DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

ALF to target students?!

468 posts / 0 new
Last post
Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 30 2006 14:58
Ghost_of_the_revolution wrote:
The university is rich and therefore gives not one toss for their average undergraduate, far less their average worker, when there's lucrative drug money to be made by butchering monkeys.

But if they have to kill students, could i ask that they kill only BA students? There's far too many of them in the world today and they piss me off with their self-righteousness and topshop/hippy uniforms.

cry

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 14:59

Hi

For the love of man, I've already "taken back" my hurtful remarks to the mighty JDMF.

Now…

Quote:
He's one of the minority of AR types who don't hate humanity

“Not hating humanity” is not enough. Why aren’t these protesters attacking benefit snoopers? Why do the animals come first?

Quote:
could i ask that they kill only BA students?

Reformist.

Love

LR

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 30 2006 15:05

i guess in the absence of "them" LR wants to let off steam against me - eventhough i already condemned this particular communique. If i wouldn't be here, he would just attack someone with a dog...

Anyways, if anyone is interested in discussing whats behind this kind of actions, i think it is symptomatic of a group mentality which splits issues into smaller and smaller pieces while losing the bigger picture.

What i mean is that first you stop analysing and thinking about the root causes of an issue which you are concerned about, in this case modern treatment of animals. So you dont look into cultural issues, capitalism, connectedness with other issues etc, but only focus on animal issues. You then slice that even further into an area which you are passionate about, be it fur industry, captive animals, or in this case vivisection.

You then slice it even further and do not even think of a strategy of ending vivisection, but just care and obsess about the current campaign you are involved in, be it HLS, Newchurch or in this case Oxford lab.

And it is this tunnel vision which makes very, very bad strategy and politics, and is damaging in the long term. No, i'll change that: is damaging from the outset. You do whatever it takes to reach the goal of the campaign you get involved in, at any cost, at any damage to yourself, the "movement", the whole idea of animals being wirthy of moral consideration etc, you just want to shut this one place down and get that one victory.

The core group of people who have been working like this have had many "successes" - if you count these individual breeding facilities as a success. Many in the movement think though that this is not the way to go, and see it as damaging as it is...

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Jan 30 2006 15:05
Lazy_Riser wrote:
The idea that inconveniencing working class people for the sake of animals is better than just killing them is liberal though. It’s just a question of degree, the crime is the same.

Hey,

I think your arguments, echoing your screen-name, are languid, lethargic, somnolent, inert, slothful and limp. You've repeated yourself constantly on this topic, and if not's merely a natural, middle-aged habit then it'd probably be a good idea to express yourself without anesthetised droning, ie. lay off the drugs, maaan. Feel free to explain how people like myself and JDMF are indistinguishable from the few, 'extremists' advocating violent personal attacks and, indeed, how working-class action for a positive and radical change is in any way liberal -'cos I think we're both pretty sure on this. Finally for that matter, why should greater recognition of the nature of animals as animals, rather than as commodities, be inherently against 'working-class' or human demands?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 15:45

Hi

Quote:
guess in the absence of "them" LR wants to let off steam against me

For the last time, I take it back. I think you’ll find you’ve “let off steam” more often on those kind enough to vivisect animals for me than I ever have on you. Or do you frown on shouting at scientists as well as killing them? What do you think is acceptable in terms of inconvenience and disruption for a few lab rats? Your analysis of the animal rightist mind-set looks fine to me, by the way.

Quote:
indeed, how working-class action for a positive and radical change is in any way liberal

What “working-class action for a positive and radical change” in connection with animal rights are you thinking of? If you can find some, I’ll concede they’re acceptable.

Quote:
why should greater recognition of the nature of animals as animals, rather than as commodities, be inherently against 'working-class' or human demands?

It isn’t. But recognising “animals as animals” doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be vivisected.

Love

LR

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 30 2006 16:11

I'd rather be inconvenianced than blown up, to be honest. Most days.

And saying "workers" should never be inconvenianced for an animal, ever, cos it's the same as blowing up a worker, is a bit silly. Much as I love workers and everything, and have very little sympathy with the ALF.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 16:23

Hi

Quote:
I'd rather be inconvenianced than blown up, to be honest. Most days.

So how much inconvenience is acceptable then? When does pro-animal action suddenly become legitimate? Mild violence, obstruction, exercise, a penny on the pound in tax?

Quote:
And saying "workers" should never be inconvenianced for an animal, ever, cos it's the same as blowing up a worker, is a bit silly.

It’s not. What’s “silly” is the notion that there's a moral difference between one way of causing unpleasant disruption and another.

Love

LR

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 30 2006 16:57

so having a picket outside a place of work is same than killing people?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 30 2006 17:08
Ghost_of_the_revolution wrote:
But if they have to kill students, could i ask that they kill only BA students? There's far too many of them in the world today and they piss me off with their self-righteousness and topshop/hippy uniforms.

I'll have you know I shop in Primark :mad:

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Jan 30 2006 17:57

sorry JDMF. I meant to write more than just "sick" but was at work so had to get offline quick wink

Quote:
i think it is symptomatic of a group mentality which splits issues into smaller and smaller pieces while losing the bigger picture.

yes i agree with this plus it always brings me out in a rash anyway when people use words like death camp and evil. i think its from having these words shouted at me when i worked in an abortion clinic. the rhetoric of the people who wrote that email and presumeably also those who advertise it on their website is the same as those who threaten staff in abortion clinics. the "evil" to me is the inability to see that it is crazy to threaten to blow students, delivery people etc etc from the face of the earth and their rhetoric only further alienates the majority of people from the concerns they hold. its a form of "high" moral judgemental stupidity. the fear created by the acts of violence does shut down labs but it is no real victory for their cause. i'd be interested to know why they haven't extended their campaign to schoolkids in biology lessons. after all, they get to dissect mice and frogs. do they recognise some form of barrier to the call "for the animals" or is your average high school pupil also a legitimate target? theres no difference between that or a student in a university.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 30 2006 18:09

*reads thread properly*

LazyRiser, are you seriously arguing that death is nothing more than an inconvenience? confused

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 30 2006 18:33
lucy82 wrote:
the "evil" to me is the inability to see that it is crazy to threaten to blow students, delivery people etc etc from the face of the earth and their rhetoric only further alienates the majority of people from the concerns they hold. its a form of "high" moral judgemental stupidity. the fear created by the acts of violence does shut down labs but it is no real victory for their cause.

very true. It boils down to the strategy, or the lack of it and how one defines a "victory".

Personally I dont think vivisection will end as long as 800+ million animals are used annually in agriculture just for dietary culture reasons. I mean if you eat 80-90 animals per year out of habit, why not use few rodents for product testing and development? So while I sometimes do take part in the demos against some facility or some other kind of anti-vivisection picket, i dont really see them as a good way to make progress in the way animals are being treated today.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 30 2006 18:43
lucy82 wrote:
i'd be interested to know why they haven't extended their campaign to schoolkids in biology lessons. after all, they get to dissect mice and frogs. do they recognise some form of barrier to the call "for the animals" or is your average high school pupil also a legitimate target? theres no difference between that or a student in a university.

This campaign is specifically targetted at the university because it's the uni that's building the labs and the uni that will be using them for research, I believe. Although in general I get what you mean. I suppose a one-off event like a lab being built is more publicity-worthy than a high school bio class. And I'm not sure how many people would support attacking children.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 19:29

Hi

Quote:
so having a picket outside a place of work is same than killing people?

Depends what side you’re on. I imagine I’d tolerate the killing of some scabs and cops for pleasure, certainly.

Quote:
LazyRiser, are you seriously arguing that death is nothing more than an inconvenience?

That’s nothing comrade, I’ve just run this past a “normal” person and they reckon “death is just one of those things, like anyone gives a toss about what happens after they’re dead”. My death would be of paramount inconvenience to me, Mr Cameron’s, say, would not.

Quote:
So while I sometimes do take part in the demos against some facility or some other kind of anti-vivisection picket, i dont really see them as a good way to make progress in the way animals are being treated today.

So why do it? Show me one step at a time comrade, do you believe that “rights” (as in “human rights”) represent a viable political starting point?

Love

LR

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 30 2006 19:37

Grace and myself watched them, then phoned Jack, then called them cocks, then watches the horseback police wander around. (horses are fun)

I think it's hilarious, we were reading their banners whilst they were shouting abuse - some of them were hilarious. I really can't remember what they said but you'd actually "lol" if you saw them.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 30 2006 19:38
Lazy Riser wrote:
That’s nothing comrade, I’ve just run this past a “normal” person and they reckon “death is just one of those things, like anyone gives a toss about what happens after they’re dead”. My death would be of paramount inconvenience to me, Mr Cameron’s, say, would not.

I can see what you're getting at, but killing someone and incoveniencing them (in the sense most people use it) are not the same thing.

E.g. Slipping ahead of somebody in the que for the bar at Glastonbury is not very nice, and it inconveniences them, stabbing them to death to get to the bar, on the other hand, is somewhat worse.

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 30 2006 19:40
Lazy Riser wrote:
That’s nothing comrade, I’ve just run this past a “normal” person and they reckon “death is just one of those things, like anyone gives a toss about what happens after they’re dead”. My death would be of paramount inconvenience to me, Mr Cameron’s, say, would not.

That's the thing though, once you're dead you have no conciousness so you wouldn't be aware you're dead and therefore death is nothing to fear because fear wouldn't exist when you're dead. Personally I'd prefer to stay alive as long as I can but there's always the positive side to death which you can think about wink

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 19:43

Hi

Quote:
Slipping ahead of somebody in the que for the bar at Glastonbury is not very nice, and it inconveniences them, stabbing them to death to get to the bar, on the other hand, is somewhat worse.

Are you saying life is sacred? To me, murder is just extreme hostility.

Love

LR

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 30 2006 19:48
Fatty wrote:
I think it's hilarious, we were reading their banners whilst they were shouting abuse - some of them were hilarious. I really can't remember what they said but you'd actually "lol" if you saw them.

Animal testing causes cancer. And it caused people to get deformed by thalydomide. Yes it did.

And don't embarrass me by saying "lol" on here, you obese monstrosity.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 30 2006 20:43

Another interesting Animal rights thread.

How many working class people are there at Oxford by the way?

I've not many any, met lots of liberal apologists and bankers.

These are the next generation of oppressors, personally I think any serious w/c organisation should assassinate university students en masse.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 30 2006 20:52

Cock. roll eyes

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 30 2006 21:11
Grace wrote:
Fatty wrote:
I think it's hilarious, we were reading their banners whilst they were shouting abuse - some of them were hilarious. I really can't remember what they said but you'd actually "lol" if you saw them.

Animal testing causes cancer. And it caused people to get deformed by thalydomide. Yes it did.

And don't embarrass me by saying "lol" on here, you obese monstrosity.

Hah, yes that was it

"ANIMAL TESTING CAUSES CANCER!"

Also, screw you, dwarf girl.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 30 2006 21:13
Grace wrote:
Cock

Don't see how.

I don't think an attack on Oxford students can really be taken as an attack on the working class.

edit: Fatty was too quick for me.

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Jan 30 2006 21:15

It can, however, be taken as utterly pointless, antisocial and stupid. Especially as we have no choice about whether they build the labs and had, as far as I'm aware, no part in deciding to embark on the project.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 30 2006 21:18

That's true.

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 30 2006 21:18

That always did confuse me, how can Ox students have the finger pointed at them when they wouldn't be aware of what's going on and don't have any real involvement with the animal testing projects? Also, there's nothing the students could do to stop animal testing from happening - they could join the animal protestors but that's all they could do. It's not as if they can do more damage from the inside and stop animal testing.

I think it's a pretty stupid idea to place Oxford students (or anyone affiliated with the university) in the most wanted category.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 30 2006 21:27

It's the desperate focus on one victory as JDMF said earlier.

Oxford needs pharmaceutical money, but it also needs hefty fees from international students. If they decide to plump for Cambridge or a London Uni then Oxford could be placed under very severe pressure and capitulate. Honestly if some ALF nut does chin a student then he'll be inside pretty quickly and there aren't many replacements.

I think its more of a scare tactic than anything else. For one it'll mean Oxford has to boost its security budget even more.

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 30 2006 21:29

Whilst you're talking about international students - I don't support you know how universities approach international students i.e. do they get prioritised due to the financial income from the universities points of view? Do they get exceptions? (in terms of grades etc.)

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 30 2006 21:39

I read a piece by a postgrad at my work, I'd have been slaughtered if I'd handed in an undergrad piece that bad. I think it depends on the integrity of the department staff. At my uni they take loads of kids fom America in the English dept. which is consequently rich, although they do tend to be fairly good (in terms of workrate).

Its hard to say but when the budgets are squeezed...

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 30 2006 21:41

Hi

I urge you comrades. Animals are not the issue. Working Class Autonomy is the goal. The notion that "animal rights" has a positive role to play in the development of a working class political theory capable of toppling capitalism and moving us all forward is wholly reactionary and continues to earn us nothing but defeat.

Love

LR