Talk:Animal Liberation Front

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Are they the ones who "kidnapped" a corpse and who released mink into the wild in the UK? ToastToastand marmite 14:18, 20 November 2008 (EST)

They are. I haven't got a link about the mink. I remember that that was in the UK news. Proxima Centauri 14:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)
These are also the dolts who, in 1998, broke into a medical research lab at the University of Minnesota, destroyed years of medical research, and released about 200 labratory mice into the wild. Most of the mice were found dead less than a mile away.The Goonie 1 07:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if they came within siniffin' distance of any cat that has ever owned me, yeah, they'd be deaded pretty quickly. F'in amateurs. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Technically, Animal Liberation Front is not an organization, as it does not have any hierarchy" implied that the only means to organize human action is through hierarchy, which is demonstrably false. ALF is not an organization, but not because of the lack of hierarchy. So I simply deleted the last part. ~epixSay What? 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


This article has elements of personal opinion and parts of language are biased. I made some edits reflecting more balanced language. I removed the 'Nazi concentration' quote and it's criticism. Criticism is guilty of selective attention. (Ex. Neglecting to mention the 115 million animals killed in labs annually). Foxsa 2:31, 28 June 2015 (UCT+2)

My edits have been reverted without a reason. This language in this article is extremely unbalanced. Foxsa 2:31, 28 June 2015 (UCT+2)

This is not WP, RW doesn't give a hoot about NPOV. Oh, and whitewashing is often reverted without further explanation in these parts. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Threats against people[edit]

User: ‎-Mona- has removed a block of text with the edit note "google found zero support for ALF threatening families with harm or torture". Try these refs [1] [2] [3][4][5]. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I found attempted bombing of a husband of someone loosely connected to animal testing and bombing of family homes [6]. I think Google has evidence for those who look for it. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I tweaked the language to show that a handful do endorse arson and added your note.---Mona- (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Be good if you actually looked first Mona if you are going to make claims like that. I can also tell you now that you are going nowhere with yet more GG promo.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but GG and I are both strong civil libertarians. I cite him a lot, as I do the ACLU, and for the same reasons. Deal with the law, and not the personalities.---Mona- (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Rationalwiki is not a court of law. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a scientist, but I am a civil liberties lawyer[edit]

I'll defer to the scientists who link to reputable scientific sources on their claims. But unless someone can undermine my civil liberties FACTS -- that are deeply urgent and ominous -- they belong in this piece. ALF and other groups are canaries in the civil liberties coal mine, so to speak.---Mona- (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

so the argument is, you should be able to attack as much property you want without being labelled a terrorist as long as you hurt nobody? Despite the fact that the perpetrators of said bombs do threaten individuals? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
How is smashing buildings and unleashing aninlas terrorism? It's an abuse of the term.---Mona- (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't mind this person, I bet (they?) believe that there is a "Big Pharma" conspiracy to classify there beloved PETA and ALF as terrorist groups and to ban productions of there magical homeopathic remedies that really do work. because water pills do more than real molecules and the government wants to ban them because of that ;) (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Straw man much? Homeopathy is bullshit on stilts. The civil liberties harm from AETA, however, is more akin to something fascists would approve than liberals of any stripe should. That is, if they care about civil liberties.---Mona- (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations Mona, yet another article has be locked due to your antics. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but there's some deeply reactionary sentiment rooted here. I challenge it with facts, and expect others to also use facts for their claims. And what of this asshole who keeps deleting my proposed section by preposterously calling it "woo?!"---Mona- (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So how should medication be tested if not on animals? Do you think human testing is more ethical? What if you don't get enough volunteers? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop deleting my comments. Isn't that some sort of violation?[edit]

yes, and the BON has been ban hammered.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm more partial to ALF than to PETA, and don't go in for arson. But neither do most memebrs of ALF. However, even if you think they're just awful, that is or should be, entirety separate from the constitutional and civil libertarian issues that are crticially important.---Mona- (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
you might get further if you promise not to quote GG :) :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth would I do that? I read Glenn and engage him often. Email and such. We think a great deal alike and always have (way back when he was a "nobody"), or at least for some 20 years now. So, no, I won't be dropping him as a source anytime soon.---Mona- (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: People who have never heard of Glenn Greenwald or don't know much besides him being involved in the whole Snowden mess are unlikely to like him better if they see him associated with a ton of edit wars. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Civil liberties are under direct attack as a result of corporate lobbying that bought an unnecessary U.S. statute that permits prosecuting animal rights activists as "terrorists," even though they have not killed or physically harmed a single human being. Animal rights activists are now usually prosecuted under the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a draconian federal statute heavily lobbied for by the agriculture, pharmaceutical and farming industries. Per this pernicious law, terrorism now includes damaging personal or real property without harming -- or threatening to harm -- a single human being. In sum, AETA turns nonviolent political protest into “terrorism.”[1]

As civil liberties journalist Glenn Greenwald writes:

[ALF volunteer] Lauren Gazolla, who was imprisoned for 40 months in 2004 for her nonviolent animal rights activism and now works at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that this movement “strikes at something fundamental. It challenges a way of life: So much of how much we live our lives is based on massive violence against animals, and the more brutal these industries are, the more profit they make.” [2]

THE ACLU of Massachusetts has declared:

ACLU "WOO"[edit]

On Thanksgiving Sunday 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a breathtaking statute designed to make illegal the exercise of free speech against animal torture, and to brand animal activists as terrorists....The broad, unconstitutional sweep of AETA has intimidated activists, had a chilling effect on speech[3]

Indeed, harassing animal rights activists with oppressive surveillance of purely political activity[4], as well as criminal charges -- including chalking political messages on a sidewalk[5] -- is perhaps the greatest threat to the rights of political speech and activism in our era. Corporations have jumped on the green scare bandwagon, demonizing animal rights activists as violent terrorists all because the activists' politics are uncongenial to monied interests.[6]---Mona- (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Mona's rant[edit]

Mona, You don't seem to understand how important animal research is and how profitable the meat industry is (take of that as you may - I eat meat but I wouldn't mind pollution free meats!) - Isn't also ironic that you support the "euthanasia" (read: unnecessary waste) of animals by PETA/ALF whatever the cult is called this week that could have been family pets or have been used to test important veterinary/human drugs on? Also did you know that the cult leader co-owner of PETA uses animal derived insulin instead of bacterial recombiant insulin? and that they get all the drugs they use to ruthlessly kill animals for the lulz, because PETA is a cult of sick bastards who like seeing an animal twitch to death because of a barbiturate overdose (those PETA freaks might well use strychnine (Hey it's natural!!!!!!) for a more theatrical effect) FYI: Real vets don't do ANYTHING as sloppy as these PETA nutjobs - Errm I mean... "Euthanize the animals they have in there possession" - From chemical suppliers like Sigma-Aldrich? (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Er, I see. Well, unfortunately for you and anyone else who wasted their time reading that, it's not a rebuttal of any points I've made. Your notions about PETA are quite creative but, most unhappily, don't pertain to anything I've had to say.---Mona- (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Some valid points there but not really a rebuttal of anything Mona has said in this article. The rebuttal should be against the assertion that people who blow up property but not people (yet) are not terrorists. And that the government and big wonga have conspired to have such people designated as terrorists. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Animal Rights Activists = canaries in civil libertarian coal mine:

As one law professor has aptly analyzed it:

AETA (re)criminalizes conduct that neither causes nor threatens bodily harm, economic damage, or even non-violent physical obstruction, and which is already illegal under existing state and federal law. Such redundancy lacks any rational basis. It seems more concerned with stifling dissent than protecting the public from terrorism.

Terrorism usually refers to the intimidation (terrorizing) of a civilian population through mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. A terrorist is someone who commits such acts. Classifying standard-issue crimes – including civil disobedience – as terrorism conflates crime (the breach of a legal duty), and terrorism (the use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct). All terrorists are criminals but not all criminals are terrorists. Merging the two erodes normative protections that our founders painstakingly created to safeguard us from tyranny.

Under AETA, well-meaning citizens peacefully trying to bring about social change become the domestic equivalent of enemy combatants. The danger here is not just that people . . . will become stigmatized and get imprisoned for long periods, though that by itself would be problem enough. It is also that over time, the term terrorism will lose its meaning.[7]

For some evidence that the corporate world has striven mightily to get animal right activists to be perceived as -- and treated in the courts as -- terrorists, see here. What these people bought is a statute that criminalizes not only arson (which was, of course, already illegal) but also, as journalist Will Potter puts it: :"'domestic terrorism' label is applied to a wide range of conduct beyond arson (including undercover investigations, home protests, rescuing animals, and even civil disobedience). Therefore, a section on AETA and how it is being applied belongs in the ALF article.---Mona- (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So is this about ALF or animal rights advocates in general? They do not have the same in general, though in some people that overlaps. Though I think the terrorism is overboard and how it is applied is unjust, that doesn't mean casting them in the same umbrella is correct either. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there is scope for an article on that subject Mona which can then be linked from this one? Your points are really about erosion of civil liberties via AETA, rather than about the ALF.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
ALF is the target as is ELF. The former has been successful in lab vandalism that have closed company that was raising animals for experimentation. You can read about that and more in Tim Potter's book, Green is the New Red. From causing people to go vegan, to filming animals being tortured in labs and on corporate farms , the corporate world wants these activists shut down -- demonized and halted in their tracks. Why wouldn't they? Nearly anyone having the power and money to prtoect theoir moneyline would do so. No article about ALF is complete without a look at how the govertnment targets, infiltrates and demonizes it, all at a great erosion of civil liberties.---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Except every animal rights advocate is not in the ALF/ELF. Their mission statement specifically states using illegal activities to further their cause. That every animal rights activist advocates illegal activities (sometimes including destruction and/or violence) is not correct, which is as much a problem of yours and the people who demonize animal rights advocates. I can see why people who dislike the methods ALF is using and applying it to all animal rights advocates if people that champion animal rights do the same as well. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I can clearly see that -Mona- is not a rational person and wishes to sell his/her love of veganism and other harmful pseudoscience under the thin guise of "Mah Freedumz" (and Glenn Greenwald for that matter) - While I don't certainly like animal research - It is a necessary part of science and science should not be stopped by a bunch of Luddite lunatics saying we should all go eat bio-dynamic mung beans and live in straw huts instead of working on proper cures for diseases - Just as science should not be stopped by schizophrenic right wingers who complain about the "rights" of the embryonic stem cell cultures used in research while they go and happily execute fully formed and thinking human beings because of there love of schadenfreude respect for God and the Law. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Pot meet kettle. Both of you use overgeneralization/caricatures to represent your positions, virtuous or villainous. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be some validity in Mona's civil rights point. May I suggest that Mona create a section for this but it needs to be in context with the rest of the article? The ALF has threatened individuals and has caused considerable damage to valuable property - that should not be downplayed. I suspect this would meet the definition of terrorism for many folks. And for pity's sake keep it short and don't go quoting the usual talking heads.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"Both of you use overgeneralization/caricatures to represent your positions, virtuous or villainous" Please, Emerald, cite where I have done this. I am not aware of committing these infractions and at this point reject that I do.---Mona- (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"The ALF has threatened individuals and has caused considerable damage to valuable property - that should not be downplayed." As far as I know, the only threats of physical harm to humans was one instance of a loosely affiliated person in the UK. As for property damage, arson is in a grey area between violent and non-violent. But ALF has never killed a human and tries to avoid (so far successfully) humans being present during an arson. Terrrorism requires a component of violence that terrorizes people. By contrast. ALF hopes to make it too costly for the animal torturers to keep replacing buildings and labs. If Dylann Roof isn't a terrorist, how the hell can ALF be by any sensible application of the term? Laws against arson were already on the books, so why are the sentencing enhancements for a terrorism prosecution "necessary?" Are the Black Lives Matter protests that often involve a component of rioting and violence also terrorism? Finally, I don't know who WiganPier means by the "usual talking heads." I don't quote Kens and Barbies from TeeVee.---Mona- (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
They try to terrorize institutions into complying to their views on animal welfare.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Wrong Arisboch. Mostly -- vast majority of their strategies - - are to make it too financially costly for business to continue. Unlike, say, the Army of God, they've never killed anyone.---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
And how does that makes them not terrorist??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The ALF has been extremely lucky that members haven't killed anyone, they've come close a few times. The SPLC certainly thinks they have, and continue to employ terrorist tactics. Tielec01 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is shit - the ALF has flirted with violence, and dangerous illegal acts (eg. Arson) but this page looks like a poorly thought out letter to the editor. The very first section may as well not be there, with a cryptic reference to operation backfire that is never explained. Then launches straight into a criticism section that literally tells us to go read the WP article. This piece of shit article should be moved into userspace until it meets a minimum quality standard. Tielec01 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Tielco, I agree. The whole article sucks. I never got to Operation Backfire and the deficiencies there because I got bogged won arguing over the civil liberties section I added. BUt yeah, the whole thing is a mess.---Mona- (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't trust the SPLC, and don't get why they go after militias, animal rights groups & etc, so far from their mission. In any event, the reality is ALF not killed ANYONE. A few of them advocate arson as a means of proerty damage, but not to kill people. They want to make it too expensive for animal torturers to do business. Whatever one thinks of that, how does it fit into definitions of terrorism, and not just plain old arson? Unless you are going to argue that property -- it's destruction alone -- now constitutes terrorism, I don't see it.---Mona- (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Semantic arguments are insufferable, so I try not to have them. I am amused by the rhetorical hand wave of calling something plain old arson though. I guess arson is minor compared to planes flying into buildings. It reminds me of this joke - Two philosophers meet for coffee; one asks "How are the children?", the other responds "Compared to whom?". Tielec01 (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

After glorification of Palestinian and/or Arab terrorism[edit]

now the glorification of environmentalist terrorism? Oh boy, Mona, what kinda scum you gonna defend next?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

NAMBLA? The New England Patriots? Roger Goodell? Robert Mugabe? The Argentinian side in the Falklands war? I don't know, but reading Mona's defense of one of these is bound to be fun. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This „discussion“ doesn't show any signs of kicking the bucket soon due to fanaticism on the side of ALU - or rather one representative, but I share the curiosity. Which subject will be taken to extreme proportions next. I'm waiting in anticipation for the subject of whaling. By the way, whales are delicious. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I heard, that they're a delicacy in Japan, too (why didn't start to farm them like they do with fishes??).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
They are a delicacy in Japan. The fin whale catch is exported to Japan, and they never seem to get enough. But then again there are quite a lot of Japanese. The minke whale is caught for domestic consumption, and regrettably supply can't keep up with demand. As for farming whales, that might have something to do with the size of the animals. :-) Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Then someone could make a giant fucking basin for these wales, so that enough people could taste this delicacy!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the term is monomania... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And not monamania?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Oh noes, not more puns! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Narky fluffball.png Ka-Thunk!
You've been whacked with a narwhal.

Take this seriously. Somebody won't let this trout-based warfare settle down without a manufactured escalation of arms.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are Narwhals edible? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything is edible if you are hungry and apathetic. It's how wp:Hákarl came about... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hungry, yes, but what does apathy have to do with it? Curing shark is just the result of trial and error. Anyway, most sharks are quite edible when fresh, just not the Greenland shark and another species I've forgotten now. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This shark is fatal if consumed fresh, or not properly cured, or if too far might be a cause of disease. To me you need to be really apathetic to look at it and go "eh, fuck it" to eat it for the first time. It's a joke, why belabor it? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Can be fatal. It isn't always and the trial and error involved among other things how much would be toxic. I didn't catch a whiff of a joke. Practice a bit. In any case, not everything is edible, no matter how hungry you may be, some things are really fatal all of the time. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
PS for Avenger: I know that was in jest, but the serious answer is all whales are edible and all of them yummy. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
PS for the Emerald: Look up apathy. That word does not apply. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For someone who spent three paragraphs rambling how I am a peice of shit that you never want to talk to again, on my talk page, you spend quite a bit of time (as more than 0) on research and harrassment. That even crosses a line with me. Congrats, I feel like a better person :-D

-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a whale steak in a la-di-dah Washington, D.C. restaurant once. No idea what species, but it was pretty gamy, not delicious, but not fling-it-out-the-window nasty either. In hindsight, it might have gone well with kimchi or hot grey mustard. SmartFeller (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In some seriousness though (I am slightly drunk and watching a documentary on the American Football League of 1960 btw), if you consciously observe the amount of work that goes into preparing some types of food to make them anything near edible (there is this one poisonous mushroom that is considered a delicacy in Finland, if I recall correctly), one really has to ask how those things ever entered into the culinary horizon of any person let alone whole cultures... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No research was involved. No harassment was involved. As for your user page, I came there in good faith and was greeted with extreme discourtesy. Finally, you were the first to bring up, how much of a shit I was supposed to be. As for never speaking again, I meant that, but here you wander into a discussion and start commenting on a subject I brought up. If you're so thin-skinned, you might want to do something else. But believe me, I don't enjoy communicating with you. As for rambling, well we can't all be perfect, but I'd call your last contribution above rambling and you rambled on your talkpage, none too wisely. You can't expect courtesy if you show none yourself. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever helps you sleep at night your majesty. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to see that recognize those who are your superiors. You may rise. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics of Whaling[edit]

Ok, stupid question here. A typical goat has 50 pounds of meat, more if you are Scottish. A whale could have 1000 times that much meat. Assuming you could have 'sustainable whaling', would whaling be more ethical than farming, since you are only killing 1/1000th the number of animals per pound of meat? Likewise with cow over goat. CorruptUser (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this is why Japan whales because MacArthur had Emperor Hirohito allow whaling during the occupation since Japan's economy was destroyed and mass starvation was abound. Regardless, I doubt you since overfishing has dramatically reduced the fish population. So assuming you could have sustainable whaling I don't see how you could humanely kill a whale and it would also put the fishing crews endanger. Having many countries killing whales would lead more competition which would force more whale populations to spread and the whale population would most likely dwindle; even today the whale population is just now recovering from being endangered. If we were to overwhale it would have significant effect on biodiversity. Would could also kill dolphins, but we would run into the same problem.--Owlman (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Japan already kills dolphins. But anyway, my question is for the hypothetical situation where you could hunt whales without any threat of extinction. It's one thing to eat cow, another to eat all the cowsWikipedia. So in such a scenario, would whaling be more or less ethical than farming? CorruptUser (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I realize Japan hunts dolphins which was to claim that overwhaling would cause dolphins to go extinct too. You just couldn't have sustainable whaling because wouldn't be able to reproduce fast enough. Anyway, like I said I don't think you could humanely kill a whale or dolphin and both would be highly contaminated with mercury and other pollutants from the ocean and fish they eat.--Owlman (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Possibly. Though not all individual animals are of equal moral value and not all meat is of equal economic/gastronomic value. Ideal would be if you could get all your meat from one giant non-sentient blob of regenerating meat. Or the morally equivalent and far more realistic option of being able to create synthetic meat.Wikipedia And hey, that's actually a thing, so why are we still killing animals for meat? (talk) 01:48, 17 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Because real meat is better Yo. It's like I say: Teachers may be replaceable by robot, but people will pay premium for a Human Teacher.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, there's the appeal to nature/tradition fallacy, but the real answer is because in vitro meat is too costly to produce atm. Also, most people aren't troubled by eating meat from real animals so there's little demand for it. (talk) 01:58, 17 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Also, I'd really prefer a robot teacher. You could probably get transcripts of what they say in class and their questions on tests are probably a lot more straightforward. (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I personally think that tests should not be the all-important thing in school they are currently made out to be. Non scholae sed vitae discimus, after all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's cheap or not, people would still want that real meat. Daybreakers did that well - they had a workable synthetic blood, but that doesn't mean that they are gonna let the humans go: Vamps gonna pay premium for the real deal. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
To the original question - it depends on what moral framework you use to make your ethical decisions. Ethical discussions without establishing a moral framework are simply two people talking about their opinions. Regarding IV meat - I would pay $80 for a Big Mac composed of IV meat; possibly more. That's how desperate I get. Tielec01 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The $250k for the burger was the donation for the project, not the marginal cost per burger. The current marginal cost is about $10 a burger, according to wikipedia, and it's projected to eventually be around $2.50/pound for IV meat, also known as "cheaper than ground beef".CorruptUser (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard (which was awhile ago) it was around the $80 mark. Fantastic progress, once it is cheaper than "real" meat I'm sure it will be the norm. Tielec01 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────On a somewhat related note: Who is the real revolutionary? Michael O Leary or Charles Lindbergh? The guy who does something the first time or the guy who makes something so cheap, everybody does it without even thinking about it? Given that people eat pink slimeWikipedia if only the price is low enough, what would keep people from eating IV meat if only it were cheaper thaen ground beef? Hence I think the stunt with the IV burger will be remembered for some time, but the real revolution will be the people who make it cheap enough to be available and accessible to everybody. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a point regarding the first entry. We can and do have sustainable whaling. Cheers -Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note regarding „humane“ killing. This is a topic of neverending sentimentality, hypocrisy and ignorance. How do almost all animals die? They almost invariably get eaten, and usually not humanely. The human way of killing whales is no worse than the death the animal would eventually endure. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, If you ain't trolling then, son, you're retarded. Tielec01 (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Not really. IMNSHO, it's only cruelty against animals, if you kill it with more pain than you really have to, but if the only way to kill a whale is a painful one, then, well, shit happens, we humans ain't magicians, after all, who just can point a wooden stick at an animal, scream "AVADA KEDAVRA" and kill it in an instant.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
All animals, or just non-human ones? Tielec01 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Only the non-human ones. I'm a speciesist and proud of it *ducks from the barrage of ALF or PETA fanatics such as Mona, not Tielec01*.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The highest value for humanity should be the human and the betterment of humankind. Humans need meet and fish of some kind. Until and unless we have IV meat, that doubtlessly meets killing and hurting animals. We should not be wasteful (as in the case of shark finning) or unnecessarily cruel (as in the case of shark finning), but we will have to kill animals at the end of the day. The only thing I have against whaling is the way it is unsustainable, at least if done on a global industrial scale Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Pure inspired genius. Don't ever read a philosophy book, it would blunt your finely honed intellect. Tielec01 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well why should we care about the pain of a whale if we don't care about the pain of a pig we slaughter? And at least the whale had a chance to see the sky and roam free. Unlike the pig that was bred in captivity with extra ribs only to be slaughtered after mere months of a miserable existence. And no, the whole world going vegan is not feasible. The only alternatives we really have is deciding which animals to kill and how or getting better (and cheaper) at In Vitro Meat. And for that matter, why don't you take into account the suffering of plants that are ripped out cut of and otherwise mutilated while still alive? We know for a fact that several species of plant do notice when they are eaten. So who or what tells us they can't suffer? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect Tielec01 hasn't thought things through and he believes that meat is something that you get in a store. Personally, during my summers as a farm hand, I've eaten animals I knew by name. His standpoint is just the usual sentimental, hypocritical whining. My point is perfectly valid. The only ones who can go through this discussion on his side with a clean conscience are vegetarians. They at least have principles. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for other whaling nations, but Iceland does have sustainable whale hunting. The minke whale is a species of least concern according to the IUCN and the fin whale hunting here is sustainable with regard to the stock in local waters. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This all ignores my original question. Is it more ethical to hunt ONE whale instead of killing a THOUSAND goats? I don't like whaling, but from an environmental point of view; many species are endangered, and then there's the whole "whale poop stores carbon" issue. CorruptUser (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

First, only speaking for one country, no endangered whale species are being hunted. Second, no whale species has ever been hunted to extinction. The only whale species to become extinct by human means was a Chinese river dolphin a few years back, and that was mostly due to habitat loss. Thirdly, from a different point of view than that you have, it matters not a iota whether a 1000 sheep or 10 whales or whatever is killed. Animals provide food, end of story. This may be difficult for you to swallow, but we don't all have such a kind heart as you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to add something, but to begin with, since I am not a troll, I'd be curious to know what makes Tielec01 think the alternative has to be that I'm retarded. IRL I could produce proof that I am not, but that's another story. As for same user addressing me as „son“, I suspect I would be more correct in addressing him that way - we don't have birth certificates here, so this is just a hunch. But since it was mentioned that whales had the opportunity to roam the blue ocean freely, presumably having a wonderful time, let's see what happens if we anthromorphize whales as seems to be the norm. You're condemned to decades of swimming in a featureless three-dimensional environment with very little to occupy your finely honed intellect. You swim back and forth, tens of thousands of kilometers, the only variable being the temperature. In that view, a whale's life is only slightly better than that of an inmate in a supermax prison. Whaling then has to count as mercy killing. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well surely whales must have come to enjoy the ocean through evolution just as humans have come to enjoy green. (as is masterfully pointed out in "the god delusion" by Dawkins) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely true. But then they are neither half nor fully human as some would have us believe. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Just an afterthought. I read The God Delusion long ago, but I've forgotten how whales must have evolved to enjoy the ocean. The key idea in the theory of evolution is procreation in one form of another. As already said, very few living beings have a pleasant death. Having fun is species-dependent and maybe a side effect in some cases. Play with your dog and the dog shows every sign of pleasure. But the dog is training and obeying the top dog. We don't know how a dog experiences fun, not being able to read minds. That said, I think we be fairly certain that the dog experiences pain in much the same way we do. So, when you have to kill your dog (or „put it to sleep to go to doggie heaven“ for the sake of your children) do it as painlessly as possible. Ein Prosit der Gemütlichkeit Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed. An ethical system that strives to minimize pain can't be all that wrong. As for the comments above: To clarify, Dawkins does not mention wales enjoying the ocean (as far as I recall) but he does explicitly mention humans having evolved to enjoy green vegetation and not the other way round as his teacher would tell him... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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. (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), 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? (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)'

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)

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)
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)
Avenger, I do know only sysops can edit the article. What's wrong with the compromises reached between myself and Reverend Black Percy? ---Mona- (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


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)


Once again, the article has been vandalized and has had content that promotes Glenn Grenwald inserted into it (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy of our resident Greenwald fangirl Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


"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)