3 ms·

> If they had to act, they should have immediately given the piglets to the (a) farm’s management or (b) police. You know very well yourself that this would no

> If they had to act, they should have immediately given the piglets to the (a) farm’s management or (b) police. You know very well yourself that this would not have been a good idea at all if their goal was to help the mistreated piglets and bring wider awareness for the farming practices.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.
- distances 9y ago
  I see no reason why that would have resulted in any less of a witch hunt than the current outcome. This was a very mild and non-obtrusive instance of activism, and I whole-heartedly believe this was the correct course of action in this case. Non-destructive activism is an overwhelmingly positive force for society. These were dying, mistreated piglets; calling this "stealing" is akin to giving a blessing for the animal cruelty that took place here.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    When pushing for rule changes, you’re pitching to the margin. Worrying about to whom you’re giving a “blessing” while breaking simple laws only your base finds controversial ensures you’ll see no legislative traction. Best case: you squared your problem’s difficulty by twinning your policy exposure and thus political cross-section. It reminds me of a town hall a freshman state legislator held a few years ago. She wanted to propose an animal welfare law for farms in the state. PETA and Greenpeace showed up. The former wanted to boycott the law (I don’t know what this means) because it didn’t go far enough. The latter was concerned this would encourage meat eating and increase carbon emissions or something. The bill was reconsidered and dropped. Compromise is hard.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.

distances 9y ago
I see no reason why that would have resulted in any less of a witch hunt than the current outcome. This was a very mild and non-obtrusive instance of activism, and I whole-heartedly believe this was the correct course of action in this case. Non-destructive activism is an overwhelmingly positive force for society. These were dying, mistreated piglets; calling this "stealing" is akin to giving a blessing for the animal cruelty that took place here.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  When pushing for rule changes, you’re pitching to the margin. Worrying about to whom you’re giving a “blessing” while breaking simple laws only your base finds controversial ensures you’ll see no legislative traction. Best case: you squared your problem’s difficulty by twinning your policy exposure and thus political cross-section. It reminds me of a town hall a freshman state legislator held a few years ago. She wanted to propose an animal welfare law for farms in the state. PETA and Greenpeace showed up. The former wanted to boycott the law (I don’t know what this means) because it didn’t go far enough. The latter was concerned this would encourage meat eating and increase carbon emissions or something. The bill was reconsidered and dropped. Compromise is hard.