Slashdot Mirror


Neuroscientist Halts Research to Stop Extremists

FleaPlus writes "UCLA neuroscience professor Dario Ringach, known for his contributions to our understanding of how the visual system processes information, has been forced to give up his experiments by the actions of animal-rights extremists. 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. Ringach sent an email to animal activist groups saying, 'You win... please don't bother my family anymore.'"

6 of 1,047 comments (clear)

  1. What I don't get by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is why these groups are allowed to continue to exist. I'm sorry but I don't buy this crap of "We applaud people who do things like this and we don't stop members from doing it, but really it's not our fault that it happens!" Sorry, like with corporations, I think if there's consistent bad action by our members and if your policy encourages that, then you are liable, regardless of if it was "official" or not.

    While you certainly can't be expected to control all the actions of everyone who belongs to your group, there's still a duty not to turn a blind eye on purpose, and then pat them on the back after the fact.

  2. Between Pavlov and Dr Moreau by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The question to ask is where do you stop ? . As much of a tree hugger I am, putting a bomb at somebody's doorstep is now way to react. In fact, I'd say these activists have terrorized a man out of his quest for knowledge.

    Sure, I've gone and petitioned against trees being cut down. Indeed, we've even hugged a few and prevented their demise. But vigilante retribution was never the way to save animals. There have been transgressions on one side, but that doesn't justify the other side from commiting brutality.

    Replacing cruelty to animals, with one towards mankind doesn't solve the problem - mainly because there is no Noble Savage unlike what Rousseau dreamed.

    This is like terrorism with its own ecological brand (call it another religion if you want).
  3. How to Counter Attack by Courageous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In my area of the world, there was a famous white supremacist who was always squeaky clean. Eventually, one of the kids who hung out with him on occasion killed someone. The family sued the white supremacist for "contributory" reasons, and won. They took everything he owned.

    Easy enough. Do the same thing here. Go after the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) for encouraging this kind of thing. It's right on their website, the masks, clearly instruments of anonymity and terror. Take 'em down, they have it coming.

    C//

  4. a "fossilization of the mind" -- what's that? by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Terrorism relies on a fossilization of the mind, and a sociopathic dissociation from other people.
    I think that's a strong mischaracterization. When you have battleships and bombers and missiles, you use them to get what you want, and call it "legitimate" violence. When your opponent has vastly inferior arms but won't come out in the open where you can easily kill him, you call him a terrorist. It isn't even enough to say that terrorists target civilians -- Nagasaki and Dresden were both non-military targets, and I doubt the US military considers itself terrorist. As far as I'm concerned, "terrorism" is just hand-waving. Once you condone the use of violence to get what you want, you can't make a very compelling moral argument against somone using violence against you to get what they want. But emotive words like "terrorism," combined with a very selective narrative where the civilians killed by your side aren't mentioned, stands in as the closest we can get to a moral argument in the context of an amoral worldview.
  5. Re:Why not... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd considered "crusade", but rejected for two reasons. The first is that the word has historical baggage, right from its very creation.

    The crusades came about in large part because the Benedictine monks of Cluny were struggling to reform and control the Roman church after it had absorbed a large number of northern European barbarian chieftans and their retainers. This was the context in which the Eastern and Roman churches split. Just because they were baptized, these barbarian warriors did not change overnight, giving up their habits of pillage and petty warfare. The Cluniacs came up with a program which must have seemed to them, in the words used by Col North do describe the Iran Contra deal "a neat idea". They'd harness the martial energy of the barbarian knights to a useful purpose, at the same time the effort would provide a kind of military pilgrimage that would tutor them in Christian spirituality.

    So, what the Cluniacs and their sophisticated disciples intended was very much a kind of struggle of the sort I describe. The knights, however, perceived the effort in a much simpler and more familiar way: vendetta. Somebody else was holding clan lands. Plus they decided that they had an issue of blood to settle with the Jews. Up until this point, anti-semitism as we know it did not exist.

    The second reason is that allowing that "crusade" could be used would weaken my point, which was probably the more telling of the two reasons. Then you had to come along and notice. Thanks much.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:With the war on terrorism... by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sharpshooters targetting officers - um, that's military forces killing other military forces. That even meets Geneva rules (though those were way in the future).

    The behavior of the patriots was thoroughly inconsistent with the established contemporary customs of war. And they generally didn't wear uniforms either, and they tended to hide their weapons and fighters amongst the civilian population.

    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.

    The boston tea party destroyed commercial assets, in order to have a political effect, which by the present US government's definition, is in fact terrorism. Their intention is irrelevant; the act itself could be construed as subversive to the government, particularly since it stood to loose enormous tax revenue from the tea that was dumped.

    If someone tried to start the Million Man (really 300,000 man) March today, they'd never get the permission to march that many observant Muslims in the capitol, and if they tried to do so without permit, they would certainly, under the current regime, be liable for arrest as a terrorist (as opposed to being arrested for merely being disorderly).

    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.

    So sed -e 's/Sunni/Tory/' | sed -e 's/Iraq/Colonies/'. Maybe Iraq's off to a good start, after all.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.