Aug
14
What about killing an Indian farmer just because he is poor and cannot afford a tractor to plough his farm? What about some animal rights activist attacks that farmer just because ‘he’ thinks that the farmer is exploiting the bulls which he uses for ploughing his fields?
What about the animal rights activists who bombs and threatens to kill scientists just because scientists are involved with researches on mouse?[1]
Vlasak said the bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim, but were instead “trying to send a message to this guy, who won’t listen to reason, that if he doesn’t stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken … it’s certainly not an initial tactic, but a tactic of last resort.”
Last week in America at CA, the animal rights activists bombed two UC Santa Cruz biologists; they exploded the car of one of the scientists and bombed the house of other scientist which caused him some minor injuries while he was trying to safeguard his family against the attack.
Obviously such an attack on a researcher or scientist whose work includes introducing genes into living mouse brains, and is aimed at understanding how brain connections form during development, with special focus on the visual system and is important to learn how to fix these connections after damage due to injury or disease is reprehensible. After all it will be we, the beneficiaries of such researches and scientific discoveries, won’t we be?
It is not surprising when supporters of animal ‘rights’ use violence and intimidation, because their cause is fundamentally anti-human and it is almost as similar to the attacks of religious bigots and terrorists attacking people whole round the world for some anti-human cause or other.
Animal rights activists assert that their purpose is to stop superfluous suffering inflicted on animals for no reason. But that is just a false smokescreen. They fight against such benign practices as keeping animals in circuses and zoos, or even as pets — no matter how well-loved and well-cared-for they are. To worsen things, they oppose the use of animals in scientific research, no matter how compassionately they are treated and no matter how many lives could be saved from the medical advances this makes possible.
And all this happens because of the false notion that animals have ‘rights’. But the concept of ‘rights’ properly only applies to rational beings, who can recognize and respect the rights of others and who can defend their rights by rational means. In the name of the imagined ‘rights’ of animals, they have no hesitation about assaulting the actual rights of individual people.
It is a mistake to regard these criminals as ‘extremists’ who are hijacking an otherwise valid cause. It is the cause of animal ‘rights,’ itself that is vicious and anti-human.
More alarming fact is these animals’ rights activists pose themselves as some extremely compassionate people who are trying to raise some sensible cause to save some breeds and the environment. While trying so, they almost ignores the ecological truths and even don’t flinch from attacking the very personal rights of citizens. What if people be banned or attacked or criticised from public places just because they are non-vegetarians?
By their misleading and corrupt notes and emotional appeals at one hand they try to cajole the public for their unwarranted causes to support for animals rights but what they forget is, they keep on infringing the individual rights of very human beings which surely have an authority or rational faculty on their own to decide for themselves about what they will wear, or eat or will work for.
The attack on the researches at CA is not only reprehensible but it is alarming about the dangers of the new version of terrorism against humanity, the terrorism of animal rights activists. Footnotes:
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Animal Rights Activists-the Terrorists”
Leave a Reply
Tracy Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 5:28 am“the animal rights activists bombed two UC Santa Cruz biologists”
Really? So they’ve arrested them, tried them and convicted them? No. No arrests have been made. What you’re reporting is mere speculation and does a disservice to your readers and to truth, in general.
renegade_division Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am@Tracy
Animal Rights Group Admits to Santa Cruz Firebombings
I hardly think those two UC SC biologists were firebombed by their girlfriends, angry husbands whose wives they are sleeping with, Al Queda terrorists who believe UCSC biologists are insulting Allah.
Chandria Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pmAnimal rights. This is normally a subject that stirs up quite a debate. For me i feel testing on animals so i can colour my hair or change how i look is wrong. If we hate our appearance so much then we can hide this quickly and cheaply. Buy a paper bag cut a few hole and stick it over our heads. Problem solved. Then we move on to testing new drugs, making sure things like what side affects their could be, but how can they truly say that drugs that worked on animals are safe for us. Their is a piece in this blog written about this :- http://www.reasonforliberty.com/humanism/bioethics-medical-experiments-and-the-case-of-tgn1412.html It is about a experiment that went very wrong here in the UK. I know some blame was laid at the feet of the people it affected, but i suppose they believed that the drug was safe. After all you can’t just go out and find people to test potions on. I can’t go out and mix together a load of herbs and say can i test it on some people, it may kill them but, it would not be allowed, but i wonder has this ever happened before. Here it made the papers for weeks, but say this happened in a poorer country. A big company offering money to maybe a poor farmer who can’t feed his family. You could even give him test reports on the drug, but if they can’t read then. It maybe seen as a way to get money quick, and if it goes wrong, it probably wouldn’t take much to keep the family quiet, and if it got out it probably in many countries be unimportant. But what possibilities. If they die you can find out why. Their will be a time when the only way to test is by using humans. We are changing and evolving, and the animals we test on are changing too, they may even one day build their own immunity to these diseases, but i suppose while these debates go on and maybe even the companies encourage these debates, that these company’s maybe using human Guinea pigs, and the experiment that went wrong here maybe a lot more common then we think. Money has a loud voice to people who have none