Comments - Transcript of ARZone Tom Regan Workshop Part 2 - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-29T10:46:19Zhttps://arzone.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4715978%3ABlogPost%3A39268&xn_auth=noIt wasn't me who said "red do…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:401222011-05-23T12:23:55.356ZTuckerhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/Tucker
<p>It wasn't me who said "red dog it seems you had no real connection with the people whose actions you were defending...? That must have been someone else - I neither said that to red dog nor Roger. Just clarifying.</p>
<p>It wasn't me who said "red dog it seems you had no real connection with the people whose actions you were defending...? That must have been someone else - I neither said that to red dog nor Roger. Just clarifying.</p> 4. "My" definition of sentien…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:404112011-05-23T11:04:04.923Zred doghttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/reddog
4. "My" definition of sentience wasn't mine. I was paraphrasing Francione and Dunayer. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
4. "My" definition of sentience wasn't mine. I was paraphrasing Francione and Dunayer. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. 1. Susannah, I apologize for…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:404102011-05-23T10:57:02.261Zred doghttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/reddog
<p>1. Susannah, I apologize for getting your name wrong.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. This is the view I meant to express strong agreement with:</p>
<p>"if it fights or is scared for it's life, I would consider it self aware</p>
<p>Scallop vs chicken?" (Posted by Dominique)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. I expressed an opinion similar to Dominique's on another board and got harassed for it.</p>
<p>1. Susannah, I apologize for getting your name wrong.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. This is the view I meant to express strong agreement with:</p>
<p>"if it fights or is scared for it's life, I would consider it self aware</p>
<p>Scallop vs chicken?" (Posted by Dominique)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. I expressed an opinion similar to Dominique's on another board and got harassed for it.</p> You posted in the correct pla…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:405072011-05-23T08:02:45.175ZCarolyn Baileyhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
<p>You posted in the correct place for comments. I would have turned comments off on Part 1, but my computer crashes every time I try!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You posted in the correct place for comments. I would have turned comments off on Part 1, but my computer crashes every time I try!</p>
<p> </p> There's nothing wrong with th…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:392732011-05-23T07:55:10.720Zred doghttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/reddog
<p>There's nothing wrong with the transcript as far as I can tell--I just wanted to make my intentions clear for readers. I thought Tucker must have meant to address Roger because he was an ALF spokesperson and I was just bringing up hypothetical cases.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I also hope I haven't posted this in the wrong place? This was my response to part 1.</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with the transcript as far as I can tell--I just wanted to make my intentions clear for readers. I thought Tucker must have meant to address Roger because he was an ALF spokesperson and I was just bringing up hypothetical cases.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I also hope I haven't posted this in the wrong place? This was my response to part 1.</p> Thanks, red dog.
The transcr…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:405032011-05-23T07:30:30.913ZCarolyn Baileyhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
Thanks, red dog.<br />
<br />
The transcript has actually been drastically cleaned up in order to present a readable copy of what transpired in the workshop. Unfortunately, as you suggest, while many people were talking more than listening in this workshop, the conversations were somewhat disjointed and very confusing.<br />
<br />
If ever you notice a transcript which contains inaccuracies, please feel free to let me know, so that I may make the necessary corrections to the actual transcript.<br />
<br />
Your second point above…
Thanks, red dog.<br />
<br />
The transcript has actually been drastically cleaned up in order to present a readable copy of what transpired in the workshop. Unfortunately, as you suggest, while many people were talking more than listening in this workshop, the conversations were somewhat disjointed and very confusing.<br />
<br />
If ever you notice a transcript which contains inaccuracies, please feel free to let me know, so that I may make the necessary corrections to the actual transcript.<br />
<br />
Your second point above (2) was Tucker in response to your comments about what your response would be to those who may ask you about an ALF action you were not part of.<br />
<br />
I'll endeavour to go through the transcript in an attempt to locate your other points and clarify them as well.<br />
<br />
Again, please feel free to email me at any time if you feel a transcript, or anything else, requires clarification or correction. Great chat, but I worry that…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-05-23:4715978:Comment:392712011-05-23T04:29:34.431Zred doghttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/reddog
<p>Great chat, but I worry that due to the different conversations going on at the same time (and maybe my own carelessness in posting), a few parts of the transcript could possibly confuse readers:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. I wrote: "The examples Regan uses involve arson. That's potentially violent because it could endanger lives, not because it destroys property."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think I meant to add something. What I meant to add is that economic sabotage could take other forms--such as sending…</p>
<p>Great chat, but I worry that due to the different conversations going on at the same time (and maybe my own carelessness in posting), a few parts of the transcript could possibly confuse readers:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. I wrote: "The examples Regan uses involve arson. That's potentially violent because it could endanger lives, not because it destroys property."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think I meant to add something. What I meant to add is that economic sabotage could take other forms--such as sending black faxes or hacking into computer systems. Such actions could cost money but not run the risk of injuring or killing anyone (including insects). Regan's comments don't really address whether or not these actions would constitute "violence." I would say no.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. Tucker is quoted as saying: "red dog It seems you had no real connection with the people whose actions you were defending ...?" I think he must have meant to address that question to Roger.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. I wrote: "No, of course it isn't and I don't think it should be." To clarify, this was in response to Roger's statement that it isn't possible to dictate what the media write. Hopefully most reporters want to be fair and give everyone a fair hearing. I know some don't. But if you present your case as clearly as possible, you're doing your best. I think the media are changing, even if the changes are so slow as to be unnoticeable at times.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. I wrote "In response to Maynard S. Clark:, it seems so ..."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My response was delayed, but this was Maynard's question: "Could we say that MOST folks on this list are conflicted about (non)violent direct action?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. I wrote: "Tim, that's very true ... but the fact that you're allowing this discussion on your site shows that you're serious about challenging speciesism."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was in response to Tim's statement: "We cannot force anyone in the movement to be nonviolent, nor can we deny 'membership' in the movement to those who choose to act violently out of frustration"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. Tucker wrote: "The media will always misrepresent the truth and present a picture they want the public to see. Breaking locks on cages would be portrayed as violence by the media and they'd probably make up a load of other stuff about the activists too"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While I think there's a great deal of truth to this, I don't think it's inevitable and it's something we have a responsibility to change. We have to demand better behaviour from the media--that was my point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. I wrote: "Did someone follow up and ask for a correction? Did they write a letter to the editor? Did they talk with the reporter directly?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was in response to Tucker's post about the SHAC case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>8. "Right, me too ... but we have to remember it's the victimizers having this discussion and not the victims, unlike in many other social movements."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The "me too" was an expression of agreement with Roger's post: "I think we raise the issue about proportionality because we are in a social movement trying to bring about social change in a speciesist society." With my previous question I didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't be discussing it, of course.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>9. I wrote: "Maynard S. Clark:, I think that's what's at issue." I'm not sure what this was in response to. Was something left out?</p>