spatch

I'm a postin' machine today! But I just found this pleasant bit of news courtesy the Glob:

Arson suspected in pet store fire

...

Cambridge fire officials are looking into a suspicious two-alarm fire at a pet store on Monsignor O'Brien Highway late last night.

Fire officials said this morning that the fire at the Boston Tropical Fish and Reptile store appears to be deliberately set. Arson is suspected because of graffiti on the outside of the store, which points toward an animal rights' group.

A number of animals were killed in the blaze. The store housed snakes, fish and lizards. Officials said many of the fish were saved.

The picture in the article shows the graffiti which reads "NO MORE EXPLOITATION OF ANIMALS." If this is true -- that some complete freakin' idiots brilliantly decided to burn down a pet store and kill that which they wanted to save -- then I have but one reply in the form of an image macro.

Or, to quote Strong Bad, "DORKS."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

eeka13.livejournal.com

Yeah, I don't agree with the principle of doing something totally unpeaceful in the name of peace. And yeah, they might want to look at some form of vandalism that doesn't endanger animals.

I suppose it could work if done on a large-enough scale though. As much as I think PETA/ALF are fucked up, they sooort of have a point with their terrorism stuff. I mean, if it becomes super-common that pet stores and pet-wearers are harassed, it will kind of send a message that these things aren't societally acceptable. Or at the very least, that they're not worth the hassle.

"Hmm, maybe I'll open a pet store in order to feed my family...naw, better go with a haberdashery. Pet store is too likely to get firebombed all the time."

or "You know, my last 6 mink stoles have gotten paint thrown on them. It's just too much trouble."

So, yeah, on a large-enough scale, vandalism etc. could cut down onanimal cruelty but it would just replace it with other types of violence. Not cool.