Talk:Animal Liberation Front
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
I won't back off on the civil liberties section[edit]
This is my area of expertise and I know how utterly important it is. Treating animal rights and environmental groups like fucking Al Qaeda is a deep attack on political liberties. ---Mona- (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I very much agree with the latter, but when you have a specific group or individuals that've blown up buildings for their cause, you don't need to downplay or try to justify their actions just because their cause happens to involve animal rights and the government currently happens to be wrongly/exaggeratively cracking down on many animal rights/environmental groups. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- (edit conflict):The „expertise“ remains to be verified. But your opinions are clear and they are not a matter of law. They just make you a racist for certain and the rest is too screwed up to be properly analyzed. Still, a medium stage of analysis has produced the result, that you are wrong about everything you have ever uttered. Further research may unearth some facts, but they are likely to be of the variety: Copenhagen is the capital city of Denmark. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the problem Mona. When you are intentionally abrasive in the name of Civil Liberties, it makes "Civil Liberties" look like something only assholes promote. The reason I'm no longer a Libertarian? Libertarians. I never heard of Glenn Greenwald before you (Snowden was the guy that did all the work and took the risk; Greenwald just got a windfall), and while objectively I see he does more good than harm, emotionally he's tainted by his association with you. Humans are social creatures first and foremost, not rational ones. If you want people to stop fighting you, it's up to you to stop being anti-social. CorruptUser (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- 142.124.55.236, I'm not going to go to the mat for what I think of ALF's activities (blowing up torture chambers isn't necessarily wrong in my view but I don't know enough specifics to form a final opinion on that vis-a-vis ALF). As long as the critical matter of the civil liberties issues and erosion is included I'll largely stay out of the rest of the discussion.---Mona- (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, calling labs experimenting on animals "torture chambers" is another case of them (or you. or both) being nuttier than a squirrel's breakfast.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- CorruptUser, you are wrong about a great many thing, including where Snowden and Greenwald are concerned. Moreover, I don't know why you are yammering about libertarians -- I'm not one and neither is Greenwald, altho Snowden may be. In my view you hold some reactionary positions and opinions. Of course you are going to find me abrasive. Ironically, the vitriol that greeted me when I arrived was something else -- someone called me a cunt and various other pleasantries. So really, I can only smile at claims that my tone is somehow offensive. I'm aggressive (but not abusive) in defense of my views. That's not going to change.---Mona- (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I used Libertarians as an example of asshats who were so abrasive that I, as a staunch Libertarian, ended up quitting the movement. Oh and you keep calling Glenn Greenwald a "Civil Libertarian", so there's that if you want to shoehorn that in there. As for reactionary, if everyone but you holds reactionary opinions, it's not everyone else that's the reactionary. CorruptUser (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Soooo, you think the American Civil Liberties Union is a nest of libertarians, eh? That's amusing. Anyway, Greenwald has been a paid consultant for them and our law practice was heavy on civil liberties cases. Moreover, his journalism has -- for ten years -- focused on due process, the 1st, and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as to free speech in other Western nations. ---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, no. As I said, I used to be a Libertarian, but got turned off by all the asshats. Especially the AnCaps. And like I said, you'd have to shoehorn Glenn Greenwald, but you could. CorruptUser (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a libertarian in the sense that I support the maximization of liberty in society. I'm anti-libertarian in the sense that I oppose much of what so-called libertarians spout out, since it's mostly bullshit, and much of what they propose would actually make society less free.
As for "civil libertarian", I have to admit I'd never seen the term before. Is this a term civil rights/liberties proponents often identify as? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)- I haven't seen the term Mona loves to use all the time used by anybody except Mona either... And what exactly is the forth amendment and why is it so important? Was that the one about quartering soldiers? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Search and seizures, warrants, etc. It's one of the more difficult issues in policing, because a lot of people think that police should be robots that follow a system, and forget that in ye olden dayes when the constitution was written there wasn't such a thing as police, it mostly followed a large mob who most definitely did not pay any attention to it, and only after they had torn through the place and hauled the suspect to court (and robbed him of his stuff anyway), would the government then go through the person's belongings. So, if anything, police abusing probable cause to search you at any time they want is actually a vast improvement since the early days, even if technically against the law. CorruptUser (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)'
- I haven't seen the term Mona loves to use all the time used by anybody except Mona either... And what exactly is the forth amendment and why is it so important? Was that the one about quartering soldiers? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a libertarian in the sense that I support the maximization of liberty in society. I'm anti-libertarian in the sense that I oppose much of what so-called libertarians spout out, since it's mostly bullshit, and much of what they propose would actually make society less free.
- Umm, no. As I said, I used to be a Libertarian, but got turned off by all the asshats. Especially the AnCaps. And like I said, you'd have to shoehorn Glenn Greenwald, but you could. CorruptUser (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Soooo, you think the American Civil Liberties Union is a nest of libertarians, eh? That's amusing. Anyway, Greenwald has been a paid consultant for them and our law practice was heavy on civil liberties cases. Moreover, his journalism has -- for ten years -- focused on due process, the 1st, and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as to free speech in other Western nations. ---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I used Libertarians as an example of asshats who were so abrasive that I, as a staunch Libertarian, ended up quitting the movement. Oh and you keep calling Glenn Greenwald a "Civil Libertarian", so there's that if you want to shoehorn that in there. As for reactionary, if everyone but you holds reactionary opinions, it's not everyone else that's the reactionary. CorruptUser (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- 142.124.55.236, I'm not going to go to the mat for what I think of ALF's activities (blowing up torture chambers isn't necessarily wrong in my view but I don't know enough specifics to form a final opinion on that vis-a-vis ALF). As long as the critical matter of the civil liberties issues and erosion is included I'll largely stay out of the rest of the discussion.---Mona- (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the problem Mona. When you are intentionally abrasive in the name of Civil Liberties, it makes "Civil Liberties" look like something only assholes promote. The reason I'm no longer a Libertarian? Libertarians. I never heard of Glenn Greenwald before you (Snowden was the guy that did all the work and took the risk; Greenwald just got a windfall), and while objectively I see he does more good than harm, emotionally he's tainted by his association with you. Humans are social creatures first and foremost, not rational ones. If you want people to stop fighting you, it's up to you to stop being anti-social. CorruptUser (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):The „expertise“ remains to be verified. But your opinions are clear and they are not a matter of law. They just make you a racist for certain and the rest is too screwed up to be properly analyzed. Still, a medium stage of analysis has produced the result, that you are wrong about everything you have ever uttered. Further research may unearth some facts, but they are likely to be of the variety: Copenhagen is the capital city of Denmark. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah right... The weird contortions lawyers have to do to argue whether something constitutes a "search" or not. That's what I like Roman derived laws for. They follow precedent, but at the same time, they are clear enough to not need five centuries of lawyers bickering to be ironed out and interpreted. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jaysus, CorruptUser, you actually believe there was no law enforcement at the founding. Er, um, no. The Founders were most put off by King George's use of general warrants -- the 4th Amendment requires that warrants be particularized to person, places, effects and things to be searched. That model has spread all over the world because it's a fucking good idea. Many or most countries have protections against arbitrary search and seizure and require particularized warrants -- issued only upon probable cause -- to enter a home or business. Dude, this is civics 101.---Mona- (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- ADDING: Just because law enforcement wasn't then called "police" doesn't mean the sheriffs, constables wardens etc. didn't perform those same functions.---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- CIVIL LIBERTARIANISM I'm just shocked a number of you bright people are unfamiliar with this term. Very odd.---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how effective the town watches were? They were nothing like a modern police system. Yes, local governments had various forms of law enforcement, but until modern days the law enforcement ranged from "armed mob of peasants who murdered the shit out of anyone accused of a crime" to "a group of knights who trained daily to murder the shit out of poachers and bandits". Back then, the spiritual successors of the knights would simply seize property first and figure out if a crime was committed later. Thus the need for laws saying "don't do that". In the meantime, until the 19th century you still had the angry mob enforcing laws, and they tended to be just as bad. We've replaced militias with trained police, and while search and seizure is a major issue (*cough*civil forfeitur*cough*), and we need a huge number of improvements, the idea that policing isn't better than it has been in ever requires more of denial than Egypt. CorruptUser (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, I wouldn't be so sure that the right to privacy (which the fourth amendment ultimately boils down to) was first thought of in the US. After all, the French declaration of human rights was passed slightly before the American bill of rights. The declaration of the rights of woman, came of course two years later and cost the woman who wrote it her head. Well, she was stupid enough to say "If the woman has the right to be executed, she should have the right to vote" - Proof for her right to the former was not hard to come by.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, CorruptUser, sheriffs, constables, wardens and the like were far more evolved than ye olde knights and the king's soldiers in terms of law enforcement. And in any event, the evil sought to be prevented by the 4th Amendment applies regardless of whether one is policed by knights or SWAT teams. As for Avenger's notion that the French contributed to the 4th Amendment, no. Antecedents could reasonably be said to be located in the Bible, Quran, Roman law and especially the Magna Carta and subsequent English writings.---Mona- (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did not say that the Fourth Amendment is derived from the French declaration of human rights. What I did say is that many of the current constitutions in the world as well as the UN declaration of human rights are inspired more by the French declaration of human rights thaen by the most overrated constitution in the history of the world. On a further aside - one that Mona will probably be aware of already - the French as well as American revolutionaries heavily drew upon ideas of John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu Thomas Hobbes and other dead white men in powdered wigs on both sides of the Channel. The importance of those and the importance of the euphemistically "glorious" coup in England are too often ignored Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, CorruptUser, sheriffs, constables, wardens and the like were far more evolved than ye olde knights and the king's soldiers in terms of law enforcement. And in any event, the evil sought to be prevented by the 4th Amendment applies regardless of whether one is policed by knights or SWAT teams. As for Avenger's notion that the French contributed to the 4th Amendment, no. Antecedents could reasonably be said to be located in the Bible, Quran, Roman law and especially the Magna Carta and subsequent English writings.---Mona- (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- As an aside, I wouldn't be so sure that the right to privacy (which the fourth amendment ultimately boils down to) was first thought of in the US. After all, the French declaration of human rights was passed slightly before the American bill of rights. The declaration of the rights of woman, came of course two years later and cost the woman who wrote it her head. Well, she was stupid enough to say "If the woman has the right to be executed, she should have the right to vote" - Proof for her right to the former was not hard to come by.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea how effective the town watches were? They were nothing like a modern police system. Yes, local governments had various forms of law enforcement, but until modern days the law enforcement ranged from "armed mob of peasants who murdered the shit out of anyone accused of a crime" to "a group of knights who trained daily to murder the shit out of poachers and bandits". Back then, the spiritual successors of the knights would simply seize property first and figure out if a crime was committed later. Thus the need for laws saying "don't do that". In the meantime, until the 19th century you still had the angry mob enforcing laws, and they tended to be just as bad. We've replaced militias with trained police, and while search and seizure is a major issue (*cough*civil forfeitur*cough*), and we need a huge number of improvements, the idea that policing isn't better than it has been in ever requires more of denial than Egypt. CorruptUser (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sysop-protection is not resolving the underlying conflict[edit]
The problem is that Mona is free to insert her propaganda (or rather Saint Glenn's propaganda) whereas several critical voices are locked out. Either mod-protect it or remove the protection altogether. I promise to not revert wholesale, unless Mona is particularly insane Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively, it is resolving it if we Consider you the issue and not Mona. And you consider all edits by Mona to be crazy so...--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- its also worth pointing out that the only critical voice locked out is you - the other anti mona voices have sysop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoever decided to make Mona sysop, with the bogus reason of providing a "balance" to my being sysop has to think again, whether the current situation is desirable Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it was the British. Do you believe you are fit for being a sysop, but not Mona? If so, I have no idea where you've been the last few weeks. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- There have been three or so coop cases just to deal with Mona's insanity. If that does not tell you something, I don't know what will Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't even seek sysop status and am not likely to use it overly much. Avenger is far more upset by what I'm actually here to do, which is to edit articles with -- wait for it -- DOCUMENTATION. Avenger is quite lacking in that documentation department. Finally, I think the issue has been resolved. User:Reverend_Black_Percy made some edits to the civil liberties section, I accepted some, and we've basically settled on what remains. That's the only section I really care about. So what's the problem?---Mona- (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- There have been three or so coop cases just to deal with Mona's insanity. If that does not tell you something, I don't know what will Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it was the British. Do you believe you are fit for being a sysop, but not Mona? If so, I have no idea where you've been the last few weeks. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoever decided to make Mona sysop, with the bogus reason of providing a "balance" to my being sysop has to think again, whether the current situation is desirable Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- its also worth pointing out that the only critical voice locked out is you - the other anti mona voices have sysop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Avenger, your constant attempts to poison the well about Mona's competence and good faith tell me all I need to know. You are in a hole, and should stop digging. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mona you might not know it, but your editing on this page (not its talk page) at all constitutes using your sysop-privileges. That's exactly what I started this topic of discussion for Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The only issue to be resolved is you, not Mona. Mona was made sysop because they had earned it, You lost sysop because you have not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- [citation needed] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- That isn't proving you deserve sysop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- [citation needed] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- The only issue to be resolved is you, not Mona. Mona was made sysop because they had earned it, You lost sysop because you have not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mona you might not know it, but your editing on this page (not its talk page) at all constitutes using your sysop-privileges. That's exactly what I started this topic of discussion for Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Footnotes[edit]
- This has nothing do do with the argument - but why does this talk page have "footnotes"?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN[edit]
Once again, the article has been vandalized and has had content that promotes Glenn Grenwald inserted into it 69.121.20.54 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Courtesy of our resident Greenwald fangirl Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Question[edit]
"This argument has the strange property of, on the one hand, equating the loss of human life to animal life, and on the other, ignoring the millions of lives (both animal and human) saved due to animal research programs." How is this "strange"? The whole point of the AR movement is to make animal life be as equally concerned for as human life. --RockyRob97 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's strange from a utilitarian calculus. Much like you could argue human experimentation saved lives in total and shouldn't be viewed as an evil thing without worrying about different ethical standards for persons and non-persons. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Which is to say, you have to have a certain almost-inhuman level of detachment to make that argument. But people do. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to comment about this before I realised I had actually already said it! However, as I have mentioned elsewhere on this site, this is like a group opposing medical research being done on cognitively disabled humans and the response being that this group was being "strange" because they were ignoring the medical progress these tests were making for people, including people like those being tested on RockyRob97 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)