Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
Time to bring back a classic post:
I couldn't agree more.
As I understand it animals cannot be granted rights under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution - actually the Bill of Rights and Amendments since the Constitution itself documents the Federal Government and what it's allowed to do - applies to "persons" and "citizens." Animals are neither.
That doesn't mean that we can't pass laws regulating how animals are treated. They just legally have no rights and cannot legally be granted any.
Maybe it's a reaction to the soapbox crowd. Maybe it's not meant to be funny, Perhaps ... it's sarcasm. Maybe, just maybe there is a segment of the populace that is so tired of folks trying to push their agendas, morale stance and doctrines down everyone's throat that they join in the fracas with derision.
When something is put to the public, they should expect a response. I get that you dislike how some react. Understand that street runs both ways.
The agenda-pushing runs both ways, too. More than anything, the joke's just been beaten into the ground IMO.
Agreed. The problem is that one side (with regard to animal rights) typically presents comments with supporting beliefs or reasons for their stance and generally half of the other side (against animal rights) responds with a single one-dimensional, condescending, no longer even remotely funny response. IMO if that's all you have to offer, stay out of the thread. There are hundreds of others to choose from.
Perhaps.
But just to shed a little light on my view, I wouldn't ever post something, and agree whole heatedly with it, that even remotely claimed cancer as funny.. or "funnier".
To put animal rights and cancer in the same sentence is even more ludicrous.
Food for thought. Steak, rare.
I actually thought the "People Eating Tasty Animals" thing was pretty funny the first time I ever saw it. Now it's been trotted out so many times, the joke (and others like it) just seems like pretty weak trolling to try and provoke a reaction. Same as Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore did, in their "Derek and Clive" double act, with some of their material about cancer, back in the day. Some found it funny, some outrageous - but it did get a response.
I guess the moral of the story is if something's posted just to provoke a reaction, then we shouldn't be too surprised if it gets one.
I guess the moral of the story is if something's posted just to provoke a reaction, then we shouldn't be too surprised if it gets one.
au contraire... i will post in whatever threads i like and say whatever i like (within the bounds of decency and forum rules, of course)
the animal rights nuts basically have one position... oh, it's just wrong to treat them so bad.... without ever distinguishing real bad treatment from legitimate use which, incidentally, causes some small amount of suffering.
if they are going to post their nutty ideas, i claim the right to hold them, publicly, in contempt... or at least to stand by and watch my fellow TBers do it for me.
how about this for a radical new idea... if you think it is wrong to treat animals in a certain way, don't do it. if i don't think that is wrong, i will do it. we both get what we want and never have to be involved with each other.
i suspect, however, that animal rights nuts will not take me up on this. they want to act however they want... AND they claim the right to force ME to act how they want...well, they might succeed, but it will be over my screaming & kicking body!
I think you might have misinterpreted the post I quoted. I took it to be a purely relative (and hyperbolic) comment, because that tasty animals thing has been used multiple times in every single PETA thread in this forum--and folks here never miss a chance to start a thread about what PETA is up to. No actual comparison between cancer and animal rights intended in my view.
To be honest, those who quite happily spout off about 'Orca burgers' or whatever are just as daft as the militants who think animals should be allowed 'constitutional rights'. Both do neither of their causes any good. I don't get why it's so absurd (to some people) to have a compassion for our fellow earth-dwelling mammals and look after them a bit better.
You don't need to get into a debate about anthromorphosising to understand that these are highly intelligent, social animals with their own sets of 'emotions' (fear, distress, joy etc) to see that what happens behind the scenes at places like Seaworld is just not very nice at all.
And if you want to take your kids to see Orcas, save your ass off and take them on a legitimate, sustainable, low-impact whale watching trip.
Check out Frozen Planet on the BBC iPlayer and watch the new, incredible footage of them creating waves to knock seals off tiny ice floes. Then tell me they belong in a tank to amuse us with their ball- balancing and hoop-jumping.
You don't need to get into a debate about anthromorphosising to understand that these are highly intelligent, social animals with their own sets of 'emotions' (fear, distress, joy etc) to see that what happens behind the scenes at places like Seaworld is just not very nice at all.
And if you want to take your kids to see Orcas, save your ass off and take them on a legitimate, sustainable, low-impact whale watching trip.
Check out Frozen Planet on the BBC iPlayer and watch the new, incredible footage of them creating waves to knock seals off tiny ice floes. Then tell me they belong in a tank to amuse us with their ball- balancing and hoop-jumping.
no, that's what YOU can do if you want to...how about...just stop telling US what to do... you go on your expensive ORCA watching junket if you want to, let us who want to go to Sea World go to Sea World.
That's what drives the Orca-burger crowd wild... it's the self righteousness of the animal rights nuts.
you do what ever makes you feel good, let us do what ever makes us feel good.
we don't even need to talk about it...everybody gets what they want... the ARN's can hug bunny rabbits and the others can kill and eat them...no harm, no foul....just, simply, mind your own business.
But what if telling you what to do is what makes me feel good? J/K
But seriously I am surprised and happy to see how many people are actually on the orcas' side here. Also very surprised to see how civil the AR folks in the face of some very inflamatory posting. Thank you for restoring just a little of my faith in humanity.
IIRC, they are sighting the constitution regarding slavery, on the basis that the Orca's are being held captive and are forced to work for no wages. The major flaw I see in this argument is the assumption that animals are protected equally as humans under the constitution. I think the majority of judges would agree that they are not (not that this justifies any kind of cruelty).
well...ok
I am surprised and happy to see how many people are sane enough not to even discuss civil rights for animals. Also very surprised to see how civil the sane folks are in the face of some very inflammatory posting. Thank you for restoring just a little of my faith in the sanity of humanity...
hey, I made a rhyme! The Sanity of Humanity...all is Vanity....
let's go eat whale burgers with Sean Hannity.
Moral questions were made for the Internet , or the other way around I'm not quite sure.
I think there is a fundamental difference between eating animals and mistreating them.
To me, it is fine to eat cows. It isn't fine to torture them. I think PETA should focus on the later more than the former.
I support PETA when they take on the circus for example for the way they treat Their animals. Not at all when they protest the eating of animals.
I think there is a fundamental difference between eating animals and mistreating them.
To me, it is fine to eat cows. It isn't fine to torture them. I think PETA should focus on the later more than the former.
I support PETA when they take on the circus for example for the way they treat Their animals. Not at all when they protest the eating of animals.
Lonesomedave said:
Take a deep breath, man.
I'm not sure how you inferred I am somehow 'telling you what to do'. Like you, I am expressing my thoughts and feelings about something I feel quite strongly about. I just dont buy your 'leave each to their own' argument.
I have similarly strong feelings about, for example, fox hunting and other blood sports. Does this mean I should quietly and passively let it go on without expressing my disdain for something so barbaric?
I am what you would probably call a 'bunny hugger'. For what it's worth, I've never hugged a bunny in my life, but if that's the label you want to give me, then bunny-hugger I am.
And thanks to 'bunny-huggers', there are fewer incidences of the appalling treatment of animals in zoos and circuses than there used to be. How you can argue that is a bad thing is beyond me.
