what are you suggestin people do about this, write to our MPs?????

and btw, do you seriously consider bricks thru windows and property damage "violence"?

'climate of fear' ... isn't that what the animals endure daily at the hands of the bastard vivisectors and all other abusers?

'Mafia style tactics'? ... The same tactics that save lives directly on the front lines!

Tony seeks to pace the 'moral highground' whilst supporting Girton labs with other rich scum like prescott and sainsbury. Dishing a few leaflets out, having peaceful demos and hoping the mp's and general public be persuaded to help stop the labs being built is bloody ludicrous! A virtual death sentence to primates!

No time to be 'nice'!! ... The vivisectors are not about to be 'nice to primates' if this hell hole death camp goes ahead.


Last but not least: meatrix.com ain't no veggie site. It asks the viewer afterwards to support their local butchers and small farms!! So f**k 'em.



For the animals.

The animal rights movement is INCREDIBLY restrained! what kind of person can butcher and abuse living sentient beings for cash?! a sick and violent kind!! wake up!!! get your perspective staightened out- minor harrassment of animal abusers is nothing compared to the nightmare these animals endure- FROM WHICH THERE IS NO ESCAPE.

Life is not a commodity.

Erm... I suspect that we do infact already live in the climate of fear discribed in the orginal post. I don't mean a fear of animal right activists scratching the paint work on our cars or putting a brick throw our offices windows under the cover of night. I mean the fear of violence that comes from living in a society where might makes right.

The state may preach non violence to its citizens but it uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce this rule. Killing is wrong, except when it is done by the state.

Put simply, might makes right, always has. The police use migth, the military use might - even teachers and parents use might. Its the law of nature and it is laughable to hear the states rhetoric of non-violence being taken up hook, line and sinker.

It suits the state for use to piss about debating and being devided by the issue of 'violence' as a tactic. Violence is an emotive word and seeing as we don't seem to even have reached a point where we can decide whether smashing a window is violence or not - any further debate is a waste of time.

Might works. The planet is ruled by those with the biggest and the most guns. There are tactics to combat this situation, tactics that normally mean exploiting our vunerability and the threatening to expose the illusion of a benevolent state. However, these tactics have their limitations.

The use of threats may be perfectly ligitimate. Most parents don't think twice about using threats. Our entire judical system is built on threats. It may give us the moral high ground to reject using these tactics ourselves but lets not kid ourselves that using them is an exculation. We already live in a world in which it is the norm. We already live in the climate of fear.

> and btw, do you seriously consider bricks thru windows
> and property damage "violence"?

Well yes - of course that's violence, you nit. I wonder how you'd react if someone threw a brick through *your* window, slashed *your* tyres or chucked paint over *your* clothes. You'd say "Oh, I'm glad that expression of opinion was non-violent"? Hardly.

If it was me who got bricked, tyres slashed etc... I'd immediately think,'why me?' 'what am I involved in for this to happen?' .. If I was an animal abuser ... I'D EXPECT AND DESERVE IT!

YOU NIT!!!

Hi,

I was just wondering why everyone focuses so much on the vivisection industry? It represents barely 1% of animal cruelty? Wouldn't it make more sense to put time and effort into getting the factory farming industry changed?

For instance- HLS is doomed (in my opinion). What will that actually gain? The business that HLS was given will be transferred elsewhere?

However, if we sped more time and effort educating people about the meat industry, then more people are likely to become veggie or vegan. And if there are any Vegitarian or even non-vegetarian people out there who fight against vivisection, turn Vegan otherwise you are just being hypoctritical.

Don't get me wrong, i do support the SHAC campaign, and the SPEAC campaign and help out where i can (eg. protests against Asahi Glass and SPEAC demo's), but i think people should look at the bigger picture and realise that there is a much bigger issue.

Also, regarding themeatrix.com. I personally think the site does a good job. If you watch the movie, it does not try to be veggie. Instead it points out the facts about the intensive meat industry. I believe that it isn't the killing the animals that is wrong, (So long as the animal is not missed by any othere animal etc...) it is the fact that they are treated so badly. However, i also realise that if i encourage the eating of 'small farm' meat etc... that it will lead to small farms trying to figure out ways to gain even more profits, leading back to the intensive market again.

So before you go screaming and shouting abuse at a vivisector, think about what you are doing and see if that time could be better spent turning people veggie or vegan. (Think about stalls, school talks, public events etc...) If 10 people turn veggie because of your efforts, you have saved the lives of a hell of a lot of animals.

"I believe that it isn't the killing the animals that is wrong, (So long as the animal is not missed by any othere animal etc...) it is the fact that they are treated so badly"

So, if the animals were treated with kindness throughout there lives and then all of a sudden a knife was drawn to their throat by the same 'kind person/s' now wanting to consume them. What would that make of those persons? Raving psychos! .. a worse, more unstable mentallity than the abusers have right now.

Compassion and kindness towards animals tends to make one not want to harm, kill or eat them.

The abuse industry thrives on ignorance, hate and loathing toward the animal kingdom, that's what makes it easier to kill the animals in the end.

It would be rather hard to be 'nice' to someone (human or animal) for x many years and then suddenly turn, butcher and eat them even if they had no family and would not be missed by anyone.

Respects.

If the animal had had a nice life and it did not leave greaving relatives etc... behind, then what is the harm?

The use of the term 'nice' is incredibly odd as it does not mean anything.

The real argument is that it is 'Wrong' but then again, (as a utilitarian) it is not wrong if it doesn't cause any suffering.

Please explain why it is not 'nice'?

fredrico,

If you think it's ok to murder animals then that is your problem. I personally believe it is wrong and we should respect all living beings on the planet including ourselves. Ain't got time to argue with you. That's just how it is from myself mate.

Fredrico, perhaps you would like to consider that animals do not only have physical senses of feelings, but physiological too. To deny some one else, with thoughts, feelings and opinions their life is cruel in itself.

Regards,

Bob

I suppost that depends on your definition of cruelty.

I see cruelty as torture etc...
Killing is not in itself a major problem so long as it leaves no illness behind (ie hurting the animals partner etc...). However i believe that people misunderstand my point as this case is not one that will often occur as human's and non-human's alike do not often spend their lives completely alone and without anyone caring for them.

> Killing is not in itself a major problem

? ? ? ?