Can Terrorism Be Justified?

[Shaun]

Is there any point in which you think that terrorism can be justified? Are groups like the Animal Liberation Front justified in their destruction of property by a cause that has some merit?

What do you think about this?

Edit: Another question. Can one use the past as justification for actions taken now? Can we say that violent protest is okay if someone else did it before us, or is this a faulty argument in your opinion?

[Rafael Domination]

At some point in the past century, I say terrorism in terms of armed resistance was alright. I mean, there was La Resistance, which continually sabotage Nazi movements.

*But then again, it's more like Rebellion against an oppresive force, so that might not really count*

Well, in terms of today: N.O. = no.

There are so much more ways to accomplish things than forcing someone. I am against that completely. Sure, people can debat things over in a civilized manner, eg: Shaun and I on Christianity, but NEVER have we once tried to FORCE our views on each other. Diplomacy works so much better. There's the friggin' UN. There are courts out there. Terrorism doesn't always have to be the first thing people turn to. I mean, if some Nazi-like government came along with a new Holocaust in mind, sure...but we'd be rebels, not terrorists.

If by terrorism you mean what al Quaeda does, then again, the answer is no. As for the animal liberation front: no, terrorism is not the answer. I mean, seriously, people: get a grip. Those are human lives you're willing to risk over some animals. Sure, they might not deserve it, but that does not make you God.

So, my verdict is: in todays time, we've got enough lunatics running around. We don't need any more.

[Shaun]

At some point in the past century, I say terrorism in terms of armed resistance was alright. I mean, there was La Resistance, which continually sabotage Nazi movements.

*But then again, it's more like Rebellion against an oppresive force, so that might not really count*

Well, in terms of today: N.O. = no.

There are so much more ways to accomplish things than forcing someone. I am against that completely. Sure, people can debat things over in a civilized manner, eg: Shaun and I on Christianity, but NEVER have we once tried to FORCE our views on each other. Diplomacy works so much better. There's the friggin' UN. There are courts out there. Terrorism doesn't always have to be the first thing people turn to. I mean, if some Nazi-like government came along with a new Holocaust in mind, sure...but we'd be rebels, not terrorists.

If by terrorism you mean what al Quaeda does, then again, the answer is no. As for the animal liberation front: no, terrorism is not the answer. I mean, seriously, people: get a grip. Those are human lives you're willing to risk over some animals. Sure, they might not deserve it, but that does not make you God.

So, my verdict is: in todays time, we've got enough lunatics running around. We don't need any more.

Just a note, for clarification: the vast majority of the ALF don't harm people directly. Meaning that they don't set fire to places with people actually in them. It does happen, though, and yes there are people who call themselves ALF members who have intentionally hurt people. Regardless, the damage of property does affect people. People lose their jobs, people's lives are destroyed, etc.

For the record, I'd never intentionally hurt you, Raf :P. I might get pissed at you, but I'd never hurt you unless you went nuts and tried to hurt me or someone important to me. Then I might, but it would be justified :P.

Do you think that animals deserve rights, Raf? I'm curious, because you're obviously putting human life over the value of animal life. So if the ALF is fighting against documented abuse towards animals, and they aren't physically hurting people, but are financially, are they justified?

[Rafael Domination]

Just a note, for clarification: the vast majority of the ALF don't harm people directly. Meaning that they don't set fire to places with people actually in them. It does happen, though, and yes there are people who call themselves ALF members who have intentionally hurt people. Regardless, the damage of property does affect people. People lose their jobs, people's lives are destroyed, etc.

For the record, I'd never intentionally hurt you, Raf :P. I might get pissed at you, but I'd never hurt you unless you went nuts and tried to hurt me or someone important to me. Then I might, but it would be justified :P.

Do you think that animals deserve rights, Raf? I'm curious, because you're obviously putting human life over the value of animal life. So if the ALF is fighting against documented abuse towards animals, and they aren't physically hurting people, but are financially, are they justified?


Well, if it comes to a showdown between life or non-life, I might pick the life. Which means, I don't think the ALF aren't demonic criminals if they sink a whaling ship that has been ordered not to hunt whales (with no one on board). In fact, if they do that, I'd applaud them. By then, it's the poachers who're being idiots. Financial battles, in my opinion, don't excatly yeild concrete physical harm to anyone. Yeah, I believe animals deserve some rights, and we don't deserve to abuse them. But they're animals: not people. We cant grant a dog the same rights as humans, and if the ALF blow up some empty buildings to prevent people from blantantly polluting a protected rainforest when its strictly against the rules, then its all fine by me.

Still, if the ALF blow up an expensive science lab dedicated to researching cures for cancer just because they decided to test things out of a few lab rats, then I'm against that.

I think this is all a case of 'it depends'. The debate can go in a lot of directions. People just have to use common sense and diplomacy. :rolleyes:

*And Shaun, I know you never intentionally meant to hurt me. That's why I like debating with you: you're not mailicious. I mean, I've seen some people debate on other sites, and...well...here's an example : :mellow:


Nope.

Fuck ignorant people. Fuck Jews. Fuck Christians. Fuck Muslims. Fuck you. Fuck me. Fuck this.

It is the very idea of religion, the very idea that an omnipotent diety thinks and acts as us that created hte Holocaust that killed the Jews. Without Judaist principles, originally passed through Babylon at the same time Sumerian ideology became intrinsic in all the western half of the world minus isolated parts of Africa and Australia. However it was Judaism that created Christianity and in turn created manifest destiny, the idea on which Nazi principles are founded.

I suppose technically Sumerian thought had previously corrupted Greece through raiders from the East, but Judaism eventually lead to it's own demise.

Now I'm sure someone will say "ZOMG r u saying they asked 4 it?!1?!/??" and to that I respond, no, but Judaism is also a product of this becoming, this pinnacle of human existence, exploitation, expansion, and death. It is one of hte many manifestations of Sumerian thinking still intrinsic in Western society and must be fought at all costs.

This does not mean kill Jews, but this does mean fuck Judaism and fuck those who follow it, the Jews.

In conclusion, fuck the Jews.


I mean, sure our opinions differ, but what's great is that we can speak our mind without reducing ourselves into raving loudmouths. So yeah: thanks for being a great admin. ^^ :crazy:*

[Shaun]

Well, if it comes to a showdown between life or non-life, I might pick the life. Which means, I don't think the ALF aren't demonic criminals if they sink a whaling ship that has been ordered not to hunt whales (with no one on board). In fact, if they do that, I'd applaud them. By then, it's the poachers who're being idiots. Financial battles, in my opinion, don't excatly yeild concrete physical harm to anyone. Yeah, I believe animals deserve some rights, and we don't deserve to abuse them. But they're animals: not people. We cant grant a dog the same rights as humans, and if the ALF blow up some empty buildings to prevent people from blantantly polluting a protected rainforest when its strictly against the rules, then its all fine by me.

Still, if the ALF blow up an expensive science lab dedicated to researching cures for cancer just because they decided to test things out of a few lab rats, then I'm against that.

I think this is all a case of 'it depends'. The debate can go in a lot of directions. People just have to use common sense and diplomacy. :rolleyes:

I mean, sure our opinions differ, but what's great is that we can speak our mind without reducing ourselves into raving loudmouths. So yeah: thanks for being a great admin. ^^ :crazy:*

Ah, but how many rights do we grant a dog? How exactly do we determine where the line is? Humans are animals too. That's why it is such a big problem. We're a part of this earth just as all the other animals are, we just happen to be mentally capable of thinking about it in ways other animals cannot (though this is being stringently tested now as we have learned how complex the minds of the great apes actually are). Do we give a dog the same rights, but the cut off done on a case by case basis? If it comes between a dog and a human, the human wins the final right of survival? You see what I mean? This is a difficult question to answer. We raise and kill cows for slaughter and often don't think about it much because either we think ourselves drastically greater than they are, or we just don't want to consider giving them rights (by the way, I eat cow, I just don't like them being tortured...I'm not going to stop eating cow because of what I'm saying...this is all for argument's sake). There is a line somewhere in what you're saying. Where is it? All life has an environmental or ecological purpose. Bears eat salmon and honey and what not, and when they die they are eaten by insects, bacteria, and scavengers. Mice eat insects and plants, are eaten by snakes and what not, which are then eaten by birds, who are then eaten by something else, etc. How do we determine which animals are better than others, and can we? I don't think we can. I don't think myself better than a gorilla. I consider myself different than one.

To the attacking stuff: so it's okay for one group to break the law so long as another group is doing it too? Get ready for the slippery slope. If it's okay for someone to ram and ship and destroy it, which is against the law, all because the ship being attacked was whaling illegally, why wouldn't it then become okay for someone to kill someone who killed someone else, or rape someone who raped someone else? I'm talking civilians here, not judicial folks or those that enforce or maintain the law. If a person kills someone who is trying to kill someone else, it's okay, because he or she defending someone. But if someone goes and kills someone who already killed someone and isn't threatening anyone else, is that then okay? Or, is it always okay to kill someone who is threatening someone else physically? Can cops just shoot someone who is beating someone up without thinking about the situation? Lots of questions to ask here.

And financial battles do harm individuals. Some people lose their jobs, and as a result can't get work elsewhere. Some suffer as a result of having their research destroyed even though they may be working on something that doesn't involve direct torture or horrible abuse of animals (the ALF targets these places too). People who lose their jobs do suffer. It doesn't have to be physical. It's terrifying to go to your work and find it has been bombed or torched, or to find all your research burned and all the computers destroyed...to see spraypaint everywhere of violent messages, etc.

Oh and that guy is nuts :P.

[Rafael Domination]

Ah, but how many rights do we grant a dog? How exactly do we determine where the line is? Humans are animals too


Ah, now that's where we go into the specifics. Personally, I don't know all the answers (OMGoodness) myself, so I usually leave that to the higher ups sitting in their courtrooms. As for the right to survive, I'd say all living things has that right. But then again, since you did say humans are animals, all animals have the right to reach the top of the food chain. If it means stepping on a few other animals to do so...well...that's just what animals do. But maybe we do have a responsibility to maintain Earth's life: if not for the sake of being superior both mentally and morally, then for the sake of our survival.


To the attacking stuff: so it's okay for one group to break the law so long as another group is doing it too? Get ready for the slippery slope


Well, when put that way, yeah. :P

What I meant to say is, I don't encourage that kind of stuff, but if it does happen, I won't condemn them for it. I know two wongs don't make a right, but if the poching whalers lose an empty ship or two, I won't feel any sympathy for them either. Illegal is still illegal, no matter how valor it may have.


And financial battles do harm individuals. Some people lose their jobs, and as a result can't get work elsewhere. Some suffer as a result of having their research destroyed even though they may be working on something that doesn't involve direct torture or horrible abuse of animals (the ALF targets these places too). People who lose their jobs do suffer. It doesn't have to be physical. It's terrifying to go to your work and find it has been bombed or torched, or to find all your research burned and all the computers destroyed...to see spraypaint everywhere of violent messages, etc.



I know, which is why I'm not encouraging that. But, then again, it doesn't leave them dismembered or unable to find ANOTHER job. If they can't, well...here comes nature's rule with dealing with us animals: survival of the fittest.

Still, I prefer to solve things diplomatically! :D


Oh and that guy is nuts


Tell me about it :rolleyes:

[Starry]

Ah, but how many rights do we grant a dog? How exactly do we determine where the line is? Humans are animals too.

The problem with that argument is that if we take it to that level, every living creature qualifies under the "animal" tag, from people to dogs to the bacteria that you kill every time you spray disinfectant. Humans are the dominant species on this planet, and they have to accept that.

On the other hand, animals do deserve their rights. But how do we determine them? Intelligence levels? A mature pig has roughly the same level of intelligence as a three-year-old human-- should the two be held to the same standards? If so, then we have some serious problems in the horrible cruelties in slaughterhouses. And that raises another issue-- do we only eat non-intelligent animals then? Most animals are much smarter than we take them for. (Personally, I eat meat under the argument that humans, as omnivores, are supposed to eat meat and it would be stupid to change that.)

In terms of just general terrorism, the main theory behind it, past and present, is "We're going to make them listen to us, whether they like it or not." For everything from the civil rights movement to ALF, activists get so frustrated by lack of response from the public that they need to make a dramatic statement, and sometimes it really is necessary. But the problem with this is, even with Al-Quaida, they believe that their actions are the only way to make the US leave them alone.

(Oh, and sorry for kidnapping what seemed like a more private argument, but for once I actually had something legitimate to say.)

[Christy]

In the way of holding animal life above human life, I question why humans slaughter animals and call it 'population control' or in the cases of sick animals, 'putting them out of their misery,' but people leave a man in a vegetative state or a state of pain caused by illness alive on life support for years. If humans are going to slaughter animals for such reasons, instead of upping our standards on animal cruelty, we should apply the same sensical population control to our own race.

And we can't exactly give animals the same rights as human, because then we would also have to prosecute animals the same way we do humans, and sentencing a pig to a year in prison for assault on a police officer or tresspassing is a bit ridiculous. Then again, we also have different rules under different circumstances, because someone under the age of sixteen, no matter the crime, cannot be sentenced to death in the state of Kentucky (and by the way, I'm also completely for the death penalty, even though we don't have it in Canada.) And we give different sentences to people with different levels of understanding. People that committed a crime out of mental instability are instututionalized instead of going to prison.

I do believe that terrorism is in some way necessary, as homicidal and sadistic as that makes me soun. Even with an AIDS pandemic, and cancer, and obesity, the population is still somewhere around six billion. And growing fast. War and terrorism are becoming essential to population control. The Earth's ridiculous population is the cause for so many of the issues these days, such as food shortages, and therefore poverty, massive amounts of pollution. Because we have to provide food for so many people, livestock has become vital to that. And the amount of livestock being grown produce unbelievable amounts of waste and methane gas (a greenhouse gas that helps along global warming). And the population demands goods, which require factories to produce them and make even more waste.

Humans put a lot of effort into controlling the population of organisms that don't benefit us. And the thing about animal rights activistism is that there's a lot of animal 'cruelty' that affects people. Like people that live near feedlots get sick something like 60% more often than people under normal conditions. And the massive amounts of animal waste can get into groundwater and contaminate it. But with all the population control of animal species, human's never consider population control of the human race, which is the most damaging of all Earth-bound races. I figure this is because of the human curse of emotions. Because of our lack of population control, the human race has also halted any kind of evolution, because we've eliminated natural selection. Had we just left the diseased die off, perhaps we would have weeded the cancer gene out of the human DNA completely, because we allowed people with the illness to die, rather than prolonging their life as long as possible so that they are permitted to pass on the cancer-triggering gene into the next generation. Human morals have interfered with species' ability to adapt efficiently in evolution.

Basically, terrorism and war is what the human race as subconcsiously invented to keep our populations from completely overpowering Earth's resources, since we no longer allow disease to deplete our numbers sufficiently. Terrorism is a form of population control that will prolong (very slightly) the population's devestating affect on the planet. I suppose that killing people for some kind of biased reason is less harsh than saying 'I'm slaugthering you all for the sake of population control and the Earth' or picking and choosing the most able specimens (for example, people with good metabolisms or people that were built of certain conditions, such as inuit people are built small to conserve heat and Africans are tall for the opposite reason).

Usually when I voice such opinions, people are either very scared, or make an effort to stay on my good side. Something about making sure I don't kill them in a massive killing spree or something.

[Shaun]

In the way of holding animal life above human life, I question why humans slaughter animals and call it 'population control' or in the cases of sick animals, 'putting them out of their misery,' but people leave a man in a vegetative state or a state of pain caused by illness alive on life support for years. If humans are going to slaughter animals for such reasons, instead of upping our standards on animal cruelty, we should apply the same sensical population control to our own race.

This is an illogical argument. It holds that humans should regard members of their own species as less important as members of other species. If it comes down to saving a chimpanzee or saving a human being, I'll pick the human. Why? Because I'm human. Humans have a duty to protect themselves, just as any other species has that duty. It just so happens that humans have more means to dealing with such things.
I'd ask you this question in regards to slaughter: how exactly is what we do to animals any more cruel than what those animals would experience in the wild? Have you seen one of the large African felines actually bring down a prey? It's not instantaneous, which is what most slaughterhouses do and what all slaughterhouses are supposed to do. Lions drag down their prey and bite them, over and over. They tear them apart brutally with teeth that aren't very sharp to begin with. Humans at least take measures to make the pain go away.
And there are very few species that we kill for "population control". I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Rats and some other forms of species that breed too fast and aren't indigenous to certain areas are killed for good reason. There's a balance that must be maintained. Rats are not from New York. They're from somewhere else and they came over here. The result is that they thrive in human cities and if left unchecked would spread disease and flood the streets. This is a reality we have to be aware of.

I do believe that terrorism is in some way necessary, as homicidal and sadistic as that makes me soun. Even with an AIDS pandemic, and cancer, and obesity, the population is still somewhere around six billion. And growing fast. War and terrorism are becoming essential to population control. The Earth's ridiculous population is the cause for so many of the issues these days, such as food shortages, and therefore poverty, massive amounts of pollution. Because we have to provide food for so many people, livestock has become vital to that. And the amount of livestock being grown produce unbelievable amounts of waste and methane gas (a greenhouse gas that helps along global warming). And the population demands goods, which require factories to produce them and make even more waste.

So...it's okay to drive planes into buildings filled with civilians because it's population control? Excuse me?
AIDS is not a pandemic, by the way. Recent studies showed that the rate of infection is actually not as bad as the say. It's not a pandemic. It's just a bad infection that is more the fault of idiotic religious policy than anything else. You can't help people who don't want to listen to reason.
War and terrorism are never essential. Food shortages have less to do with the population and more to do with people living in places where they can't grow food, or in places where they don't have the money to.
And the whole bit about animal waste and methane is liberal propaganda. Most of that waste is recycled and methane has a marginal effect on the atmosphere.

Humans put a lot of effort into controlling the population of organisms that don't benefit us. And the thing about animal rights activistism is that there's a lot of animal 'cruelty' that affects people. Like people that live near feedlots get sick something like 60% more often than people under normal conditions. And the massive amounts of animal waste can get into groundwater and contaminate it. But with all the population control of animal species, human's never consider population control of the human race, which is the most damaging of all Earth-bound races. I figure this is because of the human curse of emotions. Because of our lack of population control, the human race has also halted any kind of evolution, because we've eliminated natural selection. Had we just left the diseased die off, perhaps we would have weeded the cancer gene out of the human DNA completely, because we allowed people with the illness to die, rather than prolonging their life as long as possible so that they are permitted to pass on the cancer-triggering gene into the next generation. Human morals have interfered with species' ability to adapt efficiently in evolution.

Then don't live near a feedlot. I hate this sort of argument. "The airport should be quieter because I live next to it." Well move. If you don't like it, don't live there.
Notice also how you said "CAN" get into groundwater...but has it ever done so? I've never heard of that.
Cancer has existed since the dawn of human civilization. And thanks for your vote of confidence. I'm a cancer survivor, but I guess I should have just died so we could maintain your Nazi ideal of the perfect race.

Usually when I voice such opinions, people are either very scared, or make an effort to stay on my good side. Something about making sure I don't kill them in a massive killing spree or something.

Well you're basically saying you condone terrorism, which is psychotic at best.

[Imelda]

Had we just left the diseased die off, perhaps we would have weeded the cancer gene out of the human DNA completely, because we allowed people with the illness to die, rather than prolonging their life as long as possible so that they are permitted to pass on the cancer-triggering gene into the next generation.

Oh. My. God.

I'm not even reading the rest of your argument because you've proved by this single sentence that you're completely retarded and not worthy of having an opinion.

Look up your facts. There is no "cancer gene".

Also, you're a heartless bitch.

Good evening.

[Rafael Domination]

Now, now :rolleyes:

Let's not attack people. This is a debate, not a dissathon.

[Christy]

I admit my opinions are blown out of proportion and that I shouldn't rely news as a source of information (which is sad in its own right). I can't really compare the humans to animals in habits and evolutionary patterns because there's a major difference in emotional and mental capacity. A lot of my opinions come from imagining the difference in the world if humans reacted more on instinct and survival (the basic 'the strongest survive' concept, leaving natural selection). The idea of further human evolution that's appealing. And also some subconscious wish that the race wasn't as emotional as it is, because it complicates things and would be much less trying without that particular trait.

So...it's okay to drive planes into buildings filled with civilians because it's population control? Excuse me?
AIDS is not a pandemic, by the way. Recent studies showed that the rate of infection is actually not as bad as the say. It's not a pandemic. It's just a bad infection that is more the fault of idiotic religious policy than anything else. You can't help people who don't want to listen to reason.
9/11 was undeniably unethical, and much more trying, painful, and fear-inducing than any kind of epidemic. But because population reducing epidemics no longer exist to such as an extent as they once did, I find myself wondering how the control will play out in the long run since the population growth is growing so rapidly and the resources available are not growing fast enough, or are going to the wrong place. And I did momentarily consider using epidemic instead of pandemic for AIDS, but I used because that is the word I most commonly hear associated with the disease in class and on the news. It's an honest mistake, and I do believe it's reasonable.

Then don't live near a feedlot. I hate this sort of argument. "The airport should be quieter because I live next to it." Well move. If you don't like it, don't live there.
Notice also how you said "CAN" get into groundwater...but has it ever done so? I've never heard of that.
Cancer has existed since the dawn of human civilization. And thanks for your vote of confidence. I'm a cancer survivor, but I guess I should have just died so we could maintain your Nazi ideal of the perfect race.
Feedlots can be hard to avoid in some areas. The entire south of Alberta where I live is riddled with them because it's a large industry in Alberta. It's unreasonable to say 'just move'. The situation is like asking the population of Detroit to move out of the city because of the smog from the factories. They can't, because it's their job and it's what they are educated to do. That's the industry, that's how they get income. The oil and agriculture industries of Alberta are very important to the rest of Canada. It would be difficult to escape the affects and still be able to find a job that provide enough income.

And the manure has infected the groundwater. It happened in Ontario, if my World Geography textbook has cited reliable resources for it's information.

And I honestly apologize for my poor choice of example and for causing offense. Hemophilia or other directly genetic disorders would have been a much better choice. And I don't doubt that I'm misinformed, but people always tell me that because their relatives have had some strain of cancer, they are more likely to find themselves with the disease that lead me to believe that there is some for of gene that would lead someone to become more likely to have it.

I don't refer to a Nazi/perfection race ever, just an evolutionary heightened human race from reestablished natural selection. Nazi is a bad comparison. That was based a lot on looks (or I could be wrong, I suppose), I'm talking about health and fitness and the ability to survive without the technology we so rely on (this includes medicine, electrity, gas to provide warmth, et cetera).

Also, you're a heartless bitch.
Not arguing. I can be very arrogant and idealistic.

But I've never had my beliefs properly questioned, but it's good that someone makes me properly question myself. It's a form of naivete and ignorance that someone should have picked up on a long time ago. Idealism shouldn't replace the ethics system that's in place now. I'm too used to not being questioned and not having anyone directly arguing back.

[Shaun]

Yeah, back on topic :P

[Starry]

This argument has gone way crazy...

But I just want to point out that jst because we haven't found a cancer gene doesn't mean there isn't one. As long as we don't know definitively what causes most cancers, you can't make any absolute statements either way.

[Shaun]

[size="1"]I admit my opinions are blown out of proportion and that I shouldn't rely news as a source of information (which is sad in its own right). I can't really compare the humans to animals in habits and evolutionary patterns because there's a major difference in emotional and mental capacity. A lot of my opinions come from imagining the difference in the world if humans reacted more on instinct and survival (the basic 'the strongest survive' concept, leaving natural selection). The idea of further human evolution that's appealing. And also some subconscious wish that the race wasn't as emotional as it is, because it complicates things and would be much less trying without that particular trait.[QUOTE]

Survival of the fittest is what you mean, but that's actually something taken from Darwin out of context. He never meant that only those with the perfect ability to survive would necessarily survive (in fact, sometimes this is far from the case...because something built to survive the desert might suddenly find itself dying because of a rather rainy year). It simply meant that those with the adaptive qualities to continue reproducing would be the ones that pass on genes.
You do realize that we are evolving right now, right? There have been enhancements in the human genetic structure in the last 100 years that show humans are evolving. Just because we don't become another species next week doesn't mean we aren't evolving.

[QUOTE]9/11 was undeniably unethical, and much more trying, painful, and fear-inducing than any kind of epidemic. But because population reducing epidemics no longer exist to such as an extent as they once did, I find myself wondering how the control will play out in the long run since the population growth is growing so rapidly and the resources available are not growing fast enough, or are going to the wrong place. And I did momentarily consider using epidemic instead of pandemic for AIDS, but I used because that is the word I most commonly hear associated with the disease in class and on the news. It's an honest mistake, and I do believe it's reasonable.


The thing about AIDS is that we have it blown into our faces and shoved into our minds over and over, as if it is the worst thing ever. True, it has killed a lot of people and infected many, but it's not going to destroy the human race. It's only a danger in third world countries and only in those countries that refuse to deal with it. In the U.S. the infection rate is next to nil, and the same can be said for places like Canada, wester Europe, Japan, the UK, and similar places. Even in some third world countries it isn't a problem (malaria is actually more an issue in such places). We don't need nature to provide us with population controls. What we need is for people to stop having 12 damned kids. China has a really good control right now and it is working (at least on the level of reducing the rate of growth...many problems have been created from their one child policy though).


Feedlots can be hard to avoid in some areas. The entire south of Alberta where I live is riddled with them because it's a large industry in Alberta. It's unreasonable to say 'just move'. The situation is like asking the population of Detroit to move out of the city because of the smog from the factories. They can't, because it's their job and it's what they are educated to do. That's the industry, that's how they get income. The oil and agriculture industries of Alberta are very important to the rest of Canada. It would be difficult to escape the affects and still be able to find a job that provide enough income.

It's entirely reasonable to say move. People who live along the Mississippi river know that ever year it will flood and that they will lose their homes. Yet they still live there and complain every year. Move. End of story. It's not unreasonable. If the situation is so unbearable that you can't stand it, then move. Instead of bitching and moaning about it year after year and trying to get the industry to change just for you, you should be finding another job.

And the manure has infected the groundwater. It happened in Ontario, if my World Geography textbook has cited reliable resources for it's information.

Filter the water. Problem solved.

And I honestly apologize for my poor choice of example and for causing offense. Hemophilia or other directly genetic disorders would have been a much better choice. And I don't doubt that I'm misinformed, but people always tell me that because their relatives have had some strain of cancer, they are more likely to find themselves with the disease that lead me to believe that there is some for of gene that would lead someone to become more likely to have it.

You should really research the various diseases and genetic conditions. A lot of them exist not because we have a poor gene pool, but because of natural progressions in the genetic structure of humans. Look at how those conditions are present in their dominant and recessive forms. A lot of them actually have benefits for people in certain forms. Sickle cell is a prime example of this. The double recessive actually produces a natural immunity to malaria,, while the hetero form (Bb rather than bb or BB) does nothing, and the dominant form gives sickle cell. Since it is such a horrible problem the dominant form rarely is passed on.

I don't refer to a Nazi/perfection race ever, just an evolutionary heightened human race from reestablished natural selection. Nazi is a bad comparison. That was based a lot on looks (or I could be wrong, I suppose), I'm talking about health and fitness and the ability to survive without the technology we so rely on (this includes medicine, electrity, gas to provide warmth, et cetera).

Nazi Eugenics were based on an ill conceived notion of genetic superiority. Looks were a part of it, but so were a lot of things, many of which had to do more directly with genetics. It was the "superior race".
All the things we create are a part of who we are as a species. To get rid of technology is to deny that we are human.

[Imelda]

Now, now :rolleyes:

Let's not attack people. This is a debate, not a dissathon.

Yeah well, in debates you don't erroneously use genetics information. Not when I'm around. I winds me up how popular propaganda is so horribly wrong.


And I honestly apologize for my poor choice of example and for causing offense. Hemophilia or other directly genetic disorders would have been a much better choice. And I don't doubt that I'm misinformed, but people always tell me that because their relatives have had some strain of cancer, they are more likely to find themselves with the disease that lead me to believe that there is some for of gene that would lead someone to become more likely to have it.

Largely that's their own paranoia.

This argument has gone way crazy...

But I just want to point out that jst because we haven't found a cancer gene doesn't mean there isn't one. As long as we don't know definitively what causes most cancers, you can't make any absolute statements either way.

There isn't a cancer gene. We know what causes cancer--it's mutations in DNA--which means that ANY gene can cause it. Pretty much. It's usually in genes that affect cell growth, since a cancerous cell is just one that doesn't behave properly in terms of growth (cancer cells just keep on dividing as long as there are the materials ... which means they're immortal, which is freaky beyond measure).

The only gene we could say "causes" cancer is the BRCA1 gene, which makes people more prone to breast cancer--and that is inherited. However, it doesn't cause cancer. Which is why there's such a hoohaa about people having the test for it--they see it as a death sentence and it really isn't. You can have the BRCA1 gene and never get breast cancer, but know 5 people without it who did.

So yeah, we know what causes cancer (look up the chromosome complements of tumours and compare them with normal ones, it's amazing), but we don't know how to cure it properly yet. :p

[Shaun]

Cancer is only genetic in the sense that you might have conditions built into you that allow for it. Some people are more prone to certain forms than others because of the genes they inherit. That doesn't mean they will get cancer, but it becomes more likely. That's what it means when we say "this cancer is genetic". There isn't a single gene responsible. Most people have the genes that give the proper conditions already inside of them. If your family has a history of a certain form of cancer, chances are that you will have the same genetic properties that allowed for it.
I had a form of cancer that isn't genetic at all. Hodgkin's Lymphoma actually has no real cause. Yes, you can see what is happening in the cell makeup, but you can't sit down and go "well smoking did it" or "well your family had the same thing and so the genetic markers are still there". It just happens. It's still a genetic thing in once sense--since my body has to be built so that the cancer can happen--but it can't be blamed on anything in specific. There isn't like a "leukemia gene" or a "lung cancer" gene though. The body is too complex for that :P

[Rafael Domination]

Yeah well, in debates you don't erroneously use genetics information. Not when I'm around. I winds me up how popular propaganda is so horribly wrong.



While understandable, you're supposed to be setting an example for us youngins. :P

Oh wait...never mind.


Anyway, BACK to the topic...

Before we continue any further, what truly defines terrorism? I mean, what's the difference between that and rebellion against an oppresive force? I mean, it's quite possible that the 'terrorists' might view what they do as right and just (i.e. the rapist crusaders) and another group might not. And when does retaliation go too far? Let's stimulate our minds, not tempers, here! :crazy:

[Shaun]

While understandable, you're supposed to be setting an example for us youngins. :P

Oh wait...never mind.


Anyway, BACK to the topic...

Before we continue any further, what truly defines terrorism? I mean, what's the difference between that and rebellion against an oppresive force? I mean, it's quite possible that the 'terrorists' might view what they do as right and just (i.e. the rapist crusaders) and another group might not. And when does retaliation go too far? Let's stimulate our minds, not tempers, here! :crazy:

The dictionary defines it as "the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." The problem here is of subjectivity. What I might consider to be rebels fighting against oppression (and ultimately what might be considered "okay"), is different from what you might think, or what someone else might think. We don't like the Al Qaeda folks, but they believe they are doing what is right. We consider them terrorists, but they call themselves freedom fighters. How do we make the distinction? Personally the distinction for me is in how they fight oppression, or perceived oppression (whichever it may be, since with Al Qaeda it's both). Al Qaeda doesn't attack only government facilities. They attack innocent people all the time. True freedom fighters, in my opinion, take liberal efforts to avoid hurting innocent people. In the case of the ALF, I deem them terrorists because they attack anyone doing animal testing. Often times they will attack people who aren't even doing anything wrong. No, it's not directly, but financial damage can be just as bad as physical damage. The ALF ruins lives. But they justify it because "oh well we saved the animals". Okay, that's nice, but what about the people whose lives you've ruined? What about the jobs lost, the property destroyed (which often is on government loan and so has to be paid for in full, or is paid for, but via a financial loan that isn't paid off, which leaves the people who are using the equipment at a loss)?
There are huge problems with the type of fighting the ALF does. The sad thing is that their actions are completely unnecessary. There are enough people in this country (the U.S.) alone who would gladly march for animal rights. Millions. A lot of them eat meat, but don't agree with the conditions, or with the brutality is often found in the meat industry (contrary to popular belief, conditions are improving and many of the feedlots have drastically changed their tune...some slip through the cracks though...I'm talking the U.S., not Canada or somewhere else). What the ALF ends up doing is costing the government, private companies, individuals, etc. tens of millions of dollars, which in turn doesn't help to reduce costs of things that we could very well use in this country. Animal testing is used all the time and is effective. We get new medicines from it ALL THE TIME. Well, guess what happens when the ALF gets involved and destroys scientific records, property, etc.? The cost of that research goes up, which is funneled down to the buyer. Great. In the long run the ALF causes more damage than it repairs. Yeah, they might save a few thousands animals, but they perpetuate the growing issue with pharmaceutical costs, healthcare costs, etc.
I would therefore think of terrorism as any sort of damage that affects the lives of others in a negative way brought about by violence or threats. To give you an idea how the ALF threatens people:
We watched a video in my Animal Theory course and at one point they are talking about this guy who raises rabbits by the truckload, which are shipped out primarily to animal testing places. Well, first the ALF protested, which was fine, and I agree with that part. Then they started sending actual threats of physical violence (some of them death threats) via phone and, I assume, mail. When the guy didn't give in (in fact, he hired guards because of all that was going on), the ALF tore down his security fence and busted into his facility and caused huge masses of damage, nearly destroying the facility itself (and it was a big place). He eventually gave in and had them take the rabbits away. That guy lost his job, his livelihood, and he also was threatened (both he and his family).

The ALF are terrorists and quite honestly if the FBI and the police treat them with derision, they deserve it.

[Imelda]

Cancer is only genetic in the sense that you might have conditions built into you that allow for it. Some people are more prone to certain forms than others because of the genes they inherit. That doesn't mean they will get cancer, but it becomes more likely. That's what it means when we say "this cancer is genetic". There isn't a single gene responsible. Most people have the genes that give the proper conditions already inside of them. If your family has a history of a certain form of cancer, chances are that you will have the same genetic properties that allowed for it.
I had a form of cancer that isn't genetic at all. Hodgkin's Lymphoma actually has no real cause. Yes, you can see what is happening in the cell makeup, but you can't sit down and go "well smoking did it" or "well your family had the same thing and so the genetic markers are still there". It just happens. It's still a genetic thing in once sense--since my body has to be built so that the cancer can happen--but it can't be blamed on anything in specific. There isn't like a "leukemia gene" or a "lung cancer" gene though. The body is too complex for that :P


Good God, man, I just said that only in about three sentences rather than a chunk of text no one is going to read through. :mad:

[Shaun]

Yeah, so? I like the way I said it :P