Letters to the Editor
-
SHAC vandals perhaps, but terrorists?
I always thought SHAC and other groups like it just destroyed property without hurting people; similar to Luddites (factory workers smashing machines in the nineteenth century).
Isn't this vandalism, not terrorism, contrary to what the korporate mindset wants us to believe?
-
SHAC vandals perhaps, but terrorists?
I always thought SHAC and other groups like it just destroyed property without hurting any people, similar to Luddites (factory workers who smashed machines) in the nineteenth century.
Isn't this vandalism, and not terrorism, contrary to what the korporate mindset wants you to believe?
Also, the FDA does not always have 100% integrity when it comes to animal tests. Many people in the FDA have approved them more because they were corporate cronies with the companies than anything else.
!
-
just an arbitrary line in the sand
If you're totally against "animal cruelty" then why haven't you committed suicide?
No, really.
You're using electricity to power a computer in the place you live or work to type your silly drivel. You probably drove there...or the bike you rode was made in a factory...or the walk to work was on a street...are you with me so far, you hypocrites? Everything we do..eat..drive..smoke..wear..etc..killed some other creature for it to happen. Everything. That truckload of eco-freindly non-animal-tested products delivered to your co-op just ran over a squirrel. The cat you keep caged in your home and call "a member of the family" just killed a few mice. The organic produce you just ate was grown in a field that was previously home to many animals before it was plowed under to grow your dinner.
So please, either take your philosophy 100% seriously and kill yourself before you do any more damage to the other animals...or just shut the fuck up because all you've really done is arbitrarily set the line one step previous to where you just walked. How very convenient for you. Remember, an environmentalist is just someone who built their house in the woods first. That truckload of growth-hormone free Ben & Jerry's on its way to Seattle pollutes the atmosphere and creates just as much roadkill as the truckload of plastic shit on its way to Wal-Mart in Alabama.
Now, listen carefully, for a change, because I've read all your holier-than-thou diatribes. This is not about setting policy based on a hypothetical visit from E.T. (That was hilarious, DurianJoe. Really ROTFLMAO.) This is not about whether or not your dictionary was written by other co-conspirators. (You really need to take off that tinfoil hat; it's so last season, darling.) It's about behaving how you choose to behave for reasons you arrive at after careful and rational thought as well as open, honest debate...and letting the rest of us do the same.
If you terrorize other people, then you're a terrorist. If you enjoy killing other living things for the sheer joy of torture and killing, well then you're a sick fuck. And a member of the Bush administration, but that's redundant. If you refuse to use the ballot box to effect change, then I hear the Taliban is recruiting. If you can't stand living in a world where you don't get your way 100% of the time and where if everyone else doesn't walk that sad, narrow line you've painted then I have already provided you with a workable solution that meets both your strident philosopy and my need for some respite from your fundamentalist screeching.
By the way, I suggest you do it in the woods because carrion is so environmentally freindly.
-
I am curious
How many of you "anti-animal cruelty" folks are also pro-abortion?
It would be fun to sit back and read your twisted explanations attempting to meld that dichotomy.
Please, let the entertainment begin.
-
truth
>>without hurting people>>
I'd like to know how you bash in someone's head with an ax handle and leave a 3 inch gash "without hurting people."
The SHAC supporters here sure have very selective memories.
-
lost my post
>>SHAC and other groups like it just destroyed property without hurting people>>
I'd like to know how you can bash someone's head in with an ax handle, leaving a 3 inch gash "without hurting people."
These SHAC supporters sure have selective memories.
-
oops
sorry for the double post
-
well put, green
>>It's about behaving how you choose to behave for reasons you arrive at after careful and rational thought as well as open, honest debate...and letting the rest of us do the same.
If you terrorize other people, then you're a terrorist. If you enjoy killing other living things for the sheer joy of torture and killing, well then you're a sick fuck. And a member of the Bush administration, but that's redundant. If you refuse to use the ballot box to effect change, then I hear the Taliban is recruiting. If you can't stand living in a world where you don't get your way 100% of the time and where if everyone else doesn't walk that sad, narrow line you've painted then I have already provided you with a workable solution that meets both your strident philosopy and my need for some respite from your fundamentalist screeching.>>
-
facts
>>They will advocate for as many tests over as much time as possible. They will tell the public that redundant tests are needed. It's not just that the shampoo you use needed to be tested once. They will test the same shampoo repeatedly.>>
That's simply not true. You made that up because it furthers your arguement.
It's not only untrue, it's illogical. Why would a big company focused solely on profit insist on running unnecessary tests that cost time and money when everyone knows they aren't required? That would reduce their profit. Most big companies focused on profit have to be forced by laws to conduct the minimal safety tests. You're trying to say the most evil of them all wants to use their PROFIT to run more unnecessary safety tests? At least make the stories believable.
I found a lot of wild statements on this thread, but I didn't deny them or believe them based on my beliefs. I went to other sources and checked them out. I checked what the study standards are at a few scientific organizations. I read them. I checked the top 10 causes of death (nothing like what was claimed by a poster). I wanted independent verification of the facts. I haven't heard any animal 'rights' supporter say they made an effort to learn the facts and read some study standards to verify they do exist and that they are extensive.