Animal Rights Activist

[vickylolage]

I couldnt be arsed to read all this thread but I decided to have my 2 pence worth.

I think its fine being an ARA so long as it doesnt go OTT as with any protesting. Personally I am against animal testing for things such as cosmetics etc. As for testing for medical purposes I think products that people use should be tested and perfected on people. Bit cruel to make an animal suffer for something we cant fathom out. If a cure is needed for a disease for certain types of animals then test on those animals... if that makes sense? Like benefit a species by using the species sort of thing. HUMANELY of course.

I always see animal rights campaigners in Newcastle and some of the pictures from I think its places like "Huntingtons Life Sciences" (not sure if that name is right) are horrific and always make me cry/sign my name/donate. Its awful.

As for "whats does the OP feed her snake their carnivores its hypocritical" etc. I think everyone has to accept that life is a food chain. So long as the meat/mouse/rat or whatever that is used is killed humanely and with minimal amounts of pain etc I dont see a problem. Im sure a lot of people who care for animals would agree.

No doubt someone will pick apart what Ive just said lol

[essexchondro]

Animal rights activist is just a way to describe someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs. They don't have to be nuts. It is only the ones who make the news and stuff which you are thinking of and it's very judgmental of you. I know some can be extreme or offensive with the way they conduct themselves even in a debate, but if you're just the kind who likes to hand out leaflets or make peaceful protests at the worst, you're hardely akin to a terrorist. Sometimes things are wrong, and it would be the right thing to stand up for it...

That's not the case. An animal rights activist is a specific type of person with a specific and well defined agenda. Animal rights activists, by definition, have what wider society would consider to be an extreme agenda, and they are prepared to enter into direct and forceful action to meet that agenda (i.e what wider societry would call terrorism). Animal rights activists are not peaceful protesters and are not prepared to enter into rational debate or compromises and the term is only used to describe "someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs" if its used incorrectly. Put simply, what you're describing isn't an animal rights activist.

[oakelm]

I think you have all scared them off, they havent replied to a post at all just done the original opening post.

[arthur cooke]

The OP declared that they are an AR activist, What does that mean?
They say they want to debate, that'll be a first, I've asked Andy Tyler of Animal Aid for a debate many times and he never has. They, AR, never debate with the likes of us animal keepers. They see the animals we keep as prisoners, slaves and us as prison guards in an animal holocaust. So to them a debate is out of the question, how can you debate with Nazi prison guards.

All of their campaigns are full of lies, half truths, bad science and outright deceptions.

It shouldn't be forgotten that all of these different groups work together, the RSPCA,Animal Aid, PeTA, League against Cruel Sports,all the vivisectionist groups, there is a very large list of pro AR groups.

They produce some very emotive fake videos, when you see one or two of the videos of the way the Chinese produce fur it looks disgusting, until you realise that to produce these videos they, AR, perpetrated the animal abuse themselves in order to produce the video, then you can see the lengths they are prepared to go to raise money for their cause.

When it comes to us reptile keepers they said to parliament that our reptiles only ever lived for a year in captivity and were believed. They said that the skill needed to keep our animals were to great for us to be able to keep them.That if their were children in your house you were exposing them to deadly salmonella and this was child abuse.

Also, if you go onto one or two of their sites you will find that many of them appear to have pets, of course these pets are rescues and therefore not against their AR credentials because animals have been taken away from abusers. Oh and they started a myth by saying that people who abused animals were also likely to abuse their partners and children, as they see the keeping of any animal as abuse what are they really saying!

My take on this is that we as people have a responsibility to treat animals that we keep well, to give them a decent, happy life. We have a responsibility to animals, they have no rights.
cheers arthur

[Saedcantas]

Well said Arthur, that's the AR I'm thinking of.

I think essentially the OP labelled herself as something she actually isn't and doesn't quite realise the clear implications.

She's more or less no different to the average person on here. She just got caught up in posturing and thinking she was better and that the appropriate name for that was AR.

Whoops!

[arthur cooke]

Thanks Saedcantas, I think that's proberbly right and perhaps the OP could come and debate.
I hope that it isn't AR hitting and running, trying to disrupt.That has been one of their aims in the past.
cheers arthur

[rakpeterson]

The fact that the OP actually keeps captive animals suggests that they are not AR at all, but are infact very passionate about the right of animals wether captive or wild.

Big differance between animal rights and animal welfare.

[Gaboon]

Animal rights activists are blooming mental! I mean we all care for the welfare of all animals be it a pet, domestic food source, or the best kind, wild. But raging war on anyone who does not agree with your extremist views is just terrorism. A better label for any animal right activist group would be, susceptible disillusioned angry animal loving hippies! S.D.A.A.L.H .

I mean to cause no offence to the OP but I do have very strong views against extreme groups that justify there militarism views and terrorist acts by exploiting fellow sentient beings as a 'worthy cause'. A very tried, tested and failed tactic for attempting to gain support when in fact your and your group is dis-functional.

My feelings.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by essexchondro

That's not the case. An animal rights activist is a specific type of person with a specific and well defined agenda. Animal rights activists, by definition, have what wider society would consider to be an extreme agenda, and they are prepared to enter into direct and forceful action to meet that agenda (i.e what wider societry would call terrorism). Animal rights activists are not peaceful protesters and are not prepared to enter into rational debate or compromises and the term is only used to describe "someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs" if its used incorrectly. Put simply, what you're describing isn't an animal rights activist.

I used to be part of an "animal rights group" and did the protests, even part of a break-in at one point, but then saw the errors of our way and stopped. It's just passion. That surely would define me as one back then I suppose? I am strongly against anything that is cruel to animals, but unlike most of those types I keep animals by choice, but a lot of people I know who were part of more extreme groups are very tame and are quite civilised. You're putting all of them in the same sack. I admit there are some nutjobs out there but honestly most of them just generally care about the welfare of animals in a dignified way. Don't focus so much on the media.

If I've missed the point my apologises. I am a lazy bastard who only read the first few posts and in-betweens. :p

[essexchondro]

I used to be part of an "animal rights group" and did the protests, even part of a break-in at one point, but then saw the errors of our way and stopped. That surely would define me as one then? I am strongly against anything that is cruel to animals, but unlike most of those types I keep animals by choice, but a lot of people I know who were part of that group are very tame and are very civilised. You're putting all of them in the same sack. I admit there are some nutjobs out there but honestly most of them just generally care about the welfare of animals in a dignified way. Don't focus so much on the media.

Yes I think it probably would. Maybe you have now seen the error of your ways but that does not erase the fact that you did engaged in criminal activity which, at least in part, was intended to terrorise and intimidate those that didn't agree with your point of view and agenda (pretty much the dictionary definition of terrorism!) rather than debate things rationally and work within the law...much like we'd expect a "tame and very civilised" person to...

I'm sure that nice people do get involved in bad things...but that doesn't make the bad things they do any less bad. You've only got to look at Nazi Germany to realise that.