Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday July 27 2015, @10:23AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @11:27AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @11:27AM (#214232) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:33AM (#214236)

    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

      by pTamok (3042) on Monday July 27 2015, @12:21PM (#214256)

      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

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @08:25PM (#214503) Journal

        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

          by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 28 2015, @08:32PM (#215033) Homepage Journal

          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

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:58PM (#215130) Journal

            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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @09:03PM (#214537) Journal

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @02:44PM (#214329)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:48PM (#215126)

        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

      by gnuman (5013) on Monday July 27 2015, @03:14PM (#214349)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:06AM (#214684)

        People don't have to eat meat either.

        Yeah they do. Humans are not vegetarians, we're omnivores.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:43PM (#215123)

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @12:48PM (#214275)

    ...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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @02:21PM (#214316)

    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

    by penguinoid (5331) on Monday July 27 2015, @07:02PM (#214467)

    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

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @08:28PM (#214504) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:03AM (#214682)

        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.