VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i wanna know who supports SHAC and the ALF. i would think that eveyone here would support SHAC, but i dunno about ALF since they vandalize people's stuff. i support both of them, especially the ALF. i support SHAC 'cause they're doing the right thing and their sites convinced me to become a vegan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
I know ALF, and SHAC is a little unknown for me, so I don't know all there methods, but I support all their non-violant methods directly and I support some illegal methods (filming inside animal labrotories for example).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
i support the ALF and most of what SHAC does

i support all non-violent direct action

(i do not support the justice department)



Caroline
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,451 Posts
i do not support the alf or shac, because shac uses many methods--including harassing scientists and workers, vandalism of their property, slander, and even assualt and battery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
I support SHAC, in fact the first protest I went on was one of theirs. It was a huge march through the centre of Cambridge, over 1000 people turned up. The atmosphere was electric- I was delighted to see the team.

I support what they do, and admire them for their dedication and confidence. While normally I wouldn't agree with harrassment, I know exactly why they do what they do, especially after seeing what those so-called scientists do in that hell-hole. SHAC are entirely dedicated to putting a stop to it and will work tirelessly until they're goal is reached. After all, I believe HLS has brought this all onto themselves. There isn't smoke without fire, as the saying goes.

As for the ALF.. I'm not sure about them. I never agree with anything violent as I don't see any eithics behind that. Even the vandilism I find difficult to agree with / accept. I'd never do the things they do, ever. I'm kind of in the middle about that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
I checked out both websites and both look cool. I found ALF just a little extreme but i'm going to do more searching on both before I make up my mind. I like SHAC's sense of humor though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I support both....no human has the right to take away a life. I believe in an eye for an eye. I dont believe in the killing of humans because they kill animals or anything to that extreme. But I believe in ALF....they just believe in life and don't want to see innocent baby Animals die to human greed and selfishness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
read my lips: i do not support the ALF and SHAC*

* note: statement is only applicable on sundays 10:00 - 10:05 and is not necessarily ture
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
I support them both. I find it very brave and admirable that they risk their lives to help the well being of innocent creatures. I would love to be involed in somthing like this. I don't care that they vadalize or harrass -those people ****in deserve it. Throw paint or blood on a fur coat at least they have a worthy cause. They are alright in my eyes
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorrow View Post

I support them both. I find it very brave and admirable that they risk their lives to help the well being of innocent creatures. I would love to be involed in somthing like this. I don't care that they vadalize or harrass -those people ****in deserve it. Throw paint or blood on a fur coat at least they have a worthy cause. They are alright in my eyes
Ah, how sweet. Just remember these thoughts someday when someone decides to harass/assault you because they disagree with your actions, appearance, values, etc. I mean, as long as they feel their cause is just and they are right in someone's eyes, it's all good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
And think about all the people taking children (who have been beaten) away from their parents. It's easy to say that kind of social work is acceptable - as long as you are not the one beating your children. But think about being acceptable when they come in to your home and take your precious possessions away from you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
sevenseas can you explain that some more?

it doesnt make sense to me

are you implying that the ALF and SHAC participate in kidnapping?

and are you considering animals to be 'precious possessions' ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
sevenseas can you explain that some more?

it doesnt make sense to me

are you implying that the ALF and SHAC participate in kidnapping?

and are you considering animals to be 'precious possessions' ?
Hehe, my sarcasm is so great and sophisticated that one doesn't get it (well, actually, that's a quality of bad sarcasm). No, I was not implying that, and I don't think animals are precious possessions. I just showed the "what if they come to your house" argument to be senseless, since saving beaten children and tortured animals differs only in the amount of people supporting the idea. A better example would have been about someone preventing slave owners from beating their slaves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
"preventing slave owners from beating their slaves"???

isnt that looking at the TINY picture?

isnt the point not to have slaves at all rather than just prevent their owners from beating them

that sounds to me, that youre saying that its okay to exploit animals as long as you treat them nice

your examples still make no sense to me
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Sevenseas - I guess the concept of living in a civil society and working within the sytem is as confusing for you as it is Sorrow and the others?

Work with me here. Let's say (for example) Sorrow is pro-choice. Under her beliefs, and it appears yours, those who are pro-life are perfectly justified in harassing, assaulting, and doing whatever they feel is justified in protecting the unborn. This type of attitude is what leads to clinic bombings and the murder of abortion doctors.

I mean, as long as the person feels they are right and others support them...


The fact of the matter is that what AR extremists define as exploitation of animals is legal, and is supported by the majority of citizens and the legal system. If you wish to change society, you can do so legally by convincing a majority that your beliefs are correct, and that animals should not be exploited.

If instead, AR supporters turn to illegal methods, then you are no better than the KKK, gay-bashers, or anyone else that resorts to violence because they *think* their cause is just.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
isnt that looking at the TINY picture?

isnt the point not to have slaves at all rather than just prevent their owners from beating them
This is becoming a weird thread (and my comments somewhat off topic), but this is about ALF/SHAC, so..

One can prevent slave owners from beating their slaves, even if one thinks slavery shouldn't exist. I mentioned slavery, since it is a better example in the sense that radically opposing slavery was illegal, whereas saving children (who are beaten) isn't.

My main point was that the text "Ah, how sweet. Just remember these thoughts someday when someone decides to harass/assault you because they disagree with your actions, appearance, values, etc." doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
that sounds to me, that youre saying that its okay to exploit animals as long as you treat them nice
That most certainly is not what I am saying/supporting. I support AR, not AW.

--

Tame,

Quote:
I guess the concept of living in a civil society and working within the sytem is as confusing for you as it is Sorrow and the others?
It's not confusing. I don't think the current society is very just, but I, personally, work within the system.

Quote:
Work with me here. Let's say (for example) Sorrow is pro-choice. Under her beliefs, and it appears yours, those who are pro-life are perfectly justified in harassing, assaulting, and doing whatever they feel is justified in protecting the unborn.
No. I am not (and no one else is, I assume) saying that "if A wants to do something A thinks is justified, A has the right to do it". Rather, I am saying that X (an ethical system) is justified. I most certainly understand your moral relativism and the consequences it has in your thoughts, but, however, I think absolute moral relativism is as mistaken as absolute moral realism (the "I am right viewpoint").

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that what AR extremists define as exploitation of animals is legal, and is supported by the majority of citizens and the legal system. If you wish to change society, you can do so legally by convincing a majority that your beliefs are correct, and that animals should not be exploited.
Are you consistent in the sense that you would not have accepted German people saving Jews from concentration camps, etc.? True, the law is about the majority. So, in fact, law is what some people think. These people just happen to form the majority.

Quote:
If instead, AR supporters turn to illegal methods, then you are no better than the KKK, gay-bashers, or anyone else that resorts to violence because they *think* their cause is just.
But the fact is that a) homophobic, racist, etc., acts don't result from AR direct action, so that's not of consequentialist moral concern b) AR direct action does not accept illegal acts in general but moral illegal acts, the morality of which are determined by AR activists, which results in the fact that AR direct action isn't condoning acts that it considers to be immoral, etc.

The differing views have one basic thing that separates them from each other: in this case, AR activists are so-called utilitarians (count only the amount of harm and benefit caused as meaningful), and you concentrate on principle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

This is becoming a weird thread (and my comments somewhat off topic), but this is about ALF/SHAC, so..

One can prevent slave owners from beating their slaves, even if one thinks slavery shouldn't exist. I mentioned slavery, since it is a better example in the sense that radically opposing slavery was illegal, whereas saving children (who are beaten) isn't.
One can also kill abortion doctors to prevent abortion. BTW, slavery wasn't ended due to anyone standing up for slaves.

Quote:
My main point was that the text "Ah, how sweet. Just remember these thoughts someday when someone decides to harass/assault you because they disagree with your actions, appearance, values, etc." doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it does make sense. You may not understand the basic concept that sentence expresses, but that says more about you than about what was said. Just because you happen to support criminal behavior doesn't make it right.

Quote:
It's not confusing. I don't think the current society is very just, but I, personally, work within the system.
Fine. The previous posters advocated particpating in criminal activities.

Quote:
No. I am not (and no one else is, I assume) saying that "if A wants to do something A thinks is justified, A has the right to do it". Rather, I am saying that X (an ethical system) is justified. I most certainly understand your moral relativism and the consequences it has in your thoughts, but, however, I think absolute moral relativism is as mistaken as absolute moral realism (the "I am right viewpoint").
And someone else can say Y (their ethical system) is justified and whack someone on the head for being gay.

[QUOTE}But the fact is that a) homophobic, racist, etc., acts don't result from AR direct action, so that's not of consequentialist moral concern b) AR direct action does not accept illegal acts in general but moral illegal acts, the morality of which are determined by AR activists, which results in the fact that AR direct action isn't condoning acts that it considers to be immoral, etc.[/QUOTE]

We have a system that allows for AR activists to try and change the law. If they operate outside the system, they are criminals. AR activists who argue that they should avoid punishment because they are "right", or that they should be allowed to infringe upon the legal rights of others {B]just because they feel their cause is just[/B] need to realize that the same reasoning can be used to attack them or ones they love over other issues.

If AR activists were restricted from having any voice within the legal system, I might cut them a little slack. However, they do, and to try and defend criminal behavior by a bunch of thugs is ignorant.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top