Neuroscientist Halts Research to Stop Extremists

With the war on terrorism... by Sinryc · 2006-08-26 13:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why can't get get rid of our home grown ones?

--
Yay, I have a sig.

Re:With the war on terrorism... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2006-08-26 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure that every home grown terrorist sitting on oilfields has been dealt with.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by buswolley · 2006-08-26 14:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ummm.. These are liberal fiirebommmmmmers.. not conservative ones.. but go ahead and blame the republicans for the liberals..
ha ha

--
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Mostly+a+lurker · 2006-08-26 15:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Terrorists are not liberals or conservatives; they are not Moslem, Christian or Buddhist; they are not male or female; they are not old or young: they are criminally insane individuals who must be stopped (though there are can disagreement about the best way of accomplishing this). While it is important to try to understand that people can be pushed into this insanity by perverted teachings of leaders of extreme groups, normal people do not try to harm the innocent family members of those whose actions they disapprove.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by JesseL · 2006-08-26 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

People this bent on controling the actions of others aren't likely to be anarchists.

And remember people, anarchy!=chaos or disorder.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Re:With the war on terrorism... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-08-26 15:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of terrorists, too. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on a civilian vessel. Mobs killed loyalists on a regular basis. Not to mention the british army's horror that sharpshooters deliberately targeted their officers in battle.

Were all these people criminally insane?
Re:With the war on terrorism... by aunticrist · 2006-08-26 15:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

No offense, but if you are using terror tactics to effect how people behave, you are a "terrorist". Let's not mince words and make excuses for these people.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by louisadkins · 2006-08-26 15:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

According to the Powers-That-Were yes, they were. Since we managed to change out our government successfully it became fighting for our freedom. It comes down (in part) to a matter of perspective.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by louisadkins · 2006-08-26 15:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thank you. So many times, I see people who just assume that a "terrorist" can not ever be born in their own country. Terrorism is about acts, not nationality, race, sex, creed, political leaning, sexual leanings, or anything else. The moment someone decides to inspire terror in a target they cross the line between not a terrorist and terrorist - that simple.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 15:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nothing you listed fits the definition of Terrorism, but nice try:

Sharpshooters targetting officers - um, that's military forces killing other military forces. That even meets Geneva rules (though those were way in the future).

Boston Tea Party - did they kill anyone? Were they intending to spread terror, or just make a big mess in protest? This was a lot closer to the Million Man March than terrorism.

Mobs killing (suspected) loyalists (and vice versa) - This is a sizable fraction of the populace attacking a different, sizable fraction of the populace. Not a small group spreading terror by random death & destruction. I wouldn't call the race riots terrorism, and neither is this.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by hey! · 2006-08-26 16:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

With the war on terrorism... why can't get get rid of our home grown ones?

Because a "War on Terrorism" is, practically by definition, unable to do anything about terrorism.

This is so because terrorist organizations are not military ones. They neither operate according to the laws of war, nor do they pursue the normal strategic objectives of war, nor do they use the typical means of war. The only thing that they have in common with a military organization is that they employ violence; the resemblence to a military organization ends there.

I know "War on Terrorism" is only an analogy, but it is a very poor one. It's not that the struggle against terrorism has no parallels with war; but it parallels war only to the degree terrorism parallels warfare. Taking this loose analogy too seriously and literally means you end up fighting in the wrong places with the wrong equipment and the wrong strategy. It's like declaring you want to beat the Yankees, then showing up at the Meadowlands in your football gear. Chances are you're going to have a football game against the Jets instead of a baseball game against the Yankees.

Saying the struggle against terrorism is not warfare is not tantamount to dismissing its importance. If you think that way, the only way society could achieve anything is by warfare. "War" is the wrong word.

What you need is a word that subsumes struggle on many levels, at times manifesting as battle in the military sense, but even more often as purposeful social reorganization. A word that implies a heightened vigilance on the part of individuals, and an individual share in the responsiblity for victory. You need a word that indicates a shared goal that is held in high importance by every level of society, and which therefore affects both great policy and mundane daily decisions. "War" carries the emotional and moral gravity of the situation, but it implies excessively narrow tactics.

English, does not have an adequate word for this kind of struggle, but ironically Arabic does: jihad.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by LionKimbro · 2006-08-26 16:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I disagree: Terrorists are (roughly) people who have given up all hope with "the system," and are taking matters into their own hands.

For example, the American Revolutionaries would probably be called "terrorists" today.

Proclaiming "Criminal Insanity" is a means whereby you objectify somebody else, and make them fit for murder: That is, you have justified to yourself, by calling the person a terrorist, their murder.

Notice how you appeal to "normal people." And "perverted teachings." You're not even trying to establish foundational basis; You're appealing entirely to normalicy.

But do you not think that there is ever a time when normalicy must be challenged?

And perhaps even in highly illegal and plausibly even unethical ways?

Is there nothing you would not fight for? Nothing?

Dude, if you want to oppose these people, fine. But use some real reasoning; Not just some flim-flam appeal to simple majority: "There are more of us, therefor we are right."
Re:With the war on terrorism... by andrewdiceclay · 2006-08-26 17:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I see a lot of complaints that these groups should not be allowed to do this to Dario Ringach - and a lot of calls for the FBI to track down these terrorists and put them in jail - or just not take any prisoners for the jail, with which I agree - but what can we really do about this, besides waiting around for mommy and daddy from the government to come down and make the bad people go away - I don't think that is going to work - I don't think that the American government really cares - they should, but they don't - so what can we do? Now? Where is the support group for this guy? If these activists are protesting around his home, harrassing his kids, where are his supporters that will stand on the sidewalk outside his home every morning, when his kids come out of the house to walk to school, where are those that will walk with them to school - and walk with them back in the afternoon, to support them and reassure them - and protect them against these assholes that would try to get to a man thru his kids - If these activists are calling his home and harrassing him, where are his supporters who can set up a call screening service for him? I know you can set up a PBX with Asterix - it should be relatively easy to set one up for him - why not give him a set of volunteers to screen his calls - and even review his messages - keep these people from even getting to him - if Asterix can do it, I'm sure there are other commercial services that can do this - one way or the other, it should be possible to keep out harrassing phone calls - Stop worrying about what the government should do - in these times, the government is moving away from its responsibilities toward us here in America - that may be right or wrong - wrong in my opinion - but saying that it is wrong doesn't help the victims of harrassment - what can we do about it? If one person were to volunteer to do just the little I have suggested, it would be a chore - a burden - but if 50 people volunteered, it might only be an hour out of each of their days - as long as there was some organization and planning given to the effort - if you can't be there physically to help him, then at least you can help screen his calls, even if you live in another country - There must be a way for all of the folks who are outraged by this story to support this man - if we can figure out how to organize that way, and make it effective, then we can really make a difference -
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 17:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Your parent poster actually referred to "ALF, etc" and contrasted them not with a named grop but with "various Christian Identity and Nazi organizations". I'd say that makes your counterexamples entirely valid, regardless of whether they're claimed by the ALF itself.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by NoTheory · 2006-08-26 18:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow, what a stupidly unqualified statement. "Often" where? Are Muslims often terrorists in Ireland? How about in Peru? What about Sri Lanka? Or Nepal? Is the KKK often a muslim terrorist group?

Get real. Terrorists come out of all ethnicities and creeds. Terrorism relies on a fossilization of the mind, and a sociopathic dissociation from other people. It's got nothing inherent to do with Islam. And it's certainly stupid to say that terrorists are "often" muslims, as opposed to "often" being anything else.

--
There are lives at stake here!
Re:With the war on terrorism... by tbo · 2006-08-26 19:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is so because terrorist organizations are not military ones. They neither operate according to the laws of war, nor do they pursue the normal strategic objectives of war, nor do they use the typical means of war. The only thing that they have in common with a military organization is that they employ violence; the resemblence to a military organization ends there.

Hezbollah, recognized by many Western nations as a terrorist organization, has quite a lot in common with more conventional military organizations. It has a chain of command, "civilian" oversight of its military wing (i.e. Nasrallah and the Hezbollah members of Lebanon's parliament), substantial military training, and the arms necessary to hold its own when going up against a powerful Western military (I'm thinking in particular of the advanced anti-tank missiles Hezbollah has). Israel has probably failed to do so, but it seems likely it is possible to severely wound Hezbollah with conventional "war". (Whether that's the best course of action is a different matter.) If we're talking about Hezbollah, "war" is an apt word; the same held true for Al Qaeda when they had control of Afghanistan.

I know "War on Terrorism" is only an analogy, but it is a very poor one. It's not that the struggle against terrorism has no parallels with war; but it parallels war only to the degree terrorism parallels warfare. Taking this loose analogy too seriously and literally means you end up fighting in the wrong places with the wrong equipment and the wrong strategy. It's like declaring you want to beat the Yankees, then showing up at the Meadowlands in your football gear. Chances are you're going to have a football game against the Jets instead of a baseball game against the Yankees.

I think you're mostly right, but this is largely about PR and semantics. "War on Terror" is shorthand for "Military action against some who support Islamist terror, and the struggle to prevent terrorism through a broad spectrum of means". The latter just doesn't have the same ring to it, is all.

English, does not have an adequate word for this kind of struggle, but ironically Arabic does: jihad.

"War" does seem to be getting tired. Perhaps "The Jihad against Jihad". But then, English does have an equivalent word: "Crusade". Once things get to the point where names can't make it any worse, why not have some fun? One side can be "The Crusade against Jihad", while the other side is "Jihad against the Infidel Crusaders". It reminds me of the Judean People's Front and People's Front of Judea from Monty Python's Life of Brian, which is surely a good starting point for understanding the Middle East.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Ichoran · 2006-08-26 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you believe that we have a strong moral duty to protect animals and prevent their suffering, isn't your first priority to stop using animals for food? Many of the animals we eat are raised and killed in deplorable conditions; even the best facilities are unlikely to meet minimum standards for the ethical treatment of animals for scientific research. And with research, we gain something permanent: knowledge about how living systems work, which can be applied to produce a higher quality of life for humans (and for animals, should we want to--veterinary science, for example, has benefitted substantially from all the research we've done in the biological sciences and medicine!). With food animals, we just get food, which we then eat, and then it's gone.

(Annoyingly enough, we've evolved to be omnivores and have to be especially careful with our diet if we neglect any part of a normal omnivorous diet.)

So that leaves us with a question: why do groups like PETA and ALF focus their attention on research when they haven't got nearly enough manpower to make an impact on the worst abuses in the food industry, much less cover everything down to the relatively minor cases of animals used for vision research?

I can think of four possibilities.

(1) They're ignorant. Despite it being their mission to treat animals ethically, and despite the discomfort of, say, chicken-rearing warehouses being well documented, they don't realize how much suffering is being caused by that in comparison to all research put together. Since this supposedly what they care about, and the information is available, it has to be willful ignorance.

(2) They're luddites. Despite the amazing advances in health and medicine coming from research, and the extraordinarly broad evidence that animal research is essential in narrowing down ideas for treatments to those which are actually promising to humans, they distrust research and science. Perhaps they actively long for a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where we were plagued by a host of pathogens and had few methods to alleviate pain and suffering. Or perhaps they notice that our advanced technology has done a lot of damage to the planet, and are too lazy to figure out how technology should be used well; it's much easier just to think it should all go.

(3) They're cowards. They know much worse abuses exist, but they're afraid of powerful corporate interests, and by harassing researchers who are relatively isolated and poor compared to multinational food conglomerates, they can make themselves feel like they're doing something without having to risk the consequences that might accompany taking on the real problem.

(4) They long for a polarizing wedge issue that no longer exists. Animal testing used to be much less humane than it is now; but after the initial animal rights movement pointed that out, and research indicated that our self-interested assumptions that animals didn't feel pain were not borne out by evidence, the protocols have been modified to greatly reduce any suffering. That doesn't leave much room to be an activist; where's the fun in that? So, even though the battle has been won, perhaps some people want to keep fighting it.

None of these hypotheses is particularly flattering, and most of them boil down to animal rights activists being ignorant, hypocritical, or both.

And some of the moral protests are ill-informed. Suppose you're developing a new cosmetic product to be used on the face. Anything that people might put on their face could get in their eyes. What do you do? (By extension: is the claim that all cosmetics are bad and shouldn't be used? That we should blind people in order to test cosmetics? Seriously--what is the proposal here?)
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 22:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

>> Because a "War on Terrorism" is, practically by definition, unable to do anything about terrorism.

Untrue. It creates a whole new army of potential terrorists and suicide bombers, thus creating a justification for the continuance of the war against terror. :-) For an example, recent Israeli attacks against Lebanon have destroyed thousands of homes and killed thousands of people. What do you think the 1 million people, who are now left displaced, feel, if not lust for revenge? Same goes for US war against the iraqis, who have actually done nothing to deserve the treatment americans are now giving them, destroying their homes and families. They are bound to pay you back sometime. IMHO, like the Bible says, you reap what you sow. And right now, USA is sowing violence and misery all aroud the Middle-East. So I wouldn't be surprised if the struggle against terror would countinue for many years to come.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by It'sYerMam · 2006-08-26 23:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is correct, but the GP is correct that activists such as these do not tend to get any kind of free ride, or at least, not in England. They are treated as the criminals that they are.

--
im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by pravuil · 2006-08-27 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I agree that terrorism can come from all ethnicities and creeds I'm hesitant to agree with the sociopath dissociation part. Organized dissidence is not something that can be done without proper motive. People create motive all the time based on their experiences and what was taught to them from other individuals. Then for them to promote those rationalizations and for a small portion of the public to be swayed by those opinions takes more than an isolated and chaotic viewpoint for these types of agendas to perpetuate.

In the case that this thread was initially about, sympathy for animals is on a different level than the sympathy for human suffering. I'm ashamed that people have to rush to violence to promote their stance and I'm even more ashamed that a group of people would agree to support those types of actions. Even though I might not agree with the doctor testing on primates I would never allow myself to resort to such base train of thought in handling a situation like that. Things like this can be resolved in court or through lobbying. Why complicate it any more than you have to.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-27 02:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

They like campaigning against research because it's flashy and no one likes those creepy scientists anyhow.

Essentially, it's a crude grab for political power - they're seeking supporters, y'see.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by hunterx11 · 2006-08-27 02:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Boston Tea Party was not terrorism, nor was shooting military personnel. You are correct, however, that many colonists killed Tory civilians. And you know what? They were terrorists, and the colonial governments should have prosecuted them. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing terrorism at the time of the American Revolution while still supporting the Revolution.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:With the war on terrorism... by Ender+Ryan · 2006-08-27 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not to mention the british army's horror that sharpshooters deliberately targeted their officers in battle.

Now THAT is the awesomest^Wmost awful thing any group of rebels^Wterrorists should^Wcan do.

No, really, war needs to become more awful for our "leaders" so maybe they'll stop making us kill each other all the time.

Imagine if those responsible for wars were the first to die. *Sigh* of course it's not quite that simple...

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Re:With the war on terrorism... by JourneyExpertApe · 2006-08-27 09:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not only were the Founding Fathers not terrorists, they, unlike animal rights terrorists, were fighting against oppression that affected them. Animal rights terrorists, on the other hand, are generally antisocial misfits who have latched onto a convenient cause to rationalize their reckless hatred and violence. They may like to think of themselves as benevolent hippies, but at their core they're no better than Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

--
If you can read this sig, you're too close.

"animal" rights? by macadamia_harold · 2006-08-26 13:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Although he and his family had endured harassment and vandalization by animal-rights activists for years, Ringach reconsidered after extremists tried to firebomb a colleague's home and accidentally left their Molotov cocktail on an elderly neighbor's doorstep.

I don't get it. Aren't humans "animals", too?

--
Push Button, Receive Bacon

Re:"animal" rights? by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2006-08-26 13:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

No kidding, humans are the animals we all should instinctively have the most empathy with.

Fucking "animal rights" terrorists.

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Re:"animal" rights? by MarkRose · 2006-08-26 13:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't get it. Aren't humans "animals", too?

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

--
Be relentless!
Re:"animal" rights? by serialdogma · 2006-08-26 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Four legs good! Two legs better!
Re:"animal" rights? by cryptoluddite · 2006-08-26 14:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

"the university is not releasing detailed information about projects being attacked by such group"

What I don't get is what exactly the research was. UCLA is a public institution right? So if they aren't telling, chances are that it really is something pretty upsetting -or- it's being paid for by a drug company / the gov't, in which case you can be really sure it's not something respectable.

On one side you have somebody saying "he's a murderer or worse" and on the other saying "I won't tell you what I'm doing but it's all good, just trust me". I mean wtf? Sometimes fighting fire with fire is what works the best. Just what exactly was he doing to these primates anyway?
Re:"animal" rights? by Karzz1 · 2006-08-26 14:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just what exactly was he doing to these primates anyway?

I am pretty sure he wasn't burning them up with molotov cocktails.

Just because he *may* have been doing something unethical (we don't even have any evidence in that regard) the solution is *not* going to be found in acts of aggression against him. There is a reason we have laws, police and courts.

--
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Re:"animal" rights? by MisterCookie · 2006-08-26 14:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed, just because you think your neighbor might be building a bomb doesn't give you the right to try and blow up his house.
Re:"animal" rights? by jcr · 2006-08-26 17:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

But were they morally wrong?

Yes.

Next question?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Activitists by Quasar1999 · 2006-08-26 13:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bah... these are the real terrorists... You don't agree with what someone is doing, then sue them... that's the american way... and if that fails, then try and get a law passed to make it illegal... starting your own personal war based on your morals is no different than the actions of those the US is currently calling terrorists. But hey, this is in the country who's government doesn't believe in teaching evolution anymore...

Times like these I'm happy to live in a country where the worst thing activists do is slow down traffic, and hold marches.

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Re:Activitists by LGagnon · 2006-08-26 13:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oddly enough, the US government also teaches us this same might-means-right attitude. When we invade other countries and perform terroris... excuse me, "liberation" - on them, we only serve to teach our people that terrorism can be justified so long as you believe it is right. Thus, we get terrorists who are not just Islamic fundimentalists, but also Christian fundimentalists, animal rights extremists, neo-nazis, and a whole host of other wierdos who hadn't been as big of a threat as they are now.

And please note that I know these threats existed before the Iraq invasion; America has invaded other countries before Iraq on similar grounds, though. Those other invasions were just (mostly) forgotten by our short-term collective memories.

Terrorists. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 13:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fucking terrorists. They're the same as abortion clinic bombers, using violence to induce fear to achieve their political goals.

And I want to say that he should have stood up to them, that if you give in like this, the terrorists win... but the guy's put up with years of harassment, and now violence against his coworkers, with a very real threat to his family and to people unlucky enough to live near him. So it's understandable why he's packing it in; under the same circumstances, I would have given up years earlier. But it still fucking sucks.

The most grating part of it is that I'll bet the assholes from UCLA Primate Freedom who posted his picture and contact info think they can wash their hands of the inevitable results of their propagandizing.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Terrorists. by devbiowonk · 2006-08-26 13:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Amid all of the chaos of today's world (our lovely wars in the middle east etc.), this is the most depressing story I have read all week. A scientist was forced out of a field that he has dedicated a significant portion of his life to by some self-important zealots(at least he has tenure already). I find it ironic that the people on the far left of the polictical spectrum perpetrating these acts are achieving the goals of the far right (halting the progress of science). Perhaps I am just biased because I have done animal research myself...
Re:Terrorists. by theLOUDroom · 2006-08-26 14:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

How is preventing people from torturing animals a political goal? It's a basic moral goal. If you're walking down the street and see someone beating a cat or dog would you not stop them?

Fuck you buddy. Quit being an apologist for these assholes.

Were not talking about direct action to stop the torture of an animal we're talking about firebombing someone's house.
Not firebombing houses, THAT's basic morals. These people are scumbags plain and simple. They have their excuses, just like every terrorist, but at the end of the day they are scum.

If you believe you are justfied in threatening the lives of those around you because you personally hold certain "morals" you have none at all. Your first obligation is to your fellow man. If you can't get that right, you are a piece of shit plain and simple.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Terrorists. by Per+Wigren · 2006-08-26 14:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, I agree that they are assholes. Stupid fucking idiot scumbags. And so is the guy torturing monkeys.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Re:Terrorists. by SirSlud · 2006-08-26 15:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its an issue of due process. He had to go through paperwork and peer review to do his work. It was legal. Society accepted, or at least tolerated, the pain being inflicted for the mutual benifit of all. (Extra irony; in some-odd years, zoos may plausibly use his research to help monkeys who are born blind. We can already communicate quite well with monkeys via sign language, so as far as I'm concerned, his research is not for the exclusive benifit of humans.) Every social structure deals with this. I hate to bring up the tired cliche, but when animals kill animals of other species so they can propogate or feed, they don't discuss it and create laws about what is acceptable, or have insitutions that attempt to rehabilite people who violate those codes. (We can debate that, because of course there are similar social and communicative structures displayed by other species, but the point stands that we do employ those methods in order to determine what, as a group, we determine to be acceptable.)

If everyone got together and it was discussed on a panel of people who dedicate their lives to stopping medical research on animals, and those people got the A-OK from the proper law enforcement authorities to firebomb the mans house, then I'd be OK with that. Thats due process at work, and if thats what the consensus is after having hashed out the options and differing opinions, I'd light the damn thing myself.

As it stands, I see some people risking the lives of people completely uninvolved with animal research. I see people who are so passionate about what they believe in, they have more in common with fraud artists and murderers than they do humans and monkeys. If they don't trust scientists or engineers, or lawmakers or whoever to rationally come to compromises that enrich lives while attempting to minimize inevitable suffering, then they can move back to the jungle where they don't have to benifit from those who do make difficult decisions and sometimes cause arguably avoidable suffering in the name of science, technology, health, etc. I don't care if they're driving BMWs or riding bikes, using cosmetics or home-made soap, watching television or writing stuff down on parchment they make from their own fully sustainable forest and paper mill factory. Stop using technology if you are uncomfortable with having to cause some level of suffering. I'm not advocating technology as a solution to lifes problems, or ills of society; I'm saying they have a choice. Move to the hills if you're not interested in operating through the channel of the social contract. I respect their opinion, as I respect yours, but I give the kudos to the scientist because he operates in public as opposed to in secrecy.

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:Terrorists. by FleaPlus · 2006-08-26 16:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you're walking down the street and see someone beating a cat or dog would you not stop them?

If you felt that abortion was wrong, would you shoot a doctor or bomb a clinic to save what you feel to be innocent lives?

Re:Morons by LGagnon · 2006-08-26 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

You demand violence to stop violence that was meant to stop violence. You do realize your idea only helps the problem spiral, right?

This is me, not being a hypocrite. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 13:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

We complain when people who hold strong views don't censure their extremists. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say this.

Violence isn't the answer. These people are destructive. These people are assholes. However, the answer is not to shoot them. They should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, fined and/or imprisoned for their crimes.

Fantasies of "first against the wall, motherfuckers!" are briefly satisfying, but ultimately degrading to the person having the fantasy.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Morons by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · 2006-08-26 13:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are you seriously putting the firebombing of the home of a little old lady in the same category as peaceful dissent?

--
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.

The cutest thing about animal rights activists by Baldrson · 2006-08-26 13:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know how cute animals are. Well animal rights activists are at their cutest when they loose invasive species from laboratories on the unsuspecting indigenous flora and fauna the way they did in the British Isles.

--
Seastead this.

Cowardly Bullies, feeding on scientists... by RyanFenton · 2006-08-26 13:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fear of the modern radical environmentalist-wannabe is that man is going to disrupt nature, ending the vibrant life cycle that has taken so long to develop here, and the morals necissary to continue a 'balanced' life. That's a valid fear - but science is the last thing to attack if that is your fear.

I cringe when people honor people who commit these actions with the title environmentalists. These bullies are instead waging war on the very forces in society with any hope of stopping a blind march towards environmental disaster. Scientists 'harm' animals so that worse harm does not have to happen to both other animals, and to people in the future. Perhaps their hope is that mankind will someday fall and nature continue - but mankind is a part of nature, and the very intelligence that drives us to exploit the rest of nature to the extent that we do now isn't going to drop away from the planet without a WHOLE lot of the rest of nature going with us.

The idea is to avoid mass death, to allow the greatest morality to the greatest number - not close your eyes and mind to the realities of life and death. Science is our best way to keep our eyes open.

But because these bullies can't fight society at large, they instead attack scientists. In the same way that religious extremists angry that society won't adopt their religion will strike at the weakest enemies they can find in hope that their brutality will shock the innocent into following them, these idiots seem to think that extremist bullying will somehow serve to save nature. Few things could be more disgusting in my eyes.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Morons by Chasa · 2006-08-26 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Instead of the bullet through the skull the parent suggested maybe these people should be arrested and made to work as free vets for the rest of their lives. It gets these crazies off the streets and if they love animals so much this would be their ideal job.

--
Insanity is nothing more than a difference in perspective.

Here's an example. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, according to the terrorists and their enablers, "Each monkey is first paralyzed, then has coils glued to her eyes during a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed." It says nothing about why he did this or what the purpose was, which, I suppose, would make a difference.

Also, according to them, people at "Huntingdon Life Sciences" "punch baby beagles repeatedly in the face". I'm not sure what to make of this. Do researchers punch puppies? That seems kind of... odd. What's the point of that?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Fascism by any other name is still fascism by MikeRT · 2006-08-26 13:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

These same violent pricks and bitches would no doubt cry "Fascist!" at any cops that participates in an effort to control a globalization protest or some other left-wing cause. Yet here they are, engaging in many of the classic coercion tactics of the brownshirts. Fear, intimidation, violence.

It's always "activism" when the left does it, but fascism when the right does it. I hope the FBI nails these fucks hard because they are a much greater threat to this country than any Islamic nutjob. Why? They're potential voters. They're violent extremists who actually act on their rhetoric. They're the closest thing we have to an organized domestic terrorism problem.

And before anyone brings up abortion clinic bombers, you want to know why it isn't a problem? Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.

I believe abortion is murder, but so is murdering a doctor because as much as I'd like to call it equivalent to a concentration camp, I can't because it's too insidious and two wrongs don't make a right. These guys don't care about such moral complexities. To them it's just murder so they go out and murder. This is the essence of "judge not lest you be judged," not the crap about blindly accepting everyone's personal choices as being as good as the next guy's.

So, in short, I wish the FBI and police the best of luck. May they hunt down these violent little brownshirts and lock their asses away. Even the protestors. As far as I am concerned, the first amendment does not extend protection to protests done outside someone's home. That is fear and intimidation and the police are quite justified in arresting and charging every "protestor" as harasser or stalker.

Re:Fascism by any other name is still fascism by shudde · 2006-08-26 14:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

And before anyone brings up abortion clinic bombers, you want to know why it isn't a problem? Because there are a lot of Christians like me who wouldn't hesitate to shoot those violent fucks if we caught them in the act. Why? Our religion teaches that preserving life is a duty of all Jews and Christians.

I don't even know where to start... do you religious people actually listen to what you say?
Re:Fascism by any other name is still fascism by LGagnon · 2006-08-26 14:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is not some monolithic "the left" as you assume it to be; this is one small group that does not represent the whole. Nice job on stereotyping everyone on the left with that one.

And right wing terrorism is actually a bigger threat. There is a much greater number of religious fundimentalists (both Islamic and Christian) in this country than there are animal rights extremists. You are just sensationalizing this article for your own political ends.

And yes, I do worry about Christians killing people, especially when you claim you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone yourself. And as a reminder, Christianity doesn't teach you to kill; it teaches you to turn the other cheek. Maybe you could try to arrest them instead?

Re:Morons by einhverfr · 2006-08-26 13:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

You see, the problem with the current response is that in giving in because an elderly couple was accidently targetted means that friends and neighbors of such people will now be held hostage. The only effective way to use violence to stop such researchers is to target elderly neighbors...

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

This will accomplish the exact opposite.... by dfenstrate · 2006-08-26 14:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

The animal research still needs to be done, and because of assholes like these, it's all going to china.

In China, the concept of human rights is laughable- do you think the government there gives a shit about animals?
Or that they would hesitate to beat down any Animal Liberation Front jerks, quite literally?

There should be laws against this kind of behavior, they should be enforced, or there should be a local law enforcement culture that encourages a violent beat down of people who carry on this type of harrasment campaign.

Congratulations, morons. You will accomplish the opposite of what you intended- more animal research, and no government oversight to ensure they are being treated even vaugely humanely.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Not surprising by Kohath · 2006-08-26 14:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Animals don't have rights. It's not that much of a leap from the fantasy that anmials have rights to the justification that it's OK to firebomb people to protect animals.

Reality never intercedes because it was left behind when the animal rights activists refused to complete the transition to adulthood and the realities and responsibilities that come with it. Some people just decide to live in a cartoon world.

When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.

Oh, it's not just them. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 14:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

Anyone else remember the right-wing bloggers posting maps to the home of the journalist who did a fluff piece on Rumsfeld's vacation home? And the barely-veiled exhortations to their followers to go out and wreak havoc? Which were not rescinded, even when it was revealed that the whole thing was cool with Rummy?

Or pro-lifers who don't condone the Army of God or clinic bombers... but they don't condemn them, either. Same plausible-deniability nonsense.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

It's not a spectrum, it's a circle. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 14:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Far-right and far-left zealots have a lot more in common than they like to admit. Their shared radicalism leads to a desire to tear down our institutions and force society into a mold more to their liking. This means violence and force, lots of force.

What kind of animal research? What sort of ethical issues did you run into, and how did the system handle it? We hear that animal researchers are bloodthirsty scoundrels, cruelly vivisecting for the fun of it. Did you go through an IRB process, and what did that entail? What restrictions were placed on what you did?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:It's not a spectrum, it's a circle. by LihTox · 2006-08-26 14:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Far-right and far-left zealots have a lot more in common than they like to admit.

Particularly in the case of animal rights and anti-abortion circles. Both believe that a certain group of organisms (animals/fetuses) posess the same rights as humans, a postulate not accepted by the majority of people. Accepting such a postulate, both groups see the mass torture/slaughter of millions of human-equivalents every year, dwarfing (or at least equalling) the number of dead in wars around the globe. If you accept their postulate as true, then animal experimentation / abortion really is a terrible crime, and extreme measures are seen as justified to stop it.

Just a single postulate; unfortunately, those are the hardest to change.
Re:It's not a spectrum, it's a circle. by joshki · 2006-08-27 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except for the fact that your "fetus" will someday (absent your decision to murder him, or a miscarriage) become a human, even by your logic. An animal never will, so there's really no comparison between the two. The pro-life debate is really a debate on when life begins, and even a large percentage of the pro-abortion faction in this country still thinks that abortion is only legal in the first trimester (shocking to me once I started actually running into people who said that, but it seems a very common belief from my experience) for this reason. It's a whole lot harder for people who try to retain some sense of conscience to justify killing an 8 month old "fetus" who has identifiable features, a heartbeat, toes, eyes, etc, than it is a 3 day old "blob of tissue" in the name of science.

--
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Re:It's not a spectrum, it's a circle. by Ihlosi · 2006-08-28 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, the sperm and egg will someday become a human, absent your decision to murder him with a condom.

Sperm and egg are, technically and genetically, still part of the appropriate individual (just like blood, skin, etc).

A fetus is not.

Always strikes me by Crashmarik · 2006-08-26 14:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

How many animal rights people are pro choice and willing to do violence to humans.

Re:Always strikes me by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 15:02 · Score: 0, Insightful

Please don't call it "pro-choice", it clouds the debate. Call it what it is, "pro-death".

You're either pro-life or pro-death, "pro-choice" is bullshit.

No one can argue that an embryo is not living tissue. No one can argue that an embryo does not have a chance to become a living human. No one can argue that abortion kills that living tissue and removes that chance to become a living human.

Please, call it what it is. Pro-death.
Re:Always strikes me by superyooser · 2006-08-26 16:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

it always strikes me how pro-lifers don't get that a cow is a hell of a lot more aware of what's going on than a human embryo.
A pro-lifer here... An organism's awareness of what's going on is irrelevant. One is human; the other is not. That's all that matters.

Return the favor? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 14:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't like the idea of stooping to their level, but something should be done. Why not give them a piece of your mind?

http://www.uclaprimatefreedom.com/
UCLA@PrimateFreedom.com
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org

Maybe someone can dig up individual's phone numbers/email addresses/actual address so that we can better convey our dissatisfaction. Use that freedom of speech.

Re:What was he doing? by wpegden · 2006-08-26 14:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

According to the "Primate Freedom Project":

"Ringach received a grant to kill 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments. Each monkey is first paralyzed, then used for a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed."

He's studying the visual systems of the monkeys. (Google him and you'll find his webpage with publications).

Now, I think most people (the animal rights extremists in question notwithstanding) would agree there must be certain cases when primate experimentation is justified. (For lifesaving vaccines for AIDS, for example). But probably most people would also agree that there are some limits to what people should be able to torture primates for. But now, practically, there aren't, as I understand it. So, the fact that this person was allowed to do these experiments on monkeys is no indication whatsoever that his research was worthy of the subjecting the monkeys to whatever pain, suffering, or premature death they were going to incur.

In fact, it is difficult for me to believe, given the state of neuroscience, that these experiments on monkeys were so much more valuable than would have been experiments on say, mice, or salamanders, or what-have-you. And sad will be the day when we will give one person the boundless moral leeway because he is a "scientist", and can do no wrong. Scientists have our fair share of an ugly past, and it is not inherently wrong to question scientists actions.

That said, the molotov cocktail is not the way to go, in my opinion. On the other hand, the law discussed at the end of TFA sounds downright facist, scary, and open to boundless abuse in enforcement.

Focus on the real cause of this by cdrguru · 2006-08-26 14:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Too many people. Too much research. Too much of everything.

Moving to a "sustainable" use of resources would solve this problem. It would require a moderate reduction in population to something like 200 or 250 million people - about the population in 1800 to 1850. That would be a level of resource consumption and waste generation that would be sustainable. Natural processes would then reprocess waste products into resources ready to be used.

This would only require killing off about 1 million people a day for 20 years or so to reach this level. I'm sure these activists would be all for this to reach a level of sustainable resource use.

Boy, that's fascinating. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 14:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're missing the point. Whether or not you agree with primate research, either you're against the use of violence to achieve your political ends, or you're enabling these terrorists.

Were the slave revolts through out history wrong? Should the former slaves not taken any kind of violent action towards their masters?

What a fascinating analogy. When macaque monkeys start firebombing houses, please notify me.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Boy, that's fascinating. by Hobbes_2100 · 2006-08-26 15:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not missing any point. IF you were locked in a cage and were being experimented on would you not want someone to aid you?

Yes. Perhaps we can teach monkeys to help themselves. To organize into unions ... to fight for their political power ... oh, I guess that's kind of silly.

So it's immoral for one SENTIENT being to aid another SENTIENT being? Aiding those weaker than us when they are under attack is the basis of our entire legal and moral system.

Nice hyperbole. Do you presume that our legal system "helps the helpless" and prevents big bad corporations from doing their worst? Sentience merely refers to the ability to sense -- which we can consider as "receiving input". So, computers as sentient. Oh, wait, you meant have cognitive processes? When a monkey is nominated for a Noble Prize ... err, earns a Ph ... err, err, a degree of any ... no, not that either. Hummmm, how's about you don't ever call me.

Face it, YOU are not against violence. If you or anyone around you was being attacked you would use violence in a heart beat to stop it.

Ah, excellence at its best! Suck them in ... before ...

You just don't care about these macaques because it doesn't affect you. In short, you lack empathy. Empathy, it's what makes humans great. However, we are not so great that it is okay for us to sacrifice other primates for our petty scientific goals.

100% accurate. I give not a shit for any of these god damn furballs. If I had one for a pet, I would. But I don't. I love any and all cats ... except those that are being used for experiments. Because I empathize with the experiments ... not with the damn cats. Many scientific goals and careers are certainly petty. Not all of them. But each and every fucking primate that is not a human is .... tada! ... not a human! Oh wait, I'm sorry. You know, we're all just cells anyway. So, better drop that lettuce, veggie boy. We're all organisms. Better not knock that protozoa. Oh wait, that's not fair. We're talking about PRIMATES -- SENTIENT BEINGS .... sent from on high! By the gods ... to see if we're fucking dumb enough to believe that WE ARE THE SAME CREATURES. Maybe you can inform us how that goes ... from a mating perspective ...

Ringach DL, Hawken MJ, Shapley R (2003) Dynamics of orientation tuning in macaque V1: the role of global and tuned suppression. J Neurophysiol 90(1): 342-52.

I'm sure that the macaque is just fine with his "orientation tuning" and doesn't give a shit how or why it works.

It's a monkey. It can't be fine with it. It can't be not fine with it. Being fine with something is a characteristics humans, and only humans, can exhibit.

People for the ethical treatment of animals ... what a damn joke. How's about "People for Emphatically Tip-toeing around Animals". The knowledge we've gained about vision processes is worth every damn macaque that has ever existed.
Re:Boy, that's fascinating. by Hobbes_2100 · 2006-08-26 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

You cannot empathize with an abstract construct like an experiment.

Humph. Well, I guess I can't empathize with a fucking monkey either.

If I kick one of your beloved cats, do you think it doesn't care? I think it dislikes being kicked, therefore it's not fine with it.

Let's be very clear. The cat might act in a manner similar to a human that was kicked. In such cases, it might be tempting to project upon the cat, the same *ahem* cognitive state as is held by the human. We guess about that human's cognitive state by guessing about our own internal cognitive state. So. Guess what? It's a cat. I'm not a cat so I can't know what is going on inside it. But, I'm content with a sensory/behavior input/output abstraction. And ... it's not a human.

perhaps you will notice that there is no special criteria that encompasses all humans and no monkeys

Sure there are. It's called an EXTENSIONAL definition as opposed to an INTENSIONAL definition. Very simple really. And all those SUBSETS of human beings ... by sex, by race, by mental ability ... simply label them EVEN MORE SO ... as human ... there is no women primate outside of the set of women humans. There are female primates but certainly no women. And since you brought it up, those who are mentally and physically handicapped are HUMANS. Similarly, they are still not monkeys.

And further more ... LOOK AT THE FUCKING GENES. Show me a non-human primate with human GENES. That would be a trick. That's an intensional definition for you, biatch.

Re:Devil's advocate by BrainInAJar · 2006-08-26 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quite aside from how one feels about animal testing (I'm for it, fwiw, which is significant considering i'm a vegetarian for moral reasons), the issue at hand is that murder in defence of one's position is wrong

Not only is it damaging to the cause, but it's just plain morally wrong to harm a human being, regardless of what he's done

Go back to grade school. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 14:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dissent? Dissent?!

If you can't tell the difference between:

holding protests
waging action through the courts
firebombing someone's house, threatening their neighbors and their family

then I suggest you return to grade school and play one of these things is not like the fucking others until you're ready to join us at the grown-ups' table.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Go back to grade school. by csirac · 2006-08-26 17:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

The last one is different, because it actually fucking works (as demonstrated by this story) while the other two just slightly annoy people.

It gives a very small minority an unfair leverage on the majority. Your views do not represent the majority, so you use violence to force them.

When all other options have been used, sometimes violence is the answer. Or maybe you believe that the United States should still be part of the British Empire.

1) This isn't a civil war! It's not the 1700s. We have things like electricity, laws, and civilisation now.
2) There was another colony that obtained independence from the British Empire - it was called India, and the guy was called Ghandi... read up about it. Yes, it's different to America's independence situation, that's because these events are centuries apart. I'm just saying your hyperbole doesn't make any sense.

And if "all the other options have been used" then perhaps it's a sign that you're wrong.

Comical Justice for the Extremists by selex · 2006-08-26 14:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

As was pointed out on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! the CEO, director, whatever you want to call this person of PETA is diabetic. So she needs insulin to live. Well insulin was tested on animals, and certain strains are made by animals. So for her to live she must abuse animals. Now the point being natural selection should have kicked in here at some point, and well taken care of her, but because humans use research on animals to help humans AND animals (the vet didn't learn how to take care of cats and dogs by magic) with sickness, this person lives to make her wacko friends blown crap up.

Also pointed out was that PETA spent some money on a large freezer. This freezer was used for cadavers, animal cadavers, because they end up euthanizing animals they take in but cannot find homes for, ie what the Human Society has do sometimes. Check out the episode, its on 2nd season I believe which is out on DVD.

So the moral of this story is that, fine have ideals, have crazy ideals no normal person would find moral, but don't be a hypocrit...makes you look like an asshole.

Selex

Re:What was he doing? by theodicey · 2006-08-26 14:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

He was recording with electrodes from the visual cortex of monkeys under general anesthesia and subsequent paralysis. Although the monkeys are completely anesthetized and feel nothing, many visual areas of their brains are still active and can be studied.

The monkeys are housed in cages (of a government mandated size) for a short period, then anesthetized, then studied, then euthanized.

Typically dishonest, the animal terrorists fail to mention the anesthesia in their public communications.

You're ignorant, or lazy, or both. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately, the Bush admin can not persue them because of people like you that are constantly accusing Bush of personally doing illegal wiretaps and spending crazy stupid sums of money on shiny new technology and then having the ACLU sue over it, preventing any administration from ever being able to any type of survelence...ever, even if it means stopping a terrorist attack like this one or one from overseas.

You're willfully ignorant, or stupid, or lying.

The issue was never with "any surveillance... ever". The issue was never with secret surveillance. The issue was with breaking the law.

Here's how it is. The administration wants to wiretap people. There's a method called FISA for doing this. FISA allows for immediate taps in your smoking-nuke situation, as long as paperwork is submitted to a notoriously rubber-stampy court, which operates in secrecy, within three days. There is nothing that the administration needs to do other than file some paperwork. They have refused to do this. FISA clearly states that for wiretapping to occur, it must be used.

The administration is claiming that it has the authority to wiretap people secretly, whenever it wants, with no judicial oversight, ever. Despite that the law clearly says it can't. I'm going to put this in italics, so you pay attention. The President is not a King. He is subject to the law. If he doesn't like the law, he can act to change it. He cannot just ignore it.

The only possible reasons for doing this are (1) the President wants to wiretap his political opponents, (2) he wants to flex his Presidential balls. We can't know which, and neither will anyone else, because this all goes on in secret, with no accountability, not even to a secret court.

Now, if you make the claim that the ACLU and company are against any and all wiretapping again, I'm going to bap you in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. You have no excuse.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Fascism by your name is still fascism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2006-08-26 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

People have the right to protest - the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment and affirmed by court after court - both in their property and in public spaces. The fact that you oppose people who have done something wrong (in this case firebombing a scientist) does not justify your own transgressions against liberty.

This is perfectly valid research. by posterlogo · 2006-08-26 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm very sad that it is so easy for you to believe that a scientist would needlessly torture macaques. What exactly are you credentials when you say "it is difficult for me to believe, given the state of neuroscience, that these experiments on monkeys were so much more valuable than would have been experiments on say, mice, or salamanders, or what-have-you"? Honestly, I'd love to know about all that "research" you did on google to arrive at that conclusion. IF you really want to know, tried going to www.pubmed.org and search for the primary literature. You'll realize that Dr. Ringach has done some really pioneering work on determining the precise wiring of the visual cortex. I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but hopefully it will suffice to say that he is not some crazed sadist sitting around poking out monkey's eyeballs. It is also extremely difficult to explain to a lay-person just how many hoops a researcher has to jump through before conducting animal research, let alone primate research. Let's just say you don't do it unless there are absolutely no other options. The cost and bureaucracy associated are prohibitive to "torturers" as you put it. Dr. Ringach studies the brain, not eyeballs. You can't just pick any animal for that (BTW, your opinion on primates could just as easily be someone else's opinion on mice, or flies for that matter). If you want to know the real scoop instead of jumping to the same conclusions these terrorists did, I encourage you to look at the primary literature. If you are still not convinced, I encourage you to lobby against this research, and maybe put your money where your mouth is by refusing any and all medication (you do know they are tested on animals, right? especially stuff like vaccines).

How is that insightful? by Travoltus · 2006-08-26 15:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Who's in charge of law enforcement these days?

Republicans.

So who's to blame except those who are in charge of making and enforcing the laws?

Why hadn't Bush called on the FBI to deal with this like he does Osama Bin La... oh wait, he is. Sillyme.

Word up to all the Bushites sitting around tonight with mod points and a big fat grudge against the truth. :)

--
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!

Welcome to the jungle by j.leidner · 2006-08-26 15:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

When animals agree to a set of minimum behavioral norms that define a civil society, then they'll have rights. Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of animals.

I'm looking forward to the day when homo sapiens agrees on a universal minimum behavioral norm and sticks to it.

Until then, it's the law of the jungle that defines the lives and fortunes of humans.

The lies are what clinch it for me. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 15:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they really believed in what they're doing, they'd be honest about it. But they dress it up in weasel words like "direct action". Consider this.

Lauren Gazzola was, according to her supporters, "alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison."

Wow, that sucks. I mean, operate a website and go to jail? Pretty fucked up. We're living in a fascist nation. Time to join the revolu--oh, wait. Apparently they posted home addresses and phone numbers, and exhorted their members to engage in exciting activities such as:

demonstrations at one's home using a loudspeaker; abusive graffiti, posters and stickers on one's car and house; invading offices and, damaging property and stealing documents; chaining gates shut, and blocking gates; physical assault including spraying cleaning fluid into one's eyes; smashing the windows of one's house while the individual's family was at home; flooding one's home while the individual was away; vandalizing one's car; firebombing one's car; bomb hoaxes; threatening telephone calls and letters including threats to kill or injure one's partner or children; e-mail bombs in an attempt to crash computers; sending continuous black faxes causing fax machines to burn out; telephone blockades by repeated dialing to prevent the use of the telephone; and arranging for an undertaker to call to collect one's body.

Yeah, they're just like Gandi.

50. On or about August 10, 2002, members of the conspiracy, including defendant LAUREN GAZZOLA, assembled outside the home of RH, an employee of M. Corp. and, using a megaphone, threatened RH, his wife and family with burning down their home.

Who could have ever foreseen that such acts could have legal consequences?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:You walk a fine line. by Sycraft-fu · 2006-08-26 15:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, my opinion doesn't enter the equation. This activity is illegal. Threatening someone is illegal, arson is illegal, destruction of property is illegal, assault is illegal. I don't think it should be legal to support those who commit those crimes, and to try and shield them. If I tell someone to beat you up, provide them with weapons and a map to your house, I'm as responsible as they are. That's the law.

Well what I believe is that if an organization supports something, and one of it's members does it, and the organization then condones that and applauds the member, they should be liable. None of this "But we didn't TELL him to do it," bullshit. If you say it ought to be done, and then reward those that do it, and help conceal their involvement, that's the same thing in my mind. You are providing them with means and support. Much like the government goes after charities that funnel money to foreign extremists, I think this is the same thing.

You can say whatever you want (threats are illegal though), my problem is when you act on it, and then try to disclaim responsibility. Organizations do have some responsibility for the actions of their members. For example there are plenty of pro life organizations that would kick out and turn in to the police anyone who attacked a doctor. Why? Because they believe ALL life is sacred, including that of the doctor. They aren't responsible if a member goes off and does something, they clearly don't support it.

However if there's an organization that extols killing doctors, posts lists of names and addresses online, and treats those that do as heroes, they should be liable. They can't hide behind the first amendment and claim that they never intended for people to act on what they were saying, bullshit. That's the same as a company having a policy that rewards employees for stealing from customers and saying "Well we didn't MAKE them do it, and we didn't expect they'd actually act on it, we were just exercising free speech."

Saying that animal testing should stop is free speech. Telling people to commit acts of violence is not.

Talk about a flimsy rationalization by Sycraft-fu · 2006-08-26 15:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Would I stop someone in that case? Of course. How about another case: I'm walking down the street and see someone cutting a woman open with a knife while she's screaming in terror. What would I do? I'd draw my gun and send them to whatever god they wished. However that doesn't mean I'll cap a doctor who's cutting someone open for a medical reason in a hospital. The questions isn't WHAT is being done it's WHY and HOW.

If you really believe animal testing and senseless animal cruelty are one in the same, you need to get your head checked. Calling it torture shows you don't understand the word. Torture means "the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." That's not what they are doing in labs. Most of the time the animals are given pain killers (moral reasons aside, an animal in pain is hard to work with) and the reason for their work isn;t punishment or sadism, it's science.

What it comes down to is if you want to ban animal testing you want to either ban biomedical science, or force it to be done on humans. So which is it? Should we just outlaw it, and let people die from treatable diseases? Please remember that things like insulin came from animal testing, we aren't talking minor discoveries here. Or do we start using people? Criminals maybe? Or the poor? Or the insane?

You can't have it both ways. You can't demand a stop to testing but want a continuation of the research. If you want biomedical science to halt fine, but then have the stones to say to and don't compare testing to abuse. If you don't well then accept animal testing as a necessary part.

Re:Morons by belarm314 · 2006-08-26 15:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is precisely what I was going to suggest as a punishment...if they're in a morally high enough position to justify threatening people & destroying property, they should be dedicated enough to be willing to sacrifice themselves. ALF doesn't like animal testing? No problem, we'll just fill the labs with the rank and file of their organization. Anything less is hypocrisy on the order of MaryBeth Sweetland's.

--
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.

I do not think you know what that means by Sycraft-fu · 2006-08-26 15:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Torture means: the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. That's not what's happening with animal testing. Don't use an emotionally loaded term to try and push your point. It's not torture, unless you twist the definition of torture as to be meaningless.

When my doctor injected my foot with novocaine to remove warts, it was the most painful thing I've ever felt. I was screaming as loud as I could from the pain. However he wasn't torturing me, he was causing me pain because it was necessary to prevent worse future pain, and because I needed a medical procedure done.

Torture is in the reason, not in the action. Also, primates in these studies are under anesthesia, so they don't feel pain.

Re:If only we could get these "animal 'rights'" . by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 15:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

As an artist, my rights include the ability to sell out to a publisher. If they don't include that ability, I don't have any rights at all.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Morons by dr.g · 2006-08-26 16:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can't you see yourself? You're just their mirror image.

You see a "terrorist" (or hear about one on TV -- no difference to you) and you instantly transform yourself into a terrorist capable of even greater violence. You two scumbag armies go back and forth, fighting each other, except you both have really, really bad aim so most of the time you're attacking innocent bystanders.

Wow. This is really stupid even for an AC.

You are inappropriately using the principal of identity- person who kills people=person who kills people. The principle is perfectly applicable to integers, which are entirely defined by the single characteristic: quantity. NOt so applicable to any human action or characteristic. You are wrong to equate anyone who kills with anyone else who kills because neither motives, methods or effects are taken into account.

A person who blows up civilians, children, or indiscriminate public gatherings of people is NOT the same as the person who kills him for it. Nor is it relevant (really) whether this is done to stop further outrages, as a deterrent, or as simple revenge.

It's not even that hard to differentiate them, really.

The last bit about the 'armies' of your little analogy shooting the imaginary 'innocent bystanders' therein because of their imputed poor shooting ability...wtf??

--
"To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon

Defending your Privacy is critical against PETA by Travoltus · 2006-08-26 16:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

PETA may in fact be using Homeland Security against us.

Under the USAPATRIOT Act, there are very few ways that you can hide your home address. Most notably, under the anti terrorist/anti money laundering clauses in Sections 313-316, you have to have your home address on record with the bank or EQUIFAX will tell them there's a discrepancy and they'll lock your account. So if said scientist has a bank account, his family's physical location is a known fact, and he cannot hide it. Furthermore, his driver's license is the same way. No PO boxes, you need your home address on the card.

But I have managed, myself, to hack my way through the California DMV; I went there in person (you have to do this in person, it seems, for this hack to work) and wrote in my Mailboxes Etc. address and it got put on my Driver's License. EQUIFAX has not nailed me since. I suspect that EQUIFAX culled my Driver's License information and took that as my home address; my bank has my Mailboxes Etc. address as well, and thus there's no section 313 discrepancy. Everything in the universe has since come to my MBE address.

USsearch.com and several other places I'd paid to retrieve my records, has never had my real home address on file. And my title to my house is in someone else's name (another long trick for another slashdot post).

Yes, I guard my privacy with my life.

The scientist in question, may not know how to hack the system as I know how; as such, any garden variety PI can have his home address in a minute. Now, more so than before, because of the very law meant to stop terror.

Now PETA can just go online and stalk you with a few mouse clicks and some cash having been forked over, and it's on.

I've been warning people about this for 2 years now......

--
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!

Re:No, no... by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-08-26 16:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not "violence" or "intimidation". It's "direct action"! Doesn't that sound so much nicer?

From a page off your link:

On February 15, 2005, Josh began a two and a half year sentence for setting fires at an animal science farm at Brigham Young University. In an earlier action at BYU, six rabbits and seven birds were liberated from the farm.
[...]
Josh deserves our support! Donations to Josh's commissary must be sent in the form of money orders (personal checks not accepted) to: [snip]

Part of me wants to punch my monitor. Another part of me wants to send him a gay porn magazine - or anything else that would his remaining time in prison more "interesting".

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

That's even more amazing. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-08-26 17:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because the courts have been infiltrated by leftists, just like journalism has. Clinton appointed some of the worst, most obstructionist judges we've ever seen. (I bet Hillary had more to do with it, seeing as how they're mostly women (butt-ugly women that Bill wouldn't be interested in)). The secret court was being very obstructive during the Bush administration. In the cases the warrants were rejected (all of them during GW's presidency, BTW) they were all eventually granted on appeal, so these judges are just being nit picky. Why the fuck do judges get to decide national security issues?

The nit-picky, leftist, Clinton-appointed, obstructionist judges who rejected around one out of every five thousand warrant applications? Could you be more specific about the warrants that were "all" rejected during GW's presidency? Perhaps we're talking about a different FISA court, though I don't see how.

We elect the president, he doesn't want to get impeached and shit, that's why I trust him. I trust the NSA because it's run by ordinary people, like myself.

Your faith in the government is touching, really, but I don't think I should have to hand power without oversight to people and then trust them to do the right thing with it. (And what does "he doesn't want to get impeached and shit" have to do with anything?)

Judges don't have any concern or oversight, they can make a bad decision and nobody will know/care. Look at this latest attempt by some nut judge to block the NSA program. Fucking nut judges.

Yes, darn them, with their "constitution" and "the President has to follow the law" and "checks and balances".

So you either trust secret court judge, or you trust the president, obviously you trust secret court judge more. What you refer to as accountability, I refer to as bureaucracy.

No, the point is that we don't have to trust one person or group. This is why we have separation of powers. This is why we don't allow power to be centralized in one place.

And what makes the NSA "ordinary people", but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "bureaucracy"?

You just want some perma Clinton appointee to be dictating national security issues. It's simple, really.

Speaking of Clinton, would you be kosher with Clinton wielding this sort of power? Would you be okay with the knowledge that Clinton could be wiretapping anyone, anywhere, and nobody outside his administration would ever know? Would you trust him not to be wiretapping RNC headquarters? If not, doesn't your faith in assigning these kingly powers (and make no mistake, this "unitary executive" nonsense where the president makes up his own laws is nothing if not kingly) to the office of the President mean that you simply trust the man? Are you comfortable with the next administration having the power to make up laws as they see fit? With the next Democratic administration doing so? And if not, why are you convinced that the government, once given this power, will politely put it away and never use it again?

How do you get off calling me a liar? I don't see why my personal integrity should come into question here. It's a cheap tactic, it's about all you leftists can hack up these days.

Well, your claim above that FISA warrants were being denied was trivially debunked. Were you lying and hoping that I wouldn't look it up? Had you seen the claim somewhere and were just parroting it back at me, being too lazy to look it up yourself?

And if calling you a liar is all I can "hack up these days", why didn't you respond to my initial questions about why the President, if he needed some powers he didn't have, didn't actually ask for them? That is how our system of government works, you know. The legislative branch makes the law, and the execu

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:That's amazing. by CCW · 2006-08-26 17:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

He shouldn't have called you a liar. It's almost as cheap of a tactic as criticising judges for their appearance and gender. You are clearly willfully ignorant, and need to read a bit more on the topic before you earn the right to disparage others opinions. "Infiltrated by leftists" is a handy excuse to ignore data that is contrary to your preconceptions.

Fact: Between 1979 and 2001 FISA rejected NO warrants. None. They rejected 2 in 2002 and 4 in 2003. Those same years they approved 1228 and 1727 respectively. The 2 rejected in 2002 were approved in appeal. In 2005 they approved 1758 with no rejections. This is not an obstructionist record that warrants your abusive language or attitude.
Fact: the judge that struck down the NSA wiretaps is a Carter appointee. Clinton had nothing to do with her.

Here's a thought: You can't trust the president or the judge or the congress. That's why the Constitution of this United States set them up in opposition. The president swore to uphold the constitution and live by its principles when he was elected. When he acts contrary to the Constitution by acting without oversight he is violating those principles and breaking his sworn oath. Your trust in him is misplaced.

If we were not overextended in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be challenging us. If we weren't foolishly addicted to oil because our government has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the extraction industry and little to seed research into alternatives they would be irrelevant.

Save your indignation for those who deserve it - the ignorant voters who put this mediocre man into the presidents office and return a profligate corrupt congress year after year.

I'm going to pray tonight that nobody running the NSA is anything like you. I hope they gather the data, review it thoroughly and draw conclusions that are based on the facts, not their prejudicial view of the world.

Re:or just Fox News-style spin by selex · 2006-08-26 17:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

First of all please never refer to my spin as Fox-style...its more Colbert Report style, still working on the Daily Show style.

Secondly, the time table doesn't matter. Research breakthrough A was discovered by experiment B, which used an animal. So if you're against experiment B because it used an animal in the experiment then breakthrough A is not valid according to your own code of ethics. Just because it was discovered 20-30 years ago doesn't make a difference. An animal was still used to extend your life. So if hypothetically insulin had not been discovered 20-30 years ago, but was found tomorrow would the PETA person still use it even though animals were used? My guess would be yes, because they have the same self-preservation instincts that every animal has, and their rational would be that they need to take the insulin now to help animals in the future. So your life is more important then the people who you harass and hurt, because you're not willing to be a martyr for your cause, but will to kill others for it. Thats just selfishness.

So at some point there should have been something that clicked, call it logic, call it something else that says "well not all animal testing is bad, and some of it might be benefical to the world." Yes I agree that some forms of testing are immoral, like make-up on the rabbits, but not all of it is bad. Much of it helps.

Selex

It is easier to condemn than to think. by Nick12534 · 2006-08-26 21:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Myth #1: PETA is a terrorist group.
Fact #1: PETA is a mainstream non-profit organization which acts within the law and does not condone violence. There is close to a zero chance that PETA would remain a non-profit if it participated in violent direct actions. The most extreme thing PETA does is send out scantily clad women wearing lettuce-leaf bras to try to convince men to become vegetarian. Groups that can be more accurately called as 'terrorist' include the ALF, SHAC, and the group mentioned in this article. Please provide citations if you know of any contrary evidence.

Myth #2: Animal rights activists are terrorists.
Fact #2: In my experience, roughly 99% of animal rights activists cannot by any reasonable definition be classified as terrorists. As an animal rights activist myself, the most extreme thing I have done is organize a film screening. There is a predominant selection effect in the news media that leads to extreme misconceptions. Most of the press from the animal rights movement comes from direct action such as the one in this article. When someone hands out booklets arguing why one ought to be vegan, trust me, there are NEVER reporters. Any reasonable analysis of the animal rights movement should take this media bias into account.

There are a few schools of thought in the animal rights community about tactics. First is the very vocal minority direct action contingent. The second is argued most effectively by Dr. Michael Gregor ("The Vegan MD") in an article from Satya magazine....his premise is that ethics aside, violence is a very bad tactic for the animal rights movement (leading to public opinion backlashes like this thread), and that you don't even need to consider the more elusive question of moral justification. And there are also animal rights activists (like many members of the Humane Society!) who would agree whole-heartedly that the tactics mentioned in this article are honest-to-goodness terrorism.

I'm not really surprised at how slashdot readers reacted to this article (i.e. without much critical thinking or use of facts) because of the way the article was framed. It is a very common logical fallacy to say that if some followers of a movement are terrorists, then the movement must be evil. Arguing about whether their tactics are justified is a red herring...it takes away from the real issue of whether animal testing is justified.

Re:Why not... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-26 22:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because a Crusade is about conquest and conversion.

A Jihad is about utter and complete extermination.

They're only terrorists until they win by badzilla · 2006-08-26 23:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

During the Apartheid years Lady Thatcher said Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. But now her replacement is all buddy-buddy with Nelson.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1 222111.ece

--
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation

Re:crude explosive by darkmeridian · 2006-08-27 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unless you were trying to threaten someone without killing them. Was the device even lit?

--
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/

Slashdot Mirror

Neuroscientist Halts Research to Stop Extremists

93 of 1,047 comments (clear)