Shamu Eats Trainer!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Only humans can be held to the golden rule. If animals had the intelligence to live by the golden rule, the quality of their lives would improve.
Common sense says that more often than not, people who get killed by animals asked for it. Deserved it might mean that the humans attacked the animals physically in a way that threatened their lives.

So we have to observe a standard when dealing with animals that they don't have to reciprocate? I suppose this is why it's ok for you to eat plants with no moral consequence? Plants can't eat you, so no one can ever tell you that you had it coming for not observing the golden rule in regard to the vegetable world.

You're advocating a double standard.

And stop splitting hairs: "deserved it" and "asking for it" mean the exact same thing. Either you believe that people who are killed by animals had it coming, or you don't.
 
Basically like a section of the ocean that is cordoned off from the rest, where only these previously captive animals would be. Well,yes, they would still be captive, but they wouldn't be in cement or glass pools anymore. It would be a natural environment with plenty of room to roam.
It would be a nature reserve. Otherwise, if animals could be trained to be in the wild, as in guided by other animals somehow, that would be best.

Zoos are ridiculous, because they are supposed to give people an opportunity to see wild animals, but the conditions are such that you don't get an accurate depiction of how wild animals really are. They are often weak and sickly. Better to get HD video taken out in the wild. Hidden cameras in the wild would be better.

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
 
Apparently the Orca that killed three humans will continue to perform in the Orlando Sea World show. My buddy that lives in Orlando is telling me that the park is full everyday now and that this death is bringing scores of curious people wanting to watch the animal once more for the danger of it.. I think its a mistake to do this however if the animal kills once more, I feel litigation will follow suit.
 
I think as long as the people working with the animal know the risks, a lawsuit would be frivolous.

But that's just me. I'm sure the personal injury lawyers would disagree.
 
How in the hell are they going to cordon off a section of the ocean large enough for a bunch of killer whales, dolphins, sea lions, etc live?

Well, it would be a lot bigger than one of their tanks, but I think it would only be about the size of a city block. If not the ocean, than a saltwater lake. The point is to have a totally natural and safe environment, only fairly small.
By the way, I did not say to actually cordon off a section of the ocean. I said it would be LIKE cordoning off a section of the ocean, meaning to make a large enough totally natural environment in which they can live. I was careful in my wording to use the word like instead of saying to sctually cordon off the ocean. It left me with more options in the argument, and more options as to what to do to help the animals.
 
Last edited:
Basically like a section of the ocean that is cordoned off from the rest, where only these previously captive animals would be. Well,yes, they would still be captive, but they wouldn't be in cement or glass pools anymore. It would be a natural environment with plenty of room to roam.
It would be a nature reserve. Otherwise, if animals could be trained to be in the wild, as in guided by other animals somehow, that would be best.

Zoos are ridiculous, because they are supposed to give people an opportunity to see wild animals, but the conditions are such that you don't get an accurate depiction of how wild animals really are. They are often weak and sickly. Better to get HD video taken out in the wild. Hidden cameras in the wild would be better.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
So we have to observe a standard when dealing with animals that they don't have to reciprocate? I suppose this is why it's ok for you to eat plants with no moral consequence? Plants can't eat you, so no one can ever tell you that you had it coming for not observing the golden rule in regard to the vegetable world.

You're advocating a double standard.

And stop splitting hairs: "deserved it" and "asking for it" mean the exact same thing. Either you believe that people who are killed by animals had it coming, or you don't.

Someone who is not capable of understanding cannot be expected to follow it, like the mentally impaired. You cannot expect them to follow the golden rule perfectly because they lack the mental capacity.

ALL animals eat plants, and so those "deaths" are unavoidable. Herbivores eat plants directly, while carnivores eat plants indirectly, by eating the herbivores that ate the plants. All animal nutrition ultimately comes from the plant kingdom. According to electrical impulse stress tests done on plants, they like being eaten, even though they don't like being damaged for its own sake, for example they don't like being burned. There was a book I read about it called The Secret Life Of Plants, by Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird.

Plants don't have nervous systems, and because they are rooted to the ground, they have no sovereignty. Basically though, because animals are poor converters of plant protein into animal protein, when you eat animals, you actually are causing the deaths of MORE plants than if you ate the plants directly. So it is either cause the death of plants by eating them, or cause the death of even MORE plants, AND the animals by eating the animals. It is no contest. The vegetarian diet causes far less death and destruction in the world than does eating animals.

Deserving it and asking for it do not mean the EXACT same thing. They have slightly different connotations or implications. Deserving it implies that someone actually deserves to die, whereas asking for it means that someone does something, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that naturally provokes another to kill them, which causes their death, even though they may not actually DESERVE to die. DESERVING to die implies that someone is a danger to others in general, and should die, or be sought out and assassinated whether they happen to be doing a threatening act at that particular time or not, because knowing their character, it is only a matter of time before they WILL do something to threaten another. Someone might deserve to die without even threatening another, and deserve to die only because one is absolutely certain that they WILL do something in the future to hurt others. Alternatively, someone could attack a police officer because they want the police officer to kill them, because they lack the will to kill themselves. These people need help. Do they really DESERVE to die? Not necessarily. They are just ASKING to die. Asking for something and deserving something are NOT the exact same thing, whether it be being killed, getting a raise, or being hurt or helped in any other way.
 
Last edited:
<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

Actually I don't like turtles.
 
And you're asking a reality-based question to him, why? :dunno

Because I knew the answer is going to be good...and it was.

Apparently the Orca that killed three humans will continue to perform in the Orlando Sea World show. My buddy that lives in Orlando is telling me that the park is full everyday now and that this death is bringing scores of curious people wanting to watch the animal once more for the danger of it.. I think its a mistake to do this however if the animal kills once more, I feel litigation will follow suit.

Seriously, did you actually read the article? One was a completely seperate incident where the person didn't even die. The second had nothing to do with the whale. Some dip____ stayed in the park after it closed and decided to go swimming in the tank and died of hypothermia. Unless you think the whale was devious enough to kill the guy then dry his clothes and put them outside the tank.

Well, it would be a lot bigger than one of their tanks, but I think it would only be about the size of a city block. If not the ocean, than a saltwater lake. The point is to have a totally natural and safe environment, only fairly small.
By the way, I did not say to actually cordon off a section of the ocean. I said it would be LIKE cordoning off a section of the ocean, meaning to make a large enough totally natural environment in which they can live. I was careful in my wording to use the word like instead of saying to sctually cordon off the ocean. It left me with more options in the argument, and more options as to what to do to help the animals.

Okay, I'll give you the salt water lake. But what exactly does "like cordoning off" consist of? If we don't actually do it how would we keep predators and such out?
 
You know Blackthorne, I have to say that as I have thought about it, the idea of a salt lake would be pretty cool. I don't think Sea World is a bad corporation and I think it would be really awesome if they were able to have a salt lake somewhere (or maybe even make one?) and then they could have boat tours or something where people could go out and whale watch. I don't know if its financially feasible, but maybe with some fiancial assistance.
 
<EMBED height=505 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=640 src=https://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

I would've loved it if he said, "I like brains!"
 
Someone who is not capable of understanding cannot be expected to follow it, like the mentally impaired. You cannot expect them to follow the golden rule perfectly because they lack the mental capacity.

ALL animals eat plants, and so those "deaths" are unavoidable. Herbivores eat plants directly, while carnivores eat plants indirectly, by eating the herbivores that ate the plants. All animal nutrition ultimately comes from the plant kingdom. According to electrical impulse stress tests done on plants, they like being eaten, even though they don't like being damaged for its own sake, for example they don't like being burned. There was a book I read about it called The Secret Life Of Plants, by Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird.

Plants don't have nervous systems, and because they are rooted to the ground, they have no sovereignty. Basically though, because animals are poor converters of plant protein into animal protein, when you eat animals, you actually are causing the deaths of MORE plants than if you ate the plants directly. So it is either cause the death of plants by eating them, or cause the death of even MORE plants, AND the animals by eating the animals. It is no contest. The vegetarian diet causes far less death and destruction in the world than does eating animals.

Deserving it and asking for it do not mean the EXACT same thing. They have slightly different connotations or implications. Deserving it implies that someone actually deserves to die, whereas asking for it means that someone does something, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that naturally provokes another to kill them, which causes their death, even though they may not actually DESERVE to die. DESERVING to die implies that someone is a danger to others in general, and should die, or be sought out and assassinated whether they happen to be doing a threatening act at that particular time or not, because knowing their character, it is only a matter of time before they WILL do something to threaten another. Someone might deserve to die without even threatening another, and deserve to die only because one is absolutely certain that they WILL do something in the future to hurt others. Alternatively, someone could attack a police officer because they want the police officer to kill them, because they lack the will to kill themselves. These people need help. Do they really DESERVE to die? Not necessarily. They are just ASKING to die. Asking for something and deserving something are NOT the exact same thing, whether it be being killed, getting a raise, or being hurt or helped in any other way.

But why can't I eat fish?
 
The vegan thread argument was never really about food. It was about whether human beings have a moral right to exist for their own sake, without compromising their personal, selfish interests for the sake of other organisms.
 
The vegan thread argument was never really about food. It was about whether human beings have a moral right to exist for their own sake, without compromising their personal, selfish interests for the sake of other organisms.

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

You're gonna get me in trouble....

save_the_plankton_kill_a_whale_bumper_sticker-p128264764022779352trl0_400.jpg
 
There is no such thing as old age in nature.
My personal thoughts are: Humans are far less 'enlightened' than we like to believe.
The nature of the world is violence and yet we are surprised when we see acts of violence.
We can't have things both ways. It's an animal. On a bad day your cat scratches you, on an orca's bad day, you die.
Sorry the woman died, but she knew the risks and if it were possible to ask her, I seriously doubt she would want to punish the whale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top