friendly, larger print version
~ 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"
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.
Animal-rights terrorists take away our right to life and liberty
By Edwin A. Locke
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.