Hi All,
I am one the most opposing people of GMO technology in
the environment, on this list. But I don't think violence or terrorism
is the solution. (Me sounding like broken record). I just wanted
you all to know the ELF claimed responsibility, yesterday.
Violence is violence, it doesn't matter which way it swings.
It's immoral. Can there be any more or less point in it, than that?
Lisa Dangutis
In a message dated 06/02/01 11:18:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> Steven Bissell:
> Ray, I don't recall anyone saying that the wolf poisoning was not immoral.
> What is your point? Does the posioning of wolves justify the burning of
> buildings?
>
> John:
> Steven, I never thought of it that way. Intriquing. In a way it does
justify
> violating of someone's property rights. Killing dogs or cats in a city or
> urban area with 10:80 is an offence against personal property; it is
> illegal.
>
> In the UK the legal definition for cruelty is something 'that inflicts
> unnecessary suffering'...and therefore 10:80 is cruel.
>
> For some reason killing wolves with 10:80 is even more criminal than
> destroying property because it involves cruelty, unnecessary suffering. A
> burned building does not feel any pain. The NSDP first dispossessed their
> victims of their material wealth, but that in itself was not cruel because
> Canada and the US did the same thing during WW2 to their own Japanese
> citizens who were dispossessed of their property and interned in camps.
> Damaging property does not cause pain, and death.
>
> They [Japanese Canadians] did not suffer any 'cruelty' associated with
> death and poisoning. So Ray's point is more than valid, it points to the
> 'inhumanity of man' to all life, even his own cruel treatment of Jewish
> persons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, citizens of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
>
> The problem with 10:80 is that some animals suffer great pain before they
> die, and some animals survive. In British Columbia here 10:80 is banned for
> use in wolve control. They used to use 10 80 but it was used during the
> winter and place in the center of a frozen lake. This would reduce the
> opportunity for other animals eating the 10:80 such as blue jays, etc.
>
> In the context where 10:80 was used in Montanna, there were likely a lot of
> other animals poisoned before the wolves were poisoned off. For every wolve
> poisoned, then at least 9 other animals were poisoned.
>
> Neither form of violence is acceptable. Strangely enough though the
> poisoning of innocent animals is rather common...but largely unreported and
> rarely discussed by ethicists.
>
> Strangely enough... Genetic Engineering is a deliberate way to poison vast
> amounts of animals regardless of the benefits of some to the genetically
> mutilated organism, viz monarch butterflies.
>
> addios
>
> john foster
>
|