LOL - Peta to buy (a) Sea World?

---

d_port_12E said:

Not really buddy. Breeding animals simply for the purpose of entertainment is just as bad.

*** Edited 8/23/2008 2:42:01 AM UTC by d_port_12E***

---

Leave the Chinese Olympic Team out of this!

---

d_port_12E said:
I SAID: Breeding animals simply for the purpose of entertainment is just as bad.

YOU SAID: If you're going to debate this, at least do something to support your side of things.

So I “defended” my claim with an analogy. Get with it.

*** Edited 8/25/2008 3:56:58 PM UTC by d_port_12E***

---

The problem is that you start first with saying that capturing animals in the wild for show is bad. We all agree, then prove you wrong and SeaWorld doesn't do that. Then you move the goalpost and talk about in habitat breeding.

You're path goes down the same line as that of PETA against pets and service dogs.

Your "proving me wrong" has brought about another issue...

In a typical debate, my non-response concedes your point...However, the argument has now been turned, in as sense (more debate terminology) to the issue of breeding at Sea World (my comment/analogy on that, has yet to be disputed...which means the argument is conceded to me...unless it's addressed) ;)

*** Edited 8/27/2008 2:38:39 PM UTC by d_port_12E***

Which comment? That breeding purely for entertainment purposes is wrong?

Well, for 1, zoos and aquariums don't breed for "entertainment". They breed as part of co-operative conservation breeding programs. Z/As will stud out their males or bring in studs for their females in an effort to A - study the pregnancy cycle of these animals, B - further strengthen the gene pool of these animals and C - to provide population support.

Secondly, my pets entertain me to no end. I have 2 different friends who both, when possible, breed their dogs (one golden labs, the other Aussies). These dogs then go on to bring years of entertainment and enjoyment to their new owners. Their selective breeding also strengthens the genes of their breeds and provides people with the puppy they want.

There is nothing wrong with breeding, either for conservation or entertainment, as long as the animal is treated well during its lifetime.

If its bred to be kept in a cramped pen and abused for its lifetime, then yes, I agree, there is a problem with that type of breeding. But it is rare.

---

If its bred to be kept in a cramped pen and abused for its lifetime, then yes, I agree, there is a problem with that type of breeding.

---

Agreed.

But even still if my resources can be put to use either rescuing the animal or feeding a starving child, giving a homeless man a home, providing shelter for an abused woman or something similar, then I guess Skippy the elephant is going to keep getting whipped in his little cage because my resources are going to the more important issue at hand.

It's hard to beat that logic when there are so many wrongs in the world that need to be made right. It doesn't make a lot of sense to move animals to the top of the priority list that way.

I think one of the problems we have is our (read: society's) need to humanize just about everything in our culture from the animals to cars to robots to silverware. Yes, I'm referring to animated movies for the most part, but also commercials and such.

Giving human characteristics to non-human things (living or otherwise) really aggravates me.

Come on, Carrie...without giving inanimate objects human qualities we'd have no WALL-E...andhe was so dang cute! ;)

mOOSH (seriously, that's my favorite film so far this year)

You come on, Moosh...it's not really WALL-E you're defending. You want to preserve your right to give full blown personalities to "wood." ;)

---

Carrie M. said:
It's hard to beat that logic when there are so many wrongs in the world that need to be made right.

---

Actually it's not hard to beat that logic at all but really going down that path is going to take things to a more philosophical road than what coaster message boarding really lends itself, not to mention will just perpetuate what's become a typical internet clusterfrick discussion about animal right's activism, which why I was hesitant to even start the thread. Not that I wasn't expecting it at all, I was.

I guess I'll just reluctantly throw this out there - I'm no supporter of PETA or anything but I find it pretty laughable that some of us are actually making the argument that this sort of activism is misplaced energy simply because there are "more important" causes to be working on. If we follow that then we should all be feverishly working on, you know...curing cancer or feeding lepers or whatever right now as we speak but instead we make it a priority to ride lots and lots of roller coasters and then talk about them online. If you don't think animal rights activism is a worthy endeavor, that's fine if you have your reasons but the "helping people is more important!" thing just doesn't pan out because every single one of us could be finding something "more important" to do with every single minute of our time.

Well, of course, Matt. All we can do is prioritize our efforts based on our own subjective opinion and value system. I think some folks are simply explaining that their priorities would not begin with animals.

Just because folks take time to participate on coaster sites, doesn't mean they aren't aware that there are more valuable things they could be doing with their time.

Value is subjective, though. And life is about trade-offs and choices. We all get to make those choices. And some would choose other causes or interests over the animal rights.

I don't see the argument with that.

---

matt. said:
I guess I'll just reluctantly throw this out there - I'm no supporter of PETA or anything but I find it pretty laughable that some of us are actually making the argument that this sort of activism is misplaced energy simply because there are "more important" causes to be working on. If we follow that then we should all be feverishly working on, you know...curing cancer or feeding lepers or whatever right now as we speak but instead we make it a priority to ride lots and lots of roller coasters and then talk about them online. If you don't think animal rights activism is a worthy endeavor, that's fine if you have your reasons but the "helping people is more important!" thing just doesn't pan out because every single one of us could be finding something "more important" to do with every single minute of our time.

---

Nah, big difference.

You're suggesting all actions are equal.

I think recreation activity differs greatly from charitable activity. (both of which differ from productive activity or necessary activites)

Big difference between blowing a day at the park and donating money to some 'feed the children' charity. To try to compare the two is what's laughable.

However the difference between donating money to feed a child and protesting an establishment because the have an animal in a cage isn't very different - except that one seems so much more important than the other.

When it comes time to help, I think you can certainly prioritize. In fact, I think it's necessary to.

You're right though, matt. Too philosophical (and personal) for here.

---

Carrie M. said:
I think some folks are simply explaining that their priorities would not begin with animals.

---

It's not explaining, though, it's a hypocritical non-argument to just say "Doing X is not legitimate because doing Y in the scheme of things is more important."

I mean I'm not trying to pick on Gonch here or anything but when someone says something like

---

Lord Gonchar said:
Maybe we should perfect the ethical treatment of people before we move on to the animals?

---

couldn't I just as easily counter with "Maybe we should perfect the ethical treatment of people before we move on to riding roller coasters?"

Like I said before, if you have a problem with PETA in particular or with animal rights activism for whatever reason, have at it, sure, but making better arguments, is, you know...better.

Yes, you could counter with that question. And what I would hear is "Matt thinks that the ethical treatment of people is more important than riding roller coasters."

So what? That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

This is a subjective topic, so why would you expect anything but subjective arguments?

---

Lord Gonchar said:
Big difference between blowing a day at the park and donating money to some 'feed the children' charity. To try to compare the two is what's laughable.

---

What children are you helping feed, though? Inner-city youth in Philadelphia? Starving kids in Africa? Kids in the British public school system? See the point I'm getting at here? It's like we're trying to invalidate animal rights activism because there are "more important" causes out there, but it isn't really addressing legitimacy in any valuable way.

Is breast cancer research more important than colon cancer research? How do you measure that? *** Edited 8/27/2008 7:22:15 PM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 8/27/2008 7:22:31 PM UTC by matt.***

---

matt. said:
It's like we're trying to invalidate animal rights activism because there are "more important" causes out there, but it isn't really addressing legitimacy in any valuable way.

Is breast cancer research more important than colon cancer research? How do you measure that?

---

Simple.

Self preservation.

It's the very most basic of all instincts. Protect yourself and your kind.

It is without a doubt more important for me to feed my family than yours. Once we're covered, I move on to extended family. Then friends. Then my community. Then surrounding communities.

I think there's a clear hierarchy. The particulars are different for everyone, but the big picture is exactly the same.

In that hierarchy, I don't think there's a doubt that it's more important to protect our own species before others.

---

Lord Gonchar said:
In that hierarchy, I don't think there's a doubt that it's more important to protect our own species before others.

---

Yeah, but see, that's the problem, animal rights activists are going to tell you that this is specifically why they do what they do. Those folks who volunteer for hours upon hours for these causes will tell you they advocate for defenseless animals specifically because they're such a low priority for much of the rest of society.

What about someone who advocates for research of a very, very rare disease which only kills a handful of people of year? Is there less utility in that than raising money for breast cancer research?

Well, regardless of this hierarchy, our inherant empathy for a variety of causes ultimately benefits all of us. If a segment of the population thinks that it is important to look out for animals instead of their own species, that's a good thing. Variety of life ultimately contributes to our own survival.

I'm sure these folks care about humans just as much as anybody else, it's just that their time, energy, and expertise are directed to something different. The real question isn't whether it is important per some standard hierarchy, but whether their methods are constructive.

---

matt. said:

Is breast cancer research more important than colon cancer research?

---

Thats a personal decision.

Are you a breast man, or an ass man? ;)

More seriously, they are both important and the decision for each person comes down, more often than not, to which has touched their life the most.

---

matt. said:
Yeah, but see, that's the problem, animal rights activists are going to tell you that this is specifically why they do what they do. Those folks who volunteer for hours upon hours for these causes will tell you they advocate for defenseless animals specifically because they're such a low priority for much of the rest of society.

---

Then I'm sure they'll understand why their peers chose to make sure some cow somewhere was treated humanely instead of helping them when they need it. :)

---

janfrederick said:
Well, regardless of this hierarchy, our inherant empathy for a variety of causes ultimately benefits all of us. If a segment of the population thinks that it is important to look out for animals instead of their own species, that's a good thing. Variety of life ultimately contributes to our own survival.

---

Well, I think you're getting into something different. I technically agree with the last line there, but this isn't the same thing.

Complaining that a whale in captivity isn't happy is a whole different world from making sure things stay in check for our own good.

Not necessarily. By raising the standards by which we treat fellow animals, we raise the expectations for treatment of our own species. Seems like a big jump, but I don't think so.

As for the "use" of animals, I think it OK as long as it id done humanely. Heck, I am used by my company in a humane way, and it keeps a roof over my head.