Rebuttal to Edwin Locke's Animal Rights Terrorists Take Away Our Right to Life and Liberty

[Guest guest]

~ PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST~

 

Anyone who knows how to contact Mr. Locke is free to send him my response or

send his contact info to me.

 

 

Rebuttal to Edwin Locke's " Animal Rights Terrorists Take Away Our Right to Life

and Liberty "

 

 

Mr. Locke:

 

Human beings have the exclusive 'right' to proselytize outrageous lies as

truth--no matter how poisonous, bloated and out of proportion they happen to be.

Fortunately, non-humans' are incapable of such despicable behavior; perhaps that

is why they are the preferred species for many. The outlandish use of the term

" terrorist " to describe a peaceful, life-affirming movement, which challenges

the greedy, destructive and immoral nature of the corporate-political beast, is

highly suspect.

 

You have chosen to concentrate on the frustrated, yet compassion-driven few, who

have utilized property damage, without loss of life, in your quest to draw

attention away from the majority; which display amazing, law-abiding restraint

in the face of decades of ridicule, rife with dismissive contempt from the

politico-corporate machine.  This is fact: altruism and benevolence toward the

helpless of this world threatens the status quo; it threatens profits; it

threatens power; it threatens capitalism as GOD. Viciously labeling those who

are pro-life [i'm speaking now of AUTHENTIC pro-lifers; those who feel ALL life

is to be respected equally; those that believe God's creations have a RIGHT to

live their lives without victimization--free from man's brutality; the very

right that you claim for yourself, while arrogantly denying it to those without

a voice] as terrorists, is nothing short of mass manipulation. Joseph Goebbels

would be proud, take a bow.

 

This strategy will admittedly garner support from those too lazy to think for

themselves or to critically evaluate the motives behind the most vocal,

anti-animal rights', mouthpieces. They will fail to realize that individuals

such as yourself have a political agenda behind tossing the terrorist rhetoric

around. One which is devoted to silencing dissent and quelling a legitimate

social movement by using your own brand of fascism as its blunt instrument. This

is the tool of GENUINE terrorists; of neo-cons; of the extreme right who are

desperately attempting to hang on to the power and wealth they have historically

enjoyed as the top 2%, while the other 98% are forced to do their

bidding--ignored and disenfranchised. It is an extremely, cowardly and dishonest

tactic. One which reaffirms that man may have a " choice " of utilizing the moral

high ground, but seldom chooses to use it.

 

Your " moral " stance isn't about liberty, it's about repression. It isn't about

life, it's about championing DEATH. It's about the right of profiteers to

conduct themselves as rapaciously as possible with no oversight and no

accountability. Being a corporate or political whore means never having to say

you're sorry. Those days are over, Mr. Locke. Deal with it--in an honest and

honorable fashion, if that's possible--though judging from your current

rhetoric, it is not.

 

Overwhelmingly, more harm than good has been achieved by the obscenely wasteful,

repetitive and ultimately lethal results of 'research' on animals, with hundreds

of thousands of human victims succumbing to its primitive and endless recipe for

erroneous results. This is FACT--this trumps your argument all to hell. 

 

There are plenty of mindless soldiers willing to line up and continue to defend

the corporate and political vampires which serve to afford them wealthy

lifestyles. If this is what you have chosen, so be it; but don't try to pawn

your " terrorist " propaganda off as the truth; it reeks of the same far Right

stench being shoveled down peoples' throats since Richard Nixon masterminded

Watergate. Thankfully, there are some truly unselfish and heroic human beings

out there. They are fighting your brand of evil, everyday; and soon those who

defend torture and murder as ethical and moral will be where they belong. Get

your asbestos suit ready.

 

Brennan Browne

 

 

********************************************************************************\

************************************************

 

Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty

By Edwin A. Locke

Updated: 04/30/2009 11:13:27 PM PDT

 

 

Rallies at UCLA and other campuses in support of animal research are a welcome

sign that scientists are beginning to stand up to the animal rights activists.

 

But if the defenders of research are to win out, they must be more firm in

opposing the vicious inversion of morality inherent in the notion of animal

" rights, " in the name of which terrorists have committed hundreds of violent

crimes.

 

They have vandalized or fire-bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food

restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North

America. The animal " rights " movement is not about the humane treatment of

animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.

 

According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or

leather shoes, and to use animals in research - even if it would lead to cures

for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that

animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: " Even if animal tests produced a cure

for AIDS, we'd be against it. "

How do the animal " rights " advocates try to justify their position? As someone

who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know

firsthand that the whole movement is typically based on a single - invalid -

syllogism; namely, men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore,

animals have rights.

 

This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his

ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and

choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To

live successfully, man must use his rational faculty - which is exercised by

choice.

 

The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive

and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men - free

to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men

against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought

(nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists) .. They

survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot

reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a

zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means

of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

 

Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by

voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical

force. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no

right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of

creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality.

 

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not

have to speculate about the motive, because the animal " rights " advocates have

revealed it quite openly.

 

The animal " rights " terrorists are like the Unabomber or the World Trade Center

terrorists or Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but

nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to

uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want

mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to

disappear into its muck.

 

There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and

defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and

the pursuit of his own happiness. Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of

management at the University of Maryland at College Park.

[Guest guest]

An excellent leter. I hope Mr. Lock isn't too blinkered to read it.

 

Best wishes,

Mavis.

 

, Brennan Browne <endspeciescide

wrote:

>

>

> ~ PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST~

>

> Anyone who knows how to contact Mr. Locke is free to send him my response or

send his contact info to me.

>

>

> Rebuttal to Edwin Locke's " Animal Rights Terrorists Take Away Our Right to

Life and Liberty "

>

>

> Mr. Locke:

>

> Human beings have the exclusive 'right' to proselytize outrageous lies as

truth--no matter how poisonous, bloated and out of proportion they happen to be.

Fortunately, non-humans' are incapable of such despicable behavior; perhaps that

is why they are the preferred species for many. The outlandish use of the term

" terrorist " to describe a peaceful, life-affirming movement, which challenges

the greedy, destructive and immoral nature of the corporate-political beast, is

highly suspect.

>

> You have chosen to concentrate on the frustrated, yet compassion-driven few,

who have utilized property damage, without loss of life, in your quest to draw

attention away from the majority; which display amazing, law-abiding restraint

in the face of decades of ridicule, rife with dismissive contempt from the

politico-corporate machine.  This is fact: altruism and benevolence toward the

helpless of this world threatens the status quo; it threatens profits; it

threatens power; it threatens capitalism as GOD. Viciously labeling those who

are pro-life [i'm speaking now of AUTHENTIC pro-lifers; those who feel ALL life

is to be respected equally; those that believe God's creations have a RIGHT to

live their lives without victimization--free from man's brutality; the very

right that you claim for yourself, while arrogantly denying it to those without

a voice] as terrorists, is nothing short of mass manipulation. Joseph Goebbels

would be proud, take a bow.

>

> This strategy will admittedly garner support from those too lazy to think for

themselves or to critically evaluate the motives behind the most vocal,

anti-animal rights', mouthpieces. They will fail to realize that individuals

such as yourself have a political agenda behind tossing the terrorist rhetoric

around. One which is devoted to silencing dissent and quelling a legitimate

social movement by using your own brand of fascism as its blunt instrument. This

is the tool of GENUINE terrorists; of neo-cons; of the extreme right who are

desperately attempting to hang on to the power and wealth they have historically

enjoyed as the top 2%, while the other 98% are forced to do their

bidding--ignored and disenfranchised. It is an extremely, cowardly and dishonest

tactic. One which reaffirms that man may have a " choice " of utilizing the moral

high ground, but seldom chooses to use it.

>

> Your " moral " stance isn't about liberty, it's about repression. It isn't about

life, it's about championing DEATH. It's about the right of profiteers to

conduct themselves as rapaciously as possible with no oversight and no

accountability. Being a corporate or political whore means never having to say

you're sorry. Those days are over, Mr. Locke. Deal with it--in an honest and

honorable fashion, if that's possible--though judging from your current

rhetoric, it is not.

>

> Overwhelmingly, more harm than good has been achieved by the obscenely

wasteful, repetitive and ultimately lethal results of 'research' on animals,

with hundreds of thousands of human victims succumbing to its primitive and

endless recipe for erroneous results. This is FACT--this trumps your argument

all to hell. 

>

> There are plenty of mindless soldiers willing to line up and continue to

defend the corporate and political vampires which serve to afford them wealthy

lifestyles. If this is what you have chosen, so be it; but don't try to pawn

your " terrorist " propaganda off as the truth; it reeks of the same far Right

stench being shoveled down peoples' throats since Richard Nixon masterminded

Watergate. Thankfully, there are some truly unselfish and heroic human beings

out there. They are fighting your brand of evil, everyday; and soon those who

defend torture and murder as ethical and moral will be where they belong. Get

your asbestos suit ready.

>

> Brennan Browne

>

>

>

********************************************************************************\

************************************************

>

> Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty

> By Edwin A. Locke

> Updated: 04/30/2009 11:13:27 PM PDT

>

>

> Rallies at UCLA and other campuses in support of animal research are a welcome

sign that scientists are beginning to stand up to the animal rights activists.

>  

> But if the defenders of research are to win out, they must be more firm in

opposing the vicious inversion of morality inherent in the notion of animal

" rights, " in the name of which terrorists have committed hundreds of violent

crimes.

>  

> They have vandalized or fire-bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food

restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North

America. The animal " rights " movement is not about the humane treatment of

animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.

>  

> According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or

leather shoes, and to use animals in research - even if it would lead to cures

for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that

animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: " Even if animal tests produced a cure

for AIDS, we'd be against it. "

> How do the animal " rights " advocates try to justify their position? As someone

who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know

firsthand that the whole movement is typically based on a single - invalid -

syllogism; namely, men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore,

animals have rights.

>  

> This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his

ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

> Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and

choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To

live successfully, man must use his rational faculty - which is exercised by

choice.

>  

> The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To

survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men

- free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect

men against the use of force by other men.

> None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational

thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists) ..

They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They

cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for

eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and

only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

>  

> Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by

voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical

force. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no

right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of

creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality.

>  

> The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do

not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal " rights " advocates

have revealed it quite openly.

>  

> The animal " rights " terrorists are like the Unabomber or the World Trade

Center terrorists or Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking

justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do

not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars.

They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but

to disappear into its muck.

>  

> There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and

defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and

the pursuit of his own happiness. Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of

management at the University of Maryland at College Park.

>