelter can be "no kill" is if they turn
away animals. They simply don't have room. Those animals end up in
regular shelters, where they may end up euthanized anyway, or they end
up living a short, meager life of suffering on the streets.
4. Dogs do not have free will or the capacity to make choices, so
euthanizing a dog cannot be said to be against one's will.
Mark Earnest
"ta" <pad...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:22f400d0-fa4a-4820...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
A dog would be happier on the streets than dead.
Think of wild animals.
Sir Frederick
How about "kill" shelters for humans? With 'free will' and "the capacity
to make choices", it is against one's will to not have them.
BTW, I love dogs much more than 'humans'.
tooly
Ever see a euthanasia done? It is very quick, painless. They just fall
asleep.
You know, one of the worst things about growing old is the humiliation of
seeing young upstarts take your place. Experience means nothing after a
certain age. It is just nature processing the old wood, clearing the
forest for new growth. That kind of euthansia is a far worse thing, painful
and cruel.
Mark Earnest
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4Cz6m.22372$he4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Life is quick and painlessly done, isn't it?
iow, it is over far too quickly for us to even get the word "ouch" out,
right?
Fenris
@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
Do I see a volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
--
Fenris
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
RSPCA Injustice Blog
http://www.rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/
tooly
"Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RLydnQVsnObSVcfX...@posted.internetamerica...
Hmm...well, let me see.
"Ouch!".
Nope...plenty of time to say it...even write it.
But what about this other poster...Ferris and his 'voluntary extinction
movement'? I'm coming to the conclusion that my generation grew up in the
pinnacle of human existence [50's and 60's]. If I could put a single
descriptive word on the times...it was 'optimism'. Oh, the struggles were
often hard, but people still had a sense of the future that was more than
hopeful, but often inspiring. I don't know what to make of this growing
self loathing that is being taught in our schools now as a by-product of
liberalism gone insane. It's not just finge stuff either. Anyone who has
seen the recent major movie 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' recognizes the
same message that Ferris is advocating...that human esistence itself is evil
aqnd should be erradicated. I have to admit, the logic confuses my brain
and perhaps has a major philosophic question at its center as to existence
relating to what is consciousness and as intelligent creatures, does our
consciousness carry any greater weight than say a slug? It think it relates
to how we 'value' life...as a product of mind, or of biology [very similar
in precept, but quite different actually]. We know there are food chains,
but does life have a 'vector' to it? It seems a silly question [to those
like me anyway], but our youth seem to no longer know an answer [or have
answered it opposite to what my generation and before might have].
ta
> "ta" <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
That's absurd. Since a dead dog (or human) has no capacity to feel any
emotion, let alone happiness, there's absolutely no way to make such a
comparison.
> Think of wild animals.
"Packs of wild dogs roam America's city streets and backcountry roads.
Lingering on the edge of domestication, they live in dilapidated
buildings, old cars, and sewers— anywhere that will shelter them from
summer's blistering heat or winter's bitter cold.
Some are abandoned pets; others were born on the streets. In order to
survive, these social creatures form packs, scavenging garbage or
killing livestock in teams.
In rural communities, wild dogs attack livestock, angering farmers who
commonly shoot them. A survey by the National Agricultural Statistics
Service in 1999 found that feral dogs were partly responsible for
killing cows, sheep, and goats worth about U.S. 37 million dollars.
Farms aren't the only place where these animals may be found. Low-
income, high-crime neighborhoods in cities like Los Angeles, St.
Louis, New York, Santa Fe, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland, are being
overrun by tens of thousands of unwanted dogs, says Randy Grim,
founder of Stray Rescue in St. Louis, a nonprofit organization that
saves street dogs.
"The problem is only going to get worse," he said. "Animal control
agencies and humane societies don't want to deal with it. It's just
too overwhelming."
The problem started in the 1980s, Grim said, springing from a
combination of increased dog fighting, dogs being bred for
aggressiveness, and reduced animal control. Compounding the problem,
he said, is that America's poorest neighborhoods do not have
veterinarians or animal shelters.
In Detroit, packs of free-roaming dogs have posed such a danger that a
postal service spokesman said they considered stopping mail delivery
to some areas last year because carriers were "constantly being
bitten" or injured eluding vicious animals.
In St. Louis, a 10-year-old boy was attacked and killed two years ago
by a pack of stray dogs. Police Chief Ron Henderson told the St. Louis
Post Dispatch: "They were feeding off this kid. I've seen over 1,500
bodies but I've never, never seen anything like this. Nobody has."
And it's not just a problem in the United States—it's worldwide."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0821_030821_straydogs.html
chazworth
> I used to think "no kill" dog shelters were a good thing -- no more.
>
> 1. A dead dog will never have the opportunity to suffer through a
> lifetime of abuse by assholes who don't have the sense to take proper
> care of a dog . . . and there are many of them out there, trust me.
Dog charities in he UK such as Dog's Trust and RSPCA, have strict
guidlines on who they allow to adopt a dog, they do not supply dogs to
arseholes.
>
> 2. A dead dog feels no pain. Death = no suffering . . . Abuse =
> suffering . . . no suffering is preferable to suffering.
Life is suffering - why not top yourself?
maybe you shoul dtry to get a life?
The problem
> is that people are hung up on death, which is merely a projection of
> their own irrational fear of death. If I get hit by a bus or killed in
> a drive-by, I will suffer no more. A dead man cares not. Of course, I
> don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead if my
> alternative was a lifetime of suffering. Unfortunately, we cling to
> primitive, irrational beliefs about death and dying.
>
> 3. The only way a "no kill" shelter can be "no kill" is if they turn
> away animals.
You might think so - but in the UK this seems not to be the case.
Maybe the USA is too full of arseholes. But these sorts of issues are
taken more seriously - such as human health care.
They simply don't have room. Those animals end up in
> regular shelters, where they may end up euthanized anyway, or they end
> up living a short, meager life of suffering on the streets.
>
> 4. Dogs do not have free will or the capacity to make choices, so
> euthanizing a dog cannot be said to be against one's will.
Humans don't have any more free-will than dog. Line up for th gas
chambers, TA has a solution to all your problems.
chazworth
That is a bit sad. Do you not have children?
Sir Frederick
I 'have' children. They are 'chips' off the old block, insane.
I find the insanity of dogs to be much more 'humane',
thus 'my' 'insanity' leads me to love them more.
ta
> In article <22f400d0-fa4a-4820-945e-dcd2bddcc537
>
>
>
> > I used to think "no kill" dog shelters were a good thing -- no more.
>
> > 1. A dead dog will never have the opportunity to suffer through a
> > lifetime of abuse by assholes who don't have the sense to take proper
> > care of a dog . . . and there are many of them out there, trust me.
>
> > 2. A dead dog feels no pain. Death = no suffering . . . Abuse =
> > suffering . . . no suffering is preferable to suffering. The problem
> > is that people are hung up on death, which is merely a projection of
> > their own irrational fear of death. If I get hit by a bus or killed in
> > a drive-by, I will suffer no more. A dead man cares not. Of course, I
> > don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead if my
> > alternative was a lifetime of suffering. Unfortunately, we cling to
> > primitive, irrational beliefs about death and dying.
>
> > 3. The only way a "no kill" shelter can be "no kill" is if they turn
> > away animals. They simply don't have room. Those animals end up in
> > regular shelters, where they may end up euthanized anyway, or they end
> > up living a short, meager life of suffering on the streets.
>
> > 4. Dogs do not have free will or the capacity to make choices, so
> > euthanizing a dog cannot be said to be against one's will.
>
> Do I see a volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
>
> http://www.vhemt.org/
Ummm, no. Did you read this part:
"I don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead if my
alternative was a lifetime of suffering."
> It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
There is some element of misanthropy to the animal rights movement,
imo.
> --
> Fenris
>
> RSPCA-Animadversionhttp://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
>
> SHGhttp://the-shg.org
>
> RSPCA Injustice Bloghttp://www.rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/
Woody
1. That we know what the state of death is and what, if anything, happens
during it.
2. That we know for a fact dogs (and cats) don't have attributes of
consciousness and self-awareness similar to ours.
3. That a dog (or cat) would prefer death to suffering, or that we can
rightfully make that choice on behalf of another living thing.
4. That no kill shelters necessarily run out of room.
5. That a no kill shelter would permit an animal to be taken to a regular
pound.
The no kill shelters in my city also provide a home to animals that can't be
adopted out because of physical injury or social problems. There is no
similar service available elsewhere.
We kill dogs and cats when they become pests. In some cultures around the
world, they are considered pests by definition. Ours is more flexible in
that a dog or cat can be a family member. I think it's an inconsistency in
our attitudes because nothing about the dog or cat itself determines whether
we see it as a family member or a pest; it's only its social standing that
decides those things. But our society is very much geared towards
convenience and me-firstness and there is not agreement on what status
animals should have in it.
Woody
durw...@hushmail.com
"ta" <pad...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:22f400d0-fa4a-4820...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Fenris
d604b5...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
And your proof that the only alternative to death is a lifetime of
suffering is?
Take a look at:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=183
What gives you the right to choose death for anything or anyone else?
Even in the most dire situations virtually all creatures struggle for
life.
>
> > It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
>
> There is some element of misanthropy to the animal rights movement,
> imo.
>
Not just some element. It is the aim of the leaders of the movement.
The followers get led there step by step.
ta
> In article <64242630-67d1-4cc1-ab7c-
> d604b58f6...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, padl...@nc.rr.com says...
The government gives me the right to euthanize dogs. Since "rights"
are strictly a legal entity, and the government is the body who
decides on matters of law, that seems pretty cut and dry to me.
> Even in the most dire situations virtually all creatures struggle for
> life.
Dogs that are euthanized in shelters are unwanted, un-adoptable due to
behavioral issues, and/or ill/injured to the point where putting them
to sleep is the merciful thing to do.
See the article I posted above on what happens when dogs are allowed
to roam free in great numbers, like they do now in all parts of the
world.
When no-kill shelters refuse dogs, as they routinely do, they are left
to suffer through pain, injury and torment.
Regular shelters are providing a service to society by taking care of
the problem. Unfortunately, this is necessary due to the ignorance of
the humans who created the problem to begin with.
No-kill shelters only make the matter worse by increasing the feral
population and by effectively passing on the problem to the other
shelters.
> > > It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
>
> > There is some element of misanthropy to the animal rights movement,
> > imo.
>
> Not just some element. It is the aim of the leaders of the movement.
> The followers get led there step by step.
>
> --
> Fenris
>
Fenris
501aa1...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
> The government gives me the right to euthanize dogs. Since "rights"
> are strictly a legal entity, and the government is the body who
> decides on matters of law, that seems pretty cut and dry to me.
>
No, the government gives you permission to euthanize dogs. Permission
that can be revoked is not a right.
Fenris
501aa1...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
> behavioral issues, and/or ill/injured to the point where putting them
> to sleep is the merciful thing to do.
>
Here in the UK the RSPCA refuse to rehome a dog to people who are in
full time work, who do not have a fenced garden, who have young
children, and so the list goes on.
They also require all animals remain as their property and can be
snatched back the instant they decide someone isn't treating the animal
as they would wish.
On top of that, animals are offered for a minimum donation which is
often higher than you would pay anywhere else.
Dogs that remain in shelters here have effectively been priced and
regulated out of the reach of many who would offer a good home.
Is that reason enough to kill them?
Fenris
@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
> "Packs of wild dogs roam America's city streets and backcountry roads.
> Lingering on the edge of domestication, they live in dilapidated
> summer's blistering heat or winter's bitter cold.
>
and making the most of the available resources.
What is wrong with that? They are applying pure Darwinism. Survival of
the fittest.
Dutch
Isn't it insane to wish for perpetuation of the human
species even if it means destruction of other forms of life
and the ultimate collapse of the ecosystem? Isn't it the
ultimate expression of our advanced consciousness that we
can wish for our own extinction for the benefit of all life?
I would much prefer the human species get it's act together
but unfortunately that no longer seems likely.
dh
Agreed.
>BTW, I love dogs much more than 'humans'.
There are good and bad in both groups.
dh
pointed out:
>It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
It is undoubtedly a gross misnomer in regards to domestic animals:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We
have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal
People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty
cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral,
practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard
the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling,
and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized
by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and
animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly
endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy;
however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal
values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the
responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship,
food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and
animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
[...]
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
jweeks
I have to disagree with this...I have a friend who recently put his
dog down...His dog had trouble walking.
I went to see him the night before he was euthanized. He did stand up
and he did walk...his "guardian-" my friend was putting him down to
get back at his ex-wife...That morning, Jack was taken to the vet and
he ran into a corner...and was held again and escaped..He knew what
was happening and did not want to die. Even my friend said that
didn't happen with the other dogs who were older and "ready" to go.
You call me sentimental or a dreamer but I do know animals...BTW...a
dog chooses not to bite even it's being beaten ...until he can't take
it anymore...
jweeks
Ditto..Thank God no one put me "down" when I was bed-ridden!!
tgde...@earthlink.net
> In article <d159da2a-c737-4936-af99-
> 501aa198a...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, padl...@nc.rr.com says...
>
> > The government gives me the right to euthanize dogs. Since "rights"
> > are strictly a legal entity, and the government is the body who
> > decides on matters of law, that seems pretty cut and dry to me.
>
> No, the government gives you permission to euthanize dogs. Permission
> that can be revoked is not a right.
>
Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
Maybe you should turn off talk radio one day a week and read a book?
-tg
Mark Earnest
Think abstractly a little, will you?
Often we can determine reality by a little realistic symbolism.
Mark Earnest
**Don't be silly. Everyone knows it is better to be alive than to be dead.
Even dogs know that. Even atheists know that.
ta
> In article <bc4749ad-4279-44ba-9bfa-aa9c175bf412
> > Lingering on the edge of domestication, they live in dilapidated
> > buildings, old cars, and sewers=3F anywhere that will shelter them from
> > summer's blistering heat or winter's bitter cold.
>
> In other words they are doing what wild animals do anywhere. Surviving
> and making the most of the available resources.
>
> What is wrong with that? They are applying pure Darwinism. Survival of
> the fittest.
So let me get this straight . . . you'd rather have millions of wild
dogs roaming the streets attacking young boys, postal workers, and
livestock than to euthanize them, thereby eliminating their suffering,
as well as the suffering of the people whose lives are negatively
affected by them? What about the other "innocent" animals they end up
killing? That's ok with you?
In essence, you'd rather have lots of dogs living a shitty quality of
life than fewer dogs (and people) living a higher quality of life?
Wow.
ta
> In article <d159da2a-c737-4936-af99-
> 501aa198a...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, padl...@nc.rr.com says...
>
> > Dogs that are euthanized in shelters are unwanted, un-adoptable due to
> > behavioral issues, and/or ill/injured to the point where putting them
> > to sleep is the merciful thing to do.
>
> Here in the UK the RSPCA refuse to rehome a dog to people who are in
> full time work, who do not have a fenced garden, who have young
> children, and so the list goes on.
Good for them. Sounds like they are doing the responsible thing by
ensuring any potential dog owner is worthy of caring for another
living creature.
> They also require all animals remain as their property and can be
> snatched back the instant they decide someone isn't treating the animal
> as they would wish.
Good for them. Like I said, being adopted is not necessarily better
than being euthanized.
> On top of that, animals are offered for a minimum donation which is
> often higher than you would pay anywhere else.
Good for them. Because lots of poor people (who unfortunately also
tend to be more ignorant) are only concerned about the price of the
animal. And so they become "disposable". I've seen this time and time
again. I've also seen on countless occasions where a dog owner goes to
the shelter to inquire about their dog that was picked up by animal
control, and rather than pay the 100 bucks to get their dogs back,
they'll let the poor animal suffer in the shelter, because they know
they can just get another one cheap, or even free. A dog is better of
euthanized than in the "care" of these people.
> Dogs that remain in shelters here have effectively been priced and
> regulated out of the reach of many who would offer a good home.
If you can't afford to pay 100 dollars for a dog, then you have no
business owning one. If they are that poor, do you think they are also
going to pay for the dog food, the vet visits, the inoculations, the
tick control medicine, etc. etc.?
> Is that reason enough to kill them?
No, it's reason enough to keep them in the shelter, where they at
least have a shot at getting adopted by someone who can actually care
for them in a responsible way. If they don't get adopted, then they
are quickly and painlessly put to sleep, which is better than a life
of constant suffering.
Apparently you are one of those individuals clinging to these
primitive views on death.
ta
Nonsense. Only a masochist or a delusional moralist would choose
constant pain and suffering over the absence of such.
> Even dogs know that.
Err, no they don't. Dogs have blind instinct, which of course is not
"knowledge".
> Even atheists know that.
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/right-to-die
Mark Earnest
> Even dogs know that.
> Even atheists know that.
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/right-to-die
**If you don't know that it is better to be alive than dead,
you need to seek help.
The world isn't that bad.
There is help out there, and I am not speaking of psychiatrists.
ta
Umm, I think you need to seek help with basic reading and reasoning
skills. Being the patient man that I am, I'll simply ask you which
part of the following sentence you didn't quite understand:
"Of course, I don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead
if my alternative was a lifetime of suffering."
> The world isn't that bad.
Mark Earnest
**I still think that kind of reasoning is suicidal. My entire life was
total hell, but I all along still knew it was better to be alive than dead.
And today I am glad I made that choice, because for me, life is really good,
now.
**Death is never a good choice, as this means you no longer have
life going through you. You are then a dead man, until you can somehow
figure out how to become alive again.
**Face it, life sucks. But it is still worth it, because in life you
are purchasing something that more than makes up for it:
your destiny.
**So don't tell me some dogs want to be dead.
Mark Earnest
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:i9jm55telkfrau37a...@4ax.com...
**Why humble yourself to dogs?
tooly
>
>
> Do I see a volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
>
> http://www.vhemt.org/
>
> It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
>
>
> --
> Fenris
>
Now this is one angle that even Carl Sagan didn't see coming.
Could intelligent life meet it's end as volunatry 'self extinction'? Sagan
argued that intelligent cultures throughout the universe would most likely
self destruct as a rule...but mainly being unable to control the energies
they involve themselves with [like nuclear etc]. Pollution was another
aspect, since we know bacteria grows exponentially until it succumbs to its
own waste byproducts [ergo, things like global warming might be a common
conclusion].
But...self extinction to save the planetary ecology...now that one is new,
ha. But that would logically be a common problem of intelligent life, since
intelligence gives great advantages to survival to where, the population
itself would probable grow to crowd out many other species. But would
ethical behavior grow in intelligence to the point that it might practice
self denial to the point of 'non existence'...just to save all other forms
not intelligent?
tooly
Let's follow this path for a ways...given the argument that present Humans
are vile to the planet.
Ok...but before self extinction, surely there are other avenues to take to
police ourselves.
How could this happen? What kind of controls would we have to install over
ourselves? Would this work toward political tyrannical regmies? Should the
scientists be a new priesthood that have final say in politcal matters? I
mean, how could this work that we draw back from technology, eliminate
things like fossil fuels and return to a more environment friendly way of
existence? What visions do we have on this presently? Do we go back to
horse and buggy days and candlelight? Population jumps out in my mind as a
major preponderant. Perhaps we should work to control this first and
foremost. But we should remember that whenever we tamper with natural
order, we seem to screw things up.
What visions do experts have that humans might solve this ethical behavioral
problem as being harmful to the planet?
The visions are important to make it politically viable to the world. All
I'm hearing so far are from people who just seem to hate people. How about
something more constructive.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Interesting question ta. I would put it more quantitatively (big
surprise eh) in the sense that I think we have a built-in tipping
point mechanism that controls this.
I was talking to someone about 'hitting the wall' physically recently,
and I see a similar mechanism for emotions. Some combination of
hormones drops or rises, and there's just no will left.
From observing the behavior of myself and others, I conclude that this
is a very high threshold for 'normal' people, and probably other
critters as well. So I would have to say that your argument is really
supported by the idea that we are responsible for the situation of the
dogs et al in the first place, but weaker in respect to speculating
about their psychology.
-tg
chazworth
What a joke! IN order for you to "get this straight" you will have to
avoid childish strawmen.
There are not millions of dogs roaming the streets attacking young
boys etc.
You might as well argue that we need to kill all the bears and coyoyes
the length and breadth of the USA just in case they turn into millions
and start attacking people.
As for a dog's quality of life, I should say that living a wild-life
and following its instincts by joining other dogs is the highest
quality of life enjoyable.
Many boys that join war bands find they are living life to the fullest
before they die.
Would you deny a lion its kill?
chazworth
It is my experience that most often when a person accuses another of
stupidity or lack of basic skills it is THEY that are demonstrating a
lack.
chazworth
and choosing to end it all.
In the cold light of day, when death is a remote possibility, and
suffering is not being felt. It is easy to say what you might do if
you found yourself in a terminal situation and in pain. It is easy to
under-estimate the length people will go to to keep going despite pain
and the inevitable end. The courage of such people should not be
dismissed as instinct or fear. Last year I was diagnosed with cancer
and had to undergo a very nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable and painful
treatment, all with the knowledge that I could still die in spite of
it all. It is only then when you realise what the prospect of death
really means, and to balance the pain with the choice of ending it can
you see the same factor in others. Life is a lot more precious when
death is a real prospect.
Take a look at Zappa's last interview where he describes with pride
his project with Slonimsky. He is engaged with life to the very end
and still manges to crack a smile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r3Xzqw1Q4&feature=related
ta
Silliness. Since you've never been dead, so how could you possibly
know? Please tell us what it feels like to be dead.
So you didn't "know" it was better to be alive than dead; you have a
strong instinct to live. But humans are equipped with the capacity to
reason, and to make reasonable choices about life and death.
> And today I am glad I made that choice, because for me, life is really good,
> now.
>
> **Death is never a good choice, as this means you no longer have
> life going through you. You are then a dead man, until you can somehow
> figure out how to become alive again.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's see how long you can suffer through chronic pain before you
overcome your irrational fear of death.
> **Face it, life sucks.
Speak for yourself.
You're barking up the wrong tree (no pun intended). My position is pro-
life -- I give thanks every day for living . . . but I'm not in a
constant state of pain and suffering.
> But it is still worth it, because in life you
> are purchasing something that more than makes up for it:
> your destiny.
>
> **So don't tell me some dogs want to be dead.
Straw man. I never said "dogs want to be dead". You need to read
carefully.
ta
Yeah, there are many aspects to the issue, pain and suffering being
one of them (but you're right, probably not the main one).
We do know pretty definitively that dogs (and other animals) feel
pain, and therefore suffer, even though we don't exactly know how dog
pain compares to human pain. I'm pretty sure a dog cares less about
it's environment than humans, but I'm also pretty sure that a dog
would be "happier" when not roaming the streets struggling to survive.
The key point though, as you alluded to, is that dogs are neither
responsible for the problem nor capable of solving it, so it's up to
us humans to make reasonable decisions about it, keeping in the mind
the consequences of those decisions. Unfortunately, killing a lot of
"innocent" dogs is a necessary step in dealing with the problem. "No
kill" shelters only makes the problems worse.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Yes, dogs as we understand them wouldn't even exist absent human
actions over time. It seems a different question from whether you
would shoot a winter-starved bison in a mature ecosystem to 'put it
out of its misery'. I wouldn't.
On the other hand....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12whales-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=whales&st=cse
Spooky.
-tg
Fenris
@p28g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, tgde...@earthlink.net says...
> Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
> revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
>
Darwin beat you to it.
The only two irrevocable rights, that are shared with all living
creatures, are the right to struggle to survive and the right to
struggle to pass one's DNA on to the next generation.
Fenris
@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, pad...@nc.rr.com says...
> If you can't afford to pay 100 dollars for a dog, then you have no
> business owning one. If they are that poor, do you think they are also
> going to pay for the dog food, the vet visits, the inoculations, the
> tick control medicine, etc. etc.?
>
And yet the poor person may well give more love and time to their dog
than the wealthy person who can change their dog each year with the
fashon. Maybe at some stage they will be unable to afford an expensive
veterinary treatment, but until then the dog and person will enjoy each
other's company.
What an awful place it would be that cut people out of most normal
activities unless they could prove they had sufficient financial means
to provide for every possibility.
Perhaps the real problem here is the vets who withhold treatment unless
they are paid but then criticise the owners who cannot afford that
treatment?
Who is more guilty of animal abuse, the poor person who takes his animal
to the vet and when he finds out that the cost of the treatment is
beyond him offers to pay by instalments but is turned away, or the
qualified vet who turns away from the suffering if money is not on the
table but who then notifies the RSPCA that the owner has failed to
provide veterinary treatment for his animal?
Fenris
@bellsouth.net says...
> But...self extinction to save the planetary ecology...now that one is new,
> ha. But that would logically be a common problem of intelligent life, since
> intelligence gives great advantages to survival to where, the population
> itself would probable grow to crowd out many other species. But would
> ethical behavior grow in intelligence to the point that it might practice
> self denial to the point of 'non existence'...just to save all other forms
> not intelligent?
>
Hasn't it been the driving force of some religions? The Jains for
instance? Or indeed any religion that calls on its adherents to give up
most of the activities that are pleasurable in life?
tgde...@earthlink.net
> In article <22536350-3f92-4e54-90d2-354974408b55
>
> > Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
> > revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
>
> Darwin beat you to it.
>
> The only two irrevocable rights,
According to your earlier post, there is no such thing as a revocable
right. So "irrevocable right" makes no sense,
Are you trying to say that there are only two 'rights'? Or are you
changing your mind?
-tg
> that are shared with all living
> creatures, are the right to struggle to survive and the right to
> struggle to pass one's DNA on to the next generation.
>
> --
> Fenris
>
Fenris
fa7842...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, tgde...@earthlink.net
says...
> On Jul 14, 3:19 pm, Fenris <Fen...@webtribe.net> wrote:
> > In article <22536350-3f92-4e54-90d2-354974408b55
> > @p28g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > > Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
> > > revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
> >
> > Darwin beat you to it.
> >
> > The only two irrevocable rights,
>
> According to your earlier post, there is no such thing as a revocable
> right. So "irrevocable right" makes no sense,
>
> Are you trying to say that there are only two 'rights'? Or are you
> changing your mind?
>
Think you have misread what was said.
tgde...@earthlink.net
> In article <c9e71556-6c3c-4bd5-a305-
> fa7842564...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:19 pm, Fenris <Fen...@webtribe.net> wrote:
> > > In article <22536350-3f92-4e54-90d2-354974408b55
> > > @p28g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, tgdenn...@earthlink.net says...
>
> > > > Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
> > > > revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
>
> > > Darwin beat you to it.
>
> > > The only two irrevocable rights,
>
> > According to your earlier post, there is no such thing as a revocable
> > right. So "irrevocable right" makes no sense,
>
> > Are you trying to say that there are only two 'rights'? Or are you
> > changing your mind?
>
> Think you have misread what was said.
>
Ah, that explains everything.
-tg
Mark Earnest
**Does one need to touch the Sun to know things about it?
Then you don't need to die to know things about it.
What you can tell about death, from nature, is that from death
comes life.
So you didn't "know" it was better to be alive than dead; you have a
strong instinct to live. But humans are equipped with the capacity to
reason, and to make reasonable choices about life and death.
> And today I am glad I made that choice, because for me, life is really
> good,
> now.
>
> **Death is never a good choice, as this means you no longer have
> life going through you. You are then a dead man, until you can somehow
> figure out how to become alive again.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's see how long you can suffer through chronic pain before you
overcome your irrational fear of death.
**I already have. My whole life was total hell, I told you.
I'll spare you the morbid details.
> **Face it, life sucks.
Speak for yourself.
**Either it sucks now, or it sucks later.
Just as in life: either you pay now, or you pay later.
If you live by the law, you pay now.
If you live against the law, you pay later.
You're barking up the wrong tree (no pun intended). My position is pro-
life -- I give thanks every day for living . . . but I'm not in a
constant state of pain and suffering.
**Everyone on this cursed world is suffering to a degree.
It happens as you see death fast approaching.
You may not admit to it right now, but you still know it.
> But it is still worth it, because in life you
> are purchasing something that more than makes up for it:
> your destiny.
>
> **So don't tell me some dogs want to be dead.
Straw man. I never said "dogs want to be dead". You need to read
carefully.
**You implied it when you said it is absurd that a dog would be happier on
the streets than dead.
**iow, people say a lot more than they think they do.
tooly
"Fenris" <Fen...@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.24c6ef4bb...@news.netkonect.net...
> In article <C0V6m.23266$Xl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, rdh11
> @bellsouth.net says...
>> But...self extinction to save the planetary ecology...now that one is
>> new,
>> ha. But that would logically be a common problem of intelligent life,
>> since
>> intelligence gives great advantages to survival to where, the population
>> itself would probable grow to crowd out many other species. But would
>> ethical behavior grow in intelligence to the point that it might practice
>> self denial to the point of 'non existence'...just to save all other
>> forms
>> not intelligent?
>>
>
> Hasn't it been the driving force of some religions? The Jains for
> instance? Or indeed any religion that calls on its adherents to give up
> most of the activities that are pleasurable in life?
>
>
> --
> Fenris
>
We could give up most of the materials of life...but we have become addicted
to certain things. I was thinking about air conditioning for example; I
remember a time when the common person did not have this, but in short time,
it has become almost mandatory in certain climates. It would be miserable
without it.
I think the better way to go is to control population to where life itself
remains at some redeeming level of worthwhileness...but that we are in such
numbers that the planet can absorb our presence. Presently, I don't hear
anyone talking about controlling population. Perhaps there are biological
dynamics I'm not aware of on this. Most likely we'll continue on like we
are, promoting bandaid half solutions that are poltically viable as we go,
but totally ineffective. So far the scientists have only given us some
numbers and pretty dialogue...but we haven't been affected all that much
[oh, maybe some higher gas prices etc is about all...and a couple of strong
hurricanes a couple of years ago]. But we do see the glaciers receeding,
the ice caps melting, the polar bears being stranded, and flowers blooming
earlier etc. But voluntary extinction? Ha...that's pretty nutty you know;
ain't gonna happen. Now 'involuntary extinction' warranted by some madman
gaining power somehow...now that might at least be possible.
chazworth
> In article <22536350-3f92-4e54-90d2-354974408b55
>
> > Why don't you tell us about the kind of permission that *can't* be
> > revoked---that would be worthy of a bit of philosophizing for sure.
>
> Darwin beat you to it.
>
> The only two irrevocable rights, that are shared with all living
> creatures, are the right to struggle to survive and the right to
> struggle to pass one's DNA on to the next generation.
I think you are confused about the idea of rights. Rights are gained
by political process they do not relate to the natural process
tooly
Very thoughtful post Chaz. Sorry to hear of your condition.
I often wonder if I'd really take the option if it was available
to me. We have the technology to make the going very
comfortable, anxiety free, and peaceful...but we only
provide this technology to our worst criminals. In the
meanwhile, the vast majority of the 'rest of us' must
suffer through horrible and excruciating pain and misery
as we deteriate toward our end. If only we could see
our way to allow people the option of circumventing
that pain...I wonder how many of us would actually
opt out [once a certain viable point of quality life is
passed].
ta
Why not?
> On the other hand....
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12whales-t.html?_r=1&scp=2...
Didn't finish the whole thing, but spooky indeed.
Dutch
> I used to think "no kill" dog shelters were a good thing -- no more.
>
> 1. A dead dog will never have the opportunity to suffer through a
> lifetime of abuse by assholes who don't have the sense to take proper
> care of a dog . . . and there are many of them out there, trust me.
>
> 2. A dead dog feels no pain. Death = no suffering . . . Abuse =
> suffering . . . no suffering is preferable to suffering. The problem
> is that people are hung up on death, which is merely a projection of
> their own irrational fear of death. If I get hit by a bus or killed in
> a drive-by, I will suffer no more. A dead man cares not. Of course, I
> don't wish to be dead, but I'd certainly wish to be dead if my
> alternative was a lifetime of suffering. Unfortunately, we cling to
> primitive, irrational beliefs about death and dying.
>
> 3. The only way a "no kill" shelter can be "no kill" is if they turn
> away animals. They simply don't have room. Those animals end up in
> regular shelters, where they may end up euthanized anyway, or they end
> up living a short, meager life of suffering on the streets.
>
> 4. Dogs do not have free will or the capacity to make choices, so
> euthanizing a dog cannot be said to be against one's will.
I don't dispute most of what you said, but no-kill shelters
are working in my area. I left animal control shortly before
the idea of no-kill came into fashion and I was convinced at
the time that it was a completely untenable concept. I was
wrong. Animal shelters around her are not overflowing with
dogs, in fact often they run short and have to share dogs
with other shelters to fill empty cages and justify their
existence. 30 years ago our kennels would be overflowing in
a week if we didn't destroy some. Each officer would pick up
between 3 and 10 dogs every day. 10 years later things had
changed, seldom did they bring in more than one a day. Now
they hardly "catch dogs" at all. Also the animals in the
shelters get great care, volunteers walk them every day,
they have nice quarters and get lots of attention. The
advent of low-cost and free spaying and neutering is
responsible for a lot of this change. If you want to see how
it used to be one only need look at places like Mexico.
Emaciated, flea-ridden, diseased dogs roaming the streets is
not a good thing.
chazworth
> On Jul 14, 7:53 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There seems to be a lot of tosh talked about living through suffering
> > and choosing to end it all.
> > In the cold light of day, when death is a remote possibility, and
> > suffering is not being felt. It is easy to say what you might do if
> > you found yourself in a terminal situation and in pain. It is easy to
> > under-estimate the length people will go to to keep going despite pain
> > and the inevitable end. The courage of such people should not be
> > dismissed as instinct or fear. Last year I was diagnosed with cancer
> > and had to undergo a very nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable and painful
> > treatment, all with the knowledge that I could still die in spite of
> > it all. It is only then when you realise what the prospect of death
> > really means, and to balance the pain with the choice of ending it can
> > you see the same factor in others. Life is a lot more precious when
> > death is a real prospect.
>
> > Take a look at Zappa's last interview where he describes with pride
> > his project with Slonimsky. He is engaged with life to the very end
> > and still manges to crack a smile.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r3Xzqw1Q4&feature=related
>
> Very thoughtful post Chaz. Sorry to hear of your condition.
> I often wonder if I'd really take the option if it was available
> to me. We have the technology to make the going very
> comfortable, anxiety free, and peaceful...but we only
> provide this technology to our worst criminals.
You know this is not true.
> In the
> meanwhile, the vast majority of the 'rest of us' must
> suffer through horrible and excruciating pain and misery
> as we deteriate toward our end. If only we could see
> our way to allow people the option of circumventing
> that pain...I wonder how many of us would actually
> opt out [once a certain viable point of quality life is
> passed].
It sounds like you want a painless death. That is easy enough to
achieve. You don't have to be on death row to get it. I would not call
death row anxiety free.
ta
Wow, I don't know where you live, but that's not the case in my
area . . . in fact, I think NC ranks in the top 5 in number of dogs
euthanized. The public shelter in my town is almost always full.
I certainly agree that free spaying/neutering helps a great deal.
But no-kill shelters still refuse to accept some animals, so they
either end up on the street or in the public shelters.
So "no-kill" is really a misnomer. (and nearly all "no-kill" shelters
end up regularly euthanizing animals anyway).
ta
"Some people have suggested that the solution to companion animal
overpopulation lies with so-called "no-kill," or "limited-admission,"
shelters. Sadly, these facilities often have major problems that
affect animals. Animals at "no-kill" shelters who have been deemed
unadoptable may be "warehoused" in cages for years. They become
withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, which further decreases
their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of
constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the
spread of disease among animals.
One PETA staffer who used to manage a "no-kill" shelter had a change
of heart after seeing a pit bull who had lived in a cage for 12 years.
He had gone mad from confinement and would spend the day slamming his
body against the sides of his cage, becoming so enraged that the
workers were afraid to handle him. After witnessing this miserable
life, she realized that some fates truly are worse than death.
"No-kill" shelters and "no-kill" rescue groups often find themselves
filled to capacity, which means that they must turn animals away.
These animals will still face untimely deaths—just not at these
facilities. In the best case scenario, they will be taken to another
facility that does euthanize animals. Some will be dumped by the
roadside to die a far more gruesome and horrible death than an
injection of sodium pentobarbital would provide. Although it is true
that "no-kill" shelters do not kill animals, this doesn't mean that
animals are saved. There simply aren't enough good homes—or even
enough cages—for them all.
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off
the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the
victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do. No one
despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people
who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate
and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world."
Dutch
I live in Vancouver BC, Canada.
>
> I certainly agree that free spaying/neutering helps a great deal.
>
> But no-kill shelters still refuse to accept some animals, so they
> either end up on the street or in the public shelters.
All shelters in our region are no-kill, in fact the public
animal pound was the first to go this route.
>
> So "no-kill" is really a misnomer. (and nearly all "no-kill" shelters
> end up regularly euthanizing animals anyway).
The only dogs killed in the shelters here are dogs that
would be killed anyway, old and sick ones.
Dutch
> facilities. In the best case scenario, they will be taken to another
> facility that does euthanize animals. Some will be dumped by the
> roadside to die a far more gruesome and horrible death than an
> injection of sodium pentobarbital would provide. Although it is true
> that "no-kill" shelters do not kill animals, this doesn't mean that
> enough cages�for them all.
>
> Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off
> the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the
> victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do. No one
> despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people
> who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate
> and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world."
>
> http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters.asp
I don't know what to tell you, no-kill has been a success
here. I have no problem with killing either, I participated
in the killing of many dogs, it is indeed a dignified and
compassionate alternative, when done properly.
chazworth
Americans are a more bastard race then the Brits
ta
That's fine if there is no overpopulation, which is certainly not the
case in NC. Vancouver, no doubt, is a different demographic.
Fenris
c6c972...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, chaz...@yahoo.com says...
> > The only two irrevocable rights, that are shared with all living
> > creatures, are the right to struggle to survive and the right to
> > struggle to pass one's DNA on to the next generation.
>
> I think you are confused about the idea of rights. Rights are gained
> by political process they do not relate to the natural process
Then they are not "rights" they are "permissions" which can be revoked.
Dutch
> In article <07ecc310-76c6-409f-ba9e-
> c6c972...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, chaz...@yahoo.com says...
>>> The only two irrevocable rights, that are shared with all living
>>> creatures, are the right to struggle to survive and the right to
>>> struggle to pass one's DNA on to the next generation.
>> I think you are confused about the idea of rights. Rights are gained
>> by political process they do not relate to the natural process
>
> Then they are not "rights" they are "permissions" which can be revoked.
I'm curious what definition of "right" you are referring to.
dh
wrote:
>
>"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:C0V6m.23266$Xl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do I see a volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
>>>
>>> http://www.vhemt.org/
>>>
>>> It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fenris
>>>
>>
>> Now this is one angle that even Carl Sagan didn't see coming.
>> Could intelligent life meet it's end as volunatry 'self extinction'?
>> Sagan argued that intelligent cultures throughout the universe would most
>> likely self destruct as a rule...but mainly being unable to control the
>> energies they involve themselves with [like nuclear etc]. Pollution was
>> another aspect, since we know bacteria grows exponentially until it
>> succumbs to its own waste byproducts [ergo, things like global warming
>> might be a common conclusion].
>>
>> But...self extinction to save the planetary ecology...now that one is new,
>> ha. But that would logically be a common problem of intelligent life,
>> since intelligence gives great advantages to survival to where, the
>> population itself would probable grow to crowd out many other species.
>> But would ethical behavior grow in intelligence to the point that it might
>> practice self denial to the point of 'non existence'...just to save all
>> other forms not intelligent?
>>
>
>Let's follow this path for a ways...given the argument that present Humans
>are vile to the planet.
>
>Ok...but before self extinction, surely there are other avenues to take to
>police ourselves.
>
>How could this happen? What kind of controls would we have to install over
>ourselves?
The things that are already being done, and people have been doing
for years. Regulations on hunting, and the treatment of domestic
animals. Those are the sort of things that are being done to help
humans keep things going in a positive direction. And things like that
are the OPPOSITE of what misnomer huggers want. For example they want
to ELIMINATE human hunting, and to ELIMINATE domestic animals. Those
people work AGAINST what seems best to many of us, and try to force
their (idiotic seeming) extremist objectives on everyone else in the
most extreme of ways. AFAWK ONLY misnomer advocates are guilty of
misnomer oriented terrorism, for example.
_________________________________________________________
April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights
Militia
offered to return �one-sixth� of the remains of the 82 year old
mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises
guinea
pigs for biomedical research. The woman�s body was stolen from her
grave
in October. . .
February 19, 2005 Chino Hills, CA:
Animal rights activists vandalized the home of the chief veterinarian
for the
city of Los Angeles. They threw rocks through windows, and left behind
fliers
with the veterinarian�s photo, accusing her of animal cruelty. ALF is
suspected in this incident as well as prior threats against the
veterinarian
and other employees of the LA City Animal Shelter.
January 12, 2005 Auburn, CA:
Five incendiary devices were found in an office building under
construction.
Devices of the same type were discovered in an upscale subdivision in
near-by
Lincoln on December 27. Official stated the firebombs were capable of
extensive
damage. Graffiti found on the Lincoln homes included �U will pay� and
�Enjoy the
world as it is - as long as you can.� In a letter sent to the Auburn
Journal on
January 18, ELF claimed responsibility, and warned of more terrorist
attempts to
come - "We are setting a new precedent, where there will be at least
one or more
actions every few weeks," it read. The Joint Terrorism Task Force is
investigating.
September 5, 2004: East Peckham, England: Animal Rights activists
vowed
to launch ten "terror attacks" a night across Britain. An ALF
spokesman at
a "training camp" for AR activists to learn "direct action" said "Ten
attacks
a night would be an absolute minimum "Think of the number of butcher
shops: at least a couple of windows are already being broken every
night
and then you have people spraying graffiti on cars to those targeting
employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences." There have been reports of at
least six serious incidents in the last ten days, including attacks on
cars
and other property of people connection with GlaxoSmithKline, HLS, and
a farm raising guinea pigs for research.
August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service
lab
in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on
maintaining a
healthy forest ecosystem. An e-mail from Elf's office said "While
innocent
life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is
necessary,
we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice,
and
provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal
battles,
pleading protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to
achieve." It further stated that all Forest Service stations were
targeted,
and, if rebuilt, the Pennsylvania station would be targeted for
complete
destruction.
September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals
over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite
detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that
Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no
risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and
one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At
trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.
August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of three
years in
jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop and two others
donned ski
masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived home, bludgeoning him with
wooden
staves and pickaxe handles. DNA on the handles and Blenkinsop�s
clothing
helped convict him of the offense.
June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a
"Survivor" series cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including
children, as
well. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin, who lasted six
weeks on
"Survivor," attributed the attack to his killing of a pig for food on
the series.
May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested
two men and put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in
connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning of
live
animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed allegedly by
a
self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal cruelty. Anthony Ryan
Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21 were arrested. The raid
turned up a headless, skinned cat in the refrigerator, along with
other
animal skeletons, including a dog, some mice and rats, and the videos.
Police are searching for the third person seen in the videos.
May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The
baseball bat
brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised him and sprayed a
would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22, 2001. One of the men was
arrested at an animal sanctuary run by TV script writer Carla Lane.
May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as chairman of
the
government body that supervises research involving animals. Segal
received
a faxed death threat and threats of violence against his family.
April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere with
or
recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to obstruct or
intimidate
a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up to one year in jail and a
$5,000
fine. The measure sailed through the legislature in record time after
reports
of blind people being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both
verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from their
owners.
April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the filing of
an
amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense
League, In Defense of Animals, and certain individuals. The amended
filing
asserts claims under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization
Statute (RICO) and cited physical attacks on individual employees,
death
threats, bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment
and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with
contractual
relations and economic advantage. The original plaintiffs in the
action were
the Stephens Group and its wholly owned investment-banking subsidiary,
Stephens, Inc.
February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence, the
managing
director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as he arrived home
by
three masked goons wielding baseball bats or ax handles. Brian Cass,
53,
bludgeoned with head and body wounds and bruises, including a 3-inch
scalp gash, was saved from further injury by his girl friend's screams
and
the aid of two passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the
attackers, but was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers.
Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the work
of
HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking cures for
dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In reaction to
the
attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer with the group,
condoned
the attack and expressed surprise that it didn't happen more often,
declaring that Cass got off "lightly." Other animal rights groups
publicly
backed off condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it
could occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.
February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested in
connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven
agricultural
businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs were intercepted, but
5
of 10 others exploded, causing serious eye and facial injury to two
adults,
and leg wounds to a 6-year old daughter of one of the intended
victims.
Authorities considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The
businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply, and a
livestock auction agency.
February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders. Army
experts were called out to defuse the bomb.
February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which
was
defused without incident by army experts.
February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George Murray, his
wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by masked animal
rights
activists. At least five hunt members were injured by the stick- and
whip-wielding attackers. Murray was beaten, kicked in the head and
face
and his wife was punched in the face. They were threatened with death
as
retribution for the death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.
January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the
British
Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was not injured.
January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and a
cancer
research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and defused by
authorities before being opened by the recipients. Both bomb attacks
were
linked to letter bomb mailings that started in mid-December.
January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by
letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.
January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding
letter
bomb.
December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded,
injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the
mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.
October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were on a
publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be "legitimate
targets" by
the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven had received threatening
letters on
September 4, 2000. Amateur whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by
one
bomb in South Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's
vehicle in East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate
and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered lethal.
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
wrote:
>> Do I see a volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
>>
>> http://www.vhemt.org/
>>
>> It would seem that the Animal Rights Cult is the Cult of Death.
>>
>> --
>> Fenris
>
>Now this is one angle that even Carl Sagan didn't see coming.
I feel sure he was aware of it but just didn't bother going into
detail about it publically very often, if ever.
>Could intelligent life meet it's end as volunatry 'self extinction'? Sagan
>argued that intelligent cultures throughout the universe would most likely
>self destruct as a rule...but mainly being unable to control the energies
>they involve themselves with [like nuclear etc]. Pollution was another
>aspect, since we know bacteria grows exponentially until it succumbs to its
>own waste byproducts [ergo, things like global warming might be a common
>conclusion].
>
>But...self extinction to save the planetary ecology...now that one is new,
>ha.
Not real new. I've been aware of it for about 10 years, and it's
probably been around a lot longer than that.
>But that would logically be a common problem of intelligent life, since
>intelligence gives great advantages to survival to where, the population
>itself would probable grow to crowd out many other species.
We've already pretty much done that, and will continue in that
direction.
>But would
>ethical behavior grow in intelligence to the point that it might practice
>self denial to the point of 'non existence'...just to save all other forms
>not intelligent?
That is the extreme, and most people are not such extremists about
it....not even most advocates of the misnomer. However, they're still
extremists about domestic animals since they do want to eliminate
them. They use the gross misnomer "animal rights" in order to keep
their true objective from being clear and obvious, because doing so
allows them to get many contributions from people who mistake them for
animal welfare organizations. Advocates of the misnomer love to
dishonestly exploit AW issues, and to be mistaken for AW advocates
because such confusion means more $$$ for them. One of their most
dedicated supporters in aaev in a rare flash of honesty confessed
that:
"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch
So PeTA is using money donated to them in their efforts to ELIMINATE
the very animals that the contributors are sending them money to try
to help. It really does seem disgusting, but that's the way it is none
the less.