rationalskepticism.org

Mick wrote:

Federico wrote:

The second reason is the phrase reveals unerringly which side Mick belongs to because it puts on the same level man's violence against man done either to help man or animal.

I actually have not advocated nor have I supported violence against man, anywhere here.

OK Mick, lets try another tack.
Is it fair to say even if you don’t' belong to either PETA or ALF you are a sympathizer for their philosophy and MO?
And that, just because Animal Rights and other similar associations are not even trying to obtain for animals what are their just rights (which, BTW, are the same as humans') by using wishy-washy methods, some other "more energetic" tactics should be used?
And since some of those "more energetic" tactics, when used by men against other men in support of men's purposes, qualify them to be called either terrorists or FF depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, is it fair to say that, when those tactics are used for the purpose of advancing animal rights, at least for some people (e.g., me), those using these tactics may be called Terrorists?