Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by 8thDegreeSavage, Nov 15, 2002.
I am....please give some opinion on wether you dig or detest them.
very interesting. While I agree with the motives, I wonder how many people actually do it just to destroy stuff, and how many people do it because they hate corporations that destroy the enviroment. That's what concerns me. Is it that easy to avoid getting caught, because I may just have to join
i haven't read the entire site... but i read the "about elf" part... and yeah, i agree with their motives... but not their methods, by any means.
it just seems similar (on a lesser scale, of course) to terrorism in that it's using destruction to try to promote something good (in their eyes). now of course the results are not as drastic (ie, not killing people)... but if you cost a corporation millions of dollars in cleanup or whatever, who do you think suffers? the ceo? the board of execs? no... it's the smaller workers who may or may not be making much as it is... and then they are possibly laid off or whatever else as a result of the company losing this money... doesn't justify the ends.
This group consists of terrorists, plain and simple. They commit illegal, damaging and dangerous acts in the name of environmental protection. Bulls**t.
If there were more articulate and engaging activists out there and less psychopaths bent on destroying property to make a point, things might actually get done.
Sitting on your butt doesn't change anything. Neither do acts of terrorism.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I think they fall clearly within the bounds of the the definition.
As for "only" causing property damages, Jello had a pretty good response. But I'd like to add that the companies and governments they perpetrate thei rviolent acts against probably pay very little as a result of the acts. They are all insured and will be effected by higher premiums, but so will the rest of us. As the number of high priced claims rise, the monetary burden eventually lands in the laps of the average insured person. Higher claim rates=higher insurance costs almost across the board.
Not to mention that companies can do a lot to defray the costs that effect the "little people." Like lay-offs and cost cutting. And what if the company goes out of business?? Yeah! We accomplished our goal! The "evil" corpporation has been taken down!! But now hundreds (thousands???) of people are out of work. Is that a good thing?
Or how about targeting government or state run universities? They are often bombing/burning forest units at college. Many of these curriculums focus on conservation and things GOOD for the environment, but also have a "dark side" that these groups don't like. They feel the forest departments are too permissive.
Why don't they focus on working WITH people to help correct the situation. Then they might actually acheive their goals AND avoid the devestating consequences of taking these organisations down by force.
Re: Re: Ridiculous.
You are missing the point, as a poster said before you, when big corporations get hurt, it's the "regular Joe" employees that suffer first. The cost involved in repairs, and damages will not come from the salaries of the VPs.
I acaully started and joined about 2 years ago, so far my section of the area I live in has over 15+ memebers...
You see another reason my phone was tapped... But anyway I only burnt down 1 house.
I was hoping a devolpment would come in a destroy the whole area but no luck...
Acaully I am apart of it but I haven't destroyied anything.
Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous.
I understand its the regular Joe that sometimes loses out...but sometimes the ends justify the means.
The Earth needs us these days more than big business.
I know firsthand about these groups. Though they may sound good in theory, Taft is right about them. A close family member of mine has pursued a career in biology on a college campus because of her love for animals. Her research is intended to help animals yet after repeated threats everyone at the university facility is forced to use hidden doors and strict security protocols out of fear that one of these idiots plans on detonating their lab and whoever is in it.
And don't try and claim that they are serving big business, they are researching fertility problems in wild animals
The thing about the ELF is that, besides being incredibly stupid and illegal, their tactics are ineffective.
So there's a big evil corporate factory doing research into environmentally very unfriendly things...
Best case scenario: ELF burns it to the ground, insurance covers the damages, it gets rebuilt 1-2 years later and picks up where it left off at an even faster pace.
Worst case scenario: ELF burns it to the ground, gets caught, everyone involved go to jail, the incident is widely reported in the media, making all environmentalists seem like psychopathic homicidal hippies to the public at large, thus ultimately hurting the environment by maintaining public perception of all environmentalists as said psychos.
The ends don't justify the means when there are perfectly legal, peaceful alternatives to the tactics the ELF chooses to use.
I can't wait for their apologies when they accidently start a massive
forest fire while burning down some business' headquarters.
Don't ask me wh a big business' HQ would be in the middle of the
forest. But I think it would be ironic if they damaged the environment
while trying to save it.
As far as I'm concerned it's a lot more effective to give money and effort to an organization that will establish wildlife conservations then to burn down ski resorts and university buildings
Why not donate to the World Wildlife Federation instead of committing arson?
sometimes money isn't available for whatever reasons...
I still think arson isn't the way to go though
The ELF is interesting, i think they bring the issues to the headlines, if in a bad way. I'm more interested in the ALF, they've done a lot of good through their efforts. Though releasing a farmfull of mink in an environment that cannot support them temperature wise probably wasn't a good idea...
Gee, an environmental group burns up cars and tankers of gasoline. Hmmm.. Fossil fuels burning. That's environmentally sound. I just realized that MENTAL is that last part of environmental.
Seriously, there is no way to jusstify arson.
I can see how going up against very well funded corporations, an unsympathetic media, and a disinterested populace can become very frustrating, but the means in this case do not justify the ends. Besides, I don't even think they are reaching their ends with these sorts of means.
I used to do a little political activism when the Soviet Union was crumbling and George Bush Sr was trying to prop up Gorbachev's grip on the Baltic nations. With a little bit of creativity, we were able to get the message out to more people and make the politicians think twice before rolling out their plans. A handful of people can make a lot of noise.
In Vail, why not stage some good publicity stunts and get the local media involved. Protest the expansion of the ski resort by, I don't know, call the Denver TV stations and dress up in an animal costume with a cardboard homeless sign by the I-70 exit to Vail. Put up signs, inform the customers that are buying the lift tickets, petition, sue, go out and do some work instead of the quickie "fix" of burning it down. I guess burning it down was more fun for these guys.