thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Some activist just because mom abondoned baby thinks the polar bear baby must die. I think some activist got their head in the wrong place. Where is Danny.
Story Here
Story Here
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Polar Bear Knut (baby bear animal rights activists want to kill)
- Thread starter thcri
- Start date
Re: Polar Bear Knut
The animial rights/protection activists say that the polar bear should be killed because its mother shunned the baby. They base their argument on the fact that in its natural habitat the baby bear would have died. They suggest that because the bear would have died in its natural setting where man could not step in to save it, then it should have been allowed to starve to death in the zoo.
What the animal rights activists fail to take into account is the fact that the bear is NOT in its natural habitat. It is in a zoo!
Now think about something parallel to this story. What is the natural habitat for modern humans? By that I mean what is our natural habitat? I would suggest that the natural habitat for modern humans is some form of organized society with structures & rules. So if, in our human habitat, we find these animal rights lunatics that want to kill this baby polar bear, and we beat the living crap out of those people, I would suggest that we are simply doing what comes naturally, and therefore we have done nothing wrong by beating the crap out of them!
The animial rights/protection activists say that the polar bear should be killed because its mother shunned the baby. They base their argument on the fact that in its natural habitat the baby bear would have died. They suggest that because the bear would have died in its natural setting where man could not step in to save it, then it should have been allowed to starve to death in the zoo.
What the animal rights activists fail to take into account is the fact that the bear is NOT in its natural habitat. It is in a zoo!
Now think about something parallel to this story. What is the natural habitat for modern humans? By that I mean what is our natural habitat? I would suggest that the natural habitat for modern humans is some form of organized society with structures & rules. So if, in our human habitat, we find these animal rights lunatics that want to kill this baby polar bear, and we beat the living crap out of those people, I would suggest that we are simply doing what comes naturally, and therefore we have done nothing wrong by beating the crap out of them!
thcri
Gone But Not Forgotten
Re: Polar Bear Knut
I'd go for that
B_Skurka said:Now think about something parallel to this story. What is the natural habitat for modern humans? By that I mean what is our natural habitat? I would suggest that the natural habitat for modern humans is some form of organized society with structures & rules. So if, in our human habitat, we find these animal rights lunatics that want to kill this baby polar bear, and we beat the living crap out of those people, I would suggest that we are simply doing what comes naturally, and therefore we have done nothing wrong by beating the crap out of them!
I'd go for that
dzalphakilo
Banned
Re: Polar Bear Knut
Per the news story
"Wrong to kill him now, activist says
Albrecht told The Associated Press that his beliefs were more nuanced than reported by Bild, though he applauded the debate the article had started.
He explained that though he thought it was wrong of the zoo to have saved the cub's life, now that the bear can live on his own, it would be equally wrong to kill him."
"If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature," Albrecht said. "In the wild, it would have been left to die."
Honestly, I can see his side that man should not intervene in an act of nature (Dargo's stingray city post and the video of the eel biting a finger off leads to a whole other discussion of mans intervention in nature, particularly for profit, but those stories don't sell).
My understanding is the activist did not want to kill the bear, but let the bear survive on it's own. Perhaps nitpicking, but there is a difference.
I can also see Bob's point, that at this point, we already have intervened in nature by having the animal (the mother polar bear) in a zoo. Which by the way would be my choice since we already have the animals in captivity.
The question I would of like posed to the activist in question (per this news story) is his opinion on medical attention given to animals in cativity. I'm assuming that since human medical attention is usually unavailable for animals in the wild, no medical treatment should be given to animals in captivity.
I'm curious if anyone here knows what zoo's policies in the U.S are in this matter, as far as saving a newborn whose mother shuns it (I'm guessing not many people have a clue).
This news is selling and what's hot, it's pushing peoples buttons. Here today, gone tomorrow.
B_Skurka said:
Per the news story
"Wrong to kill him now, activist says
Albrecht told The Associated Press that his beliefs were more nuanced than reported by Bild, though he applauded the debate the article had started.
He explained that though he thought it was wrong of the zoo to have saved the cub's life, now that the bear can live on his own, it would be equally wrong to kill him."
"If a polar bear mother rejected the baby, then I believe the zoo must follow the instincts of nature," Albrecht said. "In the wild, it would have been left to die."
Honestly, I can see his side that man should not intervene in an act of nature (Dargo's stingray city post and the video of the eel biting a finger off leads to a whole other discussion of mans intervention in nature, particularly for profit, but those stories don't sell).
My understanding is the activist did not want to kill the bear, but let the bear survive on it's own. Perhaps nitpicking, but there is a difference.
I can also see Bob's point, that at this point, we already have intervened in nature by having the animal (the mother polar bear) in a zoo. Which by the way would be my choice since we already have the animals in captivity.
The question I would of like posed to the activist in question (per this news story) is his opinion on medical attention given to animals in cativity. I'm assuming that since human medical attention is usually unavailable for animals in the wild, no medical treatment should be given to animals in captivity.
I'm curious if anyone here knows what zoo's policies in the U.S are in this matter, as far as saving a newborn whose mother shuns it (I'm guessing not many people have a clue).
This news is selling and what's hot, it's pushing peoples buttons. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Last edited:
In my opinion, this is just another idiot trying to draw attention to himself.thcri said:
To use his logic, should we not be helping all the starving kids around the world? They are in their own element, so according to him, we should let them starve as well?
It must really be a slow news day if this is all the media can find to print.
Bob
Re: Polar Bear Knut
I still say he needs someone to kick the crap out of him.
According to the news story:dzalphakilo said:
Seems to me the guy originally advocated killing the bear! Later on he backpeddled on that position, but only after public pressure and only after the zoo continued to feed the bear to the point that the bear could eat on its own.
I still say he needs someone to kick the crap out of him.
dzalphakilo
Banned
Re: Polar Bear Knut
Bob, you may be right, however the article seems to be very "puffy" in it's facts or questions asked of the activist.
"Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.
"The zoo must kill the bear."
I just found it interesting that they didn't quote Albrecht AFTER printing "the zoo must kill the bear". It's implied this is what Albrecht says, no where do I see a direct quote linking that statement to Albrecht. Is this normal in interviews? I don't know.
Then the question I have is if Albrecht did say "the zoo must kill the bear" why didn't anyone during the interview ask Albrecht "if the zoo kills the bear, isn't the zoo doing exactly what you don't want them to do by taking a direct action that affects the bears life?".
Again, perhaps nitpicking, but I just see it as a puff piece, the newspaper saw that it generated interest (heck, it's from Europe and is now making the U.S "rounds"), and is now milking it for all it's worth.
B_Skurka said:
Bob, you may be right, however the article seems to be very "puffy" in it's facts or questions asked of the activist.
"Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht was quoted as saying by the mass-circulation Bild daily, which has featured regular photo spreads tracking fuzzy Knut's frolicking.
"The zoo must kill the bear."
I just found it interesting that they didn't quote Albrecht AFTER printing "the zoo must kill the bear". It's implied this is what Albrecht says, no where do I see a direct quote linking that statement to Albrecht. Is this normal in interviews? I don't know.
Then the question I have is if Albrecht did say "the zoo must kill the bear" why didn't anyone during the interview ask Albrecht "if the zoo kills the bear, isn't the zoo doing exactly what you don't want them to do by taking a direct action that affects the bears life?".
Again, perhaps nitpicking, but I just see it as a puff piece, the newspaper saw that it generated interest (heck, it's from Europe and is now making the U.S "rounds"), and is now milking it for all it's worth.
Last edited:
brazospete
New member
Well I'm all for somebody else raising a polar bear on a bottle but if you expect me to do it it'll wind up stuffed and used as a pillow.
-
removed it for ya Jimmeh..
Actually, it was supposed to be there. It's a switch for DOS ....
But thanks anyway!
brazospete
New member
brazospete
New member
brazospete
New member
Nits grow into lice. Cubs grow into 1/2 ton carnivores.....DUH!