Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

News: PETA Files Suit Against SeaWorld


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I mentioned this at work yesterday, and a co-worker says "Well, I'll be expecting them to knock on my door and file a lawsuit on behalf of the porterhouse steak I had for dinner last night which BTW was mighty delicious".

 

I know that cruelty towards animals is no laughing matter, but PETA takes it too far. I bet half of their members like a good porterhouse steak now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At it's core, I think an organization like PETA could do a hell of a lot of good for the world in protecting animals.

 

At it's execution, they end up doing more harm than good because of things like this.

 

Frankly I think PETA, in their own minds, have done a good achieving their own personal ends. Despite how we all feel about it they have people talking which in their minds is the first step. I can promise you that their lawyers are aware that this suit is going nowhere. The lawyers don't have standing to bring the suit, if I was the attorney for Sea World I could have the paperwork done to dismiss this case done in an hour. PETA's point here was never to win the suit, their point was to file a frivolous suit that would grab as much attention in the media as possible. They've done just that. They have people talking about this suit and among all of the "PETA is stupid" talk, there has been a small amount of discussion about whether there is any actual merit to this.

 

Frankly I hate all suits like this because in the end it always ends up being the lawyers fault that crap like this sees the light of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we say that all publicity is good, but it isn't. It would be easy to ignore something so stupid but judges have let known child molesters off. All it takes is one whacked out judge and Seaworld has a very large problem. Ignoring stuff like this is why we have such a mess in the legal system. I think average Americans can't be reminded enough about folks like PETA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing is that I think that African Americans should be offended by what amendment PETA is using. If anybody remembers the time period, African Americans were considered animals/property back then. I feel offended PETA thinks they even can use this.

 

As a refresher to the 13th amendment:

 

 

Amendment XIII in the National Archives

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in the ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states or any other areas where slavery was still technically legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a refresher to the 13th amendment:

 

 

Amendment XIII in the National Archives

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in the ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states or any other areas where slavery was still technically legal.

Tilikum killed a trainer, good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing is that I think that African Americans should be offended by what amendment PETA is using. If anybody remembers the time period, African Americans were considered animals/property back then. I feel offended PETA thinks they even can use this.

 

 

I personally do not remember the time period. However, I am part Irish and had relatives that also had history of that time period. Wonder why this never gets mentioned or referenced in these discussions (in whole, not this site).

 

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a refresher to the 13th amendment:

 

 

Amendment XIII in the National Archives

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in the ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states or any other areas where slavery was still technically legal.

Tilikum killed a trainer, good enough for me.

 

Ok..? But that has nothing to do with slavery. It is a wild animal but so is everything even dogs an us to an extent. They aren't in cages when they are not doing shows. They have super huge tanks that I forget specific dimensions to. They made it deep enough for it to replicate the open ocean.

What they should do is put that whale down because it's actually killed three trainers. It's what we would do to a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here who actually has given any thought to PETA's point here? Sure, PETA always takes their views to the extreme, and cases like this are obviously designed to get free publicity. And I don't agree with at least half, if not much more, of what they do and say. But are they automatically wrong, just because they're fanatics? And, as fanatics who take their issues to the extreme, they invite ridicule, as seen in this thread. But do they ever actually have a valid point, among all of their theatrics?

 

No, obviously, orcas aren't the same as human beings. But if they are actually as intelligent and aware as at least a young human child -- and evidence is pointing to that being the case -- do we actually have the right to capture them, keep them in small tanks and then force them to do tricks for our amusement and the parks' profit?

 

I'm hardly an animal rights activist. I eat meat and love steak. I work in a seafood restaurant and feed dozens of dead animals to people each day. I have a ton of fish as pets in my house. (Yes, those two last statements coexist in an interesting irony.) I enjoy zoos and aquariums and marine life parks. And yes, I watch the orca and dolphin shows and the rest. But I also sometimes ask myself if what we do and if what *I* do is actually right.

 

And despite my always enjoying Sea World parks (I visited the San Antonio park this year, and for many years had a season pass to the Orlando park, despite living in Boston), I do ask sometimes myself if everything they're doing is right. The regular fish exhibits are obviously fine. Trust me on this one. As a fish owner, I can tell you that fish are stupid as hell! But dolphins and orcas are not.

 

I mean it's one thing when parks like Sea World rescue injured manatees and house them and take care of them. That's obviously a good thing. And there's no questioning that zoos, aquariums and marine life parks bring attention to and respect for wildlife.

 

But did that intelligent dolphin who was captured from its home and taken away with dozens of its family and others, many of whom died from fright and their poor conditions in captivity, agree to be an ambassador for the animal kingdom? And while Sea World parks (unlike many marine parks in other countries, especially in Asia) don't torture the animals to make them do tricks, should intelligent animals actually have to literally jump through hoops to get fed? But at the same time, I admit that I enjoy watching those shows. And by doing so, I'm contributing (both financially and with my presence) to the treatment of those animals. And I try to assuage my mixed feelings of potential guilt by buying a few dead fish and feeding them to the dolphins and sea lions. It's probably a big part of why I overfeed my own fish, too, convincing myself that my fish (and the sea lions and dolphins) are better off and happier because of my presence.

 

Do people out here actually think that it's wrong to sometimes ask ourselves these questions?

 

Do we, as human beings, automatically have the right to do anything to any animal on the planet -- no matter how intelligent? Or should there be some limits? And if so, how do we define those limits, if not by asking these kinds of questions in public forums?

 

Or is this kind of discussion unwanted, in favor of funny, snarky comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/