http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/19/polar.bear.ap/index.html
“Cuddly polar bear cub better off dead, activist says”
Oh please… A polar bear cub from a zoo would be better off dead than being raised by humans. Oh yeah, thats better for the bear and his endangered species both!
Take your self-righteousness and stick it up your ass.
This is the kind of sentiment you hear from people who hate modern medicine for interfering with nature.
Do you dislike the wackos who make stupid statements like that, or do the quote marks around the word “rights” indicate you dislike the concept in itself?
Animals do not have rights. However, nor do humans, inherently, unless you’re a certain kind of God-botherer. Therefore, since we’re the ones in charge, we can in fact grant rights, in our own context, to certain higher animals. It’s not necessarily whacked: it’s an acknowledgement that there is a degree of sentience and the ability to perceive suffering in such animals.
Personally, if it’s possible to prevent unnecessary suffering of non-human beings that can perceive such suffering, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. And if that alleviation of suffering has to be codified, due to the general insouciance and cruelty of us humans, then why the fuck shouldn’t we?
Personally, I agree with your assessment of the silly tool in question. However, in the article, other hard-left animal-loving greenies are also agreeing with your recreational outrage.
He’s awfully cuddly looking though, little Knut. In a year’s time he’d rip my fucking head off though.
I dislike wackos who make statements like that. I put the quotes in there because this individual does not represent true animal rights concerns. And anyone who agrees with him is also a tool, IMHO.
Oh, OK. I agree. I’ll STFU then.
Still, Knut, eh. Aaaaaaah. Don’t let the animal rights murderers kill the ickle baby, he’s adorable!
{hijack}
or if you’re John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson, or any number of non-religious philosophers who argued the case of natural rights to any number of things that the government should either not restrict or be formed in order to protect{/hijack}
As to the OP… and reading the article, this is the most egregious of the bullshit in here
WTF!?! Would they say the same thing about an orphan human? Why should we NOT care for an animal that’s within our capability to care for rather than let it die? How is this less humane? Are human babies better off dead than put for adoption where they might have a chance at life? To the last part… what about all the polar bears currently kept at zoos? It’s not like they’re routinely running amok and killing people, I’m sure they aren’t “Domestic” either, but they have it pretty good…
what, exactly, do they want?!?!?!
Oh please-these are the same types of people who compared broiler chickens to Holocaust victims.
Maybe the zoo could have an auction to let some big game hunter pay for the privilege of shooting the little guy and saving him from his fate in the zoo. Animal rights activists like the one in question could cheer him on giving us all a mind-screw and maybe a nice, succinct photo to remind us how reality gets twisted at the fringes.
I’ve yet to see a polar bear that can talk, let alone one that shares the views of Mel Gibson’s father…
Did the OP read the entire article to which he provided a link? Looks to me like the “tool” in question had a tad more to say–and a tad more reasoned–than the OP makes it seem.
Yes I read the whole thing. And I just did again to make sure I hadn’t missed something.
And by a ‘tad’ more reasoned, I can only assume you mean more wordy. He is still a tool. The bear is better off alive than dead. Better for him, better for his endangered species.
Well, the bear isn’t IN nature, where there is a limited food supply, etc. It is in a ZOO, where an animal can survive under circumstances where it would not be able to in the wild, on its own. It has people dedicated to its care and well being.
Before we go judging this apparant nut job (I’ll admit that’s my first reaction to the guy.) wouldn’t it be better to look and see if something similar had been done before, and if it had been done, how did it work out?
I can’t find it, now, but back in the 90’s I seem to recall having seen a Nova-type show on PBS featuring the efforts of an American to rear two abandoned polar bear cubs. Great care was taken to minimize human socialization with the cubs, but I don’t know how well the cubs may have socialized, even in zoo populations after that. Wouldn’t that be the sort of precedent to be investigated before we all jump to conclusions?
If that earlier attempt left the zoos with viable polar bears that can survive in the zoo, what’s wrong with raising this cub in the same way, for the same goal? If the earlier attempt I’m trying to find didn’t work, though, I would have to suggest that the wacko may have a point.
This has gone through the German news as well, and it is a typical case of a statement taken entirely out of context. This is the backstory:
In December 2006, Frank Albrecht filed a complaint with the police because the Zoo in Leipzig had euthanised a baby bear. The reason for the euthanisation: the bear cub had been rejected by the mother. When questioned why the zoo did not try to raise the cub by hand, the answer was: Raising bear cubs by hand causes behavioural dysfunction. Therefore the cub had to be killed in order to save it from suffering. So Mr Albrechts complaint was rejected.
A little later the Berlin zoo had 2 polar bear cubs. The mother rejected them and one died. The other cub is now being raised by humans. Mr Albrecht’s conclusion: if killing the bear in Leipzig was OK (because hand-raising causes suffering), by the same logic the hand-raising at the Berlin zoo must be animal cruelty. So he reported this to the authorities, quoting the statements from the Leipzig zoo.
At no time did he advocate the killing of the bear. What he was trying to do was point out that the zoos will basically do as they please, not necessarily having the best of the animals in mind. His issue is that he is against breeding animals in zoos in general.
For German speakers, here is the back story:
Regards,
Myriam
I confess a shameful ignorance as to Jefferson’s reasoning behind the granting of rights (although he wasn’t nonreligious so much as he was non-sectarian). Locke, however, explicitly tied natural rights to God.
Daniel
Jefferson pretty much repeated what Locke said as his main influence.
Touché on the Locke thing though, I’d forgotten that he tied it so closely to religion.
{/hijack}
Who’s to say in the wild the mother would have rejected her cubs?
I’m all for Prime Directive and everything, but the mother is already out of her natural environment due to humans. It is therefore the responsibility of humans to step in and save the cub.
Guess who was runner-up for Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” tonight?