|
On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being.
yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin..
ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy..
|
On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely.
take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law?
|
because daphreak corporations SHOULD be spied upon bt people and people SHOULD NOT be spied upon by corporations
|
On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense.
you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind.
i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread.
It's only a fruitless exercise when followed (deliberately) fallaciously.
There was a character in The Wire, a detective, that would have this as his motto. "Follow the money" in the sense "find the individual who benefits from this operation".
If you do follow your train of thought, there is a responsability indeed, though no linked to profitability but to moral responsability. People do have the choice of consuming less meat, and paying a higher price to ensure a quality product.
|
On April 12 2013 05:34 sam!zdat wrote:
because daphreak corporations SHOULD be spied upon bt people and people SHOULD NOT be spied upon by corporations
PETA is a corporation. oh the quandary~!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and as the article said this law is over and above trespassing laws. it's not the same as giving animal rights activists a piece of squatting territory on the factory farm floor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law?
that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues.
you just can't see beyond the privacy issue which is not even what's being discussed by the law. it;s not a right to trespass
|
On April 12 2013 05:30 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being. yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin.. ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy..
His point is that our role as consumers is a small one in comparison to what we are as human beings. From an economical point of view, we are consumers, true, but this doesn't mean that it is what defines us in general.
|
On April 12 2013 05:35 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense.
you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind.
i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. It's only a fruitless exercise when followed (deliberately) fallaciously. There was a character in The Wire, a detective, that would have this as his motto. "Follow the money" in the sense "find the individual who benefits from this operation". If you do follow your train of thought, there is a responsability indeed, though no linked to profitability but to moral responsability. People do have the choice of consuming less meat, and paying a higher price to ensure a quality product.
i'll admit that my following the money exercise was sarcastic and deliberately fallacious. thats because i think its ridiculous to say "big ag supports it, must be bad."
|
is peta for profit? That's a sophistic point and you know it.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues
so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are.
when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal.
|
|
|
so the law is bad and we should change it....
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is.
and as i've already alluded to earlier, the meshing of private property right of privacy and the right to citizen political participation is the result of a natural overlapping, the fact that laws reach over privaate castle walls. (thus animal abuse done in private is still animal abuse, provided the laws are there for animal abuse. citizen sheriff can expose that, just as they can expose a private mob deal or something and be in witness protection)
you seem to think that this is simply a privacy issue which it is not.
|
On April 12 2013 05:40 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:20 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... This dialogue could be much more constructive if you dropped the sarcastic attitude. For one, this isn't actually a democracy, this is a Democratic Republic. You seem to have wrongfully assumed that I want the government to have full access to information - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, I do want the PEOPLE to have us much information as they have a lawful right to. Could you please explain your position a little more clearly? edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. Who then? Didn't you say the consumers? Let's be clear please. you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense. you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind. i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. I'm not upset, don't be silly, and don't tell me what I'm feeling. My one liner made plenty of sense, and believe me I'll throw them out whenever I want. --- You seem to have confused "lawful" and "legal". It is illegal - but not unlawful - to lie to your employer all you want. Big government so big $_$.
thats very curious. please tell me the difference between illegal and unlawful. also, please tell me why you believe you can lie to a prospective employer to gain access to their property for ulterior motives? that is a new one to me.
|
|
|
I really hate America. I really, really do.
|
On April 12 2013 05:39 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:30 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being. yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin.. ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy.. His point is that our role as consumers is a small one in comparison to what we are as human beings. From an economical point of view, we are consumers, true, but this doesn't mean that it is what defines us in general.
Its also true that we all have many things that define us and they are not mutually exclusive (usually)
You can be a masterbator, a consumer, a superhero, and a heroin addict. How many groups you qualify in is not up to you, its up to the statistician who is doing the study.
|
I don't really think that animal rights activists have managed a single conviction by using illegally obtained evidence, anyway.
This isn't a matter of discerning between illegally obtained evidence and legally obtained evidence... It's like they're making it so that the gathering of evidence is suddenly illegal, which is bullshit. How does this affect the ability of investigators to do their work?
I don't give a fuck about animal rights activists' attempts to sabotage food production for some vegan agenda, I'm talking about the legality of actual investigators being able to do their job. Will the FBI, for example legally be allowed to video-tape animal cruelty for use in court against companies that allow such abuse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
