Eco-terrorism

inmytree

wow, some people are nuts...

this thread is great, by the way...I'd like to hear some more justification for destruction and violence...

I'd be willing to bet, those who support rioting, firebombing, and the like would be a bit upset if the police acted the same toward them...

polaris

oh boy ... do i or don't i? ...

i'm gonna say don't based on the people responding in this thread - not very reasonable or objective imo ...

cincybearcat

radiohead33 wrote:

so I guess those drugs must be good. This was a kid without a criminal history as well. He set fire to three suv's. Thats it. He didnt kill anyone. Didnt injure anyone. How is it okay for him to be sentenced to 23 years? Its outrageous, which is why i was for his release immediately and still am. he commited an illegal act, but lets face it, alot of kids commit arson. And I dont EVER remember reading about a first time arsonist being sentenced to a little over 2 decades.

What about 1 or 2 years in jail at the most?

Someone here posted an article about a nelected kid left to rot in her room. The mother spent little to no time in jail. Yet we send people like Jeff Luers, Mumia and Peltier to jail for half a lifetime or their entire lives.

As futher proof, google it. Google the simple words "arsonist sentenced". I see 7 years, 9 years, 13, but no 23.

Free Jeff Luers. Jail the real criminals. He is a hero and will remain one. Even the courts think so, as they ruled he should be released in 2009. They felt his sentence was unfair.

Just like in the case of the WM3, who will pay for this? Who will pay for those years stolen from Mr Luers. Or stolen from the Wm3? or mumia? or peltier?

Who will serve time for that?

What kind of jail sentence would change his behavior for the future, and make more people change their behaviors to avoid the jail sentence?

That's th ekind of jail sentence he shoudl have gotten.

cincybearcat

Urban Hiker wrote:

Meet Lady. She was rescued from OHSU's "Research" department by a friend who used to work there. She was saved from the horrors of vivisection.

There is no MORALITY in this. It is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY CRUEL to inflict pain on another animal. Just because other species don't have voices, doesn't mean we get to do whatever we like with them - no reason justifies it.


http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/index.html

And that is a perfectly logical and reasonable position...but destroying property, endangering people is not a perfectly logical and reasonable position.

Seems to me that many people speak of tolerance and freedom, except when it comes down to their own opinions, then they wish to FORCE it on others or use force on others if they don't comply.

hardboiled

cincybearcat wrote:

Warped sense of reality and right vs. wrong.

Funny, these same people probably vilify the anti-abortion activists that do the same thing. When in reality, they are exactly the same.

That was my first thought too. What an absurd comment to make. It's incredibly ironic that this kind of behavior comes from people who will rant for days about how the US shouldn't use bombs to force other countries to share our beliefs.

FiveB247x

Not that I condone such things, but in all honesty, there are some issues and topics that people do not believe have a grey area. People have their opinion and there's no room for discussion otherwise. For some it could be abortion, others it could be animal rights or others a political issue like Middle East issues. To me, this is one of those topics. I'm not really concerned about people's property or some labs where they test animals (which could be argued over the validty of its nature and its true help to mankind), or any of the other types of acts these eco-groups do. I'm not patting them on the back, but I'm certainly not concerned about wagging my finger either. To me, they're rather secondary or small in the nature of looking at society's real problems. Our society is always more concerned with the after effects of problems compared to actually curing the cause.

godpt3

FiveB247x wrote:

Not that I condone such things,

you keep using that phrase. Who are you trying to convince, exactly? Yourself?

FiveB247x

No just simply stating that albeit it doesn't bother me, I don't go around rooting for it either. There were a few posters that were more than willing to back these groups.

godpt3 wrote:

you keep using that phrase. Who are you trying to convince, exactly? Yourself?

cubbieblue82

FiveB247x wrote:

Actually not that I condone it per say, but these types of groups cause violence and destruction, but never target people.. just property. Obviously it's still illegal, but there's a big difference in trying to kill people compared to burning down a labratory when there's no one inside. And the one thing that really irks the FBI and others is they plan these things extremely well and typically aren't caught. But as others stated previously, there's two sides to every story.

Did you read the article? It says right in there that they tried to punch the guy in the face! And how is putting a bomb at someones front door and forcing them and their little children to evacuate their house not targeting them. You people are delusional if you think all these practices do is damage property.

I hope that anyone that ever supports these groups and happens to get sick at some point in their life will refuse modern medicine, as almost all modern medicines have at some point been tested on animals. Chemotherapy, vaccinations, etc... All passed through animal testing labs at some point.

And believe me, as a PhD student, I fully realize the rigid anti-cruelty regulations that researchers have to comply with in order to conduct their research. Every effort is made to minimize the amount of suffering that these animals are put through.

FiveB247x

How much of animal testing is actually applicable to human beings? There are instances where science and testing has helped such things, but nowadays, we use animals as guinea pigs for products to test poison levels, and even in many cases use modern medicines on animals for human purposes, when we in fact have no proof or corelation that the medicines will react the same in the animals as they do in humans. These are facts of animal testing in labs and similar. I'm not a tree hugger or eco-nut or animal rights nut, but you can't sit here honestly legitize an entire field like testing as beneficial purposes when in fact probably 75% of has no proof or merit backing its basis.

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Did you read the article? It says right in there that they tried to punch the guy in the face! And how is putting a bomb at someones front door and forcing them and their little children to evacuate their house not targeting them. You people are delusional if you think all these practices do is damage property.

I hope that anyone that ever supports these groups and happens to get sick at some point in their life will refuse modern medicine, as almost all modern medicines have at some point been tested on animals. Chemotherapy, vaccinations, etc... All passed through animal testing labs at some point.

And believe me, as a PhD student, I fully realize the rigid anti-cruelty regulations that researchers have to comply with in order to conduct their research. Every effort is made to minimize the amount of suffering that these animals are put through.

cubbieblue82

FiveB247x wrote:

Not that I condone such things, but in all honesty, there are some issues and topics that people do not believe have a grey area. People have their opinion and there's no room for discussion otherwise. For some it could be abortion, others it could be animal rights or others a political issue like Middle East issues. To me, this is one of those topics. I'm not really concerned about people's property or some labs where they test animals (which could be argued over the validty of its nature and its true help to mankind), or any of the other types of acts these eco-groups do. I'm not patting them on the back, but I'm certainly not concerned about wagging my finger either. To me, they're rather secondary or small in the nature of looking at society's real problems. Our society is always more concerned with the after effects of problems compared to actually curing the cause.

I really don't think many people understand the way scientific research is funded and conducted. Research is funded on a peer-reviewed grant based system, meaning that in order for these people to have money, a panel of EXPERTS has determined their work to have scientific validity enough to give them money.

Now for the most part, while we can all voice our opinions in a forum, I will go with someone who understands the work and supports it objectively rather than someone who emotionally disagrees based on passion alone.

cubbieblue82

FiveB247x wrote:

How much of animal testing is actually applicable to human beings? There are instances where science and testing has helped such things, but nowadays, we use animals as guinea pigs for products to test poison levels, and even in many cases use modern medicines on animals for human purposes, when we in fact have no proof or corelation that the medicines will react the same in the animals as they do in humans. These are facts of animal testing in labs and similar. I'm not a tree hugger or eco-nut or animal rights nut, but you can't sit here honestly legitize an entire field like testing as beneficial purposes when in fact probably 75% of has no proof or merit backing its basis.

What exactly would it take to prove a study will have valid applications to human health before it is conducted? Science is about exploring the unknown, if we already knew something was going to work there wouldn't be a study concerning it.

Of course not every study will directly benefit humanity, but modern medicine would not be where it is today without animal testing, and there is absolutely NOTHING that you or anyone else can say to contradict that FACT!

You are also pulling that 75% number out of your ass. By and large, many of the genes in mice and other animals are highly related to human genes. Therefore, many of the disease processes are similar, and treatments have similar effects. Now, of course there are differences, but what do you want to do, start experimenting on humans? We have to take advantage of the best model system available, and that is animals.

Also, in general before a chemical ever gets to the point of being administered to animals, it has passed through a series of other tests on cultured human cells, meaning that there is reason to believe it would be effective.

FiveB247x

I am very familiar with how funding works as I have a friend who works in the field. But with that stated, these types of tests are in the minority of the overall animal testing labs and studies, ones as I refered too as having questionalbe reasons for doing them. These types are privately funded which no real science or research purpose to them. Albeit, not always, but these are the ones many people can in some respect relate too as unneccessary. Most animal rights groups are over the top but many times end up exposing labs and companies which inhumanly test animals for no other purpose than poison levels and side effects.

cubbieblue82 wrote:

I really don't think many people understand the way scientific research is funded and conducted. Research is funded on a peer-reviewed grant based system, meaning that in order for these people to have money, a panel of EXPERTS has determined their work to have scientific validity enough to give them money.

Now for the most part, while we can all voice our opinions in a forum, I will go with someone who understands the work and supports it objectively rather than someone who emotionally disagrees based on passion alone.

cubbieblue82

FiveB247x wrote:

I am very familiar with how funding works as I have a friend who works in the field. But with that stated, these types of tests are in the minority of the overall animal testing labs and studies, ones as I refered too as having questionalbe reasons for doing them. These types are privately funded which no real science or research purpose to them. Albeit, not always, but these are the ones many people can in some respect relate too as unneccessary. Most animal rights groups are over the top but many times end up exposing labs and companies which inhumanly test animals for no other purpose than poison levels and side effects.

I wholehartedly agree that there are cases where testing becomes cruel and unnecessary. Particularly concerning private companies testing their products on animal subjects.

However, we are talking about University professors being targetted here. By and large, this research is heavily regulated by animal protection agencies like IACUC that closely monitor animal welfare. For example, if a mouse unexpectedly dies, they have to know why, and what you are doing to correct the situation. They also closely monitor things like the number of animals per cage to avoid overcrowding issues.

FiveB247x

This maybe true in the official scientific world where medical testing does or tries to produce results, but would you say the same of the business and corporate world (that it is as heavily monitored)?

The monitoring comes in because of funding... if private funding is prevelant, all those groups and rules are loose or neglected in many cases. For the medical science field, of course its monitored correctly, but I don't think you can say the same of the business side of this discussion.

cubbieblue82 wrote:

I wholehartedly agree that there are cases where testing becomes cruel and unnecessary. Particularly concerning private companies testing their products on animal subjects.

However, we are talking about University professors being targetted here. By and large, this research is heavily regulated by animal protection agencies like IACUC that closely monitor animal welfare. For example, if a mouse unexpectedly dies, they have to know why, and what you are doing to correct the situation. They also closely monitor things like the number of animals per cage to avoid overcrowding issues.

cubbieblue82

FiveB247x wrote:

This maybe true in the official scientific world where medical testing does or tries to produce results, but would you say the same of the business and corporate world (that it is as heavily monitored)?

The monitoring comes in because of funding... if private funding is prevelant, all those groups and rules are loose or neglected in many cases. For the medical science field, of course its monitored correctly, but I don't think you can say the same of the business side of this discussion.

I only have personal experience as a student in academia so I can't say anything regarding private funding, or corporate research. I know that many cases of animal cruelty by corporations both in research and food production have been uncovered.

I don't think anyone can argue that cruelty does occur, particularly as you say in corporations.

However, these morons were targeting professors conducting what I assume is publicly funded research. Maybe it hits close to home for me since I may wind up in such a situation some day (I haven't done animal research myself yet).

From my understanding these terrorists developed a list of all professors at UCSC conducting any kind of animal research, and targeted them. Now I highly doubt that they had any nuanced understanding of the importance of any research being conducted in those labs. They just see "animal research" and go apeshit.

cubbieblue82

KosmicJelli wrote:

I live near the ELF project here in WI.... fuckin cancer studies!!! WE have the highest rate of cancer in the USA....

Maybe you all should quit smokin so much and eating so much cheese and sausage! That might go a little way!