Vegetarian Discussion: Animal Rights Terror Group Takes Credit For Torching Cattle Trucks

Animal Rights Terror Group Takes Credit For Torching Cattle Trucks
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2012-01-13 12:04:35 EST
A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.

A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
still vulnerable.”

“[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
welders to do all the work.”

Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
very alarming attack.”

“I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
domestic terrorism threats.”

Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-credit-for-torching-cattle-trucks/#ixzz1jMJ6Y7lS

Rupert
2012-01-13 12:37:14 EST
On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>
> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
> worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
> still vulnerable.”
>
> “[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
> added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
> welders to do all the work.”
>
> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
> the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
> very alarming attack.”
>
> “I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
> with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
> domestic terrorism threats.”
>
> Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
> FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...

This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
John Hadley:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+14+Jan+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance

Rupert
2012-01-13 12:56:41 EST
On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
> > an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
> > cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>
> > A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
> > Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
> > several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
> > worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
> > still vulnerable.”
>
> > “[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
> > added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
> > welders to do all the work.”
>
> > Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
> > the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
> > very alarming attack.”
>
> > “I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
> > they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
> > Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>
> > The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
> > Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
> > 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
> > with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
> > domestic terrorism threats.”
>
> > Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
> > FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>
> >http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>
> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
> John Hadley:
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...

I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
if John Hadley gives me permission.

George Plimpton
2012-01-13 13:35:50 EST
On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>>
>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
>>> worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
>>> still vulnerable.”
>>
>>> “[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
>>> added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
>>> welders to do all the work.”
>>
>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
>>> the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
>>> very alarming attack.”
>>
>>> “I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>>
>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
>>> with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
>>> domestic terrorism threats.”
>>
>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
>>> FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>>
>>> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>>
>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
>> John Hadley:
>>
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>
> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
> if John Hadley gives me permission.

I'm not sure if you should bother. The short fragment that is available
at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal. He writes,
"After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
[animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
terrorists.'" [emphasis added]

"Boasted"? In what way is that statement a "boast"? That's a
gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.

He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
used for research purposes." First of all, that simply does not follow.
There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.

Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists. Radical Islamist
and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
morally justifies their use of terrorism.

Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
terrorism-supporting friend. We already can see what his position -
loathsome moral relativity - is.

Rupert
2012-01-13 14:10:56 EST
On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
>
> >>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
> >>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
> >>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>
> >>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
> >>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
> >>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
> >>> worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
> >>> still vulnerable.”
>
> >>> “[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
> >>> added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
> >>> welders to do all the work.”
>
> >>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
> >>> the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
> >>> very alarming attack.”
>
> >>> “I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
> >>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
> >>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>
> >>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
> >>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
> >>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
> >>> with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
> >>> domestic terrorism threats.”
>
> >>> Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
> >>> FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>
> >>>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>
> >> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
> >> John Hadley:
>
> >>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>
> > I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
> > post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
> > if John Hadley gives me permission.
>
> I'm not sure if you should bother.  The short fragment that is available
> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal.  He writes,
> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>
> "Boasted"?  In what way is that statement a "boast"?  That's a
> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>

I don't think it's intended pejoratively. I think what he's trying to
convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
unreasonable to make this suggestion.

> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
> used for research purposes."  First of all, that simply does not follow.
>   There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>

The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read. The
point is not just that there are serious questions about the ethics of
use of animals in research and testing, the point is the way in which
some moral philosophers call these practices into question. They try
to argue that discrimination on the basis of species cannot be morally
justified. If this really is a position up for serious discussion, and
most moral philosophers would agree that it is, then it would appear
that it is a position up for serious discussion that the use of
animals in research and testing is morally akin to the research that
took place upon cognitively impaired humans under the Nazi government.
If that's the case, then it seems fair to say that it becomes a
serious question whether the use of violence is an appropriate
response. He considers the objection that violence on behalf of
nonhuman animals cannot be justified and addresses it at length and in
detail.

It should be noted, by the way, that he is not condoning animal rights
extremism. Saying that there is a serious discussion to be had about
whether violence is justified is not the same as saying that it is
justified or condoning it. He is just trying to investigate this form
of action in the context of previously existing theories of political
violence in a consistent way.

Whether or not you end up agreeing with his argument, you are not in a
position reasonably to dismiss what he wrote based on what you have
read, nor are you in a position reasonably to accuse him of "bias" in
any meaningful sense just because he happens to be taking positions
you don't agree with.

> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists.  Radical Islamist
> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>

There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause. There are other
criteria which John Hadley discusses, one of which being that the
violence is not of last resort, and another one to do with the
question of who is a legitimate target. This is all discussed in
detail in the main body of the paper which you haven't read. Your
statement that his argument throws the door wide open for normal
geopolitical terrorists is simply false.

It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
the conclusion that ARE is not justified.

> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
> terrorism-supporting friend.

He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
grounds for thinking that he is. In the past, you have made the
obviously utterly irrational and libellous statement that I am a
terrorist. You should stop throwing labels around in such an
irresponsible and rationally unjustifiable fashion.

> We already can see what his position -
> loathsome moral relativity - is.

No, you have no rational grounds for saying that he is a moral
relativist.

If you're not interested then don't worry about it. But you're not
responding to the text in a rational manner.

George Plimpton
2012-01-13 16:11:30 EST
On 1/13/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
>>>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
>>>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>>
>>>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
>>>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
>>>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. “Despite guards, a constant
>>>>> worker presence and razor wire fence,” the statement read, “the enemy is
>>>>> still vulnerable.”
>>
>>>>> “[T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed,” the statement
>>>>> added, “and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
>>>>> welders to do all the work.”
>>
>>>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
>>>>> the Bee that he and his employees are “appalled by this senseless, but
>>>>> very alarming attack.”
>>
>>>>> “I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
>>>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,”
>>>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>>
>>>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
>>>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
>>>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
>>>>> with other “eco-terror” organizations, “one of today’s most serious
>>>>> domestic terrorism threats.”
>>
>>>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the “domestic terror” category of the
>>>>> FBI’s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>>
>>>>> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>>
>>>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
>>>> John Hadley:
>>
>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>>
>>> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
>>> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
>>> if John Hadley gives me permission.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you should bother. The short fragment that is available
>> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal. He writes,
>> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
>> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
>> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
>> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>>
>> "Boasted"? In what way is that statement a "boast"? That's a
>> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>>
>
> I don't think it's intended pejoratively.

*OF COURSE* it's intended pejoratively, you nitwit. "Boast" is
inherently a pejorative.


> I think what he's trying to
> convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
> taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
> that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
> unreasonable to make this suggestion.

They may well have been, but that statement /per se/ is not a boast.



>> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
>> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
>> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
>> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
>> used for research purposes." First of all, that simply does not follow.
>> There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
>> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
>> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>>
>
> The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
> justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
> reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read.

Yes, I am. He is without doubt saying the end justifies the means.
Because the end - stopping research and testing on animals - is
something he views as unquestionably desirable (even though society
disagrees with him), then he views any means as acceptable.

As I said, other ethics debates in society do not routinely find one
side saying if they don't get their way, then violence is justified.


>
>> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
>> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists. Radical Islamist
>> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
>> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
>> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>>
>
> There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
> any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause.

What?! You think that Palestinians fighting for a Palestinian state
cannot make a plausible case - a far *more* plausible case than the one
for stopping research and testing on animals - that their cause is
right? You think Al Qaeda cannot make a plausible case that getting rid
of the existing Saudi regime, and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia,
is right?



> It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
> the conclusion that ARE is not justified.

ARE = animal rights extremists. He's saying the extremists - the people
- are not justified?

Along the way, he tries to set the stage for the ARE claiming they are
justified.


>> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
>> terrorism-supporting friend.
>
> He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
> grounds for thinking that he is.

When he starts out by saying "there must also be scope for debating the
ethics of using violence to stop animals being used for research
purposes", he is providing the framework for terrorists to take what he
said and use it to justify violence. Whether he expressly supports
terrorism or not - I think he probably does - he is at least serving as
a tool for out-and-out terrorists, much as a sleazy lawyer furthers the
interests of known criminals.


I'm guessing your buddy Hadley is another professional "ar"
pseudo-intellectual. I've long noticed an imbalance among academics and
other intellectuals when it comes to "ar". Guys like Singer and Regan
and your pal Hadley and Nathan Nobis dedicate their professional lives
to "ar". They may dabble in some other areas, but they're mainly about
"ar". Intellectuals who write in opposition to "ar", like Carl Cohen
and Tibor Machan, are the opposite: they are either generalists or are
focused mainly on other philosophical issues, who happen to take an
interest in "ar" almost in passing.

This creates a false and misleading sense that the "ar" side are
"better" or have a more developed and coherent philosophy. In fact, the
"ar" opponents seem easily to be intellectually and academically the
superiors of the "ar" partisans. They seem more than capable of dealing
on a part-time basis with the issues that consume the "ar" partisans
full time.

Rupert
2012-01-13 16:27:42 EST
On Jan 13, 10:11 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
>
> >>>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
> >>>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
> >>>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>
> >>>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
> >>>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
> >>>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. Despite guards, a constant
> >>>>> worker presence and razor wire fence, the statement read, the enemy is
> >>>>> still vulnerable.
>
> >>>>> [T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed, the statement
> >>>>> added, and we can t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
> >>>>> welders to do all the work.
>
> >>>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
> >>>>> the Bee that he and his employees are appalled by this senseless, but
> >>>>> very alarming attack.
>
> >>>>> I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
> >>>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,
> >>>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>
> >>>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
> >>>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
> >>>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
> >>>>> with other eco-terror organizations, one of today s most serious
> >>>>> domestic terrorism threats.
>
> >>>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the domestic terror category of the
> >>>>> FBI s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>
> >>>>>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>
> >>>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
> >>>> John Hadley:
>
> >>>>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>
> >>> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
> >>> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
> >>> if John Hadley gives me permission.
>
> >> I'm not sure if you should bother.  The short fragment that is available
> >> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal.  He writes,
> >> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
> >> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
> >> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
> >> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>
> >> "Boasted"?  In what way is that statement a "boast"?  That's a
> >> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>
> > I don't think it's intended pejoratively.
>
> *OF COURSE* it's intended pejoratively, you nitwit.  "Boast" is
> inherently a pejorative.
>

No, it's not.

> > I think what he's trying to
> > convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
> > taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
> > that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
> > unreasonable to make this suggestion.
>
> They may well have been, but that statement /per se/ is not a boast.
>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boast

Note sense 2.

> >> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
> >> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
> >> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
> >> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
> >> used for research purposes."  First of all, that simply does not follow.
> >>    There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
> >> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
> >> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>
> > The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
> > justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
> > reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read.
>
> Yes, I am.  He is without doubt saying the end justifies the means.

No. That is not what he is saying. You would need to read the article
to know what he is saying.

There is no hope of getting you to be rational.

> Because the end - stopping research and testing on animals - is
> something he views as unquestionably desirable (even though society
> disagrees with him), then he views any means as acceptable.
>

That's nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for reading him
in that way.

> As I said, other ethics debates in society do not routinely find one
> side saying if they don't get their way, then violence is justified.
>

Yes. That is correct.

>
>
> >> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
> >> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists.  Radical Islamist
> >> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
> >> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
> >> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>
> > There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
> > any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause.
>
> What?!  You think that Palestinians fighting for a Palestinian state
> cannot make a plausible case - a far *more* plausible case than the one
> for stopping research and testing on animals - that their cause is
> right?  You think Al Qaeda cannot make a plausible case that getting rid
> of the existing Saudi regime, and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia,
> is right?
>

When you said "radical Islamist" I thought you had in mind the aims of
radical Islam.

To say that John Hadley favours trying to achieve your political
objectives by any means necessary that is a travesty of what he is
saying. If you read the whole article you would know that that reading
of him cannot be rationally supported in any way. You should realise
already that you are not rationally justified in reading him that way,
but you are obviously not interested in a fair and honest reading of
this text.

> > It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
> > the conclusion that ARE is not justified.
>
> ARE = animal rights extremists.  He's saying the extremists - the people
> - are not justified?
>

Yes. If you were sensible you'd realise you need to read the article
to know what he is saying.

> Along the way, he tries to set the stage for the ARE claiming they are
> justified.
>

No. He doesn't claim that.

> >> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
> >> terrorism-supporting friend.
>
> > He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
> > grounds for thinking that he is.
>
> When he starts out by saying "there must also be scope for debating the
> ethics of using violence to stop animals being used for research
> purposes", he is providing the framework for terrorists to take what he
> said and use it to justify violence.  Whether he expressly supports
> terrorism or not - I think he probably does - he is at least serving as
> a tool for out-and-out terrorists, much as a sleazy lawyer furthers the
> interests of known criminals.
>

You have no rational grounds for thinking that he expressly supports
terrorism. You are very fond of making statements for which you
obviously have no rational grounds.

If you wanted to make a case that what he says in the article does not
withstand rational scrutiny, then you'd obviously have to read the
article, which you haven't done. If it does withstand rational
scrutiny, then it's his duty to put the arguments forward in the
interests of seeking truth, and those who engage in political violence
would only be able to use it to justify things which are in fact
justified.


> I'm guessing your buddy Hadley is another professional "ar"
> pseudo-intellectual.  I've long noticed an imbalance among academics and
> other intellectuals when it comes to "ar".  Guys like Singer and Regan
> and your pal Hadley and Nathan Nobis dedicate their professional lives
> to "ar".  They may dabble in some other areas, but they're mainly about
> "ar".

Singer has a much broader range of interests than that. I don't know
much about Regan but I do know that he has written on other topics.
John Hadley has written about issues to do with free speech, among
other things. In any event I don't see the problem with having a focus
of research interest.

> Intellectuals who write in opposition to "ar", like Carl Cohen
> and Tibor Machan, are the opposite:  they are either generalists or are
> focused mainly on other philosophical issues, who happen to take an
> interest in "ar" almost in passing.
>
> This creates a false and misleading sense that the "ar" side are
> "better" or have a more developed and coherent philosophy.  In fact, the
> "ar" opponents seem easily to be intellectually and academically the
> superiors of the "ar" partisans.  They seem more than capable of dealing
> on a part-time basis with the issues that consume the "ar" partisans
> full time.

Your remarks strike me as lacking in evidence.

George Plimpton
2012-01-13 18:06:39 EST
On 1/13/2012 1:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 13, 10:11 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
>>>>>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
>>>>>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>>
>>>>>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
>>>>>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
>>>>>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. Despite guards, a constant
>>>>>>> worker presence and razor wire fence, the statement read, the enemy is
>>>>>>> still vulnerable.
>>
>>>>>>> [T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed, the statement
>>>>>>> added, and we can t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
>>>>>>> welders to do all the work.
>>
>>>>>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
>>>>>>> the Bee that he and his employees are appalled by this senseless, but
>>>>>>> very alarming attack.
>>
>>>>>>> I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
>>>>>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,
>>>>>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>>
>>>>>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
>>>>>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
>>>>>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
>>>>>>> with other eco-terror organizations, one of today s most serious
>>>>>>> domestic terrorism threats.
>>
>>>>>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the domestic terror category of the
>>>>>>> FBI s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>>
>>>>>>> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>>
>>>>>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
>>>>>> John Hadley:
>>
>>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>>
>>>>> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
>>>>> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
>>>>> if John Hadley gives me permission.
>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you should bother. The short fragment that is available
>>>> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal. He writes,
>>>> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
>>>> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
>>>> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
>>>> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>>
>>>> "Boasted"? In what way is that statement a "boast"? That's a
>>>> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>>
>>> I don't think it's intended pejoratively.
>>
>> *OF COURSE* it's intended pejoratively, you nitwit. "Boast" is
>> inherently a pejorative.
>>
>
> No, it's not.
>
>>> I think what he's trying to
>>> convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
>>> taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
>>> that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
>>> unreasonable to make this suggestion.
>>
>> They may well have been, but that statement /per se/ is not a boast.
>>
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boast
>
> Note sense 2.

Very clearly not the sense used by your pal.


>>>> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
>>>> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
>>>> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
>>>> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
>>>> used for research purposes." First of all, that simply does not follow.
>>>> There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
>>>> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
>>>> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>>
>>> The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
>>> justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
>>> reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read.
>>
>> Yes, I am. He is without doubt saying the end justifies the means.
>
> No. That is not what he is saying.

It is what he is saying.


>> Because the end - stopping research and testing on animals - is
>> something he views as unquestionably desirable (even though society
>> disagrees with him), then he views any means as acceptable.
>>
>
> That's nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for reading him
> in that way.

Of course I have. It's the most plain reading of what he has written.


>> As I said, other ethics debates in society do not routinely find one
>> side saying if they don't get their way, then violence is justified.
>>
>
> Yes. That is correct.

So, there is nothing so special about this one that would warrant your
terrorism-defending pal demanding that there must be "scope" for
debating the ethics of committing violence. The participants in other
ethics debates don't seem to demand it such "scope", so why this one?

It is the very act of demanding this "scope" for discussing the ethics
of committing violence that means he is making allowance for violence.


>>>> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
>>>> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists. Radical Islamist
>>>> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
>>>> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
>>>> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>>
>>> There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
>>> any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause.
>>
>> What?! You think that Palestinians fighting for a Palestinian state
>> cannot make a plausible case - a far *more* plausible case than the one
>> for stopping research and testing on animals - that their cause is
>> right? You think Al Qaeda cannot make a plausible case that getting rid
>> of the existing Saudi regime, and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia,
>> is right?
>>
>
> When you said "radical Islamist" I thought you had in mind the aims of
> radical Islam.

Any group that advocates the use of terroristic violence to achieve
their goals. Radical Islamists advocating the establishment of regimes
in their countries that will impose sharia and throw infidels out of the
countries are arguing for self determination. How can you say they
can't make a plausible case for the rightness of that? And if you admit
they can, then your pal has opened the door for them to say the
rightness of their aim justifies violence in trying to attain it.


> To say that John Hadley favours trying to achieve your political
> objectives by any means necessary that is a travesty of what he is
> saying.

No, because as soon as he says the ethics of violence to achieve a goal
must be "in scope" for discussion of the attainment of the goal, he is
taking an important first step to legitimizing the violence.


>>> It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
>>> the conclusion that ARE is not justified.
>>
>> ARE = animal rights extremists. He's saying the extremists - the people
>> - are not justified?
>>
>
> Yes.

He's not saying the extremists are unjustified in being extremists, you
fuckwit. he may be saying in the part of the paper I can't read that
their advocacy of violence is wrong, but not the extremism of their
position. Get a fucking clue.


>> Along the way, he tries to set the stage for the ARE claiming they are
>> justified.
>>
>
> No. He doesn't claim that.

It's what he has done in his introduction.


>>>> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
>>>> terrorism-supporting friend.
>>
>>> He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
>>> grounds for thinking that he is.
>>
>> When he starts out by saying "there must also be scope for debating the
>> ethics of using violence to stop animals being used for research
>> purposes", he is providing the framework for terrorists to take what he
>> said and use it to justify violence. Whether he expressly supports
>> terrorism or not - I think he probably does - he is at least serving as
>> a tool for out-and-out terrorists, much as a sleazy lawyer furthers the
>> interests of known criminals.
>>
>
> You have no rational grounds for thinking that he expressly supports
> terrorism.

I believe I have.


>
>> I'm guessing your buddy Hadley is another professional "ar"
>> pseudo-intellectual. I've long noticed an imbalance among academics and
>> other intellectuals when it comes to "ar". Guys like Singer and Regan
>> and your pal Hadley and Nathan Nobis dedicate their professional lives
>> to "ar". They may dabble in some other areas, but they're mainly about
>> "ar".
>
> Singer has a much broader range of interests than that. I don't know
> much about Regan but I do know that he has written on other topics.
> John Hadley has written about issues to do with free speech, among
> other things. In any event I don't see the problem with having a focus
> of research interest.

In general, I don't have a problem with it, either. However, it almost
always seems to be the case that the "ar" extremist academics were
"aras" first, then pursued some academic field as a means of advancing
their "ar" agenda, while the opponents of "ar" like Cohen and Machan did
it the other way around.


>> Intellectuals who write in opposition to "ar", like Carl Cohen
>> and Tibor Machan, are the opposite: they are either generalists or are
>> focused mainly on other philosophical issues, who happen to take an
>> interest in "ar" almost in passing.
>>
>> This creates a false and misleading sense that the "ar" side are
>> "better" or have a more developed and coherent philosophy. In fact, the
>> "ar" opponents seem easily to be intellectually and academically the
>> superiors of the "ar" partisans. They seem more than capable of dealing
>> on a part-time basis with the issues that consume the "ar" partisans
>> full time.
>
> Your remarks strike me as lacking in evidence.

You know I'm right.

Rupert
2012-01-13 18:25:11 EST
On Jan 14, 12:06 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 1:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 10:11 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 1/13/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
> >>>>>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
> >>>>>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>
> >>>>>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
> >>>>>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
> >>>>>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. Despite guards, a constant
> >>>>>>> worker presence and razor wire fence, the statement read, the enemy is
> >>>>>>> still vulnerable.
>
> >>>>>>> [T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed, the statement
> >>>>>>> added, and we can t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
> >>>>>>> welders to do all the work.
>
> >>>>>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
> >>>>>>> the Bee that he and his employees are appalled by this senseless, but
> >>>>>>> very alarming attack.
>
> >>>>>>> I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
> >>>>>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,
> >>>>>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>
> >>>>>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
> >>>>>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
> >>>>>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
> >>>>>>> with other eco-terror organizations, one of today s most serious
> >>>>>>> domestic terrorism threats.
>
> >>>>>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the domestic terror category of the
> >>>>>>> FBI s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>
> >>>>>>>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>
> >>>>>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
> >>>>>> John Hadley:
>
> >>>>>>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>
> >>>>> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
> >>>>> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
> >>>>> if John Hadley gives me permission.
>
> >>>> I'm not sure if you should bother.  The short fragment that is available
> >>>> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal.  He writes,
> >>>> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
> >>>> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
> >>>> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
> >>>> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>
> >>>> "Boasted"?  In what way is that statement a "boast"?  That's a
> >>>> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>
> >>> I don't think it's intended pejoratively.
>
> >> *OF COURSE* it's intended pejoratively, you nitwit.  "Boast" is
> >> inherently a pejorative.
>
> > No, it's not.
>
> >>> I think what he's trying to
> >>> convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
> >>> taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
> >>> that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
> >>> unreasonable to make this suggestion.
>
> >> They may well have been, but that statement /per se/ is not a boast.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boast
>
> > Note sense 2.
>
> Very clearly not the sense used by your pal.
>

I don't agree.

> >>>> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
> >>>> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
> >>>> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
> >>>> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
> >>>> used for research purposes."  First of all, that simply does not follow.
> >>>>     There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
> >>>> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
> >>>> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>
> >>> The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
> >>> justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
> >>> reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read.
>
> >> Yes, I am.  He is without doubt saying the end justifies the means.
>
> > No. That is not what he is saying.
>
> It is what he is saying.
>

How would you know when you haven't read the article, you stupid twit?

> >> Because the end - stopping research and testing on animals - is
> >> something he views as unquestionably desirable (even though society
> >> disagrees with him), then he views any means as acceptable.
>
> > That's nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for reading him
> > in that way.
>
> Of course I have.  It's the most plain reading of what he has written.
>

Nonsense.

> >> As I said, other ethics debates in society do not routinely find one
> >> side saying if they don't get their way, then violence is justified.
>
> > Yes. That is correct.
>
> So, there is nothing so special about this one that would warrant your
> terrorism-defending pal demanding that there must be "scope" for
> debating the ethics of committing violence.  The participants in other
> ethics debates don't seem to demand it such "scope", so why this one?
>

If you want to know, you should read the article, where he attempts to
defend his contention. Then you would be in a position to rationally
assess his arguments.

> It is the very act of demanding this "scope" for discussing the ethics
> of committing violence that means he is making allowance for violence.
>

No. It does not mean that.

> >>>> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
> >>>> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists.  Radical Islamist
> >>>> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
> >>>> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
> >>>> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>
> >>> There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
> >>> any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause.
>
> >> What?!  You think that Palestinians fighting for a Palestinian state
> >> cannot make a plausible case - a far *more* plausible case than the one
> >> for stopping research and testing on animals - that their cause is
> >> right?  You think Al Qaeda cannot make a plausible case that getting rid
> >> of the existing Saudi regime, and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia,
> >> is right?
>
> > When you said "radical Islamist" I thought you had in mind the aims of
> > radical Islam.
>
> Any group that advocates the use of terroristic violence to achieve
> their goals.  Radical Islamists advocating the establishment of regimes
> in their countries that will impose sharia and throw infidels out of the
> countries are arguing for self determination.  How can you say they
> can't make a plausible case for the rightness of that?

Quite easily from where I'm standing.

> And if you admit
> they can, then your pal has opened the door for them to say the
> rightness of their aim justifies violence in trying to attain it.
>

No, he has not.

> > To say that John Hadley favours trying to achieve your political
> > objectives by any means necessary that is a travesty of what he is
> > saying.
>
> No,

Yes.

> because as soon as he says the ethics of violence to achieve a goal
> must be "in scope" for discussion of the attainment of the goal, he is
> taking an important first step to legitimizing the violence.
>

Which violence? Are you a pacifist, do you think that violence is
never legitimate? Some violence is legitimate and some isn't. Hadley's
paper is an attempt to contribute to the discussion of under what
circumstances violence is justified, and to investigate the
consequences of applying generally agreed-upon principles in a
consistent way. You wouldn't know anything whatsoever about what he's
saying because you haven't read the article, which makes this whole
discussion quite farcical.

> >>> It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
> >>> the conclusion that ARE is not justified.
>
> >> ARE = animal rights extremists.  He's saying the extremists - the people
> >> - are not justified?
>
> > Yes.
>
> He's not saying the extremists are unjustified in being extremists, you
> fuckwit.  he may be saying in the part of the paper I can't read that
> their advocacy of violence is wrong, but not the extremism of their
> position.  Get a fucking clue.
>

You're at cross-purposes to him because you're using a different
definition of "extremism".

> >> Along the way, he tries to set the stage for the ARE claiming they are
> >> justified.
>
> > No. He doesn't claim that.
>
> It's what he has done in his introduction.
>

Wrong. You really should learn how to read.

> >>>> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
> >>>> terrorism-supporting friend.
>
> >>> He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
> >>> grounds for thinking that he is.
>
> >> When he starts out by saying "there must also be scope for debating the
> >> ethics of using violence to stop animals being used for research
> >> purposes", he is providing the framework for terrorists to take what he
> >> said and use it to justify violence.  Whether he expressly supports
> >> terrorism or not - I think he probably does - he is at least serving as
> >> a tool for out-and-out terrorists, much as a sleazy lawyer furthers the
> >> interests of known criminals.
>
> > You have no rational grounds for thinking that he expressly supports
> > terrorism.
>
> I believe I have.
>

You believe all sorts of things. In this instance, as in many others,
your belief manifestly lacks rational foundation.

>
>
> >> I'm guessing your buddy Hadley is another professional "ar"
> >> pseudo-intellectual.  I've long noticed an imbalance among academics and
> >> other intellectuals when it comes to "ar".  Guys like Singer and Regan
> >> and your pal Hadley and Nathan Nobis dedicate their professional lives
> >> to "ar".  They may dabble in some other areas, but they're mainly about
> >> "ar".
>
> > Singer has a much broader range of interests than that. I don't know
> > much about Regan but I do know that he has written on other topics.
> > John Hadley has written about issues to do with free speech, among
> > other things. In any event I don't see the problem with having a focus
> > of research interest.
>
> In general, I don't have a problem with it, either.  However, it almost
> always seems to be the case that the "ar" extremist academics were
> "aras" first, then pursued some academic field as a means of advancing
> their "ar" agenda, while the opponents of "ar" like Cohen and Machan did
> it the other way around.
>

That was not the case with Singer or Regan, for example; they both
went into philosophy before adopting their views about the treatment
of animals.

I don't believe that you have any rational foundation for this
assertion of yours.

> >> Intellectuals who write in opposition to "ar", like Carl Cohen
> >> and Tibor Machan, are the opposite:  they are either generalists or are
> >> focused mainly on other philosophical issues, who happen to take an
> >> interest in "ar" almost in passing.
>
> >> This creates a false and misleading sense that the "ar" side are
> >> "better" or have a more developed and coherent philosophy.  In fact, the
> >> "ar" opponents seem easily to be intellectually and academically the
> >> superiors of the "ar" partisans.  They seem more than capable of dealing
> >> on a part-time basis with the issues that consume the "ar" partisans
> >> full time.
>
> > Your remarks strike me as lacking in evidence.
>
> You know I'm right.

Pffft.

George Plimpton
2012-01-13 19:58:09 EST
On 1/13/2012 3:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 14, 12:06 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 1:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 10:11 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2012 11:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 7:35 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/13/2012 9:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 6:37 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> A shadowy group of anonymous animal rights radicals says it was behind
>>>>>>>>> an arson attack early Sunday that burned more than a dozen trucks at a
>>>>>>>>> cattle feedlot in Fresno County, Calif.
>>
>>>>>>>>> A statement from the Animal Liberation Front, published by the Fresno
>>>>>>>>> Bee, describes how the fire, which heavily damaged 14 tractors and
>>>>>>>>> several cattle-hauling trailers, was set. Despite guards, a constant
>>>>>>>>> worker presence and razor wire fence, the statement read, the enemy is
>>>>>>>>> still vulnerable.
>>
>>>>>>>>> [T]here is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed, the statement
>>>>>>>>> added, and we can t count on spontaneous combustion and careless
>>>>>>>>> welders to do all the work.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Harris Farms CEO and Chairman John Harris said Tuesday in an email to
>>>>>>>>> the Bee that he and his employees are appalled by this senseless, but
>>>>>>>>> very alarming attack.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I had suspected Animal Liberation Front may have been involved and now
>>>>>>>>> they are in fact claiming responsibility for it with multiple details,
>>>>>>>>> Harris wrote, calling the arson a terrorist action.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, too, considers the loose-knit
>>>>>>>>> Animal Liberation Front a terrorist group. Testifying before Congress in
>>>>>>>>> 2005, then-FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis called it, along
>>>>>>>>> with other eco-terror organizations, one of today s most serious
>>>>>>>>> domestic terrorism threats.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Three of the seven fugitives in the domestic terror category of the
>>>>>>>>> FBI s Most Wanted list are affiliated with the Animal Liberaton Front.
>>
>>>>>>>>> http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/animal-rights-terror-group-takes-cr...
>>
>>>>>>>> This is an article written about animal rights extremism by my friend
>>>>>>>> John Hadley:
>>
>>>>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01457.x/a...
>>
>>>>>>> I regret that this paper is not available on-line for free. I will
>>>>>>> post a short quotation from it dealing with definitions of terrorism
>>>>>>> if John Hadley gives me permission.
>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if you should bother. The short fragment that is available
>>>>>> at the online library indicates the clear bias of your pal. He writes,
>>>>>> "After widening its statute definition of terrorism to incorporate ARE
>>>>>> [animal rights extremism] the UK government *boasted* "Animal rights
>>>>>> extremists should not be surprised to find themselves treated as
>>>>>> terrorists.'" [emphasis added]
>>
>>>>>> "Boasted"? In what way is that statement a "boast"? That's a
>>>>>> gratuitous pejorative, and not even remotely accurate.
>>
>>>>> I don't think it's intended pejoratively.
>>
>>>> *OF COURSE* it's intended pejoratively, you nitwit. "Boast" is
>>>> inherently a pejorative.
>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>>>>> I think what he's trying to
>>>>> convey is that the Blair government was trying to represent itself as
>>>>> taking a hard line on the problem of domestic terrorism, in the hope
>>>>> that voters would look favourably on this. I don't think it's
>>>>> unreasonable to make this suggestion.
>>
>>>> They may well have been, but that statement /per se/ is not a boast.
>>
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boast
>>
>>> Note sense 2.
>>
>> Very clearly not the sense used by your pal.
>>
>
> I don't agree.

You always say that. It's because you're ideologically blinded.


>>>>>> He then proceeds to say something utterly stupid, saying that because
>>>>>> there are serious questions about the ethics of use of animals in
>>>>>> research (and testing, he omits to say), therefore "there must also be
>>>>>> scope for debating the ethics of using violence to stop animals being
>>>>>> used for research purposes." First of all, that simply does not follow.
>>>>>> There are all kinds of ethics questions debated in society, and in
>>>>>> virtually *none* of them is violence considered an acceptable response
>>>>>> by the side that loses or appears to be losing the public debate.
>>
>>>>> The discussion is a lot more detailed than that. He offers detailed
>>>>> justification for his claim in Section 4. You are not in a position to
>>>>> reasonably dismiss his claim on the basis of what you have read.
>>
>>>> Yes, I am. He is without doubt saying the end justifies the means.
>>
>>> No. That is not what he is saying.
>>
>> It is what he is saying.
>>
>
> How would you know when you haven't read the article, you stupid twit?

It's very clearly what he's saying based on his introduction.



>>>> Because the end - stopping research and testing on animals - is
>>>> something he views as unquestionably desirable (even though society
>>>> disagrees with him), then he views any means as acceptable.
>>
>>> That's nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for reading him
>>> in that way.
>>
>> Of course I have. It's the most plain reading of what he has written.
>>
>
> Nonsense.

More irrational fluff.


>>>> As I said, other ethics debates in society do not routinely find one
>>>> side saying if they don't get their way, then violence is justified.
>>
>>> Yes. That is correct.
>>
>> So, there is nothing so special about this one that would warrant your
>> terrorism-defending pal demanding that there must be "scope" for
>> debating the ethics of committing violence. The participants in other
>> ethics debates don't seem to demand it such "scope", so why this one?
>>
>
> If you want to know, you should read the article, where he attempts to
> defend his contention. Then you would be in a position to rationally
> assess his arguments.

You already agreed with me above.


>> It is the very act of demanding this "scope" for discussing the ethics
>> of committing violence that means he is making allowance for violence.
>>
>
> No. It does not mean that.

That is exactly what it means.


>>>>>> Even worse, his line of thinking throws the door wide open for what
>>>>>> might be considered "normal" geopolitical terrorists. Radical Islamist
>>>>>> and other terrorists clearly think that the "rightness" of their cause,
>>>>>> coupled with their imagined powerlessness to wage conventional warfare,
>>>>>> morally justifies their use of terrorism.
>>
>>>>> There are many notable differences, one being that they couldn't make
>>>>> any plausible case for the "rightness" of their cause.
>>
>>>> What?! You think that Palestinians fighting for a Palestinian state
>>>> cannot make a plausible case - a far *more* plausible case than the one
>>>> for stopping research and testing on animals - that their cause is
>>>> right? You think Al Qaeda cannot make a plausible case that getting rid
>>>> of the existing Saudi regime, and getting US forces out of Saudi Arabia,
>>>> is right?
>>
>>> When you said "radical Islamist" I thought you had in mind the aims of
>>> radical Islam.
>>
>> Any group that advocates the use of terroristic violence to achieve
>> their goals. Radical Islamists advocating the establishment of regimes
>> in their countries that will impose sharia and throw infidels out of the
>> countries are arguing for self determination. How can you say they
>> can't make a plausible case for the rightness of that?
>
> Quite easily from where I'm standing.

Sophism.

The interest in self determination for Arabs vastly outweighs any
conceivable ethical issues of use of animals in research and testing.


>> And if you admit
>> they can, then your pal has opened the door for them to say the
>> rightness of their aim justifies violence in trying to attain it.
>>
>
> No, he has not.

He certainly has.


>>> To say that John Hadley favours trying to achieve your political
>>> objectives by any means necessary that is a travesty of what he is
>>> saying.
>>
>> No, because as soon as he says the ethics of violence to achieve a goal
>> must be "in scope" for discussion of the attainment of the goal, he is
>> taking an important first step to legitimizing the violence.
>>
>
> Which violence? Are you a pacifist, do you think that violence is
> never legitimate? Some violence is legitimate and some isn't.

Violence because you lose an ethics debate - overwhelmingly - in your
own society is never justified.


>>>>> It should be noted, in any event, that John Hadley ultimately comes to
>>>>> the conclusion that ARE is not justified.
>>
>>>> ARE = animal rights extremists. He's saying the extremists - the people
>>>> - are not justified?
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> He's not saying the extremists are unjustified in being extremists, you
>> fuckwit. he may be saying in the part of the paper I can't read that
>> their advocacy of violence is wrong, but not the extremism of their
>> position. Get a fucking clue.
>>
>
> You're at cross-purposes to him because you're using a different
> definition of "extremism".
>
>>>> Along the way, he tries to set the stage for the ARE claiming they are
>>>> justified.
>>
>>> No. He doesn't claim that.
>>
>> It's what he has done in his introduction.
>>
>
> Wrong.

Nope. I'm right.


>>>>>> Seriously, I don't think you need to bother contacting your
>>>>>> terrorism-supporting friend.
>>
>>>>> He is not a supporter of terrorism, and you obviously have no rational
>>>>> grounds for thinking that he is.
>>
>>>> When he starts out by saying "there must also be scope for debating the
>>>> ethics of using violence to stop animals being used for research
>>>> purposes", he is providing the framework for terrorists to take what he
>>>> said and use it to justify violence. Whether he expressly supports
>>>> terrorism or not - I think he probably does - he is at least serving as
>>>> a tool for out-and-out terrorists, much as a sleazy lawyer furthers the
>>>> interests of known criminals.
>>
>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that he expressly supports
>>> terrorism.
>>
>> I believe I have.
>>
>
> You believe all sorts of things. In this instance, as in many others,
> your belief manifestly lacks rational foundation.

No, not in the least.


>>
>>>> I'm guessing your buddy Hadley is another professional "ar"
>>>> pseudo-intellectual. I've long noticed an imbalance among academics and
>>>> other intellectuals when it comes to "ar". Guys like Singer and Regan
>>>> and your pal Hadley and Nathan Nobis dedicate their professional lives
>>>> to "ar". They may dabble in some other areas, but they're mainly about
>>>> "ar".
>>
>>> Singer has a much broader range of interests than that. I don't know
>>> much about Regan but I do know that he has written on other topics.
>>> John Hadley has written about issues to do with free speech, among
>>> other things. In any event I don't see the problem with having a focus
>>> of research interest.
>>
>> In general, I don't have a problem with it, either. However, it almost
>> always seems to be the case that the "ar" extremist academics were
>> "aras" first, then pursued some academic field as a means of advancing
>> their "ar" agenda, while the opponents of "ar" like Cohen and Machan did
>> it the other way around.
>>
>
> That was not the case with Singer or Regan, for example; they both
> went into philosophy before adopting their views about the treatment
> of animals.

Prove it.


>>>> Intellectuals who write in opposition to "ar", like Carl Cohen
>>>> and Tibor Machan, are the opposite: they are either generalists or are
>>>> focused mainly on other philosophical issues, who happen to take an
>>>> interest in "ar" almost in passing.
>>
>>>> This creates a false and misleading sense that the "ar" side are
>>>> "better" or have a more developed and coherent philosophy. In fact, the
>>>> "ar" opponents seem easily to be intellectually and academically the
>>>> superiors of the "ar" partisans. They seem more than capable of dealing
>>>> on a part-time basis with the issues that consume the "ar" partisans
>>>> full time.
>>
>>> Your remarks strike me as lacking in evidence.
>>
>> You know I'm right.
>
> Pffft.

That's the best you ever do.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron