contrary

Animal rights is really starting to bother me. I'm in agreement with the theory in itself much like I agree with communism as a theory, but its practice is where the dilemma lies. I agree very much with the notion that animals should be treated as an ends and not a means much like the view I have toward humans, but I do not agree with using humans as a means to reach a successive goal in regards to animal rights. My main beef has been against an activist group abrreviated as the ALF (I have written on this further in previous blogs entitled "What the ALF Has In Common With Decadence"). Not only is this group an insult to the warm hearted alien, but I've never known a greater group of cowards posing as heroes. "Violence or cowardice" is the idea they prop up against themselves. They establish that there is a difference between the two notions when really there isn't. To use violence as the means is to choose cowardice in that it requires one to disestablish the other as an equally living subjectivity and bulldoze over anything that is viewed as opposition (which is everything) from its path. This in-itself isn't to act for a cause, but is instead pure selfishness in that one acts only to satisfy one's own perceptions. The challenge for the humanitarian is to consider the rights and obligations toward all life, animal and human alike, but violence is to besmirch this stance and instead take on a more Ayn Rand sort of view that nobility is accomplished by looking after #1. This may be true, but in relation to who seeing as selfishness eliminates the life force of the world? I've always established that in order to take on the cause of animal rights one must first confront economics, and unless activists are ready to acknowledge this they will always hit the wrong targets, but that doesn't really matter just so long as they're able to vent their frustrations and display rage against "the system". I would think then that masterbation would be much healthier conscientious decision.
I also find it to be quite safe to establish these "freedom fighters" as terrorists because when it portains to education there means for doing so is by inflicting fear upon the other. This in itself isn't education, but is the definition of terroism. Reason has ecaped the abilities of the fighters and this better enables them to make the other nonexistent. For these reason I can find nothing noble in their cause, but instead see the easiest life imaginable for anyone who claims to struggle. Acknowledging one's freedom and responsibility in regards to the other is where the real challenge lies for each of us. Seeing as the ALF has no knowledge of the other or even the slightest recognition I doubt very much that animals are really the issue. I have to ask where are the real activist then?