Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Have a problem with whistleblowers recording your unlawful and horrific abuse?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Have a problem with whistleblowers recording your unlawful and horrific abuse?
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry, just pay off some conservative lawmakers to pass a bill making it illegal for your employees to record your animal abuse. Or make a law saying if you don't disclose your ties to animal rights groups during your interview, you face criminal sanctions.

m.nbcnews.com/business/taping-farm-cruelty-becoming-crime-1B9251810

Anyone willing to defend this?

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NOT willing to defend this.

What I found most horrific in your article was this:

quote:
One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,” prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”
totalitarian sons of bitches should be deported to the People's Republic of China.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is like a microcosm of problematic legislative response to terror. I do consider PETA a terrorist group and understand why they are a problem for farmers (big or small--I know a family whose small mink farm was targeted by PETA. Long story short they'll stop at very little to make their point). This is in no way the right way to deal with that problem.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Don't worry, just pay off some conservative lawmakers to pass a bill making it illegal for your employees to record your animal abuse. Or make a law saying if you don't disclose your ties to animal rights groups during your interview, you face criminal sanctions.

m.nbcnews.com/business/taping-farm-cruelty-becoming-crime-1B9251810

Anyone willing to defend this?

[LOL] You think it's only conservative lawmakers? It's all of them - whatever they think will keep them in power, they'll do. That NBC, the media outlet for the DNC, calls out only the Republican lawmakers should surprise nobody; it's just business as usual there.

I'm starting to come around to Wayward Son's point of view on this kind of stuff. Anything that could potentially cause damage or disruption to vital services (the US food supply in this case) should be a felony with stiff penalties.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Democrats are beholden to a different set of masters. I defy you to find me any liberal lawmakers supporting one of these laws.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does voting for equal support?
Would doing so exclude a democrat from a liberal title?
Should make the challenge at least a little fair.

My money is on G3 if he is interested enough to look. It's a pretty thought though.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Democrats are beholden to a different set of masters. I defy you to find me any liberal lawmakers supporting one of these laws.

quote:
The law [Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act or AETA] was originally introduced in the 109th Congress by Thomas Petri (R-WI) and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK). The final version of the bill, S. 3880., was passed in the United States Senate on September 29, 2006, by unanimous consent, a Senate procedure that is used to expedite the passage of non-controversial bills without an actual vote. On November 13, 2006, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills without voting.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
This is like a microcosm of problematic legislative response to terror. I do consider PETA a terrorist group and understand why they are a problem for farmers (big or small--I know a family whose small mink farm was targeted by PETA. Long story short they'll stop at very little to make their point). This is in no way the right way to deal with that problem.

PETA are heading in the direction of terrorism. But to my knowledge they have never crossed the line to actually threatening or harming anyone physically. Let alone kidnapping, harming, or threatening "innocents," which is the touchstone of actual terrorism. Furthermore, the proposed law here isn't set up to prevent violence or destruction of property. What it's set up to do, is to prevent public awareness of cruelty.

Those who make such laws are a new species of 9/11 hijacker. Folks that hijack 9/11 and the war on terror to make war on fellow citizens that they find inconvenient.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It pains me to see G3 and djquag arguing over whether this is a conservative or a liberal problem.

I am reminded of a scene from Ionesco's rhinoceros, where folks witness a rampaging rhino, and argue whether the rhino has one horn or two, as the beast charges up and tramples them.

The proliferation of felony laws, and the misapplication of monster labels such as "terrorist" or "sex offender" is a disease that infects the heart of our republic. If we liberals and conservatives cannot set aside our differences in the face of such a monster, we are all screwed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those who make such laws are a new species of 9/11 hijacker. Folks that hijack 9/11 and the war on terror to make war on fellow citizens that they find inconvenient.
And those who make such laws exist on both sides of the isle. You can argue that they are trying to slip one by on us or that they are too stupid to oppose things like this but the result is the same. ANY situation can be manipulated to grab power and be used for political advantage. Emotional situations easiest of all.

We label people as crazy who believe our government engineers many of these situations. We should label each other as idiots for letting them manipulate us whenever such a situation occurs.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It pains me to see G3 and djquag arguing over whether this is a conservative or a liberal problem.

I am reminded of a scene from Ionesco's rhinoceros, where folks witness a rampaging rhino, and argue whether the rhino has one horn or two, as the beast charges up and tramples them.

The proliferation of felony laws, and the misapplication of monster labels such as "terrorist" or "sex offender" is a disease that infects the heart of our republic. If we liberals and conservatives cannot set aside our differences in the face of such a monster, we are all screwed.

I am most certainly not arguing that this is a "conservative or a liberal problem". In fact, I am arguing the exact opposite of that.

We are all screwed already.

[ April 08, 2013, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Those who make such laws are a new species of 9/11 hijacker. Folks that hijack 9/11 and the war on terror to make war on fellow citizens that they find inconvenient.
And those who make such laws exist on both sides of the isle.
Well yeah. That's my point. Did you read my "rhinoceros" exegis?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Democrats are beholden to a different set of masters. I defy you to find me any liberal lawmakers supporting one of these laws.

quote:
The law [Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act or AETA] was originally introduced in the 109th Congress by Thomas Petri (R-WI) and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK). The final version of the bill, S. 3880., was passed in the United States Senate on September 29, 2006, by unanimous consent, a Senate procedure that is used to expedite the passage of non-controversial bills without an actual vote. On November 13, 2006, the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills without voting.

THANK YOU, G3. Sorry I missed this. Yes, American totalitarianism seems to be a bipartisan beast, or at least a bipolar one. Sometimes they join together as Feinstein with Petri; sometimes Dems and Reps take turns playing good cop and bad cop, but we're seeing a gradual move towards totalitarianism and massive overcriminialization of American lives. DW, get me your email and I'll forward you the panic legislation proposals that Feinstein keeps sending me.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you read my "rhinoceros" exegis?
After my post went through, yes I did. From when I start typing my reply in word and cut and paste it in sometimes other replies sneak in there. [Smile]

Just as G3 wrote this earlier on.
quote:
You think it's only conservative lawmakers? It's all of them
djquag1 appears to be the only one here who may be dissapointed in his chosen champion.

[ April 08, 2013, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DW, get me your email and I'll forward you the panic legislation proposals that Feinstein keeps sending me.
Pass! I can hardly stomach the small doses I hear from her that make national consumption. It’s spring now so I’m hating Michigan less and less every day. Maybe at the start of next winter I’d take you up on it when I need a dose of “It could be worse!” [Big Grin]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm starting to come around to Wayward Son's point of view on this kind of stuff. Anything that could potentially cause damage or disruption to vital services (the US food supply in this case) should be a felony with stiff penalties.
Just to clarify my position, I am not for "felony with stiff penalties" for "anything that could potentially cause damage or disruption to vital services." Something that causes direct damage or disruption should have a penalty, in order to discourage the practice. But it doesn't have to be a felony, nor does it have to have a stiff penalty. I never said any such thing.

That said, I don't see how taking pictures of livestock would cause direct damage or disruption to the owners, nor how it could possibly be considered "terrorism" to any sane individual. I would think the fact that the pictures accurately depicted the situation--i.e. that they were "true"--would be enough to protect the individual from prosecution under Free Speech protections.

Now this is a lousy, ridiculous law, with no obvious redemning characteristics. [Mad]

(I suspect that this portion was snuck into a long bill with a lot of things that needed to be passed. It would be interesting to see who added this to the bill. [Wink] )

[ April 08, 2013, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yay. Let's welcome Wayward back from the dark side. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Democrats are beholden to a different set of masters. I defy you to find me any liberal lawmakers supporting one of these laws.

This has nothing to do with party and everything to do with courting money from Big Agriculture. We can thank the Citizens United ruling for this as much as anything else. SCoTUS has declared that the law should be for sale, and this is a natural result.

On the other hand, this may help make Nelly Bly into a good crank for a generator.

[ April 08, 2013, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*[Iron-lung sound]* I never was on the dark side, Pete. *[Iron-lung sound]* I just didn't want anyone to think there was no justification for certain laws. *[Iron-lung sound.]*

(You didn't know I had such a deep voice, did you? [Smile] )

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course dems vote and write bad and stupid laws, but this type of law specifically? That makes it a crime to be a whistleblower inside of factory farms? For that type of law, you go to a conservative. The 2006 law wasn't targeting whistleblowers. So I claim victory on a technicality [Razz]
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But on the whole I agree with you, G3. The system is broken and both sides are bought and paid for, just different sources of funding.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I'm starting to come around to Wayward Son's point of view on this kind of stuff. Anything that could potentially cause damage or disruption to vital services (the US food supply in this case) should be a felony with stiff penalties.
Just to clarify my position, I am not for "felony with stiff penalties" for "anything that could potentially cause damage or disruption to vital services." Something that causes direct damage or disruption should have a penalty, in order to discourage the practice. But it doesn't have to be a felony, nor does it have to have a stiff penalty. I never said any such thing.
So you just support them being felonies but don't object to it or to mere misdemeanors either. [Roll Eyes] Hair splitting.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
That said, I don't see how taking pictures of livestock would cause direct damage or disruption to the owners, nor how it could possibly be considered "terrorism" to any sane individual. I would think the fact that the pictures accurately depicted the situation--i.e. that they were "true"--would be enough to protect the individual from prosecution under Free Speech protections.

Let's review:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son on 02-28-2013 12:38 PM:
Ignorance that [something] you did could cause harm is no excuse. It's called negligence. If he didn't realize it, I'm sorry for him.

The owners were directly harmed by this:
quote:
And the egg supplier, which operates in Iowa and other states, lost one of its biggest customers, McDonald’s, which said the video played a part in its decision.

<snip>

Livestock companies say that their businesses have suffered financially from unfair videos that are less about protecting animals than persuading consumers to stop eating meat.

Don Lehe, a Republican state representative from a rural district in Indiana, said online videos can cast farmers in a false light and give them little opportunity to correct the record.

“That property owner is essentially guilty before they had the chance to address the issue,” Mr. Lehe said.

These "activists" are causing demonstrable harm and ignorance of the harm you cause is no excuse. It's called negligence. If they didn't realize it, I'm sorry for them. Right?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to admit that I've just kind of been assuming that Dems aren't bought by Big Agriculture money. But I suppose it's possible that both parties are. I know there are some industries which just pay off everyone, but I can't remember specifically which ones.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
I'm going to admit that I've just kind of been assuming that Dems aren't bought by Big Agriculture money. But I suppose it's possible that both parties are. I know there are some industries which just pay off everyone, but I can't remember specifically which ones.

All of them big enough to do it. The answer is all of them. If they don't have the ability to pay off everyone yet, they will as soon as they can get the government to identify them as a winner in the marketplace.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These "activists" are causing demonstrable harm and ignorance of the harm you cause is no excuse. It's called negligence. If they didn't realize it, I'm sorry for them. Right?
This is the part I take issue with. If the farms can show that the videos are slander rather than a fair representation then the issue of harm is relevent. Otherwise it is a whistleblower issue and their financial problem is a result of their own business practices.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you just support them being felonies but don't object to it or to mere misdemeanors either. [Roll Eyes] Hair splitting.
[Shug] I think murder should have a penalty, vandalism should have a penalty, and random destruction of property--even from a balloon--should have a penalty. If that is hair-splitting to you, fine. I wouldn't even know how to start arguing with that. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
The owners were directly harmed by this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the egg supplier, which operates in Iowa and other states, lost one of its biggest customers, McDonald’s, which said the video played a part in its decision.

<snip>

Livestock companies say that their businesses have suffered financially from unfair videos that are less about protecting animals than persuading consumers to stop eating meat.

Don Lehe, a Republican state representative from a rural district in Indiana, said online videos can cast farmers in a false light and give them little opportunity to correct the record.

“That property owner is essentially guilty before they had the chance to address the issue,” Mr. Lehe said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These "activists" are causing demonstrable harm and ignorance of the harm you cause is no excuse. It's called negligence. If they didn't realize it, I'm sorry for them. Right?

I would make a distinction between direct destruction of property (as from mylar balloons) and indirect destruction based on truthful information.

Taking photos does not, in and of itself, cause any damage. Mylar balloons, OTOH, released into the atmosphere, DO cause actual and substantial damage.

Furthermore, if the aforementioned videos caused harm to the owners, wouldn't libel laws cover them? We have Free Speech, but you are not protected if you tell lies about someone. You can be held liable. These laws should protect the farmers from actual harm.

And if you convince someone to not eat meat, isn't that simply persuation? Wouldn't that make just about everything we do here a terrorist act? [Eek!]

If these are the reasons for this felony--this "terrorist act!" [Eek!] --then it is an excellent example of government going boinkers. This is a good reason we need to restrain the government from passing laws willy-nilly. This is stupid.

Mylar balloons, that regularly cause damage, sometimes in the thousands of dollars, sometimes in a life-threatening manner--hardly. After all, G3, even you agree that mylar balloons released into the air cause damage. Why shouldn't destructive behavior have some penalty associated with it?

(OTOH, if you are saying that the law is fine, but that anyone who takes tapes should not be prosecuted because they are ignorant of the law, well, that's another discussion. [Smile] )

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
These "activists" are causing demonstrable harm and ignorance of the harm you cause is no excuse. It's called negligence. If they didn't realize it, I'm sorry for them. Right?
This is the part I take issue with. If the farms can show that the videos are slander rather than a fair representation then the issue of harm is relevent. Otherwise it is a whistleblower issue and their financial problem is a result of their own business practices.
I'm playing devil's advocate on most of this but ...

I think the point is that these recordings get released and the farms are determined guilty in the court of public opinion and by their customers before any kind of actual facts can get in the way.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mylar balloons, that regularly cause damage, sometimes in the thousands of dollars, sometimes in a life-threatening manner--hardly. After all, G3, even you agree that mylar balloons released into the air cause damage. Why shouldn't destructive behavior have some penalty associated with it?"

Civil negligence is a penalty, and that requires no new law nor extension of polution laws.

If the matter's serious enough to warrant criminal sanctions, then it should be illegal to fill mylar balloons with helium in the first place. That law would protect property, reduce destruction incidents, and end up with fewer persons in prison as well. And since mylar balloons are manufactured in China, and since helium is more in demand than in supply, the law I proposed wouldn't hurt our economy, either.

Nevertheless, the distinction between misdemeanor and felony status is huge.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm playing devil's advocate on most of this but ...

I think the point is that these recordings get released and the farms are determined guilty in the court of public opinion and by their customers before any kind of actual facts can get in the way. "

Since you are playing devil's advocate, I take it that you do recognize the moral problems with asking the government to protect us from public opinion. [Smile] isn't that basically the argument over the marriage word in the SSM argument -- that the government has an affirmative obligation to force people to think fairly?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you should use genetically modified foods bucking the GM label as unfair and them wanting equal treatment on the store shelves for your comparison instead of a whistleblower vs. slander issue when it comes to big food Pete. [Smile]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been contemplating DW's response for a couple days, and I still don't get it. DW's jokes are usually funny, so would somebody please explain it to me?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
This is like a microcosm of problematic legislative response to terror. I do consider PETA a terrorist group and understand why they are a problem for farmers (big or small--I know a family whose small mink farm was targeted by PETA. Long story short they'll stop at very little to make their point). This is in no way the right way to deal with that problem.

PETA are heading in the direction of terrorism. But to my knowledge they have never crossed the line to actually threatening or harming anyone physically. Let alone kidnapping, harming, or threatening "innocents," which is the touchstone of actual terrorism. Furthermore, the proposed law here isn't set up to prevent violence or destruction of property. What it's set up to do, is to prevent public awareness of cruelty.

Those who make such laws are a new species of 9/11 hijacker. Folks that hijack 9/11 and the war on terror to make war on fellow citizens that they find inconvenient.

PETA has been involved with groups like the ANimal Liberation Front which are eco-terrorists including contributing financially to the defense of convited arsonits Rodney Coronado.

That said, ecoterrorits aren't big on murder, kidnapping ect and it's a bit insane to lump ALF in with Al Queda.

[ April 23, 2013, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that destruction of property, in itself, can reasonably be called terrorism. At a very minimum, terrorism has to create a perception that an innocent (i.e. noncombatant) is actually in physical danger.

If a group is out to protect trees from cutting, someone who cuts down trees is arguably a combatant, neh?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since you are playing devil's advocate, I take it that you do recognize the moral problems with asking the government to protect us from public opinion. isn't that basically the argument over the marriage word in the SSM argument -- that the government has an affirmative obligation to force people to think fairly?
Then...
quote:
I think you should use genetically modified foods bucking the GM label as unfair and them wanting equal treatment on the store shelves for your comparison instead of a whistle-blower vs. slander issue when it comes to big food Pete.
Two products, SSM vs. "marriage" and then GM foods vs. natural foods. I see the label or prefix to the labels being the problem from the point of view of the group having this prefix added. SSM would rather just be marriage. Genetically modified foods would rather be seen as just foods. It was more of a critique than a joke really.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not much of either. [Frown] Hand a GM tomato to someone who doesn't know what GM is, and it's still food. It would be more like GM foods wanting to be labeled as unmodified.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
vs. natural that's what I said. [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1