intolerant? They focus on the worst abuses of SOME animal rights activists. They do not take a moral stand against unnecessary abuse of animals. They either openly state that humans have the right, or simply the power, to do what they want to animals, or by their silence imply this. They make it an either or issue by never acknowledging how much pain and suffering is unnecessary. They could acknowledge this. They could express their support for reducing the pain and suffering of animals as much as possible, without damaging human quality of life - just one way to word it. But instead they end up presenting an impervious wall. And make it seem like some either/or choice. Either we stop the animal rights activists or all livestock will die off, there will be no pets, everyone will be a vegetarian and pharmaceutial research and other kinds of research will come to a complete standstill.