fucking animal liberationists

What is it with animal lib activists? I completely don't get the mindset of all these self styled animal champions. I just read this article, where once again animal right activists, fighting to stop unnecessary harm and injury to ANIMALS attack HUMANS in order to achieve their goals. What the fuck kind of logic process do these retards have? Not only are they attacking people, in this case a japanese whaling vessle, they attacked the very ship that just saved their asses from dying by rescuing them from running around Antartic waters in a dingy, bright idea guys!

Seriously though what is the rationale for all these terrorist attacks, because make no mistake that is precisely what they are as, with few exceptions, almost all of the attacks are against perfectly legal targets / operations. It would seem that some people have issues with humans killing animals or causing them pain. I just don't get it, pain and suffering happens in the wild every day, it's for survival, yes, but it still happens. You don't see them out there trying to lecture the average cat that it needs to kill mice quickly and cleanly, felines and mustelids are both animals that practise vivisection, but they arn't on the receiving end of our wonderful anti vivis. Nor do they seem to grasp that we have every right to kill and eat animals. That last line seems to really fire up animal libs as they all like to start bringing in Peter Singers various works, as the champion of animal libs he is the most often quoted, normally by those that lack the ability to understand him. In particular this excerpt is often quoted as the definitive reason why animals are our equal. Well I hate to point a few things out, but first and foremost as was most clearly stated by a friend of mine, Benjamin Waters, rights are a human concept and as such, can only be given by us, they are not innate. It is therefore in my mind not a given that animals have any rights at all, beyond which any we so chose to give them. That to one side, the entire basis for most of singers conclusions is a basis of equality, something you need to accept in order to reach his conclusions. On the outside it seems reasonable to accept equality as something that we want to aspire to, in fact it's phrased as such a way that you'd appear to be a insensate heathen not think that it was reasonable, after all who'd want to be labelled a speciest? Well as it turns out I'd guess I'd be the stereotypical one, in the words of Denis Leary "I represent angry, gun toting, meat eating motherfuckers, so pull this bus over to the side of the pretentious turnpike!".