rationalskepticism.org

Mick wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:There are 3 links there. The first involved a group that believed they were carrying out the actions of ALF (whether ALF distanced themselves afterwards is irrelevant),

Is this a joke? In determining whether those actions were ALF, it is supposed to be "irrelevant" that ALF distanced itself from those actions? Are you kidding me? Heck, ALF blatantly said it was against their principles.

They were part of ALFs association and were carrying out actions they thought were condoned by ALF. ALF can backtrack and claim they don't support it, but when they promote violent actions and suggest that murder is a valid form of protest, they lose their right to claim they had no hand in the actions of their affiliates. It's similar to a radical group of Muslims blowing up a building because they believe that's what their religion teaches, and having the more mainstream groups distancing themselves from them - they're still Muslims, because they believe what they're doing is what their religion commands. The same applies to ALF.

But like I said, that is only one example of many, so even if we ignore it then it doesn't matter because it's not like it's a rare or isolated case.

Mick wrote:

the second was the attack on Brian Cass by David Blenkinsop who was a long time ALF member (and still is, I think?),

Yeah, and? There is an overlap of 'membership' between violent and non-violent animal rights groups. Sometimes individuals of one commit acts in the name of one group and not the other, and vice versa. That he was a 'member' of ALF (more like claimed actions in ALF's name) does not imply that this action was one of ALF.

Oh that's convenient.

Mick wrote:

and the third resulted in a press release from ALF saying "we did it" basically.

Support for this would be great.

Their press office said: "On the night of June 30, we paid a visit to Lynn Fairbanks' home," (it's in the article).

Mick wrote:

You can ignore the first link if you don't believe they were true scotsmen, but these aren't isolated incidents, I can just keep googling more and more.

If you're trying to reference an informal fallacy (scotsman), you'll need to argue for it.

No need to argue for it, the concept explains itself in reference to our discussion. If they believed they were acting according to the beliefs of ALF, and ALF encourages violent acts and murder as a form of protest, then whether ALF tries to distance itself or not is irrelevant.

Mick wrote:

Oh, what really is morally true. Good job we cleared that up. Out of interest, which moral system has been demonstrated to be 'really true'?

That's not relevant. What's relevant is that you mischaracterized their stand on this issue. Whether their view really is correct or not is not something I need to presently argue for my point.

Of course it's important. I claimed they were innocent and you disagreed with me by appealing to some universal moral law. If the victims aren't innocent then I need to know what moral system we're using to determine this.

Mick wrote:

I thought the fact that the neighbour was inside the property that was intended to be blown to pieces would be sufficient.

No, of course not. You'd still have the element of intent to kill or harm which has yet been shown (though certainly presumed by you, since it likely fits your preconcieved notions of ALF).

They visited her house at night. Most people are home at night. They obviously didn't check to see the house was empty first. Therefore, they were knowingly accepting the very real possibility that they were going to kill someone.

Unless they are complete morons. Which is of course a possibility, since we're talking about ALF members.

Mick wrote:

Unless the old woman was blast-resistant, it is impossible for them to attack the property without attacking the woman as well.

This is so misleading. Correctly said, without your presuppositions, it is this: It is impossible for them to attack the building without the woman being harmed. Your way suggests that they attacked the woman, as if it were intentional. My way is neutral on the issue of intent.

So if I shot you in the chest, I could claim that I didn't intend to attack you but I simply wanted to ruin your shirt?

Mick wrote:

Sometimes rational argument doesn't cut it, but you need to try at least.

lmao. They have. Animal rights groups and philosophers have been arguing for this for quite some time.

Peter Singer has came to the intellectual aid of ALF, too. He argues on similar lines as I do.

But Singer is a terrible philosopher... If he's their spokesman for rational argumentation, then it's no surprise that people having been convinced by their position.

Mick wrote:

Just an argument or two, maybe an education program aimed at children to get them thinking. The first step should not be: Let's blow up the houses of people who do research with animals.

It wasn't. ALF didn't form in a vacuum. It was formed well after animal rights and welfare advocates have been arguing for simlilar lines of thought.

No, don't go associating ALF with animal rights and welfare advocates. Those are people actually trying to make a difference.

Mick wrote:

There are obvious pragmatic reasons why I should care about myself: I like living and dislike dying. Why should I care about sentient animals? I'm not saying you're wrong, but your position obviously isn't a brute fact, you need to support it with arguments. If you want to base your moral system on caring for sentient animals, then make a case.

Pragmatic reasons are not clearly moral reasons. It is a moral question.

Of course pragmatic reasons are moral reasons, it's a fairly uncontroversial assumption on what we should base our values on.

Mick wrote:

It's empirically true. The lifespans of lab animals tend to be far longer than those in the wild (including subjects that are terminated),

Which suggests what of happiness?

Nothing, but it says a lot for healthiness - which was what I was supporting.

Mick wrote:

they are far healthier due to the fact that they are under 24/7 surveillance with vets on hand (I don't think the "healthier" claim is debatable is it?),

I really have no idea if they are 'healthier'. Frankly, I don't find it all that morally relevant, unless it were the case that they'd be in poor health outside of the facility. But, I doubt that'd be the case.

What do you mean? It isn't debatable that animals in the wild are generally in poor health. Most die from infections, painful lingering injuries, or starvation, and nearly all of them are covered in parasites. Almost none will die of old age.

Mick wrote:

they show far less signs of stress,

Even if this were true (you give me no reason to accept it), I don't see the moral relevance, since I see no reason to think that outside of the facility, they'd have the sort of stress which warrants their removal.

It can be shown for whatever animal you would like to discuss. Ever seen a wild rat? Notice the red fluid around their eyes and nose that looks like blood? This is porphyrin and a sign of a sick and stressed animal. All wild rats are also born with mycoplasma, which means that it's near-inevitable that they will develop serious respiratory issues at some point in their lives, where they will struggle to breathe for days or weeks on end (and if they survive their first bout, it just means that it's even more likely to flare up against later). Ever seen a wild pigeon? Notice how when they flap around on streets there's no white powder being thrown into the air off their wings? This is because only unstressed and healthy pigeons have this white powder coating their wings.

I can go on and on, but you won't find any animal expert that disagrees with the claim that lab animals are far less stressed than wild animals.

Mick wrote:It's funny that you characterise their time in these facilities as if they were time in a spa. Do they get mud baths, too? Perhaps massages? What a joke. It's a blatant mischaracterization of what goes on in there, at least far too much of the time. For instance, one study is reported to describe 15% GM animals having 'severe discomfort', whatever that's supposed to mean.
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal ... tification

I can't find any citation on that page for that claim. They also point out that one "study" suggested that only 10% experienced harmful effects. Even if 15% experienced severe discomfort, this is still far better than the discomfort experienced by wild animals.

Animals are extremely well-looked after in facilities and it is like being in a spa for most animals. They have their beds and rooms cleaned every day, with extreme care and caution being taken on the extent of the cleaning and to ensure that the products have no harmful effects on the subjects, they are inspected by a vet on a daily basis so they can catch any sickness or injury early, they are often put through behavioral tests which are similar to gambling machines that give out special treats, and they have free food and drink whenever they like.

How many labs have you visited? It sounds like you have the impression that they are like Nazi concentration camps.

Mick wrote:Tell me again how comfortable they are. Wait, no. Tell these non-human primates how great they got it. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/bio ... _research/

Is that the worst footage they have? Some of it was bad, like when one of the monkeys rolled off the table - it should have been secured, but most of it only looks bad when you don't understand what's going on (i.e. you get a biased presentation of the images). For example, a couple of the monkeys had injuries which makes it look terrible. But they would have been given first-rate treatment as soon as possible. If they were left alone with their injuries, then not only would they be morally guilty, but they'd also be shit scientists.

I couldn't listen to the audio of the video, but the article is blatantly lying here:

Right now, approximately 95% of the animals used for research aren't afforded even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act.

Buuullshit. Animal researchers are held to much more stringent animal welfare laws than the average public, as well as dozens more animal welfare laws that aren't applicable to the average person. For example, you can get fired for not wiping down a cage properly, or mopping the floor next to a cage properly. Animal researchers are largely composed of huge animal lovers, and even if you managed to keep your job if you failed to ensure that an animal does not go a minute without access to water, your colleagues would essentially force you to leave.

Mick wrote:After watching videos like these, it's a wonder how ALF can maintain its non-violent stance.

I've seen documentaries by Michael Moore that were more balanced and accurate than that video.

Mick wrote:

never die from a slow or painful disease/injury, and they have free access to as much food or water as they like. There are very few advantages to them being out in the wild.

You mean, other than that fact they are free, not captivated in small isolated cages and not subjected to our experiements? Just small details, eh?

What do you mean by "free"? What do you think animals do in the wild; go on adventures with Bambi and Winnie the Pooh? They spend the vast majority of their lives trying to find food and water, and basically not starving to death. That's not any more free than living in a lab. Most lab animals don't live in small cages - I wouldn't be surprised if the cages shown on that video were the experimental chambers, or used for observation, which means they'd only spend a minimal amount of time in there. If they lived their entire lives in the small cages (and not the larger cages that they were shown to be swinging around in later in the video), then I would agree that such a lab needs to be shut down. And subjected to experiments? Some experiments can be disturbing, yes, but we need to keep in mind that the experiences they have in the wild are far worse than anything a scientist can come up with. Also keep in mind that many experiments are quite enjoyable for the subjects (like most behavioral experiments), and such tasks are actually recommended for cognitive development and well-being.

Mick wrote:Why don't I just stick you in a cage with a few other people, feed you and give you lots to drink? But, here's the catch: I get to experiment on you and then likely kill you afterwards, but that's no biggie. You got a sweet deal. Man, you should be thanking me.

Inaccurate analogy. Most lab animals aren't taken from the wild (so have no knowledge of another "way of life" like I would), and my life in the 'wild' is not one of pain, suffering and starvation. If I did live like the average pigeon or rat, unsure of where my next meal is coming from, covered in parasites, constantly starving and getting sick or injured, then fuck yes I would jump at the opportunity to have a roof over my head and free food. Stick needles in my head, it'd be a fuck lot better than the alternative.

Mick wrote:

He wouldn't because he was a soldier and it was an act of war. Soldiers killed in war aren't "murderers" because legally they are licensed to kill.

Legally speaking, typically soldiers can only kill when it is a justifiable act of war. They are not at liberty to kill, and this is why some soldiers have been tried for war crimes. The fellow that tried to kill Hitler was executed for a crime under German law; he committed treason or something like it. Yet, we wouldn't call him a murderer; we wouldn't call him a murderer not because he isn't so according to our laws (he wasnt subject to them after all) nor because he was innocent under German laws, or any other law. We wouldn't call him a murderer in the moral sense because we understand that his actions were justified, in the moral sense. Yet, they still constitute an assassination attempt.

I think you're confusing "we" with "me" (as in 'you'), as I don't know anyone who would agree with you. Ignoring the legal aspect of the word "murder" makes the term meaningless.

And such an act would only be morally justifiable under some moral systems. Many moral systems believe that any kind of killing is wrong, like the christians ("Thou shalt not kill").

Mick wrote:

But if he weren't a soldier, and just a regular Joe like Lee Harvey Oswald, it would still be called "assassination"

lol. that's simply absurd. Look, how the word is used: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... /July-Plot

Admit fault, please, or at least drop the point. This is insane.

Admit fault of what? Your link uses it in the way it is defined, "To murder someone for political reasons".

If you want to redefine words in the English language, then that's fine, but you probably need to contact some of the major dictionaries rather than discussing it with random people on the internet.