Violence? Non-violence?

[VegaNick]

I am curious what everyone thinks about violence in the defense of animal life. I understand that many people probably are for non-violence period, however, if someone is hurting someone you care about one would generally hurt them back. I feel that if someone is hurting animals, they deserve to hurt too. My question is who all supports violence in defense of animal life (I don't consider property destruction violence)

[Last of the Sane]

Violence is illegal and you are on a public forum.

[pelicanAndrew]

I support self defense. I also support property destruction.

 

Violence is not illegal. If it was we wouldn't have police.

[VegaNick]

Im not trying to piss anyone off. The last thing I want is fighting amongst vegans, we have to stasy united. I just only have a handful of vegan friends and wanted to know what the majority of vegans thought. Im not trying to be a jerk, I just feel that sometimes in order to protect the voiceless, the innocent and the weak violence is very much justified. Humans can organize and defend themselves in thoughtful non violent ways, animals cannot.

[Guest]

I support it so far...I haven't heard of a case yet where I've felt its gone too far(and I know some crazy things have been done for the good of animals). If someone does something to a family member of mine(animal, human friend, blood...whatever) they'd better look out.

[pelicanAndrew]

I'm totally for using it as long as you're not endangering yourself or other people whatsoever. If there is any chance that someone is going to get hurt, don't.

[xChrisZx]

Something needs to be done and some kind of action needs to be taken.

 

If it comes to violence/destruction then so be it.

[Rawj]

I am for it up to the point where a living being is hurt.

[Last of the Sane]

You didn't piss me off in any way, I'm just saying that it might not be that smart to talk about this stuff on a public forum. Paranoid as hell.

[offense74]

Violence causes revenge. To you and your cause.

It will just be "Yeah, another one of those crazy veganeses again, better lock them all up in the insanity bin. Now let's go eat som extra meat and buy those croc skin boots, that will shut them up hahaha!"

 

You will have saved a few handful of animals whilst, in the long run, killing thousands more by making everybody who eats predominantly vegetables look like an a**.

 

I'm not mad though. To each their own.

[_raVen_]

I agree with Offense: Violence rarely "works," and often serves to achieve the opposite of the intention.

 

Case and Point: What good is his "brilliance" now?

 

By the way, VegaNick I don't think you're an ass . It's always good to discuss things intelligently; quashing speech isn't what we should be doing, especially nowadays

[Richard]

Well to me there is a difference between preventing someone from harming an animal, and punishing that person after the animal was harmed. Punishing someone physically (although it is 'justified' in as much as, you are doing the same to them as they have done to another), doesn't actually do anyone any good, it doesn't save the animal, and it will land you in trouble and piss other people off. However, if someone was stomping on a dog's head, and I saw it happening, I wouldn't hesitate to stop them from doing that. That doesn't mean that I'd shoot them or stab them, but I'd certainly try to physically restrain them. If their violence then turned on me, I'd then think what to do next, I might end up in a fight I suppose, but I'd only use violence if there really was no other option. Generally you can just push someone away, push them to the ground, or drag them by the waist or neck, you don't need to start hitting people.

 

But my example if of illegal animal cruelty. When it comes to stuff which is legal, it's harder to say. I once pushed a girl across the room because she was about to step on a spider. That wasn't violence as such, but other people found it strange. But things like animal slaughter and animal testing, theoretically I would physically restrain anybody that I saw slaughtering or torturing animals, but probably in reality I couldn't / wouldn't do that, which bugs me.

[Guest]

Fur farms I think are a good example of people causing massive destruction...surely the animals are replaced but every time it happens insurance premiums increase drastically and many shut down...not all yet though

[Evan]

violence, as a concept, is not illegal as far as I know. Assault, yes, but violence, no. Boxing, Football, Ultimate Fighting are all violent but not illegal. Consensual violent sex is not illegal either. Anywho. It all depends on context. Violence may be appropriate in certain circumstances although I would say those times would be rare. Would I punch someone in the stomach to prevent them from stepping on a squirrel? Yes, even if it was an accident and they didn't see the squirrel. Whatever works. That person will survive the punch and with no long term affects. I would want someone to punch me if it were the only thing to prevent me stepping on the squirrel. If someone was coming after my dog, I would put myself between them. I have kicked a dog that was attacking my dog before. Not to punish him but to stun him long enough for my dog to get away. My point is that sometimes violence is appropriate but should be a last resort.

[VegaNick]

Well to me there is a difference between preventing someone from harming an animal, and punishing that person after the animal was harmed. Punishing someone physically (although it is 'justified' in as much as, you are doing the same to them as they have done to another), doesn't actually do anyone any good, it doesn't save the animal, and it will land you in trouble and piss other people off. However, if someone was stomping on a dog's head, and I saw it happening, I wouldn't hesitate to stop them from doing that. That doesn't mean that I'd shoot them or stab them, but I'd certainly try to physically restrain them. If their violence then turned on me, I'd then think what to do next, I might end up in a fight I suppose, but I'd only use violence if there really was no other option. Generally you can just push someone away, push them to the ground, or drag them by the waist or neck, you don't need to start hitting people.

 

But my example if of illegal animal cruelty. When it comes to stuff which is legal, it's harder to say. I once pushed a girl across the room because she was about to step on a spider. That wasn't violence as such, but other people found it strange. But things like animal slaughter and animal testing, theoretically I would physically restrain anybody that I saw slaughtering or torturing animals, but probably in reality I couldn't / wouldn't do that, which bugs me.

_________________

 

If I saw someone smashing in a dogs head, I would beat them to a pulp. I think animal life is in a way more sacred than human life, and those who take it directly or indirectly should be punished as thus.

 

However, about the violence not solving anything as many have said, violence may not bring an animal back to life, but if Vegans beat the shit out of people who abuse animals, I bet you a whole lot people will stop abusing animals. While punishment usually results in fear of the punisher it sure could save a lot of animals. Restraining people who abuse animals... probably not.

[offense74]

However, about the violence not solving anything as many have said, violence may not bring an animal back to life, but if Vegans beat the shit out of people who abuse animals, I bet you a whole lot people will stop abusing animals. While punishment usually results in fear of the punisher it sure could save a lot of animals. Restraining people who abuse animals... probably not.

So, what happened after 9/11? It was clearly an act of violence made by a subgroup with it's own goals.

Americans were scared of these morons so they voted for a president that would go after the morons and kill them all. You have Afghanistan, Iraq and probably soon Iran. Guantanamo bay, secret prisons, no prosecutions, probably torture, thousands of innocent people killed (both in the US and the middle east). The result: the islamic republic of the world have never been further away, which is to my understanding the 9/11 hijackers goal.

It's what happens when you punch people in the face.

 

Now, it's of course easier to tear down than to build up.

What could be done, instead of punching people in the face, is to fill the gaps in the market that are painfully obvious to most vegans.

Food, books, supplements, shoes, clothes, cleaner transportation, new ways to make energy, etc.

VeganEssentials is a good example of something that is positive and creative and I admire him for that. He has made it easier for alot of vegans in the US. Robert and Brandan Brazier are 2 others. We need more of that.

When people I meet think of vegans they think of pirced teenagers that throws various kinds of lawn orniments at retired people. It's not positive.

Edited October 3, 2006 by offense74

[Richard]

If I saw someone smashing in a dogs head, I would beat them to a pulp. I think animal life is in a way more sacred than human life, and those who take it directly or indirectly should be punished as thus.

 

However, about the violence not solving anything as many have said, violence may not bring an animal back to life, but if Vegans beat the shit out of people who abuse animals, I bet you a whole lot people will stop abusing animals. While punishment usually results in fear of the punisher it sure could save a lot of animals. Restraining people who abuse animals... probably not.

 

I'd react the same way to someone stamping on a dog's head to if someone was stamping on a person's head. I agree that they 'deserve' to be punished, but I don't know what the point of punishment is. I'd feel I'd lost control if I was punishing someone, I may well do it at the time without thinking, it's possible, but I'd hope I wouldn't.

 

I don't know what to say about using violence as a deterent and a way of scaring people into doing what you think is right. It's a sonofabitch because I am 100% sure that animal rights is the way to go, it's not some crazy fanatical idea, it's based in logic and compassion. So people who lack the compassion for animals have the problem in my opinion, so I am totally with you that their actions (cruelty towards animals) is totally unacceptable, and in a vegan world, it would be illegal and they would be arrested for killing and eating animals. But right now, breaking out the nunchucks on everybody won't get us far I think, because of the way everyone in general thinks. But I don't know... It depends on what scenario specifically you're talking about. Certainly almost everything I've read about the ALF sounds just about fair enough, with a few exceptions which were totally nonsensical in my opinion. However, even though I'd say it was fair I don't know if it's practical or not. I mean, if a person kills and eats an animal, and then that person gets killed and eaten, that is fair in my opinion. But that's not a solution to the problem I think! Hahar, unless every single person who abuses animals is killed and eaten.

[finbarrio]

So, what happened after 9/11? It was clearly an act of violence made by a subgroup with it's own goals.

Americans were scared of these morons so they voted for a president that would go after the morons and kill them all.

 

Just to clarify - only about 50% of Americans voted for Bush. Had Gore won, we probably would have invaded Afganistan and gone after bin Laden, but much of the rest (Iraq, Gitmo, rendition) probably would not have happened. And the rest of the world wouldn't hate us so much. It's a tough pill to swallow that Americans who never EVER would have voted for Bush end up having to be labeled and hated along with the people who did. Thus one of the paradoxes of our form of gov't.

 

Anyway, back on topic. I think, generally, that what is permissible within the law is appropriate i.e. self-defense and reasonable force. I personally don't think it's morally right to commit violence as a means of activism, and I don't support those that do. Depending on the situation, I don't necessarily think committing non-violent crimes is morally wrong, but I wouldn't personally do it or outwardly support it (though I may be glad it was done ).

[offense74]

Just to clarify - only about 50% of Americans voted for Bush. Had Gore won, we probably would have invaded Afganistan and gone after bin Laden, but much of the rest (Iraq, Gitmo, rendition) probably would not have happened. And the rest of the world wouldn't hate us so much. It's a tough pill to swallow that Americans who never EVER would have voted for Bush end up having to be labeled and hated along with the people who did. Thus one of the paradoxes of our form of gov't.

I know

I was after the cause and effect thingy.

I actually love you finbarrio

[finbarrio]

lol. I love you too.

(sometimes it's frustrating being American).

[lmmy]

I don't know 'bout y'all, but the ones I would most like to kill are the dairy farmers.. fucking rapists taking away children from their mothers.

 

Sorry, that was off-topic.

 

In some cases, violence against property works -- but it almost always only works when it's not the meat&dairy industry. If you burn down a vivisection lab, that's fucking expensive to rebuilt and may not be worth the cost to the company/university. So you may shut down one or two of those; but without footage -- i.e. PR meant to get others on your side -- you accomplished jack shit long-term.

 

But if you burn down a slaughterhouse, everyone starts shouting about how the 'terrorists' are trying to take away 'good American food', so it's better to stay away from that and just do footage. Erik Marcus, in his book Meat Market, suggests the use of open rescues -- that is, notifying the media and the police directly afterwards, and posting your footage all over the web so it can't be destroyed.

 

I don't think violence against humans work. It just makes everyone more likely to believe we're terrorists.

[AllIveEverTouched]

I have a simple answer to this one. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Guest]

Sometime there not just punishing a wrong...they are preventing them from doing harm again. Thats like saying imprisoning someone for killing someone is wrong. Much of what these people do is preventative and not just action to injure people...without some action like this nothing will happen.

[AllIveEverTouched]

Oh gosh there's just so much to respond to here and my simple answer isn't going to satisfy me..

 

Sometime there not just punishing a wrong...they are preventing them from doing harm again. Thats like saying imprisoning someone for killing someone is wrong. Much of what these people do is preventative and not just action to injure people...without some action like this nothing will happen.

 

I didn't say imprisonment was wrong (in fact I'd like to not even bring up that topic as I don't have a well formed opinion on it). I just don't agree with eye for an eye mentality, at least in this type of case.

 

 

I am curious what everyone thinks about violence in the defense of animal life. I understand that many people probably are for non-violence period, however, if someone is hurting someone you care about one would generally hurt them back. I feel that if someone is hurting animals, they deserve to hurt too. My question is who all supports violence in defense of animal life (I don't consider property destruction violence)

 

There are many many many reasons why this is the wrong mentality. For one, you don't know if among the people you are targeting there may be an innocent new employee or someone who is properly doing their job as humanely as possible. You don't know the circumstances until you are a first-hand witness to them and it is wrong to assume guilt on a body of people you don't know anything about. For another, any act of violence is not going to be positively attributed to the vegan community and in the long run may make it harder to get the general public to accept the idea of a vegan diet. When plants are shunned or shut down due to investigations and legislature people do listen and feel bad about what they see and this is the reaction required to get someone to think twice about what they eat. Lastly, violence strikes a chord among people and it comes back to you. If you perpetuate it, people working in other slaughterhouses may be angrier and take it out on more animals.

 

There are too many factors to reasonably say it's okay to be violent to these people. I wholeheartedly have no sentiment for those actions.

 

 

I support self defense. I also support property destruction.

 

Self defense has nothing to do with this. Property destruction is not right for some of the reasons above, but also because you wouldn't want it to backfire on you and have someone destroying the offices of PETA and the Humane Society etc. What century do we live in?

 

Violence is not illegal. If it was we wouldn't have police.

 

This doesn't make any sense.

 

 

I just feel that sometimes in order to protect the voiceless, the innocent and the weak violence is very much justified. Humans can organize and defend themselves in thoughtful non violent ways, animals cannot.

 

Humans can do the same thing for animals. There's no need for violence.

 

 

Something needs to be done and some kind of action needs to be taken.

 

If it comes to violence/destruction then so be it.

 

Why would it ever have to come to that? Action is already being taken.

 

 

However, about the violence not solving anything as many have said, violence may not bring an animal back to life, but if Vegans beat the shit out of people who abuse animals, I bet you a whole lot people will stop abusing animals. While punishment usually results in fear of the punisher it sure could save a lot of animals. Restraining people who abuse animals... probably not.

 

I bet if a whole bunch of people beat the shit out of Vegans a lot of people would stop being Vegan. This tactic obviously worked very well for Hitler et al.

 

 

 

When people I meet think of vegans they think of pirced teenagers that throws various kinds of lawn orniments at retired people. It's not positive.

 

Most people I meet don't even know what a vegan is unless they know a vegetarian who has a vegan friend. This is where I try to step in and show them that I shop where they shop, eat things they would enjoy eating, and generally try to show them how easy it can be to change. Obviously talking about how I hate the production of meat every single day would be abrasive and turn them away from anything I'd want to say. The idea is never to alienate the person you are trying to change.

 

I absolutely detest the vegans that don't want to fit in with everyone else.

[Kathryn]

Here's an article by Michael Greger on the subject:

http://www.satyamag.com/mar04/greger.html