militancy

[straightXed]

Sounds like cool designs. I know what you mean about people being ridiculous. I have "V-E-G-A-N" tattooed across my left forearm. People are seriously fucking stupid. They see and read the tattoo and ask me, "So, are you vegan?" What the fuck does my tattoo say?!

I've inserted a picture pf that tattoo here as well as one other one.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/sfarinas/IMGP0151.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f268/sfarinas/IMGP0143.jpg

I got a couple more over the weekend. They are healing. But once they heal, I will post the pictures here and on my profile.

You support the a.l.f?

[xGriffox]

You support the a.l.f?

i think it's pretty self-explanatory due to the tattoo. I would say that most vegans who act as such from an ethical standpoint (as opposed to a health-only standpoint) do support the ALF.

[straightXed]

i think it's pretty self-explanatory due to the tattoo. I would say that most vegans who act as such from an ethical standpoint (as opposed to a health-only standpoint) do support the ALF.

Having a tattoo means fuck all really, people have all kinds of things tattoo'd that they don't fully back or understand, but thanks for your interjection. I would like to point to the mass of vegans that support non violence however.

[SgtD]

You support the a.l.f?

do you think he's vegan as well?

[straightXed]

do you think he's vegan as well?

No idea, lets ask him!

[sfarinas1]

No idea, lets ask him!

Yes, I do support the ALF. And, yes, I am vegan. :-p

Within in any group/sub-culture/movement, etc., there will be groups of people that disagree. For example, vegans supporting the ALF and vegans supporting Ghandi-influenced principles. Same goes for straight edge: militant and posi people. Sure, there will be intense disagreement in some circles, tolerance in others. The key is realizing the complementarity of both groups.

And I also understand quite well what my tattoo means. I would not have inked my body otherwise.

[straightXed]

Yes, I do support the ALF. And, yes, I am vegan. :-p

Within in any group/sub-culture/movement, etc., there will be groups of people that disagree. For example, vegans supporting the ALF and vegans supporting Ghandi-influenced principles. Same goes for straight edge: militant and posi people. Sure, there will be intense disagreement in some circles, tolerance in others. The key is realizing the complementarity of both groups.

Theres nothing complimentry about militant attitudes in straightedge. I'd struggle to find anything comendable about alf too.


And I also understand quite well what my tattoo means. I would not have inked my body otherwise.

Theres also the posibility of someone tattooing themselves with something a while back that they no longer support.

[sfarinas1]

Theres nothing complimentry about militant attitudes in straightedge. I'd struggle to find anything comendable about alf too.

Militant attitudes are complimentary if they are free, which they are. I do not know about militant straight edge kids going around charging people for giving them "advice".


Theres also the posibility of someone tattooing themselves with something a while back that they no longer support.

There is also the chance of someone tattooing themselves with something they do support and continue supporting that "something".

[straightXed]

Militant attitudes are complimentary if they are free, which they are. I do not know about militant straight edge kids going around charging people for giving them "advice".

being militant does not complement straight edge though and neither does it compliment it.




There is also the chance of someone tattooing themselves with something they do support and continue supporting that "something".

Which is the point i made...there is a chance that they change their viewpoint and that of course means their is a chance they haven't changed their viewpoint. Thats a given really. But i'm glad you agree that a tattoo is no hard rule as to what someone is/believes/supports etc.

[sfarinas1]

being militant does not complement straight edge though and neither does it compliment it.

Being militant is complementary in that it puts things into perspective. It reinforces the positive attitudes that the non-militant people hold by essentially saying, "I do not agree with the militant attitude. I will not be militant. Let me continue being positive and lead by example." It's like ying and yang.






Which is the point i made...there is a chance that they change their viewpoint and that of course means their is a chance they haven't changed their viewpoint. Thats a given really. But i'm glad you agree that a tattoo is no hard rule as to what someone is/believes/supports etc.

Agreed. Which is why when people ask me about my tattoos, one of things I always tell them is, "Think long and hard about what you want to get. You have to be comfortable with it. Remember, tattoos are permanent."

[xsecx]

Being militant is complementary in that it puts things into perspective. It reinforces the positive attitudes that the non-militant people hold by essentially saying, "I do not agree with the militant attitude. I will not be militant. Let me continue being positive and lead by example." It's like ying and yang.


or the more likely effect of "I'm not going to call myself x anymore because I don't want to be associated with those shitheads and end up on some watchlist"

[sfarinas1]

or the more likely effect of "I'm not going to call myself x anymore because I don't want to be associated with those shitheads and end up on some watchlist"

That too. Likely more so than my example. But could it also galvanize the posi kids to say to potential straight edgers, "The militants are a minority. Straight edge is not about beating the shit of people and being an asshole"? It would deter complacency.

[xsecx]

That too. Likely more so than my example. But could it also galvanize the posi kids to say to potential straight edgers, "The militants are a minority. Straight edge is not about beating the shit of people and being an asshole"? It would deter complacency.

I'm not just talking about straight edge. Militancy in anything tends to tar the entire movement that it's apart of. Who gets reported the most? The ones who blow shit up and hit people or the ones who don't?

[straightXed]

Being militant is complementary in that it puts things into perspective. It reinforces the positive attitudes that the non-militant people hold by essentially saying, "I do not agree with the militant attitude. I will not be militant. Let me continue being positive and lead by example." It's like ying and yang.

That doesn't complement it, that goes beyong the idea, detracts from the meaning and basically weakens its stance. You can put non violent or non militant things into perspective without mixing militancy into that thing. You are essentially saying that for straightedge to be whole it needs an aspect that is wholely self destructive. Thats not true. Straightedge can fully fill its definition by being positive and it doesn't need militancy in order to be positive. As for the concept of yin and yang, straightedge can fill both yin and yang concepts without militancy and can also act as an opposing phenomena for other things it comes accross with out the need for those things to be within the realms of being straightedge.








Agreed. Which is why when people ask me about my tattoos, one of things I always tell them is, "Think long and hard about what you want to get. You have to be comfortable with it. Remember, tattoos are permanent."

Tattoos are permenant generally yes and yes peoples beliefs often aren't...which could be the reason i have no suggestions on designs for people.

[xGriffox]

I'm not just talking about straight edge. Militancy in anything tends to tar the entire movement that it's apart of. Who gets reported the most? The ones who blow shit up and hit people or the ones who don't?
Good thing the ALF doesn't hit people then :-P

[xsecx]

Good thing the ALF doesn't hit people then :-P

"Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25574658/


uh. yeah.

[straightXed]

Good thing the ALF doesn't hit people then :-P

Terrorist acts are ok then?

[xGriffox]

Terrorist acts are ok then?
I know we had this debate before but I don't equate property destruction and loss of capital as a "terrorist attack"; the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (which is legislation in the US) seems to agree with your stance though. Give it a read and see exactly what qualifies as terrorism according to the law; you may find yourself pissed off too!

[xGriffox]

"Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25574658/


uh. yeah.

Seems as if you have some reading to do on the ALF before you start being so judgmental. Though in the '80s they were a centralized organization based out of the UK there is no tangible organization anymore. As such there is no "Animal Liberation Front Press Office"; it's just some guy they interviewed.

Look it up: the ALF have never killed any living creature despite any violent words which may have found their way onto MSNBC.

[rodrigo]

Look it up: the ALF have never killed any living creature despite any violent words which may have found their way onto MSNBC.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/osopunkore/comic107.jpg

[xGriffox]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/osopunkore/comic107.jpg
My point is now moot.

See, this is how you win an argument!

[straightXed]

I know we had this debate before but I don't equate property destruction and loss of capital as a "terrorist attack"; the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (which is legislation in the US) seems to agree with your stance though. Give it a read and see exactly what qualifies as terrorism according to the law; you may find yourself pissed off too!

What about letter bombs directed at people who work in companies which conflict with the a.l.f's viewpoints? What do you equate that as?

[straightXed]

My point is now moot.

See, this is how you win an argument!

Your point was already moot.

[xsecx]

Seems as if you have some reading to do on the ALF before you start being so judgmental. Though in the '80s they were a centralized organization based out of the UK there is no tangible organization anymore. As such there is no "Animal Liberation Front Press Office"; it's just some guy they interviewed.

Look it up: the ALF have never killed any living creature despite any violent words which may have found their way onto MSNBC.

Seems as if you have some learnin' to do in terms of how terrorist organizations work, especially ones that claim to have no leadership. They need a public mouthpiece to funnel information to, otherwise, they can't really claim responsibility. I'd also suggest you look up who that guy is. I couldn't find anything from anyone claiming to be the ALF to say they didn't agree with him or that he didn't speak for them. Especially since when you go to the alf website it goes to his when you click the press office link.

Look it up, the ALF has fire bombed houses, threatened the lives of people and assaulted people. They may not have killed any living creature but it isn't for lack of trying.

[xGriffox]

Your point was already moot.
Of yeah, I forgot, ideas that lend themselves to radicalism aren't looked kindly at on this site.

[straightXed]

Of yeah, I forgot, ideas that lend themselves to radicalism aren't looked kindly at on this site.

No, its just that its widely accepted that the alf have been a direct action group that use intimidation, terrorist like methods and other rather unsavoury militant acts. So for you to act like they don't do these things is pretty much pointless from the outset. Thats why it is moot, not because of anyones way of looking at radical measures but simply because you are wrong in making out they are non violent when they clearly are and are well known to be. But yeah, nice try at trying to make out like its the fault of the people who post here and how they look at things!

[xsecx]

Of yeah, I forgot, ideas that lend themselves to radicalism aren't looked kindly at on this site.

no, just ones that can't stand up to logical debate. How can you really expect to change anything when you can't even carry on a debate with people who disagree with you? Or do you just plan on killing everyone who doesn't so it doesn't matter?

[lo0m]

oh, so, Vlasak maybe made some militant statements in the past, that's a well known fact but hey, one person does not equate ALF.. also please, understand that ALF have never been an terrorist organization despite what you've seen on TV. and if they destroyed some harddisks or even bombed a fur shop - hey, I don't care as long as both human and non-human animals were not hurt... if i was in the WWII i would really support bombing gas chambers in concentration camp and there are happening the same things around us everyday.. i'm not militant in animal rights advocacy as i'm generally a positive person but i can understand why some people who have a feeling for animals get really angry when they see that 50 billions sentient beeings are murdered annually...

[xsecx]

oh, so, Vlasak maybe made some militant statements in the past, that's a well known fact but hey, one person does not equate ALF.. also please, understand that ALF have never been an terrorist organization despite what you've seen on TV. and if they destroyed some harddisks or even bombed a fur shop - hey, I don't care as long as both human and non-human animals were not hurt... if i was in the WWII i would really support bombing gas chambers in concentration camp and there are happening the same things around us everyday.. i'm not militant in animal rights advocacy as i'm generally a positive person but i can understand why some people who have a feeling for animals get really angry when they see that 50 billions sentient beeings are murdered annually...

they've done a lot more than just destroy some hard disks or a fur shop. I don't see how they wouldn't be considered a terrorist organization either. Did you even read the article that was linked?

[straightXed]

oh, so, Vlasak maybe made some militant statements in the past, that's a well known fact but hey, one person does not equate ALF.. also please, understand that ALF have never been an terrorist organization despite what you've seen on TV. and if they destroyed some harddisks or even bombed a fur shop - hey, I don't care as long as both human and non-human animals were not hurt... if i was in the WWII i would really support bombing gas chambers in concentration camp and there are happening the same things around us everyday.. i'm not militant in animal rights advocacy as i'm generally a positive person but i can understand why some people who have a feeling for animals get really angry when they see that 50 billions sentient beeings are murdered annually...

They focussed on bombing people at their homes...because they worked for certain comapanies that they were strongly against. That sounds like an organised terrorist action. And why should i not believe programs on TV about the ALF but yet believe you when you say that they don't partake in terrorist like action?