http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4967768.stm

the 'activists' (see also terrorists) involved will cry and plead for the latest cancer fighting drugs, and numerous other life saving treatments.

where do they think they come from?

Find the sick bastards responsible, and put them to the sword. an example must be made, digging up corpses to 'get at' the relatives shows a sickness and demented nature that cannot be resolved.

execute.

I doubt animal activists would seek benefit from research involving animals, they would probably rather die first. So, who did they harm in this case? A corpse? Corpses don't feel.

This is kind of sick (edit: Kind of? well, thats understating it a bit). I can totally understand their concerns about animal testing, but when you start putting the suffering of gerbils ABOVE (note, not equal to) the suffering of people, then you are no better than the people you are persecuting.

'They're cruel so we can be cruel too' does not justify their actions, but they obviously seem to think that it does. Animal rights activists like these people piss me off. To your average joe, who doesn't give too much of a damn about these animals, they are totally destroying any chance, or opportunity that other, more reasonable, animal rights activists, may have of being listened to.

Quagmire:

the 'activists' (see also terrorists) involved will cry and plead for the latest cancer fighting drugs, and numerous other life saving treatments.

Were these guinea pigs in this case used to test 'life-saving treatments', or 'cosmetics'?

For another thread on animal rights, see:

Is eating meat morally wrong? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53226)

Yes, this kind of activism is totally unacceptable, such a huge attack over a trifling point, yet I suspect this thread is a straw man.

I doubt animal activists would seek benefit from research involving animals, they would probably rather die first. So, who did they harm in this case? A corpse? Corpses don't feel.

by that reasoning, i can be a bank robber, banks dont feel, what does a bank need money for.

in the same vein, go out, kill someone THEN take their belongings, as they are dead, they dont care. so although the law might get you for murder, the robbery part doesnt matter.

Anyway, back to planet earth, the burial site was desecrated, the body taken with the aim to cause mental anguish to the family.

i would be very interested to know which church this lady belonged to, and the manner in which she was buried. -

If this lady had been an ethnic minority, buried under the terms of whichever faith, could we expect this to be classed as an act of war against (for example) islam? And would the family be looking to wage a 'jihad' upon the activists/TERRORISTS.

This is kind of sick (edit: Kind of? well, thats understating it a bit). I can totally understand their concerns about animal testing, but when you start putting the suffering of gerbils ABOVE (note, not equal to) the suffering of people, then you are no better than the people you are persecuting.

'They're cruel so we can be cruel too' does not justify their actions, but they obviously seem to think that it does. Animal rights activists like these people piss me off. To your average joe, who doesn't give too much of a damn about these animals, they are totally destroying any chance, or opportunity that other, more reasonable, animal rights activists, may have of being listened to.

Although i disagree totaly with the putrid vermin that have commit this crime, i have to admire their will to act instead of protest, i am a firm believer that protesting gets you nowhere and that direct action is the only way to change things.

Re: a million walk through london in protest at the iraq war.

The british people could learn an awful lot from the french people, when the french people dont like a decision, they dig their heels in and strike, stop everything and bring their country to a stand still (as well as hindering their neighbours)

Quagmire:

Were these guinea pigs in this case used to test 'life-saving treatments', or 'cosmetics'?

not sure, but does it really justify their actions one way or the other.

'sidewayslooksmilie'

For another thread on animal rights, see:

Is eating meat morally wrong? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53226)

thanks for that, i have in fact read that thread, and contributed, i feel this thread to differ slightly, the clue is in the titles...

* Is eating meat morally wrong?

* "meat is murder" & "animal rights"

Yes, this kind of activism is totally unacceptable, such a huge attack over a trifling point, yet I suspect this thread is a straw man.

"yet I suspect this thread is a straw man"

please, do explain wont you :)

Animal rights activists and their extreme activitites are akin to the extreme activities of religious/political terrorists and I expect they are driven in exactly the same way.

Desecrating corpses is sick and inhumane, you don't solve a problem with inhumanity by becoming inhumane yourself. All you do is prove what a strong motivating force inhumanity is and how much pleasure is clearly derived from it by those who perpetrate it.

On a seperate note, I was once in touch with an activist group and my friend was a member at one point, interesting to note both of those I was in touch with ate fish and chicken, so their animal right views were strictly restricted to what other people were doing and not what they were doing! I think this demonstrates that sometimes people just like joining extreme groups and the 'cause' is irrelevant.

also makes people pay attention.

also makes people pay attention.

Indeed it does, makes us pay attention to the fact that there are some very sick dangerous individuals out there who probably need a restraining order.

No one is ever much interested in the reasons behind terrorist activity, only the outcome of their activity. Hence it is VERY counter productive.

also makes people pay attention.

"The 82-year-old's body was taken from a grave in Yoxall in October 2004.

Forensic work on the body may continue into Thursday and the scene of the find has been cordoned off. "


This woman no doubt has granchildren, what emotional trauma is this going to have on them. What about a possible grieving widower, sons, daughters, friends neighbours. Somewhere in your family line you may have someone engaged in something 'unpopular'. Imagine this happenning to the body of one of your decesased loved ones. Does the perpetartors motivation justify their actions?

just in case that last one was aimed at moi

Find the sick bastards responsible, and put them to the sword. an example must be made, digging up corpses to 'get at' the relatives shows a sickness and demented nature that cannot be resolved.

execute.

you know my method for dealing with terrorists and such like.

Indeed it does, makes us pay attention to the fact that there are some very sick dangerous individuals out there who probably need a restraining order.

No one is ever much interested in the reasons behind terrorist activity, only the outcome of their activity. Hence it is VERY counter productive.

we are talking about animal rights now. would there be this discussion if not for their actions?

people are paying attention.

it is making national news headlines.

that is people paying attention.




This woman no doubt has granchildren, what emotional trauma is this going to have on them. What about a possible grieving widower, sons, daughters, friends neighbours.from their perspective there does not seem to be much concern about the relations of the deceased so long as they are making them question and making a demonstration of their feelings.


Somewhere in your family line you may have someone engaged in something 'unpopular'. Imagine this happenning to the body of one of your decesased loved ones.you ask me to consider myself as a victim in order to justify the actions as a perpetrator. seeing both sides of the situation in this light will only create a confusion of perspectives.

i am curious why you have asked me to consider my repsonse if this was to happen to me. in a sense it is like you want me to question how i justify this behaviour in my self. which means that you think i support or condone this behaviour.

i dont support or condone neither do i condemn it, i just take their perspective for the point of understanding their actions and their motives.


Does the perpetartors motivation justify their actions?this is a question of subjective value. i can only surmise that yes, They think Their actions are justified, not only that but the results of their actions give further justification. the fruits of Their endeavours have been satifactory. TO THEM.

you know my method for dealing with terrorists and such like.
you have a very similar atitude to the animal rights activists.

though under your law the activist would feel more justified in executing those responsible for the animal cruelty rather than their chosen method of emotional torment.

we are talking about animal rights now. would there be this discussion if not for their actions?



We are NOT talking about animal rights, we are talking about activists and their sick iditotic ways.

Inhamanity does not cure inhumanity, these acts just demonstrate that the activists are low intelligence and don't really understand 'morality' at all.

maybe you should protest

"yet I suspect this thread is a straw man"

please, do explain wont you :)
It is my opinion that to try and defeat James R and his ilk in the "Eating meat is morally wrong" thread, you lumped together vegetarians, animal rights groups and extremists such as these, and are so implying "James R doesn't like to eat animals, therefore he must be an evil person who digs up graves". I may of course, be wrong, or you may be doing this subconsciously

We are NOT talking about animal rights, we are talking about activists and their sick iditotic ways.
it is strange that we have a thread with "aniaml rights" in the title yet we are not talking about animal rights.

Inhamanity does not cure inhumanity, these acts just demonstrate that the activists are low intelligence and don't really understand 'morality' at all.so.... what you want me to do about it?

i dont understand why you want to draw me into your feelings for these events as though i am about to defend some animal rights activists, who has jsut dug up your granma.

it is strange that we have a thread with "aniaml rights" in the title yet we are not talking about animal rights.

so.... what you want me to do about it?

i dont understand why you want to draw me into your feelings for these events as though i am about to defend some animal rights activists, who has jsut dug up your granma.


This is not personal to you at all ellion, I am just replying to the comments made (not just by you) that these acts make people pay attention to the rights of animals, when it does not, it is very defeatest.
The response that their actions draw attention to animal rights implies that their actions have had value, by having value their actions are justified. Hence I asked you to place yourself in the relatives position to see if you still consider their actions have value and thus can be justified?

It is my opinion that to try and defeat James R and his ilk in the "Eating meat is morally wrong" thread, you lumped together vegetarians, animal rights groups and extremists such as these, and are so implying "James R doesn't like to eat animals, therefore he must be an evil person who digs up graves". I may of course, be wrong, or you may be doing this subconsciously

As with all groups there will be extremists, I consider these latest grave desecrating antics to be acts of extremists. If quagmire thinks ALL vegetarians are extremists he is EXTREMIST in his view. But hey we know that already. Quagmires answer to all these extremists is extreme measures. Quite funny really. :D

I am just replying to the comments made (not just by you) that these acts make people pay attention to the rights of animals, when it does not, it is very defeatest.i really woud challenge that view. the only time the media shows any interest in animal rights is when there has been some sort of "evil" commited in its name.

yes, okay, people may only be talking about "how terrible the activists are" and "what if it was your family" but the issues of animal cruelty are brought to the surface of public conscience, however briefly that conscience is pricked it is pricked none the less. i do take your point of being counter productive also. it is counter productive in endearing the public to the activists cause. as it is thea ctivists that become the evil and not those in the laboritories or in the case of the old lady, the innocent breaders of guinea pigs.

another point though. do you think after having their mothers body dug up these people will continue to bread guinea pigs. i think maybe they will also be questioning their business enterprises.



The response that their actions draw attention to animal rights implies that their actions have had value, by having value their actions are justified.yes and form their perspective their actions did have value. i geuss, i cannot know obviously.

Hence I asked you to place yourself in the relatives position to see if you still consider their actions have value and thus can be justified?
as i said a confusion of perspectives this creates.
how can you justify actions such as this in an objective sense as you ask? for some they had positive value. for some they had negative value. for the whole ie society who is to say? will this change the treatment of animals in laboritories would that really be a positive. if so, would it then teach people that they can get what they want by emotional torment? would that really be negative? how can we say? how can we objectify such things?

as i said a confusion of perspectives this creates.
how can you justify actions such as this in an objective sense as you ask? for some they had positive value. for some they had negative value. for the whole ie society who is to say? will this change the treatment of animals in laboritories would that really be a positive. if so, would it then teach people that they can get what they want by emotional torment? would that really be negative? how can we say? how can we objectify such things?

It is really not hard to objectify these things.
As I keep saying inhumanity does not resolve inhumanity.
If animal rights groups had an intelligent creative management team they would riase funds through sponsored fun events and seek to 'educate' as oppose to desecrate. There are many much more rpoductive things that can be done to raise awareness. They could raise funds and then use those funds to sponsor a stunt such as the one David Blaine is engaging in or something less extreme. Lots of things grab the publics attention and far better to do so with positive actions than negative ones. They could provide fun leaflets aimed at young teens (before the makeup goes on!) about where to buy animal friendly products and why we should avoid those tested on animals etc. No doubt things like this do go on, but they are just NOT focusing their energies correctly. In my mind this group has now become a group of 'nutters' and not a group of animal rights supporters, and I am sure many people will feel the same.

Did we all become IRA supporters as a result of them bombing us?
Is islam top banana after their suicide bombings?
Does terrorism ever work? No

You want to be objective, consider the results. Has the group they lost support or gained more support?

Will the family continue to breed guinea pigs, I am pretty sure they will.

It is really not hard to objectify these things.
As I keep saying inhumanity does not resolve inhumanity.
If animal rights groups had an intelligent creative management team they would riase funds through sponsored fun events and seek to 'educate' as oppose to desecrate. There are many much more rpoductive things that can be done to raise awareness. They could raise funds and then use those funds to sponsor a stunt such as the one David Blaine is engaging in or something less extreme. Lots of things grab the publics attention and far better to do so with positive actions than negative ones. They could provide fun leaflets aimed at young teens (before the makeup goes on!) about where to buy animal friendly products and why we should avoid those tested on animals etc. No doubt things like this do go on, but they are just NOT focusing their energies correctly. In my mind this group has now become a group of 'nutters' and not a group of animal rights supporters, and I am sure many people will feel the same.`i concur, i'll go with that myself but is that the reasoning of this group responsible here. it a similar view as extremists of any order, as Quagmire views even.


Did we all become IRA supporters as a result of them bombing us?
Is islam top banana after their suicide bombings?
Does terrorism ever work? Nono of course not, but it does raise awareness though, people pay attention to the issues and it makes people say WTF? lets get something done about this! that is what i mean really.

You want to be objective, consider the results. Has the group they lost support or gained more support? i dont think they care about that. they really have no care for what people think of them or how their actions are judged. they want action to be taken and they want people to think, pay attention. i dont think they care too much about how and probably the more outrageous the better for their purpose.

Will the family continue to breed guinea pigs, I am pretty sure they will.who am i to judge, to each his own, eh.

These individuals have no 'reasonning' abilities this is the problem. I think they just get caught up in the drama. Maybe they are teenagers and their hormones are raging and their morality isn't adequately developed yet, they haven't had a loved one buried yet? Who knows what is resulting in their lack of ethics and morality. Either way if this group wants to be productive, they need some intelligent adult minds backing their team, but intelligent adult minds wouldn't touch a group with a reputation for stunts like that with a barge pole, rather start their own!

ToR these threads are pointless as it all depends on peoples opinions, i eat meat and will continue to. funnily enough whenever i tuck into a juicy steak the last thing i think about is the animal. may i also point out that you are in the minoritory

this is the same problem with all such ways of solving problems. violence begets violence.

whether that be terrorsit action against percieved oppresors or the oppressors form justice to the precievd terrorism.

it probably does have a lot to do with the emotional response being the more powerful motivation than the reasoned rational response.

ToR these threads are pointless as it all depends on peoples opinions, i eat meat and will continue to. funnily enough whenever i tuck into a juicy steak the last thing i think about is the animal. may i also point out that you are in the minoritory

what minority? I also eat meat?

it probably does have a lot to do with the emotional response being the more powerful motivation than the reasoned rational response.

agreed.