PETA is without question a terrorist organization.
It is possible (and preferable) to give reasons why you don’t approve of PETA and why you like eating animals without inflationary use of the term ‘terrorist’.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror in order to coerce a reaction out of people.
PETA’s propaganda’s purpose is to horrify people into not eating meat.
PETA’s funding and relationship with ALF has the purpose of terrorizing scientists, agribusiness, and other groups that they want to cause harm to by threatening to or actually destroying research, burning down buildings, destroying crops, freeing animals, ect. They give people who have engaged in such activities leadership positions, portray it as a reasonable response, give them money, recruit members for them, ect.
Ergo, they are a terrorist front group. I felt that this was pretty clear from the whole “they do in fact go around burning stuff down, commit arson” and I threw in the dog thing because it was from a personal encounter with such “activists” (they tried to “liberate” the rabbits from a rabbit farm down the street during the summer; the guy who noticed their truck with their dog locked up in it came back with a baseball bat to smash in the window to let the dog out after passing it twice, but they had taken off by then). And arson, murder, and jaywalking constructions are always fun. Their association with various ecoterrorist groups, and comembership with such lovelies, and funding… well, it all speaks for itself. But its usually good to say it out loud.
It is entirely appropriate to label people as terrorists when they are, in fact, terrorists. Its like calling a member of the KKK a white supremacist; it might be a [i]negative[/i] term, but it is also without question a [i]correct[/i] term and a [i]descriptive[/i] term. A lot of people are unaware of the fact that PETA is, in fact, a terrorist organization, so I generally feel obligated to mention it.
Unless it is site policy not to use the word terrorist, in which case I will… probably fail to remember the next time it comes up, and then get in trouble. Ah well.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror in order to coerce a reaction out of people.
The set of people who do that is not the same as the set to which ‘terrorist’ applies. In fact, it isn’t even a superset.
Unless it is site policy not to use the word terrorist
There is no rule. Just a general tendency to think less of the contributions of sloppy thinking. In fact political advocacy of this kind is somewhat discouraged in general due to the near inevitable nature of such conversations.
Is it? Or do we simply not call some such organizations terrorist organizations out of politeness?
I suppose one could argue that the proper definition is “A non-state entity who commits criminal acts for the purpose of invoking terror to coerce actions from others”, which will capture almost all groups that we consider to be terrorist groups, though it really depends—is a group who creates fear about the food supply for their own ends a terrorist group? I would argue yes (though one could also argue that this is equivalent to crying fire in a crowded theater, and thus a criminal act).
Arguing about definitions isn’t very useful. Discussion is much more likely to go in a positive direction if you point to specific actions and describe why they’re harmful.
It is possible (and preferable) to give reasons why you don’t approve of PETA and why you like eating animals without inflationary use of the term ‘terrorist’.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror in order to coerce a reaction out of people.
PETA’s propaganda’s purpose is to horrify people into not eating meat.
PETA’s funding and relationship with ALF has the purpose of terrorizing scientists, agribusiness, and other groups that they want to cause harm to by threatening to or actually destroying research, burning down buildings, destroying crops, freeing animals, ect. They give people who have engaged in such activities leadership positions, portray it as a reasonable response, give them money, recruit members for them, ect.
Ergo, they are a terrorist front group. I felt that this was pretty clear from the whole “they do in fact go around burning stuff down, commit arson” and I threw in the dog thing because it was from a personal encounter with such “activists” (they tried to “liberate” the rabbits from a rabbit farm down the street during the summer; the guy who noticed their truck with their dog locked up in it came back with a baseball bat to smash in the window to let the dog out after passing it twice, but they had taken off by then). And arson, murder, and jaywalking constructions are always fun. Their association with various ecoterrorist groups, and comembership with such lovelies, and funding… well, it all speaks for itself. But its usually good to say it out loud.
It is entirely appropriate to label people as terrorists when they are, in fact, terrorists. Its like calling a member of the KKK a white supremacist; it might be a [i]negative[/i] term, but it is also without question a [i]correct[/i] term and a [i]descriptive[/i] term. A lot of people are unaware of the fact that PETA is, in fact, a terrorist organization, so I generally feel obligated to mention it.
Unless it is site policy not to use the word terrorist, in which case I will… probably fail to remember the next time it comes up, and then get in trouble. Ah well.
The set of people who do that is not the same as the set to which ‘terrorist’ applies. In fact, it isn’t even a superset.
There is no rule. Just a general tendency to think less of the contributions of sloppy thinking. In fact political advocacy of this kind is somewhat discouraged in general due to the near inevitable nature of such conversations.
Is it? Or do we simply not call some such organizations terrorist organizations out of politeness?
I suppose one could argue that the proper definition is “A non-state entity who commits criminal acts for the purpose of invoking terror to coerce actions from others”, which will capture almost all groups that we consider to be terrorist groups, though it really depends—is a group who creates fear about the food supply for their own ends a terrorist group? I would argue yes (though one could also argue that this is equivalent to crying fire in a crowded theater, and thus a criminal act).
Legal nitpick—the issue is falsely shouting fire
Arguing about definitions isn’t very useful. Discussion is much more likely to go in a positive direction if you point to specific actions and describe why they’re harmful.