SeaWorld Accused Of Violating 13th Amendment

[woolfe9999]

Well apparently corporations have full Constitutional rights, and a corporation is a legal fiction. At least a whale is a living being.

In all seriousness, I think this is ludicrous. As are all other attempts to expand Constitutional rights beyond living and breathing human beings.

 

[JohnnyGage]

I'm all for this!


As long as the whales testify in open court, in English. None of this, clicks and high pitched noises nonsense. I mean how long have they been here and they don't know the language.

In other words, PETA is a joke.

 

[Craig234]

Next PETA will be lobbying for animal suffrage.

Dictionary entry for "slippery slope" fallacy. Ridiculous 'right to vote' != anti-suffering.

Legally, this is without merit. Animals are given no constitutional rights.

What it is is a 'protest' to give attention to the moral issue, which has plenty of merit.

The same sort of thing could have been done to oppose slavery, when legal challenges were without merit but made valid moral points.

People are kind of pathetic who miss the point they're making and take it literally only.

You might agree or disagree with their moral issue, but it's worth discussing and this does help give some visibility to another point of view on the ignored 'slavery' concern.

That's how these issues work - something is widely accepted by society, not seen as 'wrong', and some people point out a problem - take circus animal abuse, for example.

The initial response is 'that's ridiculous, those animals are entertaining and I'm sure they get great care', then whistleblowers and videos come out, and people realize there is a problem, and reforms are made, and then they say how obvious it was all along that needed to happen.

That's really not unlike the history of human slavery, which just 'wasn't seen as wrong' by so much of society, until it was.

It's quite valid to ask if there is wrong suffering involved with animals like this. If you conclude PETA is wrong, if not nuts, fine, but it's worth discussing.

We in fact do have laws against cruelty to animals that we could not have, but society has come to see animals as having some 'rights' justifying putting people in jail over.

Some other cultures might look at that and think we're like PETA, absurd, to care about animal suffering.

 

[Munky]

PETA... no further comment necessary.

 

[davmat787]

I was in French Polynesia (I think Moorea when this happened, could have been Bora Bora) and was talking with some marine biologists. Some of them were foreign, some were local Tahitian's. Anyway, the subject of Seaworld came up and every single one of them thought Seaworld provides a huge benefit to the marine community. Funding for projects like they were doing regarding whale migration patterns to raising awareness were mentioned. They did cite the problem of having to capture a few marine creatures to help save them.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Dictionary entry for "slippery slope" fallacy. Ridiculous 'right to vote' != anti-suffering.

Legally, this is without merit. Animals are given no constitutional rights.

What it is is a 'protest' to give attention to the moral issue, which has plenty of merit.

The same sort of thing could have been done to oppose slavery, when legal challenges were without merit but made valid moral points.

People are kind of pathetic who miss the point they're making and take it literally only.

You might agree or disagree with their moral issue, but it's worth discussing and this does help give some visibility to another point of view on the ignored 'slavery' concern.

That's how these issues work - something is widely accepted by society, not seen as 'wrong', and some people point out a problem - take circus animal abuse, for example.

The initial response is 'that's ridiculous, those animals are entertaining and I'm sure they get great care', then whistleblowers and videos come out, and people realize there is a problem, and reforms are made, and then they say how obvious it was all along that needed to happen.

That's really not unlike the history of human slavery, which just 'wasn't seen as wrong' by so much of society, until it was.

It's quite valid to ask if there is wrong suffering involved with animals like this. If you conclude PETA is wrong, if not nuts, fine, but it's worth discussing.

We in fact do have laws against cruelty to animals that we could not have, but society has come to see animals as having some 'rights' justifying putting people in jail over.

Some other cultures might look at that and think we're like PETA, absurd, to care about animal suffering.

You totally miss the point, he was joking.

With that PETA is one big fat hypocritical joke. Because once you ascribe to comparing chicken farms to Auchwitz, support outlawing seeing eye dogs and other service animals you have lost anyone with the abilty to think rationally.

 

[bfdd]

PETA wants animals to have equal rights. This is absolutely retarded. If we're going to apply our laws to animals, then we have to do it across all of them. The last thing PETA wants is animals to be held to the same standard as humans. One of the only things protecting them from us is the fact they are viewed and treated as lower life forms, which they are.

 

[slayer202]

Dictionary entry for "slippery slope" fallacy. Ridiculous 'right to vote' != anti-suffering.

Legally, this is without merit. Animals are given no constitutional rights.

What it is is a 'protest' to give attention to the moral issue, which has plenty of merit.

The same sort of thing could have been done to oppose slavery, when legal challenges were without merit but made valid moral points.

People are kind of pathetic who miss the point they're making and take it literally only.

You might agree or disagree with their moral issue, but it's worth discussing and this does help give some visibility to another point of view on the ignored 'slavery' concern.

That's how these issues work - something is widely accepted by society, not seen as 'wrong', and some people point out a problem - take circus animal abuse, for example.

The initial response is 'that's ridiculous, those animals are entertaining and I'm sure they get great care', then whistleblowers and videos come out, and people realize there is a problem, and reforms are made, and then they say how obvious it was all along that needed to happen.

That's really not unlike the history of human slavery, which just 'wasn't seen as wrong' by so much of society, until it was.

It's quite valid to ask if there is wrong suffering involved with animals like this. If you conclude PETA is wrong, if not nuts, fine, but it's worth discussing.

We in fact do have laws against cruelty to animals that we could not have, but society has come to see animals as having some 'rights' justifying putting people in jail over.

Some other cultures might look at that and think we're like PETA, absurd, to care about animal suffering.

:thumbsup:

You totally miss the point, he was joking.

and you miss craig's point, which was a response to the general sentiment in this thread

 

[Craig234]

You totally miss the point, he was joking.

Frankly, I didn't look much at it, just responded to the posts I saw.

With that PETA is one big fat hypocritical joke. Because once you ascribe to comparing chicken farms to Auchwitz, support outlawing seeing eye dogs and other service animals you have lost anyone with the abilty to think rationally.

That may be. But I'll tell you, the horror of the chicken farms seems to me to be quite a valid issue as an inhumane disaster deserving of our reforming it.

And my comments were more general about how these issues work.

I don't compare chicken farms to the Holocaust, but I can see how mentioning them together can be instructive; I view seeing eye dogs as a very good practice.

People can - and I speak from experience - give no consideration to that nicely seasoned chicken breast from KFC's origins if there is animal cruelty.

Just mentioning Auschwitz while not saying it's comparable can help change that.

Now, I'll strongly and actively support chicken farm reform. It's a major problem.

 

[bfdd]

PETA is crazy Craig,there is no defense of the entity/institution. Animal suffering sucks, I do agree with that sentiment. Most people probably think I don't give a fuck, but I happen to be quite the animal lover. I just think treating them or holding them to the standards of human is far more wrong and falls into the category of abuse.

 

[sportage]

PETA is the "only" organization fighting for animal rights.
If you are an animal, you should support PETA.
And btw... we all are animals.
We just feel to have some privileged right...

PS. And your cat has a plan in the making.
Why do you think kitty sprayed all over you new breakfast nook?

 

[monovillage]

Animals need voting rights dammit!

Don't your dogs and cats vote? Mine do!

 

[davmat787]

Don't your dogs and cats vote? Mine do!

You live in Chicago then?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Beasts are not citizens and they do not have constitutional rights.

 

[Lithium381]

this is a progressive mindset for you

NO MORE STUDENT LOAN DEBT FOR WHALES!!!!

 

[piasabird]

Seafood is property.

 

[CZroe]

Beasts are not citizens and they do not have constitutional rights.

Neither are slaves in Africa. Their argument is that the right to not be a slave (freedom) is inalienable and transcends citizenship, as all true rights do.

I do not agree with PETA and do not believe that animals have the same basic human rights, but I am annoyed that people think rights are some thing that can only be granted by governments to citizens.

 

[2Dead]

Once the whales and other animals are recognized as having rights, will they be subject to the laws as well?. Hmm, kill that fish, seal, etc.. well that's murder. We'll have to round them up and incarcerate them. We can then unofficially name the prison "Sea World". Rather than having the inmates do nothing, they can work to earn some money, by like, performing shows and stuff. They and the prison can use their earned money to support their families in the sea by paying for research and stuff.