Rayfish Footwear reportedly broken into and ruined

Remember this thing: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117585-Get-Custom-Shoes-Made-From-Genetically-Engineered-Stingrays?

Well ... it sounded kinda fishy from the start (sorry, DVS), but now, according to an email they seemingly sent to every participant in the contest, they had their stock stolen and released following a break-in to their headquarters.

Dear <Name>,

A while ago you participated in our 'Grow Your Sneaker' contest at
http://www.rayfish.com. We regret to inform you that this contest is being suspended until further notice. On the night of August 11, animal rights activists broke into the Rayfish Footwear headquarters. Along with the destruction of valuable equipment and sneakers, these activists stole our entire stock of living stingrays and apparently released them into the ocean.

In his video response to the break-in, CEO Raymond Ong promises that Rayfish Footwear will return "stronger than ever". The full video can be seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-_NQj5HMx0.

At the moment, we are taking stock of the extent of the activist's damage. We hope to return to production as soon as possible, and anticipate that the launch of our commercial line should be pushed back by no more than two months.

Please note that while we still welcome design submissions, we cannot guarantee if and when any more of the winning designs will be produced. Current winners have been notified about the status of their shoes. For further information about the break-in, please read our blog at
http://www.rayfish.com/blog, or stay tuned via https://twitter.com/rayfishfootwear and https://www.facebook.com/growyoursneaker. Any other questions can be addressed to pr@rayfish.com.

We would like to thank our fans for your creative, inspiring sneaker designs, and for your continuing support through this difficult time.

Best regards,
The Rayfish Footwear Team

And an attached PRESS RELEASE as well.

I'm gonna call it right here and now: Scam cover-up.

Placed in R&P as it's about activists "ruining a business".

Here's the video that shows this 'grand liberation'. Somehow, I ain't convinced, especially
since supposedly over 200 stingray were freed.

You might want to avoid the comments, btw.

Releasing genetically modified animals into a foreign eco-system. These guys are fucking idiots and terrorists.

This has restored some faith in humanity and if the company does try to recover I hope it happens again.

Most likely they were all insured, so Rayfish will simply continue on a delay with a bit more funds than one would expect them to have.

The Plunk:
Releasing genetically modified animals into a foreign eco-system. These guys are fucking idiots and terrorists.

I was thinking that exact thing. What exactly do they expect brightly-coloured non-native organisms to do in the wild but die?

Xan Krieger:
This has restored some faith in humanity and if the company does try to recover I hope it happens again.

...Why? How is this any different from harvesting leather?

Saladfork:

The Plunk:
Releasing genetically modified animals into a foreign eco-system. These guys are fucking idiots and terrorists.

I was thinking that exact thing. What exactly do they expect brightly-coloured non-native organisms to do in the wild but die?

Xan Krieger:
This has restored some faith in humanity and if the company does try to recover I hope it happens again.

...Why? How is this any different from harvesting leather?

You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

As the CEO pointed out in the video- we slaughter millions of cows and pigs every day for food and leather- why pick on a small company which slaughters stingrays? Or indeed, a company which in all likelihood keeps and slaughters animals in much more humane conditions than the majority of animals kept for human consumption.

And then in addition, release these GM'd creatures into the wild who will either get slaughtered by another animal anyway- or breed with other natural stingrays and potentially cause eco-system damage? It's not smart at all releasing GM'd animals into the wild at all. They're a bunch of hypocritical criminal morons.

Xan Krieger:

Saladfork:

The Plunk:
Releasing genetically modified animals into a foreign eco-system. These guys are fucking idiots and terrorists.

I was thinking that exact thing. What exactly do they expect brightly-coloured non-native organisms to do in the wild but die?

Xan Krieger:
This has restored some faith in humanity and if the company does try to recover I hope it happens again.

...Why? How is this any different from harvesting leather?

You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

What's wrong with the skin being unnatural? By that logic, we shouldn't eat any form of meat that was bred into existence through artificial selection.

i get these people are against animal cruelty, and the whole stingrays gentically engineered for designer shoe leather does feel really off to me.

but as others have pointed out. they just released a genetically engineered species into the environment and we have no idea what the effects of that will do both to these animals as well as to other species and their own species once they intermix and start breeding

The Plunk:

Xan Krieger:

Saladfork:

I was thinking that exact thing. What exactly do they expect brightly-coloured non-native organisms to do in the wild but die?

...Why? How is this any different from harvesting leather?

You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

What's wrong with the skin being unnatural? By that logic, we shouldn't eat any form of meat that was bred into existence through artificial selection.

artificial selection is simply doing what might've happened in nature had certain animals done each other. This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

Xan Krieger:

The Plunk:

Xan Krieger:
You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

What's wrong with the skin being unnatural? By that logic, we shouldn't eat any form of meat that was bred into existence through artificial selection.

artificial selection is simply doing what might've happened in nature had certain animals done each other. This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

That's a terrible argument for artificial selection, and none at all against genetic modification you just peppered that sentence with nasty words to get across that you don't like it.

Whether something is "natural" or "unnatural" has very little bearing on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, and to the extent that it does, "natural" things are worse.

Xan Krieger:

The Plunk:

Xan Krieger:
You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

What's wrong with the skin being unnatural? By that logic, we shouldn't eat any form of meat that was bred into existence through artificial selection.

artificial selection is simply doing what might've happened in nature had certain animals done each other. This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

The outcome is the same, why does it matter whether it's done in a "natural" way or not? I'm pretty sure most farmers who created new breeds of cattle were also doing it for the money.

Also, British cattle breeding with American cattle would never have happened without human interference, therefore it is "unnatural".

Mathak:

You might want to avoid the comments, btw.

Might want to warn people to mute that shit, too. >.<

Xan Krieger:

The Plunk:

Xan Krieger:
You get other things from cows like beef. These stingrays would just be used for their unnatural skin.

What's wrong with the skin being unnatural? By that logic, we shouldn't eat any form of meat that was bred into existence through artificial selection.

artificial selection is simply doing what might've happened in nature had certain animals done each other. This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

Waaaaaiiiit a company that doesn't care about the animals they breed/use? That's like... Nothing special/new at all.

If you want to fight animal cruelty i think there are much bigger fights that need to be fought than genetically manipulated fish.

Well I can certainly understand why the activists did this, but breaking into the place isn't the right way to go about it. Still, I find it hard to have any sympathy at all for the company though.

Those stingrays were genetically modified and were supposed to be contained. Congratu-fucking-lations, you imbeciles have just contaminated the natural population. If you wanted to protect the majority of stingrays, those idiots should have left it alone.

BathorysGraveland:
Well I can certainly understand why the activists did this, but breaking into the place isn't the right way to go about it. Still, I find it hard to have any sympathy at all for the company though.

...So you wouldn't have sympathy for a victim of person/property violation over ideological differences?

Because I'm pretty sure you could classify a rape victim under the same category, so I just want to be sure of what you're saying here before I jump to conclusions.

Xan Krieger:
Artificial selection is simply doing what might've happened in nature had certain animals done each other. This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

How do you know it's being done without regard given to the animals, what's wrong with changing genes to make money without regard for the animals, and how does that make the perpetrator a psychotic mad scientist?

DjinnFor:
snip

Did you read everything I said? Does the line "but breaking into the place isn't the right way to go about it." mean anything to you? I do not condone what they did, nor do I support it. I simply said I do not have any sympathy for the company, which I don't.

EDIT: You seem to have changed what you said. Don't try to compare this with rape. This company created living beings, stingrays, simply to kill them to make shoes. No I don't have sympathy with them if those stingrays get thrown back into the ocean. The broken equipment, perhaps. This is alot milder than rape.

BathorysGraveland:

EDIT: You seem to have changed what you said. Don't try to compare this with rape. This company created living beings, stingrays, simply to kill them to make shoes.

Well, to play a bit of a devil's advocate here, if "existance" beats "non-existance"...well I don't have to finish this sentence, do I.

Oh, another one. Should spiders, ants, scorpions, mosquitos, jellyfish and moths have the same rights and liberties as fish, kitties, cows and dogs?

FEichinger:
I'm gonna call it right here and now: Scam cover-up.

Not a chance. Animal rights activists are crazy and engage is this sort of activity. Heck, they've even staged assasination attempts and arson attacks.

The intelligence service has a special branch that monitors animal rights terrorism.

BathorysGraveland:
EDIT: You seem to have changed what you said. Don't try to compare this with rape. This company created living beings, stingrays, simply to kill them to make shoes. No I don't have sympathy with them if those stingrays get thrown back into the ocean. The broken equipment, perhaps. This is alot milder than rape.

Have any of the stringrays complained about their living conditions and lot in life? No, I believe the company runs a zero complaint record. So it kind of doesn't make sense to blame them for keeping animals for production purposes.

Blablahb:

FEichinger:
I'm gonna call it right here and now: Scam cover-up.

Not a chance. Animal rights activists are crazy and engage is this sort of activity. Heck, they've even staged assasination attempts and arson attacks.

The intelligence service has a special branch that monitors animal rights terrorism.

What does the extremism of activists have to do with the fact that the company was a scam? Rather convenient that their whole inventory disappeared after they got paid but before they could deliver the actual product, no?

http://www.livescience.com/20705-transgenic-stingray-shoes-fake.html

Mathak:
What does the extremism of activists have to do with the fact that the company was a scam?

It's relevant in that the claim "it was a scam, because animal rights terrorists wouldn't do this" sinks like a brick, because animal rights activists do this sort of thing.

Blablahb:

Mathak:
What does the extremism of activists have to do with the fact that the company was a scam?

It's relevant in that the claim "it was a scam, because animal rights terrorists wouldn't do this" sinks like a brick, because animal rights activists do this sort of thing.

Right..except he never actually said that 2nd part.

Blablahb:

Mathak:
What does the extremism of activists have to do with the fact that the company was a scam?

It's relevant in that the claim "it was a scam, because animal rights terrorists wouldn't do this" sinks like a brick, because animal rights activists do this sort of thing.

Did I ever say so? Nope. I hinted at the fact that it's indeed rather convenient for the "product" - and machines - to disappear/be destroyed after this thing had been going for a while, and almost certainly got a crapton of money already - and now possibly even more, if their insurance claim passes through.

However, there are some points where I even doubt it having been an animal rights group:
a) Which company stores live stock in their "HQ", when they do something controversial like this?
b) Which animal rights group is dumb enough to release GMAs into nature? (Well, this one is even likely, but it does raise doubts in the big picture)
c) Why on Earth didn't it happen earlier? This thing has been going for months -> money for the company

I neither say it was a scam, nor do I say it wouldn't have been animal rights activists. But it does seem fishy in pretty much any regard.

FEichinger:
a) Which company stores live stock in their "HQ", when they do something controversial like this?

Pretty much all of them. You don't set up a separate HQ untill you have a pretty big organisation that needs a dedicated office to run.

FEichinger:
b) Which animal rights group is dumb enough to release GMAs into nature?

Almost all of them. Minks who are released also end up dying in like 90% of the cases and must be caught and killed in the remaining number so it won't upset the natural balance, yet mink farms are regular targets of animals rights extremists.

FEichinger:
c) Why on Earth didn't it happen earlier? This thing has been going for months -> money for the company

I don't know. But that doesn't make it less plausible. Similar activists have also waited for crops to be almost ripe before destroying GM crops test fields, and similar things, so we know that animal rights extremists do often wait untill just before harvest before they strike.

Blablahb:

FEichinger:
b) Which animal rights group is dumb enough to release GMAs into nature?

Almost all of them. Minks who are released also end up dying in like 90% of the cases and must be caught and killed in the remaining number so it won't upset the natural balance, yet mink farms are regular targets of animals rights extremists.

Well, I'll say not "almost all of them", but "most of them that actually get media coverage, because shit like that is why they get media coverage in the first place."

One really shouldn't let ecosystem management be in the hands of those who have no clue how the ecosystems work, and just want to stir up shit cause it's cool to stick it to the Man.

Blablahb:
It's relevant in that the claim "it was a scam, because animal rights terrorists wouldn't do this" sinks like a brick, because animal rights activists do this sort of thing.

Faulty reasoning. The claim it was a scam was not at all contingent on the fact animal rights activists don't trash research labs, nor was it even claimed that animal rights activists don't trash research labs anyway.

In fact, the fact that they do makes it all the more useful for a scam, because people such as yourself will more readily gravitate to credulity.

Of course, we don't know whether animal rights terrorism really occurs in Thailand, either. I suspect it is heavily a First World phenomenon. Thais probably have bigger fish to fry, particularly in the realm of animal rights as I would suspect their laws are very lax and they have a lot of cute animals more appealing to motivate protection.

*reads comments*

I guess there are 3 things here:

1. Animal Farming

2. Genetic Engineering

3. Idealogical Militancy

Animal farming has always struck me as morally problematic. I enjoy, perhaps even crave, meat of all kinds and can appreciate the extreme economic benefits of industrial farming. I do worry, however, about the psychological impact on farmers as all the farmers I have ever met have been odd.

I should probably add that all the farmers I have met have been Irish, so it is hardly the best sample.

Genetic engieering, on the other hand, has always struck me as blissfully straightforward; a useful tool to solve problems. No more, no less. The outrage against it has always struck me as comically absurd. People decry it as unnatural, as they type on their plastic keyboards, nestled within societies that insulate them from the indifferent brutality of nature.

People might say that if we can breed fish for the sole purpose of shoes (ha ha) then why not poor people for the sole purpose of lifting heavy things? The answer is that poor people capable only of heavy lifting are fully rubbish and what you actually want is a complete populace of errudite thinkers who're best able to maximise their productivity.

Finally you've got militancy. It can be argued that if you must resort to militancy then you're no better than a caveman bludgeoning a rival to death. It can also be argued that militancy is the only response to an opponent who refuses to engage in meaningful dialouge. Both are equally true but it has always seemed to me that the only way that militancy can be justified is in the face of violence and even then it is problematic. Putting a fire out with gasoline as Max Payne might say.

So yeah. Basically it's a debate about the ethics of farming more than anything, I reckon. The creation of a living thing for nothing more than consumption, in this instance purely for textiles. Now it can be argued that it's okay because animals don't have the cognitive range of people, but anyone who has ever set a cat's hair on fire can attest that animals do demonstrate distress behaviour and that witnessing this causes distress in (healthy) humans.

I would ask what the detractors of this sort of business (Rayfish farming) would say if instead all they were growing was colourful rayfish skin in a tank. Would that be okay?

Xan Krieger:
This is changing genes because some mad scientist wants money without regard to the animals he's psychotically altering.

Mad scientist? Psychotically altering?

Where do you get your information on science from?

Better headline:

Terrorists release genetically modified animals into population.

Funny how that might change a few minds.

I'm genuinely fascinated by this discussion. Has anyone been to the site? http://www.rayfish.com/

Its all fake. Interesting how no one bothered to check it out.

I guess they succeeded in stirring people's opinions, though

EDIT: Looking at the dates of other messages, maybe it wasn't public back then.

Wow, this has to be the most decadent use of science ever. Kind of like if in deep blue sea, instead of trying to cure alzheimers they were breeding the super sharks to make hats or something

Also, what would Steve Irwin do?

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked