Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another reason that zoos are just wrong, shouldn’t exist.
Zoos shouldn’t exist because some people are stupid? We’d have to get rid of a whole lot of things if we’re trying to save stupid people from themselves.
Zoos shouldn’t exist because some people are stupid? We’d have to get rid of a whole lot of things if we’re trying to save stupid people from themselves.
Zoos should not exist because wild animals are held in unnatural confinement and exploited for the amusement of idiot homo sapiens.
Would you want to spend your entire life in prison? I doubt it.
Zoos should not exist because wild animals are held in unnatural confinement and exploited for the amusement of idiot homo sapiens.
Would you want to spend your entire life in prison? I doubt it.
I agree!
Who are WE as humans, to put wild animals in cages for OUR entertainment? It is called captivity, which equals prison.
As for research, do the studies in the wild, not in enclosed areas. Or catch them as adults, do the research necessary, and let them free again.
Wild animals deserve to live in the wild, other than wild animals who cannot live wild due to injuries, or that are on the endangered list (probably because of humans) or that know no other life from being born in captivity.
Sea World comes to mind... do you honestly think that those animals enjoy performing tricks or live in concrete surroundings? Sea lions, penguins and polar bears on concrete in the hot sun, same old, same old pen, with nothing to stimulate their minds... Give your head a shake if you do.
Zoos should not exist because wild animals are held in unnatural confinement and exploited for the amusement of idiot homo sapiens.
Not only do zoos promote awareness of conservation, they serve to protect critically endangered species.
No zoos? Say goodbye to the California condor. Say goodbye to the Arabian oryx. Say goodbye to the European bison. These species were all saved by zoo breeding programs. Wild tiger populations have fallen by 95% over the last century. Some subspecies are almost gone. The gene pool for these magnificent animals, however, is secure in various zoos. The South China Tiger? It only exists now in zoos. And you want those animals released, where they'll perish due to loss of habitat. That subspecies will then be extinct. But at least you'll feel good about it. Right?
I don't idealize zoos. There are species that do not do well there. When such species are not threatened in the wild, they should not be in zoos. And those that are held in zoos should be done so in proper environments. But the idea that they should be shuttered, that their presentation to the public of the magnificence of wild animals should be ended, that the revenue stream created - much of which is turned back into species protection in a variety of ways - should be turned off, that their breeding programs should be ended (you're not volunteering to pick up all that lost funding, are you?) is nihilistic.
You're not offering a solution to anything. You just want the difficult reality to be turned away from your eyes so you don't have to feel bad about it anymore. Apparently, because it's easier to ignore species quietly going extinct in far off wilds than it is to ignore your local zoo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happygrrrl
Would you want to spend your entire life in prison? I doubt it.
I wouldn't want to be torn apart by a pack of hyenas. I wouldn't want to die of exposure after breaking a leg. I would want to waste away from disease. Yet those are typical fates of wild animals.
I wouldn't want to be owned. I wouldn't want to be neutered. I wouldn't want to be trained to sniff out cavaders or assist blind people. So there should be no pets or service animals, right? Your 'logic'.
That was kind of like the way Steve Erwin talked to animals, namely alligators. I remember my grandpa watched him a few times and he believed the guy was truly crazy in the head, I dont think it surprised anyone when he was killed by an animal either, it was bound to happen with the way he acted around them.
It really wasn’t like Steve Irwin at all. He talk to them the way I talk to my cat the guy in the movie. “Who is the little baby girl who’s mama’s little pumpkin pie?” That’s more like he talked to them. I thought Steve Irwin was great, and that was a freak accident when he was killed. It wasn’t even the animal that did it he just swam over the stingrays back and that sharp long piece went into his heart.
Here’s a trailer for the movie: it’s really pretty amazing that he survived living among them for 13 years.
The average poster probably thinks some company called Darwin, Inc., is simply the sponsor of the so-called Darwin Award. And I'm pretty sure most of them haven't the foggiest idea as to concepts like gene pool or natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
And it demonstrates zero knowledge of science.
Only if you take it literally. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are fuzzy on the facts and use the phrase without properly knowing the actual concept. OTOH a lot of people do understand, yet still use it as shorthand for saying that someone so stupid shouldn't be 'contributing' to society by breeding equally stupid offspring. It may not be the most original thing to say, but it serves to express the idea that something is incredibly stupid beyond the norm.
Zoos should not exist because wild animals are held in unnatural confinement and exploited for the amusement of idiot homo sapiens.
Would you want to spend your entire life in prison? I doubt it.
Why do you hate yourself so much? You're also an "idiot homo sapien", are you not? If it weren't for zoos, some species would have died off years ago. You do know that zoos help repopulate animals in the wild also, right?
Gouliggans post was not about Darwin. I don’t care of people say it, but I’m going to point out that it has nothing to do with Darwin’s actual theory. And that usually the person who comes on and says it on page 5 is the 5th person who has said it on the thread. It’s lost all originality quite some time ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
