Options

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

124»

Posts

  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    Economic damages are very clearly defined, and cannot reasonably be subject to people who aren't either blowing things up or deliberately intimidating others. So PETA can't scream in people's faces anymore, but other than that you can protest unabated.

    Every time I've seen "economic damages" used anywhere in print it's included things like loss of productivity, loss of wages, and loss of business. That's the part that bothers me. If I'm mistaken, let me know and point me to a resource where I can reeducate myself.
    The relavent line here is:
    Intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
    "Real" damages do not include loss of wages, productivity, that sort of thing - it's straight up destroying or otherwise rendering useless a physical object. That's what you can be indicted for. You are sentenced based on economic damages (and personal violence,) defined as follows:
    (3) the term `economic damage'--

    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
    So Sec. A refers to economic damage in the way you're used to, but Sec. B explicitly states that economic damages related to lawful disruption are discounted.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    Okay, Aegeri, take a deep breath. Nobody here actually thinks you get hard torturing small animals. IW was just being clever.

    Not so very clever actually.

    When someone whom I barely know makes a stupid comment, I take it literally unless I have a reason to otherwise disregard it, usually due to context of the post or if I know the poster in question. Considering the level of stupid around this forum lately, I've not had reason to think otherwise.
    Okay, based on what? A PhD researcher saying that he can't do work because he's afraid of ALF? Yes, ALF is a group of nutcases (and, by the way, are already listed as a terrorist organization in the US) but is a 100% elimination of the all nutcases in the world everywhere necessary for us to declare that current sentencing is effective? ALF has managed to have a few high-profile operations but I have difficulty believing that they're this widespread cancer you seem to portray them as.

    They are only a single group and there was a report in a recent nature about problems facing US researchers from the various animal rights movements on campuses and how to [potentially] deal with this.
    And while we're comparing anecdotal evidence, the company I work for tracks the market dynamics affecting biotech companies who sell research animals. That's not part of my job, but it happens to be part of the job of the guy who sits one desk down from me and I have to listen to him babble on all day about genetically modified primates. I asked him to hand me a watch-list of the major market factors affecting the sale of research primates and "threat of terrorism" is nowhere on that list. If animal rights terrorism is such a widespread threat to animal research, why aren't the companies who sell research animals concerned about it affecting their bottom lines?

    Such animals are used only in small scale experiments to begin with, but I should point out that Animal Rights activists stopped a primate research laboratory being built at Oxford University (As I'm sure you are already aware) due to threats on workers lives and other universtiy officials. Using a genetically modified primate would take some serious facilities though, how can someone affect your bottom line when in reality, most people are not familiar with what exact research is going on most places and the facilities that perform such research are fairly limited.

    On the other hand, the numbers of animals and the increased costs of security at such facilities does pose a considerable problem to 'the bottom line'.
    Actually, it's been explained several times. You've just managed to ignore it.

    No I haven't. I've not yet seen a reasonable explanation.
    It uses vague language

    If by vague you mean spends several sections defining exactly what it means then yeah, sure I guess so.
    to increase sentencing on people who cause "economic damage" in the course of a protest. Applied loosely, this could have a chilling effect on lawful protest. "But, Feral, the bill exempts lawful protests," you might say. Why yes,

    There you go. Answered your own objection.

    We'll see exactly what happens with the whole conspiracy part if/when a case of that matter gets to court. I imagine that would be an interesting case, but I don't think even with this bill that the company would win. It certainly could be an issue, but the bill is SPECIFIC in its language about what should be considered lawful protest and specifically protects it.

    Unless of course we're arguing for blockading labs, factories and the like.
    If you want to recognize the problem how about increased funding to domestic and foreign intelligence agencies so we can actually find the specific people responsible for the acts you've got your panties in a bunch about?

    Yeah, I have my panties in a bunch over a group of people who destroyed someones research career and another group that threatened to kill me.

    Oh wait.

    Maybe it's justified.

    :roll:

    Really, what the hell happened to logic on this forum?
    I'm sympathetic. But please acknowledge that you're not the only person here who's been given a death threat.

    Yeah and by people associated with who we are discussing primarily, which certainly aren't lawful protestors by any stretch of the imagination. You can argue that I might not be the only person here who has recieved such threats (though with a photograph of myself and a quip saying they knew where I lived...), but you can't argue that my direct experiences aren't directly relevant to the discussion.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    WulfWulf Disciple of Tzeentch The Void... (New Jersey)Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Dynagrip wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    Reasonable and justified response
    Somebody is a little sensitive about their torturing of primates.
    Uh... someone doesn't know how research is carried out do they? Yeah... you have a problem with animal research, how about you stop taking modern medicines and a whole mess of modern surgical procedures while you are at it. Then you can make a fuss.
    Irond Will wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
    If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

    I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

    Also, Aegeri's Very Bad People sabotaged someone's research project. Cat's Very Bad People killed peoples' pet dogs.

    I say point hippies.

    They also murdered actual activists.

    Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.
    There are no pets in animal research. Nearly all animals currently being used in research are bred from the start for that purpose. Stop being ignorant.

    This bill is to prevent situations like when an entire facility was besieged by weapon wielding eco-terrorists who destroyed anything that they could get at and threatened the lives of the people who barricaded themselves inside with blunt weapons. This is to help stop those eco-terrorists from making bomb-threats on facilities, to stem the act of putting bounties on the heads of people who work in the industry, people I know and respect. Yes, these things were crimes before, but this is, in my view, just pushing them to the next level of illegality. Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    And no IW wasn't being clever, he was seeing how far he could push it before someone called him out.

    Wulf on
    Everyone needs a little Chaos!
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Wulf wrote:
    Dynagrip wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    Reasonable and justified response
    Somebody is a little sensitive about their torturing of primates.
    Uh... someone doesn't know how research is carried out do they? Yeah... you have a problem with animal research, how about you stop taking modern medicines and a whole mess of modern surgical procedures while you are at it. Then you can make a fuss.
    Irond Will wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
    If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

    I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

    Also, Aegeri's Very Bad People sabotaged someone's research project. Cat's Very Bad People killed peoples' pet dogs.

    I say point hippies.

    They also murdered actual activists.

    Yeah, killing people is bad. But killing pets is just malicious.
    There are no pets in animal research. Nearly all animals currently being used in research are bred from the start for that purpose. Stop being ignorant..

    You know what else is ignorant? Not paying attention to what we're fucking talking about.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    WulfWulf Disciple of Tzeentch The Void... (New Jersey)Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I was addressing points that were raised. Sorry I don't have a doctorate in bullshit. :roll:

    Wulf on
    Everyone needs a little Chaos!
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Wulf wrote:
    I was addressing points that were raised.

    No, you weren't. For example, we were talking about activists' pets, not research animals.

    Also, making something illegal twice is still laughable.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    Economic damages are very clearly defined, and cannot reasonably be subject to people who aren't either blowing things up or deliberately intimidating others. So PETA can't scream in people's faces anymore, but other than that you can protest unabated.

    Every time I've seen "economic damages" used anywhere in print it's included things like loss of productivity, loss of wages, and loss of business. That's the part that bothers me. If I'm mistaken, let me know and point me to a resource where I can reeducate myself.
    The relavent line here is:
    Intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
    "Real" damages do not include loss of wages, productivity, that sort of thing - it's straight up destroying or otherwise rendering useless a physical object. That's what you can be indicted for. You are sentenced based on economic damages (and personal violence,) defined as follows:
    (3) the term `economic damage'--

    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
    So Sec. A refers to economic damage in the way you're used to, but Sec. B explicitly states that economic damages related to lawful disruption are discounted.

    the law changes what is considered lawful

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
    So Sec. A refers to economic damage in the way you're used to, but Sec. B explicitly states that economic damages related to lawful disruption are discounted.

    the law changes what is considered lawful

    What sort of currently lawful disruption did you have in mind that would violate this?
    Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    `(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and

    `(2) in connection with such purpose--

    `(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;

    `(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or

    `(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

    It requires that you smash things, threaten someone, or conspire to do so. These are not lawful tactics.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Wulf wrote:
    Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    And no IW wasn't being clever, he was seeing how far he could push it before someone called him out.

    Christ, are all research biologists so very very delicate? The point of this thread was that the law is a dumb redundant law with a GOP par-for-the-course politicized title. I have no idea why you and Aegeri got so bent out of shape from an offhand, throwaway, and utterly ironic line about "tormenting bunnies".

    The pets thing was from Cat's links regarding the reactionaries who beat up, threatened, murdered the pets of, and occasionally killed some of these protester hippies.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
    So Sec. A refers to economic damage in the way you're used to, but Sec. B explicitly states that economic damages related to lawful disruption are discounted.

    the law changes what is considered lawful

    What sort of currently lawful disruption did you have in mind that would violate this?
    Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    `(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and

    `(2) in connection with such purpose--

    `(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;

    `(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or

    `(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

    It requires that you smash things, threaten someone, or conspire to do so. These are not lawful tactics.
    `(3) the term `economic damage'--
    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

    The kind that violates the above when inserting said definitions into the bill.

    Also, it should be noted, that personal or real property means "any property". Real property refers to real estate, and personal property refers to everything else. Stocks for instance, are personal property. When they refer to "real property" they are not refering to tangible assets only, but any assets.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The part you quoted is a sentencing guideline, not an example of a statutory violation.

    ie If you do something described in the part I quoted, you are charged with being a jerk. When deciding on a sentence, if what you did included harm to others, or economic damage, the part you quoted is used as a guideline. Just causing "Economic damage" is not a crime in this bill, you have to satisfy the conditions I posted, only then is the economic damage assessed by the punishment guidelines.

    That "B" clause you posted then goes on to say that if the economic damage you inflicted was part of a lawful protest, then you may not be punished for it. But why then would you be charged? Well A) Cops on the scene don't know the statutes they are asked to uphold verbatim (or at all in some cases...), so you might just be arrested because he's a dick. But lets say you are at a protest, and that protest is lawfully costing Company X millions, but then you punch an executive of company X and threaten to kill him.

    Well now you're arrested, and they charge you for the minor assault and try to tack on the 20 year sentence for $1,000,000 in economic damages. Any halfwit lawyer can pull out the law and say "Hey, those damages were caused by the lawful protest, thrown them shits out" and they will. Then you're just looking at a max of 1 year, but probably probation. Basically, just what you'd get for punching anyone in the face if they pressed charges. Except I think the 1 year max might be high on average.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    `(3) the term `economic damage'--
    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise
    ;

    Doesn't (B) mean that actions that are currently legal cannot be included under (A)?

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yes.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Joseph StalinJoseph Stalin Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Hey guys, how about bitching and moaning about animal rights activists, you tell us what problem this law fixes. I see redundant legislation that will have no noticable affect on the actions of groups such as ALF.

    THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THREE YEARS OR FIVE

    Joseph Stalin on
    Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

    Workingmen of all countries, unite!
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Hey guys, how about bitching and moaning about animal rights activists, you tell us what problem this law fixes. I see redundant legislation that will have no noticable affect on the actions of groups such as ALF.

    THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THREE YEARS OR FIVE
    For the fortieth time, it gives the FBI a free hand to investigate this shit. It implicitly adds additional resources to the enforcement of the existing laws.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Hey guys, how about bitching and moaning about animal rights activists, you tell us what problem this law fixes. I see redundant legislation that will have no noticable affect on the actions of groups such as ALF.

    THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THREE YEARS OR FIVE
    For the fortieth time, it gives the FBI a free hand to investigate this shit. It implicitly adds additional resources to the enforcement of the existing laws.

    I still don't see how something like the ALF wouldn't be fair game under RICO, if the Feds were so hot on getting involved.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Wulf wrote:
    Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    And no IW wasn't being clever, he was seeing how far he could push it before someone called him out.

    Christ, are all research biologists so very very delicate? The point of this thread was that the law is a dumb redundant law with a GOP par-for-the-course politicized title. I have no idea why you and Aegeri got so bent out of shape from an offhand, throwaway, and utterly ironic line about "tormenting bunnies".

    Learn something about what 'context' both in terms of an overall discussion and in an actual statement means. Secondly, the alternative hypothesis is that you are neither as witty or clever as you believe you are.

    I'm putting very good money on the second part.

    Also:
    Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    Incredible how this incredibly simple and plainly stated paragraph managed to sail right over your head.
    Hey guys, how about bitching and moaning about animal rights activists, you tell us what problem this law fixes. I see redundant legislation that will have no noticable affect on the actions of groups such as ALF.

    Again, I've already stated that tougher legislation against these kinds of acts are required and that I don't think that the bill goes far enough as it is (monetary penalties certainly got a boost, but the jail term is still pretty pathetic as you've stated). However as Salvation points out, it does give more power to investigating units and enforcement of the existing laws (with some expansion).

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Hey guys, how about bitching and moaning about animal rights activists, you tell us what problem this law fixes. I see redundant legislation that will have no noticable affect on the actions of groups such as ALF.

    THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF THEY GO TO JAIL FOR THREE YEARS OR FIVE
    For the fortieth time, it gives the FBI a free hand to investigate this shit. It implicitly adds additional resources to the enforcement of the existing laws.
    I still don't see how something like the ALF wouldn't be fair game under RICO, if the Feds were so hot on getting involved.
    I'd imagine if they could be pursued under it they would be. RICO's generally been applied to extortion, which I suppose ALF acts could be qualified under, but that'd be a bit of a stretch. EDIT: Based on NOW v. Scheidler, I'd be willing to be that they're not eligible to prosecution under RICO.

    In addition, most of them probably don't care about the slightly longer sentances, but the extra years add up quickly for multiple offenses, which makes it easier to get people to turn state's-witness and get more information.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I thought I missed a page, and apparently I did.
    Aegeri wrote:
    Con: I find the expansion superfluos or inappropriate.

    You do, I do not. Please justify this statement. I think there is more than enough reason to expand who is protected, to solidfy that individuals cannot be attacked expressly and to firmly protect legal protesting still in the language of the bill.

    Those people are already protected, just not under this statute. This just makes what would be state charges into federal charges. Something I don't approve of without good reason. If the State is not doing its job protecting its citizens, then the State needs to step up and correct that. The federal government isn't a band-aid for shitty local legislature.
    Pro: The idea that you could get 3 years max for over a million in damages is pretty fucked up. But I'm pretty sure there is another law covering that, and these are just bonus charges for committing crimes against animal related entities. So, not really important to me.

    Good, find that law and explain it. Otherwise I think the increased penalties are a step in the right direction and a long time overdue.

    I'm not looking up the law, or more likely, the hundreds of assorted laws, each state might have to protect against someone inflicting over a million dollars in damages on someone. If you are honestly asserting that there is no such consideration made, well, you're more cynical than I.

    Edit: If there is no law protecting against such nonsense, then I absolutely think there should be. But not this law, because this law only protects Animal Enterprises; and they aren't special. That law should protect everyone.

    Extending it may not prove a solution, but it's a brilliant start and provides a model for others to go on with. It shows they are doing something rather than completely and utterly nothing.

    A brilliant start? Not likely. It is a mediocre sentence increase in most cases, and it will likely end there. They aren't going to revise a law they just passed, they're going to pat themselves on the back, call attention to how much they care about this issue and how they are working against it, and move on. Weak legislation is probably the last thing you want to see applied to a law that isn't working well enough, because it ensures that they won't touch it again for years.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Guys, I admit, I am confounded as to the meaning of the very first line in this bill.

    To me, it says this law only applies if you cross state lines or use the mail. Which takes even more teeth out of it, and I thought pretty much made anything a federal crime anyway.

    (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    Am I reading that right? The base requirement for offense?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    Learn something about what 'context' both in terms of an overall discussion and in an actual statement means. Secondly, the alternative hypothesis is that you are neither as witty or clever as you believe you are.

    I'm putting very good money on the second part.

    Like I said, an offhand, throwaway quip, entirely ironic, intended to poke more fun at people who would hold that sentiment, and clarified at the first opportunity. The fact that it's bent you so desperately out of shape is on you, not me.
    Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    Incredible how this incredibly simple and plainly stated paragraph managed to sail right over your head.

    Wait - now it's my responsibility to ensure perfect clarity on a fucking video game message board on the fucking internet when making fun of anti-animal-research types? Because, you know, an especially humorless and impressionable budding animal-terrorist with reading comprehension issues might come across it and start bombing clinics?

    You've made it clear that you have a problem with animal activists. I'm not your guy.

    Also: you should get an XBox 360. They're quite fun, and look great on an HDTV.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Guys, I admit, I am confounded as to the meaning of the very first line in this bill.

    To me, it says this law only applies if you cross state lines or use the mail. Which takes even more teeth out of it, and I thought pretty much made anything a federal crime anyway.

    (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    Am I reading that right? The base requirement for offense?

    It's the statutory minimum for the federal government to be involved. The Interstate Commerce Clause. Basically, it's used as a constitutional justification for pretty much all federal action.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Guys, I admit, I am confounded as to the meaning of the very first line in this bill.

    To me, it says this law only applies if you cross state lines or use the mail. Which takes even more teeth out of it, and I thought pretty much made anything a federal crime anyway.

    (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    Am I reading that right? The base requirement for offense?

    It's the statutory minimum for the federal government to be involved. The Interstate Commerce Clause. Basically, it's used as a constitutional justification for pretty much all federal action.

    So provided Eco-nut lives in the same state (and perhaps doesn't use the highway?) he can do anything he wants without drawing the ire of this law.

    This ammendment is a waste of paper.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    Learn something about what 'context' both in terms of an overall discussion and in an actual statement means. Secondly, the alternative hypothesis is that you are neither as witty or clever as you believe you are.

    I'm putting very good money on the second part.

    Like I said, an offhand, throwaway quip, entirely ironic, intended to poke more fun at people who would hold that sentiment, and clarified at the first opportunity. The fact that it's bent you so desperately out of shape is on you, not me.

    Actually, what has me so annoyed is your refusal to admit you said something highly stupid originally. Unless you have no grasp of the concept of 'context' in the English language there is no real point in furthering any discussion with you.
    Also, facetious or not, never compare researchers work to torturing pets, or abusing little bunnies or what-have-you. There are a lot of very stupid people that would take that to heart for every one person that realizes its a load of crap.

    Incredible how this incredibly simple and plainly stated paragraph managed to sail right over your head.

    Wait - now it's my responsibility to ensure perfect clarity on a fucking video game message board on the fucking internet when making fun of anti-animal-research types?

    Then get better at making fun of people, because nothing from the context (a concept that is entirely alien to you it appears) indicated anything other than an attack upon me and what I do for a living. That you fail to admit error has pissed me off.

    This is also why we have the chat thread, which is definitely for such humor and off the wall quips. Generally threads are expected to be on-topic and facilitate serious discussion (except when the original post or subject matter just enters into the blatantly retarded, which is a fine line admittingly).
    Because, you know, an especially humorless and impressionable budding animal-terrorist with reading comprehension issues might come across it and start bombing clinics?

    From the original context there was no such indication at all. Maybe you are not quite familiar with the concept that unless you know a person well or things are plainly stated, sarcasm does not convey particularly well over the internet.

    I have no idea who the hell you are and neither do I particularly care at the moment, but that you seem UTTERLY OBLIVIOUS to why I would find such a statement offensive, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION, WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT OF YOUR POSTS TO INDICATE IT WAS A JOKE, truly demonstrates how completely ignorant you are.

    If you cannot quite grasp this concept, don't bother trying to be 'witty' in future. You fail at it.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Guys, I admit, I am confounded as to the meaning of the very first line in this bill.

    To me, it says this law only applies if you cross state lines or use the mail. Which takes even more teeth out of it, and I thought pretty much made anything a federal crime anyway.

    (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    Am I reading that right? The base requirement for offense?
    It's the statutory minimum for the federal government to be involved. The Interstate Commerce Clause. Basically, it's used as a constitutional justification for pretty much all federal action.
    So provided Eco-nut lives in the same state (and perhaps doesn't use the highway?) he can do anything he wants without drawing the ire of this law.

    This ammendment is a waste of paper.
    It applies to interstate organizations. ./shrug

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Oh for fuck's sake, look back at this thread. Something like 30% of the posts are standalone quips, and banter to the effect of "torturing primates" is pretty much de rigeur on these forums, even when we're otherwise engaging in "serious discussion". What I said was not "highly stupid," and when it became clear that the context eluded you, I clarified it.

    Personally, I think your issues are well outside the scope of this little tirade.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
Sign In or Register to comment.