Posted on Sep 25, 2012 | 8 comments
Local Portland news coverage of a pheasant release at a Canby, Oregon game farm by the Animal Liberation Front.
No related posts.
GOD, what IS IT with animal farmers always being aesthetically challenged with double-digit IQs?!?!?!?
‘They think their way is the right way’. Two things – they shove their way down our throats every second of every of every day & their way involves caging & slaughtering others. Fuck their way, fuck their way to all hell!
Here’s another article (from a pro animal ag group) that claims a total of 3 birds were liberated from the pen and another was found dead. While still not a huge discrepancy, it does contradict the previous claim of the farm owner that only 1 bird was “missing” from the pen. It sort of highlights why the claims made by industry and the media should be taken with a grain of salt.
Some more interesting facts from this article are that it claims only 2 dozen birds were in the pen at the time of the raid, because the rest of the flock was sold in the spring and that the birds were “outfitted” with peepers and “vision restrictors”.
Here’s one of the more asinine and poorly written editorials I’ve read on the ALF in a while. The cartoon that accompanies the article is as equally facile. It make me wonder however if the people that we (the animal liberation movement) are going up against really are as dumb and oblivious to basic logic as they appear.
Also it should be noted that according to the communique this raid took place Friday night and according to the media report the farmer didn’t discover the damage to the pen and the missing birds until Monday morning.
I did not say that a mouse has the same interest in life as a noarml human. But I would say that insofar as a mouse has the same interests (or essential characteristics or the same nature) as a human, a mouse deserves the same consideration. What interests would a mouse have in common with a human being? Obviously interests in not experiencing pain, fear, hunger, thirst, extreme heat or cold or, as a social species, isolation. No doubt the mouse would be interested in protection of juvenile offspring. The mouse’s anticipation of the future would be different, as the mouse is a short-lived species compared to a human. If the mouse’s life was cut short, would the mouse experience as great a loss as a human being? I would not argue that case. I credited Peter Singer with having articulated the concept of equal consideration of interests, but you are correct that my philosophy diverges from Singer’s. Among other things, I would not condone painful experiments performed on a mentally retarded child or other mentally impaired human being, regardless of the utility. There should be limits on certain practices, and there are comparables in other areas. For example, even during military combat which is by definition violent it is agreed by civilized nations that certain practices are war crimes, because they are simply unthinkably horrible. For example, the use of poison gas was off limits even during World War II. Torturing of prisoners has become unacceptable to civilized society. Capital punishment has become controversial in the US and is outlawed in most developed countries. Surely you would agree that there are some things that would cause so much suffering that they should not be inflicted on a sentient being, regardless of the possible benefits to be gained.Surely you would also agree that there has been sadistic treatment of animals in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. That does not mean that scientists in general have an ulterior motive in using animals for experimentation or testing. I grant that most scientists believe there is a greater good that comes from the use of animals, just as livestock farmers believe they are doing good work by raising and slaughtering animals for food. There are very few people I would categorize as being either evil or good, as the vast majority of us are moral shades of grey. I am faced with the moral dilemma of having benefited from biomedical research using animals even though I wish that other (non-animal) methods had been used instead. If I were a perfectly consistent person, I would refrain from partaking of the benefits of biomedical research because animals have been used in certain stages of the development of virtually all modern drugs, therapies, and surgeries; the law has demanded that everything be used or performed on animals before being tried on humans, regardless of the necessity. I am not interested in casting blame, only in trying to make things better.
Why didn’t the newman say that this birds are being raised so they can be SHOT by hunters. I notice that part was missing!!
This article and cartoon make me wonder if the people that we are going up against are really as dumb and intellectually inept as they appear.
Your email address will not be published.
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress