animal rights activists sentenced under anti terrorism laws

Al Vallario said:
As Gilly said it was the mother (or possibly grandmother) of the farmer, and as far as I'm aware it was an isolated incident.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure it was his mother in law. There was a docu on about it recently.
 
I can't support the terrorist acts that some animal activists consider appropriate.

Out of loyalty to my species I'm forced to admit that animal testing is neccesary.

But I do understand the frustration these people feel. I love animals... more than I love most humans. I would like to see much tighter controls on experiments... to the extent of having to apply for a permission for each new animal. If an animal is going to be sacrificed then it must be assured that it will not suffer intolerably and that there is a real chance of beneficial knowledge to be gained from it.
 
Jumpingmedic said:
But I do understand the frustration these people feel. I love animals... more than I love most humans. I would like to see much tighter controls on experiments... to the extent of having to apply for a permission for each new animal. If an animal is going to be sacrificed then it must be assured that it will not suffer intolerably and that there is a real chance of beneficial knowledge to be gained from it.
Click to expand...


The uk has the strictest laws. All these animal rights people do is force companies to go abroad, where there are no laws. TBH I don't really care how many animals die, as long as good for the human race comes from it. I don't want to see un-need suffering. But some experiments can't be done with out suffering. Until there's a better alternative than animal testing then nothing can change.
 
AcidHell2 said:
The uk has the strictest laws. All these animal rights people do is force companies to go abroad, where there are no laws. TBH I don't really care how many animals die, as long as good for the human race comes from it. I don't want to see un-need suffering. But some experiments can't be done with out suffering. Until there's a better alternative than animal testing then nothing can change.
Click to expand...

I guess it's just a question of morals.. you just don't have any.
 
Jumpingmedic said:
I guess it's just a question of morals.. you just don't have any.
Click to expand...


Nope I have loads of morals. But i consider human life and the advancement of are society over some animals. Especially as most of those animals would die in pain anyway, from predators or naturall death. Nature is a crule thing, much cruler than we could ever be.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Nope I have loads of morals. But i consider human life and the advancement of are society over some animals. Especially as most of those animals would die in pain anyway, from predators or naturall death. Nature is a crule thing, much cruler than we could ever be.
Click to expand...

Most animals in nature die quickly... we experiment on them until they die.

I'm not arguing AGAINST that, just that it's unnecesssary in many cases.

Human life takes priority, but I don't think you know how much unnecessary testing goes on... or if you do you're just plain evil.
 
Jumpingmedic said:
Most animals in nature die quickly... we experiment on them until they die.

I'm not arguing AGAINST that, just that it's unnecesssary in many cases.

Human life takes priority, but I don't think you know how much unnecessary testing goes on... or if you do you're just plain evil.
Click to expand...


Its vey necessary, as to pass drug laws it has to be tested on animals and all side effects (good or bad) be taken into acount. You also have to learn how they actually interact with the body and the variouse tissue/systems.
 
terrorists laws are so open it could be used for any crime, thats why its important to restrict this law, you could use this law for you next door neighbour. the Terrorist law should have a clause that specifies the use of terror on the masses not individual.

As we are seeing this law has been used in other circumstances, like the guy in the labour meeting a few years ago, the guy living outside of parliament. this law can be misused by the government.
 
Survival of the fittest, we can kill bunnies all we like.

Get them locked away for using sick methods to protect animals :rolleyes:
 
Do we not have enough laws to arrest/detain/charge whatever .... I see no need whatsoever to use Terrorist legislation.

I'm not saying they are right, they're not IMO ..... but I don't think we need to be pedantic about the terrorism thing; they could easily have been arrested using existing legislation.
 
But why shouldn't it be terrorism? Is it only terrorism when religion is used as an excuse?
 
Spie said:
Good call.
Click to expand...
yep, people should be allowed to shampoo the eye's of bunnies if it puts food in front of their kids.

down with all the animal rights idiots - animals are important... as a main course.
animals are certainly not so important that anyone who abuses them should suffer any form of retribution. if it helps people then who the hell cares what else suffers.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you can justify being abusive for the sake of being abusive towards animals.

Sure extremists are evil and plainly terrorise people because of there ideology but you do need two sides to an argument. Arguments just need to be based on reason and fact.
 
Any sympathies I may have had for animal rights activists went out of the window when the remains of a dead relative of people who bred Guinea Pigs for research were stolen.

I am trying to contemplate what could be a more cold, callous or despicable act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom