"One Animal Researcher Refuses to Hide "

[Autumnlicious]

REF: http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_20110222.asp

I was looking for research groups to contact and I found this news article on the center's website.

I thought it was a well articulated article about one of UCLA's researchers who utilizes Vervet monkeys in addiction neurobiology studies and his experiences with animal rights extremists.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I thought it was a well articulated article about one of UCLA's researchers who utilizes Vervet monkeys in addiction neurobiology studies and his experiences with animal rights extremists.

I really like lots of (other) animals.Many are truly beautiful, many are cute and a relatively small number are delicious. Nor do I advocate or accept gratuitous cruelty. I DO accept experiments IF the aim is to save human lives. Bottom line; the lives of me and my species trumps those of any number of other animals. I suspect that attitude may even be a basic law of survival.


I must admit I have not actually met many animal activists,although I see them on TV and on line. As group,they come across as a bunch of smug,sanctimonious arseholes who I feel like punching.

What gives him the right? Umm,the law?


What a bunch of cunts.The guy is stunningly tolerant.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

TANGENT: WHALES: What would you do if you were a Japanese whaler in international waters,not breaking any laws, and were being harassed by Greenpeace boats? Me? I'd do my utmost to sink them.

[Autumnlicious]

TANGENT: WHALES: What would you do if you were a Japanese whaler in international waters,not breaking any laws, and were being harassed by Greenpeace boats? Me? I'd do my utmost to sink them.

No law, except for self defense, gives you the right to arbitrarily engage in actions that may end up in the deaths of others.

That's called murder, ship as a weapon or not.

The whalers are allowed to take steps to reasonably defend themselves and no further.

Let me phrase it a different way:
TANGENT: CARS: What would you do if you were a truck driver driving down the street, and were being harassed by protesters? Me? I'd do my utmost to run them over.

[The Grand Nudger]

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/...part7.html

Boarding attempts in international waters are often classified as "piracy". Depredation or destruction, or damage to ships in international waters is often classified as "piracy". It's a fine line protesters have to tread. If they put themselves between the bow and the whale and get struck, they won't be compensated...and it's the whalers that will have to take them home, losing yet more income in the process. I'm not a big fan of whaling, the way in which it's being done is greasy to say the least...but the law is clear.

They cannot attack them, they can defend themselves (including lethal force during a boarding attempt-if, as Moros has mentioned, it is reasonable. At 0-Dark thirty in international waters under a boarding attempt I'd be willing to wager that almost anything seems reasonable).

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Boarding attempts in international waters are often classified as "piracy". Depredation or destruction, or damage to ships in international waters is often classified as "piracy"

That was what I was getting at; legally it is NOT cut and dried. Besides, I said 'sink them' not' kill ' them (on purpose).

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, they don't have to throw the wheel to avoid one of the bastards that gets in front of them (that could endanger their own ship and crew in those seas). So......

Imagine the greeting after pulling them out of the water "Sorry that had to happen, but you have to admit, you're kind of being an asshole putting your boat in front of ours."

[Autumnlicious]

Boarding attempts in international waters are often classified as "piracy". Depredation or destruction, or damage to ships in international waters is often classified as "piracy"

That was what I was getting at; legally it is NOT cut and dried. Besides, I said 'sink them' not' kill ' them (on purpose).

It is quite cut and dry. Just because another commits an act of piracy against you doesn't give you the right to sink them, anymore than executing a felon once you've got the upper hand. Context, in any legal situation, is always maintained.

You two are reprehensible.

Doubly so for advocating "sinking" and then saying "What?! I'm not KILLING them".

Because boats sink SOOO easily without a significant chance of lives lost (when boats sink, repeat after me, it is NOT a catastrophic event).

---

Padraic, one time you wrote of how I had "disappointed you" for falling into bigotry against Islam.

Yet you freely advocate actions that are unsafe at best, catastrophic at worst, to get rid of an "annoyance."

You didn't prefix it with "In the event of danger". Nope, it was "I'd do my utmost" to cause harm.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey hey now, I'm not talking about trying to sink them, thought I made that clear when I repeated that the law states that they cannot attack them. Trouble only arises when they put themselves and the whalers ship and crew in danger by crossing the T, as it were, or by boarding. I don't think Greenpeace has ever been accused of this, they keep it pretty clean (with regards to UNCLOS). Some other more militant organizations have done such things. In the event of a collision in those circumstance the crew that caused this will be pulled out of the water by the other ship (as you've said, it's not catastrophic), but they will not be compensated for the loss of their ship and may face charges when they get to shore (and can be detained until shore is made). Boarding is another issue entirely. The only ships that have a right to board are warships of a sovereign nation in territorial waters, warships in hot pursuit in any waters (there's an official definition of "hot pursuit"), and warships in international waters conducting a search on the basis of suspicion of illegal activity. If a ship is being involuntarily boarded by anyone else the law does state that the crew has a right to defend themselves, and as I've said, at 0-dark thirty it could be difficult to distinguish a protesters act from that of a pirates acts...the fact that protesters who board ships are not often shot shows that the crews of these whalers do exercise a fair amount of humanity and common sense (although I do recall a recent news story where a whaler crew member did open fire on a boarding protester).

This whole situation is slimey. The ships that engage in whaling activities are clearly circumventing conventions and playing word games with the law. I wouldn't ever argue that they weren't, or that their activities aren't completely reprehensible. Most protesters take appropriate action (appropriate action doesn't even require one to be at sea, let alone endanger themselves or others at sea..this is a legal matter that is best handled in a court), there are those who don't. These people are no more "in the right" than the whalers, and sadly are even less so, as the whaling ships have greased their way past the law to be legal and these militant protesters are engaging in activities that are usually reserved for acts of piracy. I don't see why it should have even come to this, whale better be seriously fucking tasty for all the trouble it's caused between these groups of people.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Padraic, one time you wrote of how I had "disappointed you" for falling into bigotry against Islam.

Yet you freely advocate actions that are unsafe at best, catastrophic at worst, to get rid of an "annoyance."

You didn't prefix it with "In the event of danger". Nope, it was "I'd do my utmost" to cause harm.

Tu Quoque.

[Autumnlicious]

Up yours asshole.

I'm through with you.