Saturday October 25, 2008, 4:32 pm

I live in Birmingham. I well remember the bombing of the New Woman Clinic about ten years ago - I live about a mile away. Where one person died - and nurse Emily Lyons was blinded and disfigured for life.

And the bomber was making a political statement - by sowing murder, fear, and anguish.

And I have absolutely no doubt about whether or not his actions were terroristic. None at all.

Saturday October 25, 2008, 4:39 pm
Yes, Lindsey. This picture is from that bombing. Could any sane person parse away this definition of people who kill other people for doing something they don't like? She just doesn't want her base, her pals, to be defined into the same category as other religious extremists.

Saturday October 25, 2008, 5:04 pm
they need to hang her from a tree and let the a nimals gfet her

Saturday October 25, 2008, 5:07 pm
Of course she doesn't, Clever. "Terrorism" is, to some, what OTHER people do.

But terrorism it remains - whether committed by an American or by Al Qaida.

I may understand WHY some people are so committed to the anti-abortion movement that they might feel justified in killing others to try and end what they see as state-sanctioned murder (though I am and always have been pro-choice). But it is still terroristic murder.

Saturday October 25, 2008, 5:32 pm
I'm with you, Honeysucklebarb, we should hang this crazy bitch from a tree and let the animals use her as a pinata! Thank you Clever! Noted!

Saturday October 25, 2008, 9:07 pm
"Kill [him/her]!" is not something we want people to hear our side say out loud. When they call for Obama to be assassinated at Palin's rallies it does wonders for his polls. Let's not do wonders for hers or get anyone arrested (at least not before you've voted).

Saturday October 25, 2008, 10:40 pm

It's bad enough that these "people" will threaten and bomb abortion
clinics, but many times these places are clinics that provide other
services such as low cost gynecological health care, contraceptives
and even infertility treatment.

Perhaps Sarah would rather the term "cold blooded murderers and
would-be-murderers"!!!

(I'm with you too honeysuckle.)

Thank you Clever.

Saturday October 25, 2008, 10:53 pm
I'm just shaking my head at this one. Wonder what her name for it would be? Maybe she should speak to Emily Lyons.... Thanks Clever P.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 12:14 am
She is a joke. Every stupid thing that comes out of her mouth is a feeble attempt to feather her own nest and serve her own horrific agenda in some sick way. The good thing is that the American public and the rest of the world haven't taken too long to see her true evil and selfish nature.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 1:40 am
Her view of anything, is so off the wall. if she can't tell the difference between the two. If McCain & (McPain) get elected the US is doomed! Hey, Global Warming will increase at a much faster pace. because they will be burning all the books. & blowing up the Abortion Clinics. We will be going back to the Dark Ages. I wish the Wolves would hunt her down, & give her a taste of her own medicine.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 2:56 am
"Wonder what her name for it would be?"
Heroes.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 3:51 am
Honeysuckle's dream

Sunday October 26, 2008, 9:40 am
no, I suppose you're only a terrorist if you bomb to rescue animals. she continues to make an ass of herself. the people who bomb the clinics have done it while there are others inside the clinics. some have died during these bombings, but this narrow minded country is bothering hunting down animal liberators who have harmed no one.
on the verge of cussing here, ty CP

Sunday October 26, 2008, 9:51 am
ty, Sheila!

Sunday October 26, 2008, 10:05 am
I don't know how anyone could condone bombing clinics. It is definitely domestic terriorism.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 11:03 am
Noted and thanks Clever!

Sunday October 26, 2008, 11:15 am

Folks, folks a little restraint please. Is it domestic terrorism? Of course it is. Is Sarah Palin a true republican nutwing? Of course she is. Is she a real dunderhead? Absolutely.

But let's now lower ourselves to their level by calling her names or calling for a hanging. Clever is right, we need to play it by the book these last few days before the election and not give them any help at all.

Thanks Clever.............

Sunday October 26, 2008, 12:32 pm
A sad day when a candidate for national office can't be truthful about clinic bombings and extremism of any type. If she has such poor judgement and shoots from the hip so much of the time I can not believe that people would really vote for this ticket. She scares me. There is a wonderful Cheryl Wheeler song that comes to mind. "Frequently Wrong and Never in Doubt" Perhaps they should play that song at their campaign appearances.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 12:50 pm

Mary Ellen, and everyone else, if she scares you here check this news article out:


http://www.care2.com/news/member/591288772/924232

Sunday October 26, 2008, 1:47 pm
I've been reading some blogs and comments on other sites from people who support Palin. They are very frightening people. 'Palin will bring righteousness back to the Us', and Palin walks the path of godliness."
I am just shaking my head.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 2:10 pm
Palin's hesitation was very obvious, but it didn't seem to get the attention it deserved in the mainstream media. It's clear she is empathetic with anti-abortion extremists, to the extent of excusing violence on behalf of their position. She is far more dangerous than the surface Palin shows--there's a fanaticism just below the surface of this fiesty, smiling "socker mom"! Very scary lady! It is CRITICAL that Barack Obama win this election! If he doesn't we're in serious trouble. Diane W.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 3:15 pm
She just sickens me with her phoniness I wish when they bought her a new wardrobe they would have bought her a gag! She says she is Pro Life but will kill animals, life is life whether a human or an animal, bombing the Pentagon is a terrorist act & so is bombing an abortion clinic. Someone please get her a dictionary so she will know what an act of terrorism means!
She is spreading such hatred & yet calls herself a Christian, again she needs the dictionary & Mc Cain stands by praising her ( he calls it praising her , I call it defending }. He has jumped on the evil bandwagon with her.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 3:33 pm
I remember all those bombings and they weren't to particular as to who they hurt. Some women were going into the OB/GYN doctor, not for an abortion. I can't even fathom the idea of killing people to protect a fetus. Killing to stop killing. Where the hell is the sense? Palin is a mess and should just go home. I say let Alaska withdraw from the Union and let's see where she will get the money to run the state. I am afraid for the animals however. And of course she "looks away" from bombing a clinic and thinks nothing of letting them shoot 14 wolf pups. Amazing

Sunday October 26, 2008, 4:01 pm
Palin seems to generally have a very peculiar view of the world, so this doesn't surprise me. Executing wolf pups? Withholding condoms so teenage pregnancy soars? Cheering supporters on to say "Kill Obama"? All these are OK in "The World According to Palin". It's a sick place....thanks, Clever.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 5:24 pm
From The American division:

What is known, however, is that Ms. Palin has had long associations with religious leaders who practice a particularly assertive and urgent brand of Pentecostalism known as “spiritual warfare.”

Its adherents believe that demonic forces can colonize specific geographic areas and individuals, and that “spiritual warriors” must “battle” them to assert God’s control, using prayer and evangelism. The movement’s fixation on demons, its aggressiveness and its leaders’ claims to exalted spiritual authority have troubled even some Pentecostal Christians.

Ms. Palin delivered an enthusiastic graduation speech for a class of young spiritual warriors in June at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church in which she was raised.

As governor, Ms. Palin appointed Patrick Donelson, a pastor and fishing guide who helped found a spiritual warfare ministry, to the only seat reserved for members of the clergy on the state’s Suicide Prevention Council.

Bishop Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan preacher shown on the YouTube video anointing her as she ran for governor, is celebrated internationally as an effective spiritual warrior who led a prayer movement that drove a witch out of his town in Kenya. The removal of the witch, Bishop Muthee says, resulted in a drop in crime, alcoholism and traffic accidents.

Religious leaders in Alaska, including Mr. Donelson, declined interviews, with several saying they had been told by the McCain-Palin campaign not to talk to members of the news media.

Russell P. Spittler, provost emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., and an eminent scholar of Pentecostalism, said, “Most Christians would accept the view that there are forces and powers in the world that oppose Christian virtues.” But, Mr. Spittler added, “Spiritual warfare makes a religion of identifying demons by names and ZIP codes.”

Y'mean, like, "Beelzebub, 07078?"

Critics say the goal of the spiritual warfare movement is to create a theocracy. Bruce Wilson, a researcher for Talk2Action, a Web site that tracks religious groups, said: “One of the imperatives
of the movement is to achieve worldly power, including political control. Then you can more effectively drive out the demons. The ultimate goal is to purify the earth.”

The article does assure us that it sounds scarier than it is. After the
brouhaha over Terri Schiavo, which included a confrontation between the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the local sheriff, that is no reassurance at all.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
This really gets me. If she got into office she'd set us back years. What is scary is they are saying she will be back in 4 years. We will have to knock her back down, if she tries crawling up to the White House again. I am hoping she goes the way of Quayle and is not heard from again.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 9:01 pm
Decades. If she loses this election, I hope Alaska will have the self-respect to recall her. She is such an embarrassment and exponentially more hypocritical than anyone knew before McShame chose her as his limpingmate. Granted he knew or should have known enough about her to avoid her (like all his campaign 'help'), but my god, she's worse than we could have imagined.

Sunday October 26, 2008, 10:00 pm
I am afraid if she goes back to Alaska, she will do irreperable damage to the wilderness and wildlife there.

I saw a photo of her carrying a tote bag that had the despicable motto "Real women hunt moose.' printed on it. Hunting is a cruel and cowardly practice and I don't understand why it is allowed to run rampant in this day and age when animals should be fiercely protected. Aren't there enough threats to their existence already?

I live in Australia and we are not of the same mind-set about the right to bear arms as some Americans seem to be, so that whole pandering to the gun lobby attitiude leaves me cold.

Anyway, I read another disturbing article about the High Priestess of Cruelty. Every recreational pursuit that family is involved in is terribly damaging to the environment: hunting, dog-sledding, snow-mobiling etc. Even the books she reads to her children are about the cruel and heartless practice of dog-sledding. I love dogs and feel their only job should be as pets for kind and compassionate people, not for dragging around the carcasses of white people who claim (pretend) to be Eskimos.

I know it is just a trashy celebrity worshipping magazine but you can read the article here:

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/news/26102008/sarah-palin-my-wedding-hope-bristol.html

Monday October 27, 2008, 3:18 am
Thanks clever and noted! Even the fact that she could be vice president let alone president is one of the scariest things I have ever known!!!

Monday October 27, 2008, 10:09 am
it would seem Gov Palins oars don't get far enough in the water to move her boat....!!!!!

Monday October 27, 2008, 10:25 am
Ya, Mike and her biscuts aren't all the way done either. And she's a few bricks short of a load too!

Monday October 27, 2008, 11:15 am
Ya, Mike and she is not the brightest bulb on the string or the sharpest tool in the shed!!!!!!!and she has got four or five kids, the last one may not be hers but her daughters? some guys will do anything for sex!!!!!!!!!!

Monday October 27, 2008, 12:15 pm
And not all the burners on her stove get real hot...

Monday October 27, 2008, 12:47 pm
It must be above her pay grade :P

Monday October 27, 2008, 1:28 pm
Marty, I'm with ya! Very scary. Sharp as a cotton puff. There's nothing in the attic but cobwebs;Not the sharpest knife in the drawer;Cruises the misinformation superhighway; Couldn't empty water out of a bucket with the instructions printed on the bottom;Always gets the better deal in any exchange of ideas;Has no communicable ideas;The last one out of the starting gate;The starting gate is open, but she's still asking directions.
If she were any dimmer, she'd have to be watered twice a week. If you gave her a penny for her thoughts, you'd get change;Thinks "Middle East" means Virginia and Maryland.

Monday October 27, 2008, 1:43 pm
Hmmm, but would readily call animal activists "Terrorists" I will bet.

Monday October 27, 2008, 5:22 pm

THE MARROBCASTLE EFFECT

Much has been said and written about the Brady Effect (voters who will not vote for a black man under any circumstances but are afraid to say so) and the effect that it will have in this election. Little has been said or written about the voters who will not vote for a macho-woman (macho - having or characterized by qualities considered manly, esp. when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way. 2. having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.) Women in the working place, wherever that might be, have proven that they do not have to give up the qualities for which women have been loved and revered throughout the ages, mainly compassion, in order to make their contribution to our country’s health, wealth, and security.

A necessary but not sufficient attribute of a candidate is his or her ability to perform the functions of the office he or she seeks. A person’s race is irrelevant but a person’s character as demonstrated by his or her actions, past and present, is.

Monday October 27, 2008, 9:36 pm
Clever, you just crack me up!!!! I can not stop laughing!!! Brilliant! Simply brilliant!
Justice for the animal kingdom!!!

Monday October 27, 2008, 10:03 pm
She doesn't know? How then could she serve as Vice President, let alone President, if she can't understand such a simple concept.

I suppose though, it's par for the course, it's never called terrorism when it's done to further Bush Co.'s goals, our bombs are much more civilized. 9/11 doesn't count, because we're not supposed to know it was Bush Co. performing the "service" for the PNAC crowd, so see, that we can call terrorism.

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 10:38 am
And she calls herself pro-life....

Hypocrite! She is nothing but a religious fanatic.

Here are some facts about palin:

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html#postComment

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 12:27 pm
I learned what seems an eternity ago from Regan and Central America, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 12:38 pm

While that may be true in these politically-correct times of always trying to see the enemy's point of view, Locan, we are looking at the situation from a law-abiding society's point of view - that abortion is legal and our laws say that you can't bomb an abortion clinic and kill people just because you are against abortion.

Our society (including most anti-abortionists) and our legal system condemn these actions and these people are terrorists.

In a similar vein, I may applaud the Animal Liberation Front when it breaks into mink farms and liberates minks destined for fur coats; however, I recognize that the ALF's actions are in many cases terroristic, that this is against the law and I support these people being prosecuted and convicted for their crimes. To do otherwise would be to encourage living in anarchy, where each person is free to legally terrorize others based upon his own personal view of the rightness or wrongness of any given situation.

We can't live like that.

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 4:30 pm
Thanks, Cid M. Very interesting reading. There's a question on the Grizzly Bay website that asks: "Are there too many wolves in Alaska?" I think the real question is: "Are there too many Palins in Alaska?" And the answer is an unequivocal 'YES'.

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 4:35 pm
OMG you all crack me up....too funny the responses....Did I say real women dont vote Palin???....lol...just teasing my palin lovers...

Big Gorilly Hugs

Tuesday October 28, 2008, 5:01 pm
That's why the Reich-wing loves that Oil-Slick Sarah, she doesn't KNOW a terrorist until They Tell Her!;)

Wednesday October 29, 2008, 6:28 am
Allow me to disagree on this one: you call the activities of the Animal Liberation Front terrorist actions! I call liberating minks who are skinned alive, suffocated and electrocuted, justice!

Think about this: if you knew (but had no proof) children were being held prisoners inside a farm and being abused, and that you were able to go in there and release them, would you do it? But then again, you would be trespassing and that's against the law!!

If no one is harmed I support those kinds of actions! It's better to brake the law and do the right thing, than just let those poor animals be tortured and murdered in horrible ways so that some slut can wear a fur coat!!

In the case of abortion clinic bombers, they want to impose their 'moral values' on others even if that means putting bombs in abortion clinics! It's a completely different situation!

One thing is to stand up for the rights of those (animals and humans) who are being tortured, killed, abused, etc., another completely different is to impose your 'values' and ideas on people who aren't doing any harm (women have the right to chose whether they want to have a baby or not - it's their body and their life!!)

Wednesday October 29, 2008, 6:54 am
Cid, I support the ALF in its efforts. But they are still breaking the law - and many of their actions are definitely terroristic.

You say that their actions are different than abortion protesters. Not so. In fact, abortion protesters have an even greater moral platform - saving unborn human children. Although I'm pro-choice and want to keep abortion legal, I do recognize that a fetus is a human life. But, even if I didn't - many people do. You want the freedom to impose your own moral values on people (i.e., minks have rights) but refuse to allow other people to impose their moral values on you (i.e., unborn babies have rights.)

My values say that rescuing animals is justification. Many people, however, have different values.

If we allow people in our society just to break the law because they believe themselves morally justified - then everyone will be breaking the law. Because there are a multitude of different values out there.

And just because no one is harmed doesn't mean that someone couldn't have been harmed - when people are doing something illegal they don't always know what situation they're walking into. And harm is definitely threatened when those activists publish names, home addresses, etc. of researchers.

Again, I support what the ALF did at the mink farms. But I also support not allowing any group to choose to break the law - and expect to get away with it.

Wednesday October 29, 2008, 7:31 am
I disagree on the moral platform Lindsey. Violence is never okay and I would not choose to use it but I do believe it is the animal rights protesters who stand on higher moral ground. They fight for the rights of living, breathing beings to not be ritualistically tortured unto death (when they're lucky). Unborn babies are just that--unborn, and as long as they are unable to survive without the mother, I consider them a part of the mother. Therefore I see nothing whatsoever morally wrong with the mother choosing to discontinue her pregnancy. Now if the fetus has developed long enough (whether due to government roadblocks such as making them watch propoganda films before they can do it, or grandparents' rights bills like the one they're trying to slip by California's voters in this election, or fear of violence, etc...) If the fetus is developed enought that it could theorhetically survive with no help from the mother then it becomes a value judgement.
A meat eater's morals say it's okay to take the life of a living breathing being so they can have a tasety lunch (not that they couldn't do so without killing anyone but that's the moral judgement they're forced to make). The value judgement that a pregnant woman is faced with (no matter what the cause) is usually a much heavier judgement than what she prefers to have for lunch today, and one that is NEVER made without heavy consideration and a lifetime of regret.
Now animal testing is even a lower moral standing than killing for food. These animals are subjected to ritual torture for profit in tests that are unnecessary and produce USELESS data. There is no moral justification for animal testing unless you can get informed consent from the animal.
I do not believe that a person who breaks the law to destroy 'property' or terrorize people who terrorize animals should not be prosecuted, but I do not believe they should receive the same sentence as a 9/11 highjacker, nor should the investigation of their crimes require the same level of privacy rights violation or expenditure of resources. Now if they have killed someone, then sure, apply the same measure you would to any other murderer. But mink rescuers are not domestic terrorists, they are vandals, and the fact that they risk prosecution to save lives makes them heros.

Wednesday October 29, 2008, 7:49 am
I agree, Go V, that they're heroes. And they're also criminals, unfortunately. And I would hope that their motives would be taken into account at any sentencing hearing.

And the ALF isn't just rescuing minks. They (and other activists) are publishing hit lists (and they ARE hit lits) of the names, home addresses, etc. of animal researchers. Whether they want people killed or not is irrelevant - they have to know that some crazies may use the information to actually harm these people - or at the very least, terrorize them.

Again, I morally support animal activists who sometimes take the law into their own hands to rescue animals (and I want laws banning fur farms, etc.) I just don't ever want to live in a society where people are allowed to break the law without fear of punishment.

Thursday October 30, 2008, 8:07 am
Lindsey, hi!

No, actually I don't want to impose my values on anyone.
What I believe is that a person's rights and freedom end when he/she hurts another living being (plant, animal or human). That obviously includes hurting animals - and I don't accept laws (which were made by men) that protect those who, for instance, test cosmetics on animals or skin animals alive so a slut can wear a fur coat (which by the way are extremely corny)! In my point of view those laws mean nothing, therefore I don't consider the actions of those animal activists, terrorist actions! On the other hand if they hurt someone, then they should be brought to justice - even though sometimes the actions of some humans (animal testing, whaling, the way animals are slaughtered, bullfighting, etc.) make me wish they would have a tragic death!

Anyway, I still would like you to consider the hypothetical situation I wrote on my previous post - children being abused - what would you do?

Regarding abortion, no one has the right to impose their moral values on women who, by some reason, can't or won't have the fetus they are carrying! It's their body and they come first, not the future baby!
All those radical pro-life people, instead of putting bombs in abortion clinics and judging those women, should offer themselves to adopt the baby once it would be born - now that's real pro-life!

Please, these are 2 different situations and thus you shouldn't compare them!

Besides, I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, instead we believe in the right of women to make a choice! As simple as that!

If people want to help those women, then why not make fair laws where the father would be forced to pay for half of all the expenses related to the birth and raising of the child? And maybe they should find a way for all the undesired children to be adopted once they would be born... That would help, not judging those who wish to make an abortion!!!

Thursday October 30, 2008, 8:29 am
Cid, you state that a person's rights and freedoms end when he/she hurts someone. That's what anti-abortionists are arguing - that abortion hurts an unborn baby.

And, although I am pro-choice, I have no doubt that they are correct. Abortion kills unborn children. I just put the rights of the mother over the life of the unborn child - as many do. But I don't deny that it kills unborn babies - because it does.

That's the whole problem with allowing anyone to break the law based upon their own feelings of right and wrong. Because different people have differing concepts of what constitutes right and wrong.

And there are laws about fathers having to pay a portion of the birth and child support. Unfortunately, however, many of them don't pay - and it can be hard to collect at times (I work as a paralegal in a family law practice and I see that happening all the time.)

Friday October 31, 2008, 5:46 am
Yes, but the mother comes first. There is no conflict of interests here! It's her body and no one has the right to impose their values on the life's choices of these women. They are not hurting others, they just simply have the right to choose whether they want to have a baby who is theirs. It's theirs... So it's their choice. It's them who are going to give life to that baby, it's them who are going to suffer the pain, the sickness, etc.

If the anti-abortionists use this argument, then they are doing it in the wrong context.

Besides, I am not defending an abortion of a several-month pregnancy. I'm referring to a few-week pregnancy.

Now, we could argue about when is the fetus considered a living being - that would lead us into a philosophical, moral, religious and ethical argument and I don't want to go that way...

The fetuses' rights come after the mother's rights! Therefore by making an abortion she is not interfering with someone else's rights (again we could discuss whether a few-week fetus is a living being or not...)

Friday October 31, 2008, 5:57 am
You draw the line one place, Cid - others draw it elsewhere.

That's my whole point. That's why we can't allow people to use their own personal judgment when choosing which laws to break and which to keep. Because different people draw the lines at different places.

You don't want people bombing abortion clinics because you don't believe unborn babies at that stage have rights.

Others don't want animal activists using the same tactics against what you consider to be animal abusers. Because those people don't believe that animals have rights.

I'm sure there are also those who would consider bombing military installations or damaging military property to be just and moral in protest of the war. And those who would do the same to big pharmaceutical companies. Or banks. Or companies which pollute. Or government offices. Or churches which preach hate. The list could go on and on....

Friday October 31, 2008, 6:30 am
I agree with you when you say we cannot go around bombing facilities...

But that's not what the ALF did in that case, was it? I never mentioned I agreed with bombing or killing people!
Besides, animals don't have a choice, so someone must act on their behalf.
People do have the choice to support the military, buy products from certain companies, put their money in banks, buy pharmaceuticals, etc, or not! We do have a choice!

And fetuses depend upon their carrier, so it's her decision to have the baby or not. That's all I'm saying. No one should be allowed to stop them from not having the baby...

Again, as I've asked before, what would you do if children were held hostage and you were the only one who could help them? Would you break the law? It's all very relative, I know...

Anyway, Happy Halloween in case you celebrate this day!

Friday October 31, 2008, 6:50 am
Happy Halloween!

It's true that the ALF didn't bomb the mink facilities. But they have publicly threatened animal researchers. And I guarantee you that eventually the situation will escalate into violence, either deliberately or unintentionally. But it isn't just physical violence that matters. Destruction of property and theft are just as much crimes as anything else.

I have broken the law in the past to help individual animals. And I'm sure I'll do so again. And if I get caught I'll selfishly do everything in my power to get out of the situation. But in the end, although I want to change the laws, I don't want significant laws IGNORED while they are on the books. And if I get caught, I'll deserve whatever punishment the law provides for me.

I'm an atheist. There are a lot of fundamentalist religionists out there who see atheism as the single greatest threat to the world today. Because they consider people like me to be the cause of most of society's ills. And they especially consider that we are helping to corrupt the children of this nation, thereby placing those children's immortal souls in jeopardy. And if one is a believer, nothing can be as important as saving souls. Because what happens to us in this life is temporary - in their worldview, it's eternity that matters.

I do not want to live in a world where well-meaning people like that have the right to terrorize me just because they think their cause is moral and right. And in their own minds, they WOULD be justified. Because if what they preach is true saving souls would be more important than animal welfare, social justice, genocide, poverty, or any other cause on this planet. Of course, I'm not a believer so I don't give a hoot in hell about saving souls.

Who decides? I don't think it should be you, Cid. Nor do I think it should be me (I'm not perfect - my own views may actually turn out to be wrong). The only way is by consensus - the law. It's not always right. It's not always just. But I think it's a better mechanism than allowing individuals the right to legally base their actions on their own personal brand of morality.

History may well judge certain illegal actions to have been justified. But we have to live in the here and now. In a (hopefully) sane and safe society.

Friday October 31, 2008, 6:59 am

And there is one more factor as well. The law as deterrent. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is only fear of the law that has stopped some activists (of whatever kind) from killing. I'm one of them. I would have absolutely no moral qualms in killing, say, someone who ran a dogfighting ring. Or someone who deliberately and maliciously tortured animals. Or someone who promoted bullfighting. Or someone who deliberately harmed children.

I could kill them without losing any sleep whatsoever over the matter. Because in my own mind I would be 100% justified - if the evidence was conclusive against them.

But I don't. Because I don't want to risk spending the rest of my life in prison.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that most of the people who belong to the Animal Liberation Front (and many other groups) believe the same.

Friday October 31, 2008, 8:50 am
Well, I don't even know why we are disagreeing over this, because we agree on most of the issues... :)

I really just want every single 'living' creature to be respected and to have the freedom of choice, that's all! (However, when it comes to the particular situation of abortion, to me and this is my personal opinion, if the rights of the mother and fetus are both on the line, I choose the woman's side!).

And for whatever it's worth, I admire and respect your actions in defending animals!

Nevertheless I don't believe law (even though obviously I believe it's necessary) could stop you or any animal activist if they were faced with a serious animal abuse situation...

Just look at the 'regular' crimes that are committed everyday! Law didn't dissuade those people from committing them... I don't know... :)

Anyway, although this has been an interesting 'conversation', we are reaching a dead end. We both have a few different points of view, but that's ok because as long as none of us hurts anyone, everything is perfect!

See you ;)

Friday October 31, 2008, 8:56 am
:-)