They support ALF. Is that justified? How do you defend their position?

If one is a pacifist, it's not possible to defend. Pacificists do not condone violence.

If one is not a pacifist, then there is no problem and doesn't cause a bash of an eyelid.

I don't think it's more complicated than that. Some things are more simple than one thinks.

This topic has been debated ad nauseam elswhere on VB.

I don't believe ALF normally practices violence against living creatures.

What is ALF? (I'm easily confused at this time of night, lol)

peace and love amy-jane xx

What is ALF? (I'm easily confused at this time of night, lol)

peace and love amy-jane xxAnimal Liberation Front. They do illegal actions like arson, animal rescues, lab break-ins, mink liberations, etc.

Ah, thank you :)

peace and love amy-jane xx

I don't believe ALF normally practices violence against living creatures.


They blow up facilities that test on animals and rescue the animals. They don't target people per se but who is to say they won't eventually kill someone by accident.

They destroy property not belonging to them. If you don't have a problem with that particular aspect, then you would not be opposed to somebody destroying your property, attempting to cause you financial ruin and public embarrassment and humiliation if they disagreed with your actions/beliefs.

Why do I have to justify their position? Because I'm a vegetarian?

Why do I have to justify their position? Because I'm a vegetarian?

I believe the poster is asking that if one supports PETA's advocacy of the actions of the ALF, how does that supporter justify that position. Not necessarily targeting any vegetarian or vegan.

They blow up facilities that test on animals and rescue the animals. They don't target people per se but who is to say they won't eventually kill someone by accident.

Cars/anything else don't target people per se, but who is to say they won't eventually kill someone by accident. I cannot support or condone cars/anything else if I'm a pacifist, then?

There should be warning on all cars: "Getting into this vehicle could be hasardous to your health". If they don't start putting them, some smartass and his lawyer will probably start a series of lawsuits, just like they do with the cigarette companies and recently McDonalds.

I myself am thinking of starting up a lawsuit against the salt factories. Just got to find a lawyer who will take up my case but I think in the United States that should not be hard to find.

Damn, I don't even justify my actions. What's the point? Someone's going to disagree with anything. I don't want everyone to agree. It's much easier just not giving a **** what they think, instead of arguing so that it doesn't look like you don't give a ****.

Cars/anything else don't target people per se, but who is to say they won't eventually kill someone by accident. I cannot support or condone cars/anything else if I'm a pacifist, then?

If you can't see the difference between someone intentionally blowing up a building and someone getting in a car and hitting someone by accident then there is no hope for you.

What hope is that? That he'll end up thinking like you?

This has probably, as Amy said, been discussed ad nauseum. And I think it will probably be discussed ad ad ad nauseum until all animals are one day free.

I think it most timely to bring it up again during this month of remembrance and commemoration of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies. The topic of which will be argued ad nauseum for at least another fifty years (until all survivors are gone) whether it was Good or Bad to drop those bombs.

Sometimes there are no clear-cut answers.

If you can't see the difference between someone intentionally blowing up a building and someone getting in a car and hitting someone by accident then there is no hope for you.Your comment was about killing someone by accident, not merely blowing up a building.

I don't believe PETA does "advocate" violence. To me, advocating violence would involve printing instructions on how to destroy a building or putting hits on certian individuals within their newsletters and informational materials. I have never seen such a thing in PETA-produced materials.
Agreeing with all or some or all ALF activities is something different. If certain higher-ups in PETA view the ALF as justified, that is personal opinion. It is perfectly legal to believe that illegal activities are OK, as long as you don't personally engage in said activities. Even if it is unpopular, it's still freedom of speech.
I'm not saying that PETA is a great organization or that some of their opinions haven't hurt animal advocacy as a whole. I am saying that I don't believe they instruct individuals to go out and engage in violence.

"They don't target people..."

Well, that's pretty much it, those raids aren't spur of the moment things, they're planned and part of that involves making sure no one gets hurt, they want to free the animals, destroy equipment associated with animal torture, and make it increasingly undesirable, i.e., profitable, to practice experiementation.

Your comment was about killing someone by accident, not merely blowing up a building.

Planting a bomb or setting a building is a reckless act.

Driving a car with reasonable caution is not.

Both can lead to the death of another, but most reasonable (or at least those who don't have their head up their ass) can see that the person in the first case is knowingly risking the life of another person at a much greater degree than that of the second person.
To argue otherwise to defend the assholes in ALF is just silly.

I don't believe PETA does "advocate" violence. To me, advocating violence would involve printing instructions on how to destroy a building or putting hits on certian individuals within their newsletters and informational materials. I have never seen such a thing in PETA-produced materials.
Agreeing with all or some or all ALF activities is something different. If certain higher-ups in PETA view the ALF as justified, that is personal opinion. It is perfectly legal to believe that illegal activities are OK, as long as you don't personally engage in said activities. Even if it is unpopular, it's still freedom of speech.
I'm not saying that PETA is a great organization or that some of their opinions haven't hurt animal advocacy as a whole. I am saying that I don't believe they instruct individuals to go out and engage in violence.

PETA supporting ALF means they support the use of violence in the defense of animals. Go to the PETA website and see the FAQ's. They condone the destruction of property as a means to an end.

Planting a bomb or setting a building is a reckless act.

Driving a car with reasonable caution is not.

Both can lead to the death of another, but most reasonable (or at least those who don't have their head up their ass) can see that the person in the first case is knowingly risking the life of another person at a much greater degree than that of the second person.
To argue otherwise to defend the assholes in ALF is just silly.I don't know what this has to do with my post.

Seemed to me like CJ was saying that blowing up a building and hitting someone with your car are different because the former is intentional and the latter not. This is correct but irrelevant.

PETA supporting ALF means they support the use of violence in the defense of animals. Go to the PETA website and see the FAQ's. They condone the destruction of property as a means to an end.By 'violence', you refer to all kinds of property destruction, even the kind that doesn't involve the risk of harm to humans?

"They condone the destruction of property as a means to an end."

Me too, they're not going to stop cruel and unnecessary experiments on animals just by virtue of having a sound argument presented to the contrary, free the animals and destroy the implements of torture. ALF plans their raids very carefully so that no people are harmed, property yes, people no.
Definately an issue that divides people, I don't know that there's much of a middleground to be arrived at.

Definately an issue that divides people, I don't know that there's much of a middleground to be arrived at.

This is perhaps the only thing worth reading so far in this discussion.

ETA: aside from the comment that this is a dead horse as far as this board is concerned.