What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

#BLACKFISH (1 Viewer)

I stopped going to zoos a long time ago. I really can't stand to see the animals caged up.
Totally with you. Even when I was a kid I hated zoos. It doesn't take much as a youngster to recognize that the animals are in jail. Where is the fun here? Hate zoos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with Seaworld is that they try to hide saying that they do research. Well, if they do research where are the publications. Where is the discourse about the science. The issue with Tilikum is that it was not just 1 incident with him - the one where he killed Dawn. There were multiple other incidents with that whale in other parks. Seaworld was aware of the history of Tilikum. How he was pulled out and separated from his family at a young age. They keep him because he breeds. Close to a third of all the whales in captivity have been bred from Tilikum.

It is a shame. They could do so much more good if they truly wanted to.
In fairness, SeaWorld is a for profit, publicly traded entity. I agree that what they are doing pushes the moral envelope, but Tilikum is obviously a big part (if not THE biggest) of their breeding program, which is essentially their bread and butter. The shareholder lawsuits would be insane if they decided to suddenly do what is right and release all of the orcas. :shrug:

Capitalism isn't all cotton candy and lemonade.
No, I get what you are saying there. I just despise the fact that they try to hide behind research. They are for profit and their responsibility is to shareholders. They are not a research organization so they should not throw that out there when trying to defend their orcas in captivity program. They don't do research there. They reproduce large mammals so that they can stay in business. I happen to find that disgusting.

 
Furthermore, given how emotionally developed orcas are and how their young stay with thir mothers their entire lives to separate the babies from their mothers goes from morally grey to malicious and abusive.

 
Sell SEAS short. The volume has trickled to almost nothing. Stockholders are gonna have a hard time dumping when the attendance figures come in.

 
Caught this last night. What I don't understand is how the "trainers" brainwashed themselves into thinking that whales ripped from their families and made to live in a tiny tank to do tricks for food would be happy. Siegfried and Roy watched that and were like wtf.

 
Watched the first 45 minutes of this, couldn't finish. Absolutely horrifying what these animals go through. Seaworld should be charged with animal cruelty and shut down. The whole thing makes me really sad and angry.

 
Watched the first 45 minutes of this, couldn't finish. Absolutely horrifying what these animals go through. Seaworld should be charged with animal cruelty and shut down. The whole thing makes me really sad and angry.
grats on just being manipulated by propaganda

 
SEAS is in trouble.. lots of artists cancelling shows now. PR nightmare and they are doing zero damage control hoping it just goes away. Perhaps not the best strategy. :lol:

Film was excellent. Does it embellish a bit, likely. Does that mean SEAS and the like don't abuse their animals at a highly unacceptable level? Of course they do. Have never set foot in a sea world and never will after this film.

 
I stopped going to zoos a long time ago. I really can't stand to see the animals caged up.
Totally with you. Even when I was a kid I hated zoos. It doesn't take much as a youngster to recognize that the animals are in jail. Where is the fun here? Hate zoos.
Seeing an actual lion or tiger or whatever can easily be fun. OK, so I've been to a couple of the smaller zoos where there's a lion or whatever in a pretty small cage, providing just enough room for it to pace back and forth. I can see not being too thrilled with that. But, bigger zoos don't exactly have them "caged up". Sure, they don't have the whole African Seregenti to roam around, but they have more than a few feet.

 
SEAS is in trouble.. lots of artists cancelling shows now. PR nightmare and they are doing zero damage control hoping it just goes away. Perhaps not the best strategy. :lol:

Film was excellent. Does it embellish a bit, likely. Does that mean SEAS and the like don't abuse their animals at a highly unacceptable level? Of course they do. Have never set foot in a sea world and never will after this film.
With the scientific evidence emerging of these animals' intelligence and even their emotional capacity, there is no plausible argument to keep these places operating. To find it reprehensible requires nothing more than a brain and a conscience. People saying it's all propaganda are just idiots or they have their heads in the sand. Or they hold the view that humans are superior to animals and we can treat them any way we please.

It's amazing to me that if I were to kick a dog in public, I could be charged with animal cruelty, but a company is allowed to systematically cause immense suffering to animals over a course of decades, for nothing more than entertainment and profit. I hope eventually the rest of the world catches up with countries like India and bans these companies from operating.

 
I stopped going to zoos a long time ago. I really can't stand to see the animals caged up.
Totally with you. Even when I was a kid I hated zoos. It doesn't take much as a youngster to recognize that the animals are in jail. Where is the fun here? Hate zoos.
Seeing an actual lion or tiger or whatever can easily be fun. OK, so I've been to a couple of the smaller zoos where there's a lion or whatever in a pretty small cage, providing just enough room for it to pace back and forth. I can see not being too thrilled with that. But, bigger zoos don't exactly have them "caged up". Sure, they don't have the whole African Seregenti to roam around, but they have more than a few feet.
More than a few feet you say? Well in that case, never mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was an interesting watch. Wish they had another person or two who would argue that the other side. I think they had one person who would say that he thinks it's ok to have them in captivity.

 
It was an interesting watch. Wish they had another person or two who would argue that the other side. I think they had one person who would say that he thinks it's ok to have them in captivity.
Yeah. Or like when they removed the baby from the mother and the mother shook and screamed for hours, they could've had someone say nope, that didn't happen. :thumbup:
 
Or they hold the view that humans are superior to animals and we can treat them any way we please.

It's amazing to me that if I were to kick a dog in public, I could be charged with animal cruelty, but a company is allowed to systematically cause immense suffering to animals over a course of decades, for nothing more than entertainment and profit.
I don't see all that much difference between this and profiting by raising animals to slaughter and eat them. I haven't seen the movie so I can't address anything about that.

 
It was an interesting watch. Wish they had another person or two who would argue that the other side. I think they had one person who would say that he thinks it's ok to have them in captivity.
Yeah. Or like when they removed the baby from the mother and the mother shook and screamed for hours, they could've had someone say nope, that didn't happen. :thumbup:
That was horrible.

 
Caught this last night. What I don't understand is how the "trainers" brainwashed themselves into thinking that whales ripped from their families and made to live in a tiny tank to do tricks for food would be happy. Siegfried and Roy watched that and were like wtf.
I'm sure it's easy for a trainer to convince themselves that they can't shut Seaworld down and are the best person for the animals.

 
Watched the first 45 minutes of this, couldn't finish. Absolutely horrifying what these animals go through. Seaworld should be charged with animal cruelty and shut down. The whole thing makes me really sad and angry.
grats on just being manipulated by propaganda
Would love to hear your argument to the contrary.
:tumbleweed:
Watched the first 30 mins or so and was really disturbed when watching the capture off the Washington state coast and then when they show you the pics of Tilicum's rakes from Sealand. Sickening.

 
Or they hold the view that humans are superior to animals and we can treat them any way we please.

It's amazing to me that if I were to kick a dog in public, I could be charged with animal cruelty, but a company is allowed to systematically cause immense suffering to animals over a course of decades, for nothing more than entertainment and profit.
I don't see all that much difference between this and profiting by raising animals to slaughter and eat them. I haven't seen the movie so I can't address anything about that.
Good point, maybe if start eating whales and dolphins it will all be okay.

 
CAFOs are terribly cruel as well.
Factory farms? If so yeah they are just nasty nasty places. We get as much meat as we can from our local meat market. Problem is the economy of scale, it's much more expensive at the meat market. So much cheaper at the grocery store.

 
Or they hold the view that humans are superior to animals and we can treat them any way we please.

It's amazing to me that if I were to kick a dog in public, I could be charged with animal cruelty, but a company is allowed to systematically cause immense suffering to animals over a course of decades, for nothing more than entertainment and profit.
I don't see all that much difference between this and profiting by raising animals to slaughter and eat them. I haven't seen the movie so I can't address anything about that.
I haven't seen the film yet either, but I can see a difference in raising animals that provide a food source and those whose sole purpose is to entertain a bunch of tourists for years.
People don't need to eat pigs and cows and chickens. We just choose to eat them because they're delicious. That's a form of entertainment.

 
So these things kill great white sharks? How do they do this? Is it like a 6 against 1 type of thing?
An average Orca weighs roughly two times as much as a large great white.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So these things kill great white sharks? How do they do this? Is it like a 6 against 1 type of thing?
An average Orca weighs roughly two times as much as a large great white.
So they sit on them?
If you want more specifics, first they bite off one of the shark's pectoral fins so that it can only swim in lazy circles. Then they bite off part of the tail fin to slow the shark down. Then they invite the youngsters in and it becomes a Mexican birthday party with the shark playing the part of the pinata.
I'm guessing great whites are big Sea World fans.

 
People don't need to eat pigs and cows and chickens. We just choose to eat them because they're delicious. That's a form of entertainment.
People have to eat something. We can grow a few fruits and vegetables without killing any really cute animals … just insects and slugs and stuff. But we can't feed the world's current population that way. We need to grow wheat and soy and corn as well, and that necessarily involves killing lots and lots of cute animals like mice and gophers and whatnot. I recently read an article* suggesting that we have to kill more sentient creatures to make the bun than we do to make the (grass-fed) burger.

(I'm not defending factory-farming practices, of course. Now that we're generally treating the gays better, I think CAFOs are the biggest moral tragedy in first-world countries.)

___

*The article uses "kilograms of useable protein" as the denominator, which I think is pretty stupid. I would use total calories. But my back-of-the-envelope calculations based on the author's figures suggest that the ultimate result is the same: it takes more dead mice to produce a calorie of wheat than dead cows to produce a calorie of beef.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched this last night.

This is actually like some weird hypothetical in a freshman-level philosophical ethics course, except that it's not hypothetical. But like the various trolley or lifeboat problems, it does a pretty good job of setting up rights-based versus utilitarian considerations. If we accept that animals have something like a natural right not to be exploited for mere entertainment, I think it's very clear that orcas (and dolphins) should not be held in captivity at Sea World. We're essentially jailing them. Their natural milieu is to roam free in the ocean waters, and they appear to be much less healthy, and much less happy, when confined to a tank. If we're going to live and let live, I think that precludes us from jailing innocent orcas without good cause.

But should we weigh that against the joy that each single Shamu brings to countless children every day?

It's like the marine version of Omelas.

 
People don't need to eat pigs and cows and chickens. We just choose to eat them because they're delicious. That's a form of entertainment.
People have to eat something. We can grow a few fruits and vegetables without killing any really cute animals just insects and slugs and stuff. But we can't feed the world's current population that way. We need to grow wheat and soy and corn as well, and that necessarily involves killing lots and lots of cute animals like mice and gophers and whatnot. I recently read an article* suggesting that we have to kill more sentient creatures to make the bun than we do to make the (grass-fed) burger.

(I'm not defending factory-farming practices, of course. Now that we're generally treating the gays better, I think CAFOs are the biggest moral tragedy in first-world countries.)

___

*The article uses "kilograms of useable protein" as the denominator, which I think is pretty stupid. I would use total calories. But my back-of-the-envelope calculations based on the author's figures suggest that the ultimate result is the same: it takes more dead mice to produce a calorie of wheat than dead cows to produce a calorie of beef.
One could argue that plants are higher level of life forms because they do not have to eat each other to stay alive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
But should we weigh that against the joy that each single Shamu brings to countless children every day?
Happiness created from the suffering of others is not real happiness.

 
People don't need to eat pigs and cows and chickens. We just choose to eat them because they're delicious. That's a form of entertainment.
People have to eat something. We can grow a few fruits and vegetables without killing any really cute animals just insects and slugs and stuff. But we can't feed the world's current population that way. We need to grow wheat and soy and corn as well, and that necessarily involves killing lots and lots of cute animals like mice and gophers and whatnot. I recently read an article* suggesting that we have to kill more sentient creatures to make the bun than we do to make the (grass-fed) burger.

(I'm not defending factory-farming practices, of course. Now that we're generally treating the gays better, I think CAFOs are the biggest moral tragedy in first-world countries.)

___

*The article uses "kilograms of useable protein" as the denominator, which I think is pretty stupid. I would use total calories. But my back-of-the-envelope calculations based on the author's figures suggest that the ultimate result is the same: it takes more dead mice to produce a calorie of wheat than dead cows to produce a calorie of beef.
One could argue that plants are higher level of life forms because they do not have to eat each other to stay alive.
Dont weeds kill plants to stay alive? Isn't that effectively the same thing?
 
One could argue that plants are higher level of life forms because they do not have to eat each other to stay alive.
Dont weeds kill plants to stay alive? Isn't that effectively the same thing?
Weeds? RoundUp Ready® beans and corn have made weeds a thing of the past.
Plants compete for scarce resources just like animals do, and the losers die. In some environments, for example, taller plants effectively kill shorter plants by stealing their access to sunlight. Or plants with longer roots effectively kill plants with shorter roots by sucking up all the good nutrients from the soil. Or corn effectively wipes out entire ecosystems by seducing humans into clearing forests or wetlands on its behalf.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I watched this last night.

This is actually like some weird hypothetical in a freshman-level philosophical ethics course, except that it's not hypothetical. But like the various trolley or lifeboat problems, it does a pretty good job of setting up rights-based versus utilitarian considerations. If we accept that animals have something like a natural right not to be exploited for mere entertainment, I think it's very clear that orcas (and dolphins) should not be held in captivity at Sea World. We're essentially jailing them. Their natural milieu is to roam free in the ocean waters, and they appear to be much less healthy, and much less happy, when confined to a tank. If we're going to live and let live, I think that precludes us from jailing innocent orcas without good cause.

But should we weigh that against the joy that each single Shamu brings to countless children every day?

It's like the marine version of Omelas.
Causing something to suffer for a few hours of enjoyment is a little different than doing it to live in a utopia. Every moral decision has a cost/benefit and I don't think the benefit of seeing these animals jump around outweighs the torture. Others may disagree but it's rather clean cut IMO. The same goes with CAFOs and I'm not happy with myself for continuing to support them by buying meat raising in them.

 
People don't need to eat pigs and cows and chickens. We just choose to eat them because they're delicious. That's a form of entertainment.
People have to eat something. We can grow a few fruits and vegetables without killing any really cute animals … just insects and slugs and stuff. But we can't feed the world's current population that way. We need to grow wheat and soy and corn as well, and that necessarily involves killing lots and lots of cute animals like mice and gophers and whatnot. I recently read an article* suggesting that we have to kill more sentient creatures to make the bun than we do to make the (grass-fed) burger.

(I'm not defending factory-farming practices, of course. Now that we're generally treating the gays better, I think CAFOs are the biggest moral tragedy in first-world countries.)

___

*The article uses "kilograms of useable protein" as the denominator, which I think is pretty stupid. I would use total calories. But my back-of-the-envelope calculations based on the author's figures suggest that the ultimate result is the same: it takes more dead mice to produce a calorie of wheat than dead cows to produce a calorie of beef.
Thanks for posting this. I was ready to dismiss it initially, but it makes some very interesting points that I hadn't considered before. Gotta think on it a bit.

 
I've yet to see the documentary and I have not doubt it's not an easy watch. My question is this - would there be a way to have Sea World but not torture the animals? Or is it basically impossible?

 
Is there no way to tame a killer whale while it has a trainer clenched by the legs? I was thinking that if the others see a trainer go down, there is nothing they can do. Shouldnt there be some sort of tranquilizer gun that could do something to effect the whale?

 
I've yet to see the documentary and I have not doubt it's not an easy watch. My question is this - would there be a way to have Sea World but not torture the animals? Or is it basically impossible?
My takeaway is that it is probably possible, but cost prohibitive (would likely need to build tanks WAY bigger, need to train the trainers better, etc.).

 
I've yet to see the documentary and I have not doubt it's not an easy watch. My question is this - would there be a way to have Sea World but not torture the animals? Or is it basically impossible?
My takeaway is that it is probably possible, but cost prohibitive (would likely need to build tanks WAY bigger, need to train the trainers better, etc.).
There would no way to contain them without causing distress. These are animals with complex emotions comparable to us. They are self aware and value freedom as we do. Sea mammals are too intelligent to be in captivity

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top