VeggieBoards banner
21 - 40 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

No, I do not agree. I do not define consumer or employer choice as "attacks".
Your logic just turned circular, since what you do consider an "attack," destruction of property, is not what we're talking about when speaking about attacking livelihoods.

You consider the destruction of private property violent, whether or not it involves anyone's livelihood - correct?

And seeing as you have stated that you don't believe denying someone a living as violent, that leaves only the destruction of property issue, again.

In summary: it's not the fact that someone's livelihood may hang in the balance that you find violent, it's the destruction of property, correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
You say violence can be justified. Define what would justify it, in your opinion.

You say if something illegal, they should be ready to face the consequences - I agree, and they are, believe me. MLK Jr. broke laws that he disagreed with on a regular basis, as did Gandhi - MLK Jr. and Gandhi are possibly the two most non-violent people ever to walk the earth, so I believe that whether or not something is against the law is irrelevant to whether or not it's moral.

And you also say you want to see much more haneous violence done to the people who committed these actions in prison. Defend your position. How can you say the people who did this are wrong to do it because it's violent, yet turn around and hippocritically wish much worse violence on them? Please explain.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Nope. Choosing not to do something is not an attack, therefore a boycott is not an attack on someone's livelihood.

No circular logic at all.

An ALF action can destroy property and attack someone's livelihood at the same time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

Nope. Choosing not to do something is not an attack, therefore a boycott is not an attack on someone's livelihood.

No circular logic at all.

An ALF action can destroy property and attack someone's livelihood at the same time.
You're not understanding what I'm saying, Tame.

Let me repeat the summary: it's not that someone's livelihood may be affected that you find violent, it's the destruction of property. Destruction of property may or may not affect someone's livelihood - but it is violent either way.

This is what you've stated is your position, only put into clearer terms. This means, basically, that the livelihood issue is irrelevant - since it's the destruction of property that you find offensive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mera'din

You say violence can be justified. Define what would justify it, in your opinion.

You say if something illegal, they should be ready to face the consequences - I agree, and they are, believe me. MLK Jr. broke laws that he disagreed with on a regular basis, as did Gandhi - MLK Jr. and Gandhi are possibly the two most non-violent people ever to walk the earth, so I believe that whether or not something is against the law is irrelevant to whether or not it's moral.

And you also say you want to see much more haneous violence done to the people who committed these actions in prison. Defend your position. How can you say the people who did this are wrong to do it because it's violent, yet turn around and hippocritically wish much worse violence on them? Please explain.
First, what justifies violence is in the eye of the beholder. Definitions will vary. My only concern in the matter is what is legal.

And no the ALF weinies do not accept the consequences. They run, hide, and then whine that what they do is not wrong. If they were to nut up after an attack and go to jail for their beliefs, I might respect them more.

I didn't say that my wanting the ALF/ELF scum to suffer is a moral or just thing. I just personally hope they suffer so that others will have enough sense not to follow in their footsteps.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mera'din

You're not understanding what I'm saying, Tame.

Let me repeat the summary: it's not that someone's livelihood may be affected that you find violent, it's the destruction of property. Destruction of property may or may not affect someone's livelihood - but it is violent either way.

This is what you've stated is your position, only put into clearer terms. This means, basically, that the livelihood issue is irrelevant - since it's the destruction of property that you find offensive.
Nope. Let's say an ALF ******* burns down a factory. Damage was done to property through arson - I find that to be a violent attack. Also, at the same time, the workers/managers/owners in the factory had their livelihood attacked - I find that to be vilent also.

The factory owner laying off the workers is not an attack on livelihood, as it is his choice whether or not to employ the workers.

If the factory goes out of business because no one buys the products, that also is not an attack - there is no expectation that I will do so.

There is a reasonable expectation that I will not show up one night and set the place on fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

First, what justifies violence is in the eye of the beholder. Definitions will vary. My only concern in the matter is what is legal.

And no the ALF weinies do not accept the consequences. They run, hide, and then whine that what they do is not wrong. If they were to nut up after an attack and go to jail for their beliefs, I might respect them more.

I didn't say that my wanting the ALF/ELF scum to suffer is a moral or just thing. I just personally hope they suffer so that others will have enough sense not to follow in their footsteps.
Ok - 'nuff said.
You've just articulated what I was getting at all along.

What justifies violence is definitely in the eye of the beholder, and I thank you for admitting you're only focusing on what is currently legal or illegal in the U.S. (Which by definition is totally arbitrary, since laws can be changed and revoked and implemented on a whim).

The greatest people in history have willfully broken laws to complete their goals.

I do not place more value on some corporation's private property, than I do on the lives of living, sentient creatures. You obviously do not agree with me on that point, but hey, I didn't expect you to.


The ELF and ALF take great effort to make sure no creatures (human OR non-human) are harmed in their actions. The folks that committed this act were a bit reckless by not being more public about the cut brake lines, they should have made a better effort to warn the company about the cut lines - that could have harmed someone - but luckily that didn't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

Nope. Let's say an ALF ******* burns down a factory. Damage was done to property through arson - I find that to be a violent attack. Also, at the same time, the workers/managers/owners in the factory had their livelihood attacked - I find that to be vilent also.

The factory owner laying off the workers is not an attack on livelihood, as it is his choice whether or not to employ the workers.

If the factory goes out of business because no one buys the products, that also is not an attack - there is no expectation that I will do so.

There is a reasonable expectation that I will not show up one night and set the place on fire.
Well, you obviously don't see the double standard you're applying, but that's ok. I see it, and I think I've made my point, that either denying someone their livelihood is violent or it is not - that you can't have it both ways, abundantly clear, so I'll leave it at that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
It is not a double standard. By not buying a product or by not hiring someone, I am not *denying* them *anything* they are entitled to from me.

Boycotting is not a violent act - I am not taking anything from you - I am *choosing* not to give you something.

It is rather easy to have it both ways in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Tame

It is not a double standard. By not buying a product or by not hiring someone, I am not *denying* them *anything* they are entitled to from me.

Boycotting is not a violent act - I am not taking anything from you - I am *choosing* not to give you something.

It is rather easy to have it both ways in this case.
So once again, it's nothing to do with livelihood. It's to do with the act of destruction of property.

If you organize a boycott that ruins a corporation and they go under - you put all those people out of jobs just as much as if you'd burned down their factory (to use your previous example).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mera'din

Ok - 'nuff said.
You've just articulated what I was getting at all along.

What justifies violence is definitely in the eye of the beholder, and I thank you for admitting you're only focusing on what is currently legal or illegal in the U.S. (Which by definition is totally arbitrary, since laws can be changed and revoked and implemented on a whim).

The greatest people in history have willfully broken laws to complete their goals.

I do not place more value on some corporation's private property, than I do on the lives of living, sentient creatures. You obviously do not agree with me on that point, but hey, I didn't expect you to.


First, I "admitted" nothing, as I never denied that what is legal is a concern of mine. We do have private property rights in this country, and it would be appreciated if the dim-witted dregs of society left our property alone.

"The greatest people in history have willfully broken laws to complete their goals."

That should be "*some* of the greatest people". Others have followed the law, and still been great. Oh, and don't forget, criminals break the law also.

I really don't care what you place value on. The law is on my side. What ALF needs is a few of its "members" shot and killed for trespassing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Ahh your mighty logic rears it's ugly head again. I'm done with you, I proved my point, the last word may be yours, Tame.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,276 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mera'din

So you consider this violent?

My opinion is that property damage is not violence, and that includes arson (that ELF is so fond of using). As long as no one is harmed physically...

Some people disagree with that analysis, but it's an interesting topic of discussion.
When the property damage includes a fair level of risk that a person will be injured, yes. ALF attemted to firebomb a local business in my neighborhhod and while I don't approve of the business I like firebombs less.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,276 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Mera'din

The ELF and ALF take great effort to make sure no creatures (human OR non-human) are harmed in their actions. The folks that committed this act were a bit reckless by not being more public about the cut brake lines, they should have made a better effort to warn the company about the cut lines - that could have harmed someone - but luckily that didn't happen.
Bull****.

Locally the primary tatic used by ELF and ALF has been arson. The only reason someone has not been hurt so far has been pure dumb luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,440 Posts
I havent read it all but.

I am pro-alf, as long as no animal or humans are hurt.

About violence:

The animals are violated every day, by the thousands, millions.

Some one has to stand up for them.

Just like we would stand up for (human) hostages.

Besides that: damage is good for the general economy of the country.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
Quote:
The ELF and ALF take great effort to make sure no creatures (human OR non-human) are harmed in their actions.
First off I don't think you can make general statements about the methods used by the ALF or ELF and apply them to everyone. Anyone can do whatever they want in the name of these groups.

Also, I'm not sure what the point is in cutting brake lines unless it's to cause harm to the individuals in the vehicle. They could have just as easily thrown a brick through the window if property destruction was their goal.
 
21 - 40 of 91 Posts
Top