• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

PETA vs Seaworld

T

Tituscrow

Inactive
Feb 14, 2011
1,502
1,727
56
NW England
#1
Invalid Link Removed

Much as I love orcas and don't think any cetaceans (or indeed primates/big cats/other large mammals) should be held in captivity, I can't help thinking this lawsuit is doomed to failure. Kudos to PETA for raising awareness, if nothing else.

Thoughts?
 
#3
i_got_a_mohawk said:
Pfft, 5 Orcas?

Who cares?

What about the BILLIONS of yeast that we force to work for us every day! Facist brewing companies!
Click to expand...

I must respond too this outlandish attack on behalf of humane, caring, yeast-loving homebrewers all over the world.

We lovingly feed and nourish our yeast. We give them a friendly, comfortable environment in which to frolic, play, and have lots of hot yeast sex. We love them so much, we consume their excrement - alcohol and Co2. And when they die, we dispose of them in a place they would have loved if they were alive: our cesspools.

Not the mega breweries and the unholy alliance called Interbev... they are the enslavers of yeast. rise up and rebel against them by brewing your own beer or drinking only craft brews from small, yeast-loving brewers.

Oh yeah, and buy an Orca a beer every chance you get. I didn't want to appear off-topic or anything. And join and support the real PITA - People for Eating Tasty Animals!
 
#5
stratovani said:
Just when you think PETA couldn't get more ridiculous, they pull a stunt that's even more ridiculous than before. When will they ever learn? :rollno:
Click to expand...
On the contrary, they're highly adept at creating publicity. They want people to argue about the issues and they set out to deliberately court controversy in order to promote discussion that would never happen if they didn't make a point of operating the way they do. In this, they're very successful, so they are anything but stupid. I'm often surprised that so many people don't see this aspect.

Please note that I've made these observations without expressing any opinions in this post on the issues that PETA actually raise.
 
#7
bassybill said:
On the contrary, they're highly adept at creating publicity. They want people to argue about the issues and they set out to deliberately court controversy in order to promote discussion that would never happen if they didn't make a point of operating the way they do. In this, they're very successful, so they are anything but stupid. I'm often surprised that so many people don't see this aspect.

Please note that I've made these observations without expressing any opinions in this post on the issues that PETA actually raise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right though I wish they could be be held liable for this kind of abuse of the legal system.
 
#8
bassybill said:
On the contrary, they're highly adept at creating publicity. They want people to argue about the issues and they set out to deliberately court controversy in order to promote discussion that would never happen if they didn't make a point of operating the way they do. In this, they're very successful, so they are anything but stupid. I'm often surprised that so many people don't see this aspect.

Please note that I've made these observations without expressing any opinions in this post on the issues that PETA actually raise.
Click to expand...

Correct. Stimulating debate and discussion through outlandish publicity stunts seem to be PETA's modus operandi in recent years. So props for that.

Oh, any reason why you haven't commented on the issues raised?
 
#9
Although at least a little over the top (I suspect those Orcas are treated better than some humans) I do agree that awareness of cruelty to animals (especially by factory farming) should be raised.
 
#12
Kids are dying from all sorts of nasty things. Elderly people suffer a variety of bad ends, whole hospitals don't have the funds or staff to deliver care. No I don't dislike animals but I care a great deal about innocent humans.

A kid gets born with HIV. That kid didn't do a damn thing to deserve that fate. Villages have psychos steal their food and chop the hands and arms off people at random. Elderly people get taken advantage of at every opportunity.

If I had a choice between saving a whale or restoring the sight of a child; I'd pick the child every time.
 
#13
john grey said:
Kids are dying from all sorts of nasty things. Elderly people suffer a variety of bad ends, whole hospitals don't have the funds or staff to deliver care. No I don't dislike animals but I care a great deal about innocent humans.

A kid gets born with HIV. That kid didn't do a damn thing to deserve that fate. Villages have psychos steal their food and chop the hands and arms off people at random. Elderly people get taken advantage of at every opportunity.

If I had a choice between saving a whale or restoring the sight of a child; I'd pick the child every time.
Click to expand...

I'm no militant animal rights activist, but I applaud those who have the balls to fight the fight for them.

Why does this subject seem to provoke a straight choice between animal and human welfare? I agree that there are plenty of needy 'human' causes and I do my best to support those I feel are worthy...but that doesn't mean you can't support animal welfare groups too.

David Attenborough - one of my all time heroes - nailed it when he said that if whales screamed, we'd have stopped whaling a century ago. Slightly off-topic, but the sentiment is the same.
 
#14
bassybill said:
On the contrary, they're highly adept at creating publicity. They want people to argue about the issues and they set out to deliberately court controversy in order to promote discussion that would never happen if they didn't make a point of operating the way they do. In this, they're very successful, so they are anything but stupid. I'm often surprised that so many people don't see this aspect.

Please note that I've made these observations without expressing any opinions in this post on the issues that PETA actually raise.
Click to expand...

You've definitely got a point there. Looks like I'll have to rethink my opinion on PETA's tactics. Doesn't mean I like what they do, but yes, they are certainly effective at what they do!
 
#15
Tituscrow said:
I'm no militant animal rights activist, but I applaud those who have the balls to fight the fight for them.

Why does this subject seem to provoke a straight choice between animal and human welfare? I agree that there are plenty of needy 'human' causes and I do my best to support those I feel are worthy...but that doesn't mean you can't support animal welfare groups too.

David Attenborough - one of my all time heroes - nailed it when he said that if whales screamed, we'd have stopped whaling a century ago. Slightly off-topic, but the sentiment is the same.
Click to expand...

I support animal welfare. Few things I hate seeing worse than animals that are mistreated. But going so far as granting constitutional rights to animals is in my opinion a bit over the top.
 
#16
stratovani said:
I support animal welfare. Few things I hate seeing worse than animals that are mistreated. But going so far as granting constitutional rights to animals is in my opinion a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

Calling them 'constitutional rights' is always going to be divisive and polarising. Maybe rethinking that label will get more people onside?

Polar bears went from British zoos a long time ago, not because of any legal fight for their 'rights' as such, but purely because it was accepted as just being damn cruel. Why we still have primates and big cats, for example, is still a mystery and maybe a conversation for another thread.
 
#17
Tituscrow said:
Correct. Stimulating debate and discussion through outlandish publicity stunts seem to be PETA's modus operandi in recent years. So props for that.

Oh, any reason why you haven't commented on the issues raised?
Click to expand...
You mean the issues PETA raise? I avoided doing so as I didn't want to dilute the previous point. I do have some views on it, but they're highly philosophical and a little tricky to articulate. But I'll try...

I believe one of the things that separates us from other animals is a moral duty to behave ethically (due to us being conscious of ourselves to a degree where we have developed such concepts). One of the things this duty imposes on us is an obligation to be concerned with suffering, wherever it may occur. To be indifferent to suffering is immoral (and we all are, but not necessarily to the same degree). I don't think most thinking people would disagree too much with that so far.

Where I differ in my views from many other people is that I can't see any special reason why human issues should always automatically arouse greater concern in us than the suffering of other species. People often assert strongly that it should do in a way that implies that this is self-evident and needs no further justification, but ask them to explain why and they get stuck. There are undoubtedly very good biological reasons why people's priorities are that way inclined (often to an extent that seems absurd when you think hard about it), but I'm not aware of any really valid philosophical ones.

I've chosen my words carefully there to respond to your question and I'd very much appreciate it if people don't read more into this than I have actually said.
 
#19
Tituscrow said:
Calling them 'constitutional rights' is always going to be divisive and polarising. Maybe rethinking that label will get more people onside?
Click to expand...

I read this very same story on MSNBC yesterday, and there was mention of a lawsuit being prepared petitioning the courts to grant consititutional rights to animals. In my opinion, and the opinion of many commenters on this story, this is going too far. I'm all for ending cruelty to animals, but to say that an animal can vote and serve on juries is ludicrous to say the least!
 
#20
stratovani said:
I read this very same story on MSNBC yesterday, and there was mention of a lawsuit being prepared petitioning the courts to grant consititutional rights to animals. In my opinion, and the opinion of many commenters on this story, this is going too far. I'm all for ending cruelty to animals, but to say that an animal can vote and serve on juries is ludicrous to say the least!
Click to expand...
Ha ha - I don't think that's quite the intention. Would be kinda fun, though. :D

Granting animals other than humans some rights doesn't necessarily mean granting them the same rights. And nearly all animals already have some legal rights anyway in many countries including the USA - animal welfare provisions, for example.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back