http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2366233,00.html


I mean, c'mon, it's one thing to care about the environment, but these people are just emotional, arrogant idiots who care more about feeling self-righteous than helping their cause. They find issues where they don't exist, and this is the result.

I suspect that on a larger, subtler scale, this is what's happening with the global warming issue.

Gotta be someone to blame. The activist? The people who caught the fish in the first place? Maybe we should blame the fish for making someone want to capture them?

It's a little known fact among conservation that if an animal stays in captivity long enough, it loses its survival thought and does not fear humans as much. Therefore we don't release them back into the wild. Not sure if this is the case for the fish.

Stupid idiots. I hate hippies.

Respect my authoritah.

Apparently someone didn't think this through before they went ahead and did it.

Releasing many helpless farm-raised animals in one small area with insufficient food and no protection ------> many, many dead animals.

hahahahahha

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH

lawl

Have fun treehuggers. Power to you if you enjoy being douche bags. I personally prefer not to be an idiot, but that's just me.

As you were.

We blame the stupid people who did it. They destroyed private property, and hurt efforts to conserve ocean wild life. Their fault. Period.

Without the food (and eggs) that these 15,000 fish could have provided, we will now have to find 15,000 fish in the open sea.

Therefore they killed 30,000 fish.

And don't forget Maddox's pledge to eat three animals for every animal we don't eat. Well... there's 15,000 fish we won't be eating...

Hahahahahah. Yeah.

These are farmed fish. They are bred in captivity, not caught in the wild.

Fish are dumb as rocks. They have no rational thinking skills whatsoever. You can train them to do small tricks with food, but that's it. They are completely incapable of the level of intelligence anywhere near understanding the concepts of freedom or captivity. Like many other animals in the food chain, they do little more than provide themselves as food for other animals. This is where millions of years of evolution has led them. They're so dumb they can't care if they die, so why free them? They are dying so other, more important animals can live. Which die so other, even more important animals can live.

It's called a food chain, idiots. Seriously. I hate radical animal rights people. PETA too. I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals, but there's a line between ethical and insane. The ironic part is that more often the insane acts cause more death and suffering among animals of not only the species they intend to free, but dozens of other organisms as well.

Animal rights activists should take high school biology.

emon makes the fishes sad

Animal rights activists should be shot.

Like protesters.

This reminds me of ELF and when they destroyed SUVs to protest the pollution these vehicles create. The funny thing is, setting SUVs on fire releases alot more chemicals into the air than what these automobiles are capable of doing in daily use.

If we just killed the drivers I think that would solve the problem.

I want to run into some stupid treehugers protesting against GE crops outside of a supermarket so I can tell them they're wrong. Then I'll go to the store manager and tell him to call the cops for slander and maybe something like loitering or customer harrassment, because that's what it is.

The Fish High Council of Three is not impressed.

The ALF have done lots of stupid actions in the past, this is far from a new occurence.
Let's see, they're responsible for the introduction of the American Mink into the wild here and now its ****ing with our ecosystem, raiding bird nests and helping to wipe out the native water vole.
This August, they caused a professor at UCLA to stop his research on primates after thuggishly trying to firebomb his house and then incompetently attacking the house of his elderly neighbours. They considered his work not to be life-saving pretty clearly ignoring the fact that basic science research is part of the foundation of all medical research.
Another attack I found ridiculously stupid was when a University Dean in the US had his house and car vandalised after allowing a business man to make a speech at his university. The problem? The businessman worked for a company involved with Huntingdon Animal Sciences, an animal research company based in the UK.
They're campaigning against the expansion of the primate research centre at Oxford uni despite the fact that it's being expanded to help treat the animals as ethically as possible (eg larger cages to allow them to form troops as they would do naturally).

And every time one of their activists does something particularly violent all they do is claim it wasn't them but it was part of the ARM instead. They're cowardly ****s with about two brain cells between the lot of them. I'm also waiting to see animal rights activists campaigning outside labs that do research on fruit flies or nematode worms. Frankly I was surprised they've tried to release fish considering they're neither cute nor fluffy.


Obi, climatology, oceanography and various other fields of science are involved in this issue, it's nothing like a bunch of over emotional idiots commiting vandalism and mindless thuggery.

Ok, liberating those fish was a bad idea, agreed. But what are you talking about now? That just doesn't make any sense.

The people responsible for this incident would, if asked, probably say they didn't approve of global warming. Therefore, anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support global warming is a bad and ignorant person.

Freedom of speech? What's that?

Obviously this action didn't end well, but maligning the entire movement because of one group that screwed up is foolish.




Who *supports* global warming? Are you being sarcastic here? Whatever it is, it didn't translate.

[QUOTE=Tha Gunslinga]Freedom of speech? What's that?

Obviously this action didn't end well, but maligning the entire movement because of one group that screwed up is foolish.
.[/QUOTE]

Maybe when the "movement" has more people educated on the subject they are protesting instead of people who react emotionally to things, they'll garner a little bit of respect.

I give them props. They killed more fish than I could ever dream of killing. Whether they intended to or not, they've earned my undying admiration.

Your right to free speech ends where the store's rights begin. You do NOT have a right to say FALSE things that cause damage to other people. Your lies about genetically engineered crops affect the store's business, and it is slander. Slander is a civil offense, and the store can sue for damages.

How the hell did you lot hear about this when I didn't?

"Oh so this is your bush! ****ing tree-hugger! YOU THE KING OF THE FOREST?!? Nice pubes." - Crazy man in the forest

I have my own personal forest ^_^

No one will deny that the earth has gotten warmer. The earth's average temperature does change. There have been times that the earth was much warmer; in fact, the poles used to be swamps. I think we have a bunch of people with an agenda looking for evidence that humans are causing global warming. Their attitude just seems a bit to biased for my sake. The earth's natural release of green house gasses into the atmosphere has varied widely in the past and made our own contributions seems a bit insignificant.

I mean, I could be wrong, I'm not an expert, but I'm just saying that it looks like some of the researchers seem a tad biased, and I don't trust them quite yet to ruin our economy over what could be nothing.

We know for a fact that the temperature is increasing at a faster rate than it has in the past. We know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing to unprecedented levels. We know that in theory more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should produce the kind of warming effect we are observing. Lastly, we know that humans are releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that otherwise would have remained trapped underground. Yes, the the world was once full of swamps. During the Carboniferous period, the atmosphere likely had far more greenhouse gasses in it than it does today, and was much warmer, allowing for huge amounts of plant growth. A large amount of this was gradually buried deep underground, where with heat, pressure, and time, it became the oil and coal we burn today. So much of the carbon we are releasing into the air came originally from exactly the sort of inhospitible swamp world we are trying to avoid.

Never before has there been a freaking hole in the ozone layer.

well obviously we need a hole if we're going to drain all the pollution out

DUH

Now we just need to siphon it to somewhere crap, like Mercury.

Prove it.

There was a FARK headline sometime ago with a caption like "Hurricaine forming over the great lakes. Hah hah, no global warming my ***"

Rob, global warming by cause of pollution is well accepted by the scientific community. The burden of proof lies on disproving global warming, so, you prove it.

It's not an agenda Obi, really, grow up. The economy might suffer if we cut back on oil consumption, sure. If we attempt to switch to alternative fuel sources, YES, there will be reprocussions in the short term, but the idea is that the long term effects on the planet will be well worth it. You do realize that the long term is real, right? Like, it's something you should be concerned about, for your children and their children, right? We aren't talking about the effects in six billion years. Try sixty.

I think what really boggles my mind is that at any given moment this planet is more than capable of spontaneously ****ing itself over.

So naturally I don't care.

If we polluted more, we'd just adapt to survive or die. Duh.

That wasn't caused by Carbon Dioxide though.