Animals in the news

230 posts / 0 new
Last post

The few people that live in those places, esp. the indigenous ones (yeah, I know there's no
indigenous ppl in Antarctica) are most assuredly not, nor could they be, vegetarian.

To change topics (back to whales.. discussed upthread) a great story in the New York Times
linked below

"simply that the rationale behind the two are vastly different"

Does that indicate that the ends justify the means? Killing animals for sport is wrong, but for food is ok (assuming that both activities are cruel to the animals, which I think they are - see Food Inc.)

So does BikerCK subscribe to the Ends Justifing the Means. And in that case does this mean BikerCK is FOR human torture in cases where the ends could save lives? Just curious.

OK, OK, hit me with the whole "Torture is a terrible way to get reliable information" argument, but my point is that you can "justify" many very bad things if you accept it's ok depending on the end result.

Also, anyone have a shout out for the animals taking one back in Spain last week? Humans are still way ahead, but still...gored in the neck! I'm sure the bull was put down however.

m2c

"So does BikerCK subscribe to the Ends Justifing the Means. And in that case does this mean
BikerCK is FOR human torture in cases where the ends could save lives? Just curious."

Absolutely not. You're making a huge leap of logic there M2C and I don't think you can stick the
landing when you're comparing food with torture.

"You're making a huge leap of logic there M2C and I don't think you can stick the landing when
you're comparing food with torture."

This is blind adherence to a cause at its best.

You think there's no overlap? You think that all cases of animals kept in captivity for
entertainment are torture, and no cases of animals raised for food are torture?

I think there's overlap. I think making an absolute moral distinction of cruelty between the two
is hypocritical.

"This is blind adherence to a cause at its best."

How so?

You think there's no overlap? You think that all cases of animals kept in captivity for
entertainment are torture, and no cases of animals raised for food are torture?

I don't think this is as black and white as you'd like me to pretend it is. Why don't you make a
case for steer wrestling or whales in captivity if you think those activities are OK, instead of
trying to get me to make an absolute statement that you can then try to disprove.

You say it's a "huge leap of logic" to compare the cruelty of captive animals to that of food
animals. I say it's not. I say you're a hypocrite to say as much.

I say they're both cruel. Further, I'd rather be the steer wrestled to the ground for fun
during rodeo season, than the steer seasoned and ground and put on a bun during the rodeo.

Further, I'd rather be the steer wrestled to the ground for fun
during rodeo season, than the steer seasoned and ground and put on a bun during the rodeo.

yeah, I'm just glad they put those creatures out to pasture for a nice retirement once they're too
big to wrestle to the ground... instead of selling them to the slaughterhouse. Wait, what? You
can be a rodeo steer AND a hamburger? Opportunities abound when you're a cow!

:-)

I'm surprised that a slaughterhouse would buy them, considering they're probably far too muscular for normal human consumption, instead of the fat and drugged animals we're used to eating. Unless, of course, they're being ground up and fed to other cattle.

Whoops!

The veal after a rodeo is to die for...ba-dum-bump-ching! Don't even get me started about the
sushi at the Aquarium! It is sooo fresh and delicious!

Thank you, thank you. You've been a great audience. Don't forget to tip your waitresses on the
way out.

This debate reminds me a lot of the burrard bike lane trial debate. There is a whole lot of hoop-la against a dedicated bike lane; as there is hoop-la against north american urbanites converting to vegetarian diets.

Both arguments, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), appear to stem from an inherent disinterest in a) commuting by bike, and/or b) eating vegetarian.

Which I find amusing.

But a) biking requires exertion, something us ultimate players are vehemently against, and b) meat tastes so damn good.

Signed,
Vegetarian Cyclist.

emd By emd

Back to the whales (waaaaaay back in the thread). Nice article (?) on Quirks & Quarks about
whales. Linked below

"I'm surprised that a slaughterhouse would buy them"

I think they may end up as pet food or be used in other non-human applications but I couldn't
say for sure. They definitely aren't sipping umbrella drinks poolside and reminiscing about the
good old days.

"They definitely aren't sipping umbrella drinks poolside and reminiscing about the good old days."

I'm sure they would be if they had opposable thumbs. What's the punctuation mark for sarcasm again?

Zoo-goers get told. See link

First he saved earth with the help of humpback whales, now Kirk sets his sights on helping a
poor elephant.

see link

"But satisfying that desire requires zoo animals to give up the life evolution intended for them."

Evolution doesn't "intend" anything, and the process of evolution has landed animals in zoos as we (man) evolved right along with everything else to a place where we can capture, cage and charge to look at these animals. It isn't right, but there you go...

Good article, but 52 Zoos in 52 weeks??? I can't think of a worse kind of hell. Thanks Mom!

m2c

Evolution doesn't "intend" anything

It might be unproductive to let semantics and a poor choice of words cloud the reality of the sentiment. A cheetah that evolved in a zoo wouldn't develop the ability to run 80 mph for instance. A dolphin in a tank doesn't require sonar that can be used for greater distances than a few metres in any direction. So, in that we are not allowing these creatures to utilize their evolutionary traits to the purpose for which they developed, the 'intent' for those capabilities has been subsumed.

Evolution didn't put animals in cages. We (humans) did, with a conscious choice that we can now reverse if we so choose. Note that many cultures never had zoos, even though they may have used animals for domestic purposes. We cut ourselves off from nature and have mistakenly placed ourselves outside its realm. Zoos are a manifestation of this decision.

"It isn't right but there you go."

The more one embraces that attitude, the easier it gets to ignore what 'isn't right'. It's a slippery slope. At the bottom lies our society, where even bigger injustices become every day occurrences. I would find it hard to teach a child to have that attitude and I wouldn't want my fellow citizens feeling that way if I were the victim of an injustice.

My tactic is to try to live within the confines of Kant's categorical imperative wherever possible. I am imperfect, but the philosophy it espouses is a good user guide to living as ethically as possible.

An ice-skating bear with a visiting Russian circus turned on its trainers on Wednesday, killing the
circus director and seriously wounding another man during a rehearsal in the Central Asian
country of Kyrgyzstan.

Kurmangazy Isanayev, the director of the arena in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, said workers
with the visiting Russian troupe managed to drag the two men away from the bear and closed
the exits until rescue workers arrived.

Police shot the bear dead, Isanayev said.

full story linked below

"The incident was not the first time a visiting Russian bear has been involved in a deadly attack in Kyrgyzstan."

Maybe the Russians are still bitter about losing Kyrgyzstan from the Union, and are sending ice skating bears to do their dirty work.

KGB=Killer Grizzly Bears!

I LOL'ed. Can't wait to read some comments on this one.

"THEY'RE faithful, friendly and furry - but under their harmless, fluffy exteriors, dogs and cats,
the world's most popular house pets, use up more energy resources in a year than driving a car,
a new book says. "

full story linked below.

As soon as people start to understand the metrics of carbon they start wasting time "calculating" carbon emissions for this and that. Ever since Rees & Wackernagel's eco-footprint analysis work came out 10 years ago, everyone has been stumbling over themselves trying to come up with something equally ground shaking. Yawn.

Different contexts put individual choices into perspective. That helps people understand the
bigger issue. It may be old news to you, but I thought it was an interesting approach... helps
people understand that changing a few light bulbs isn't going to be enough and that we may
have to look at finding ways to reduce carbon in uniikely places if we aren't going to cook in our
own juices.

These dogs definitely 'come' when you call...

"Five Virginia Department of Corrections officers have been charged with animal cruelty
involving the fondling of a K-9 dog and videotaping the two incidents."

link goes to full article

And, some definitely less disgusting animal news from Bolivia.

"ADI staff spent two years undercover working inside Bolivia's circuses documenting animal
abuse, which included forcing pregnant lions to jump through fire and keeping brown bears in 6-
by-9-ft. cages. A handful of countries, including Israel and Costa Rica, prohibit the use of wild
animals as performers, but Bolivia is the first to extend the ban to all animals, including
domestic species like dogs, horses and llamas. "We are extremely proud," says Bolivian
Congresswoman Ximena Flores, the law's main proponent. (Read a Q&A about the illegal trade
in wildlife.)"

Link goes to article

damnit.. im gonna have to go ahead and tell expedia to cancel my bolivian circus animal tour...

Bizarre but effective marketing stunt at German tradeshow. (see link)

Because my suggestion of 'Biko' probably won't make the cut, feel free to suggest a different
name for VanAqua's latest born in captivity prisoner. (see link)

Pages