SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.
I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html
But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.
More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:
The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.
The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."
I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by acid andy on Monday July 27 2015, @10:59AM
Yes because all laws are always more important than ethics. It doesn't ever matter how much of a vindictive, destructive asshole you be, just as long as you obey the law, right?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @11:27AM
Ethics? I think that I addressed ethics above. They disagree with you, so they have some magical right to come into your home, and destroy it? WTF kind of "ethics" is that? Vandalism, destruction of property, is a CRIME, and I don't give a FUCK what your "ethics" are. This is the sort of attitude that helps to brand PETA and animal rights activists as low-life scumsuckers.
Maybe you should go back to your community college, and actually take a course in ethics. Maybe you should read some of the books published and/or attributed to the great philosophers. Maybe you should just get a grip on reality.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:33AM
It can be more unethical to allow the activities that take place on your property to continue taking place.
There is no longer any reason to skin animals. There are perfectly good artificial replacements.
Vandalism, destruction of property, is a CRIME, and I don't give a FUCK what your "ethics" are.
Whether it's a crime or not is irrelevant.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pTamok on Monday July 27 2015, @12:21PM
There is no longer any reason to skin animals. There are perfectly good artificial replacements.
That is not completely true - for most purposes I would agree with you, but there is still no substitute for fur in extreme cold weather conditions. The number of people who need this is very small compared to the fashion market, but it is non-zero. Artifical fibres don't cut it I'm afraid.
Given that people eat cattle, pigs, goats, lamb, rabbit, and deer it seems a waste to eat the animal and not use the hair/fur. People do object to raising animals purely for their fur, especially for fashion reasons, and I can understand that; but not all uses of fur are for fashion.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday July 27 2015, @08:25PM
I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you, but I would note that "cattle, sheep, pigs, etc." do not have the kind of fur that would be effective against cold. Mink, otters, etc. do. Sea otters are actually the best for that purpose, but they are protected as an endangered species. Fur seals might be nearly as good, though I'm not sure, and they are probably also endangered. (I'd guess that polar bear would also be pretty good.)
But not any cattle I've ever seen. And not pigs. Perhaps some goats...but I'm dubious. Most of the best traditional furs tend to be weaseloids, but I don't think skunk live where it gets very cold, so they probably wouldn't work.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Tuesday July 28 2015, @08:32PM
Sheep fur not good for warmth? I guess it's time to throw out the wool blankets from my bed!
Seriously, knitting unrefined wool yields sweaters that are unequalled, used by the fishermen in northern Scotland. I say "unrefined" because those sweaters still have the original lanolin, which makes the sweaters nigh on waterproof.
And for this we just need the fur, not the skin they were attached to. And the sheep need to get rid of it every spring anyway. Shearing does them a favour.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:58PM
Sheep fur is not good against extreme cold, and there are synthetics that are good against moderate cold. (I forget the details about why, but there are good reasons that parka linings aren't wool...at least around any place where the breath could get on it.) And FWIW, feathers are better than wool (though, of course, not all feathers). That's why sleeping bags were traditionally stuffed with down. (I'm not sure that synthetics exist on the market that are as good as down, except that they can be much better if the bag gets wet.)
OTOH, wool isn't from sheep skins, it's from sheep haircuts. And some people find it quite a good approach, equal to the best reasonable synthetics. Better if it's likely to get wet.
All that said, against really extreme cold what one wants to use is a vacuum. But getting one flexible enough to use in clothes is ... well, I haven't heard that it's been done.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @09:03PM
Yeah - some furs are rather unique. Ever wondered about that fox fur around the hood of a parka? Fox fur will not frost up. Snow can land on it, and build up over time, but the fur will not frost. Or - that's what I've been told, anyway. My parka went missing years ago, and I'm not willing to buy another just to test the idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @02:44PM
so says you, skinning animals crosses the line that shall not be crossed.
One could say the same about food, there are synthetic and plant based alternatives their is no good reason to kill animals for food. But i do, i do kill animals for food, by proxy via purchase at the butcher shop, and directly via bullet then long walk.
The real world isn't all idealistic bullshit and cuddles harden the fuck up.
Is the crime aspect relevant? Do you think you should have your home ransacked by people who feel those who eat animals are morally corrupt and that anything youdo against them is the moral high ground? Why do you think this decision is yours to make?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:48PM
One could say the same about food
I'm a vegetarian, but I've seen people claim otherwise and say there wouldn't be enough food that way.
The real world isn't all idealistic bullshit and cuddles harden the fuck up.
Straw man.
Is the crime aspect relevant?
Yes. The legality of something has nothing to do with morality.
Do you think you should have your home ransacked by people who feel those who eat animals are morally corrupt and that anything youdo against them is the moral high ground?
It seems unlikely they'd take issue with a vegetarian.
And who said that "anything you do against them is the moral high ground"?
Why do you think this decision is yours to make?
Why do you think the decision to stop murders--even by proxy--is yours to make?
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday July 27 2015, @03:14PM
It can be more unethical to allow the activities that take place on your property to continue taking place.
There is no longer any reason to skin animals. There are perfectly good artificial replacements.
People don't have to eat meat either. Not eating meat would free up millions of acres of arable land for other purposes, including forests and parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
So sorry, but I would disagree with going "the extra mile" and releasing nearly helpless animals to their deaths, while at the same time not even raising awareness that in US alone there is about 360 million chickens being hatched and killed every *week*, with about 180 million being adult chickens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_farming_in_the_United_States#Meat [wikipedia.org]
In 2008, 9.08 billion chickens were slaughtered in the United States according to United States Department of Agriculture data
Similar data points are available for cattle, pigs, even horses, sheep, etc. etc.
As for skinning animals, at least those animals were farmed. Look to Texas for barbaric practices that are driving rattlesnake into endangered territory,
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/14/snakes-on-the-plain-texas-festival-sees-pageant-winners-wade-through-rattler-pit [theguardian.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattlesnake#Conservation_status [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:06AM
Yeah they do. Humans are not vegetarians, we're omnivores.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:43PM
So you'll die in a week without meat? What are you claiming here, exactly? Many people lives normal life spans as vegetarians. There is no need to eat meat, since not doing so does not cause clear and immediate death, or cause you to die in such a way that can be linked to the mere choice not to eat meat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @12:48PM
...is a CRIME, and I don't give a FUCK what your "ethics" are. This is the sort of attitude that helps to brand PETA and animal rights activists as low-life scumsuckers.
And that sort of attitude helps brand authoritarians as fucking moronic monsters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @02:21PM
They disagree with you, so they have some magical right to come into your home, and destroy it?
Sometimes what I believe is not ethical. Try looking at yourself from someone else's perspective.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by penguinoid on Monday July 27 2015, @07:02PM
Vandalism, destruction of property, is a CRIME, and I don't give a FUCK what your "ethics" are.
I hear if you own the wrong substances (eg drugs) or the wrong ones and zeroes (eg kiddie porn) then a large group of vandals will come to your house, vandalize your door, kidnap you, and keep you imprisoned for several years.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday July 27 2015, @08:28PM
While true, I think that is unethical behavior on their part, and that they SHOULD be subject to criminal penalties. It should also be illegal, but I'm not certain that it is.
An interesting question is, given the first sentence, what ARE ethical criminal penalties?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:03AM
And what is it, specifically, that makes drug use unethical? What's really unethical there is the government literally owning its' citizens' bodies, to the point of even dictating what they can and cannot put in their bodies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by schad on Monday July 27 2015, @11:39AM
These people slashed tires, glued locks, and in one case attempted to flood a guy's home. That's pretty much the definition of "vindictive, destructive asshole." Releasing the animals is, or should have been, enough. If the response is that they're trying to intimidate people into not working in this industry, then guess what -- the label of "terrorist" is actually appropriate.
As a practical matter, these animal releases tend to produce outcomes not desired by anybody. Can the local ecosystem support the sudden release of so many mink all in one small area? Or will the mink basically kill everything and then starve to death, screwing the food chain up for years? What about that bobcat they released? Is this a heavily-populated area? Do people there now have to worry about a half-starved bobcat killing their pets or children? If these are "farm-raised" animals, do they carry diseases for which wild animals have no resistance? Do they have genetic problems, perhaps due to captivity-related inbreeding, which we don't want passed to the local population?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:56AM
If the response is that they're trying to intimidate people into not working in this industry, then guess what -- the label of "terrorist" is actually appropriate.
Then the word "terrorist" is overbroad. It used to be we'd just call people criminals. Now everything is about the terrorist bogeyman, with extremely shallow justifications for why it's reasonable to use it all the time.
There are few people who have no motive whatsoever. You can interpret just about anything as terrorism.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Oakenshield on Monday July 27 2015, @02:12PM
While I do not disagree that the definition of "terrorist" is overbroad in modern language, I will state that the term "eco-terrorist" does predate 9/11. It used to be in common use in regards to Earth First, ELF and GreenPeace back in the 80s.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maliqua on Monday July 27 2015, @02:47PM
this is the one use of the word terrorist that was popular before everyone was a terrorist.
eco terrorists have been around and deserving of the term since before i was born
and i'm old
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:09AM
if they're using violence in pursuit of their political goals, then they're terrorists. that's literally what the word means [merriam-webster.com]. intimidation - assault - is a violent act, using it and/or outright violence in pursuit of their political goals is, in fact, terrorism.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:27PM
By that definition every single solder in every single military the world has ever known was also a terrorist. As is nearly every government the world has ever known.
Personally I'm kinda inclined to agree with that, but that's pretty clearly not what the word means in law...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:27PM
legal definitions often do differ from the general-usage definitions. take "treason" for example, in general it just means to betray your country, but under US law it means to betray your country specifically by waging war against it or aiding its enemies. generally, every person, especially government employees, who seek to undermine, subvert, or render useless the constitution could be called treasonous (for government employees, this is specifically illegal [cornell.edu], but not called treason), as could anyone who actively works to make sure their country fails [pbs.org], but thankfully the legal definition is specific enough to allow people methods to fight against their rogue, corrupt government without being thrown in a hole for treason (especially because, in reality, its the rogue government that is treasonous here - in democracy, the power lies with the people, so when the peoples' delegates turn against them and work to fulfill anything other than the will of the people, they are betraying their country).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @09:38PM
You (acid andy), the poster and the rest of you who defend these retards, DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT RELEASING ALL THOSE ANIMALS IN TO THE WILD DOES TO THE ECO SYSTEM, THE ANIMALS AND EVERYONE AROUND THERE? ARE YOU FUCKING PLAIN STUPID?
If you want to do this kind of shit, why don't you get some fucking balls and do it the right way and kill the animals where they stand? You cause shitloads of suffering with your retarted tactics.
You are just like rappers, who think it's honorable to do what they sing about. No, their actions are no honorable, and actions like these are not ethical.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 27 2015, @11:13PM
Yep I do. The mink breed and heavily predate other species, of which some are endangered. Hey, these aren't my tactics. I was just objecting to the attitudes of people who aren't willing to accept humans breeding and confining animals to kill them raises ethical issues. I was objecting to people like you who say they're glad these protesters were caught, hope they rot, etc. Do I think some of their actions may be misguided? Sure. Do I think they have good intentions and are getting people talking about a serious issue? Yeah.
It would be best off really if the released mink were neutered / spayed where their large numbers are upsetting the ecosystem.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?