# Animal Rights activists call for death of baby polar bear



## Carol (Mar 21, 2007)

> A German zoo has been told it should let a baby polar bear named Knut die after it was rejected by its mother...Reuters says three-month-old Knut has become an unofficial Berlin city mascot and has also starred in a climate change campaign by world-renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz.





> Animal rights activist Frank Albrecht told Germany's _Bild_ newspaper: "Hand-rearing a polar bear is not appropriate and is a serious violation of animal rights.  "In fact, the cub should have been killed," he said.  His view was backed up by the head of another zoo who has watched two hand-reared animals struggle to cope after being inevitably separated from their human carers.



Full Story


----------



## Drac (Mar 21, 2007)

I swear I saw one of those animals programs where they raised a polar bear cub and he was eventually release back to the wild without incident..


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 21, 2007)

Can't they say that about any animal though?   Why not just bring it up in a zoo?    Meanies.


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2007)

I have the same recollection, Drac...

Funny what some of these folks are contruing as `rights', eh? I think this is a fringe positionDefenders of Wildlife and similar orgs would never take this stance as long as the animal were healthy and there were hope of returning it to the wild along those lines.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 21, 2007)

Isn't the cub already in a zoo? I swear, animal rights activists don't have any common sense at all.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 21, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Isn't the cub already in a zoo? I swear, animal rights activists don't have any common sense at all.


I agree. Isnt that what zoo's are for. Im all for treating animals with respect but saying that its against nature to help keep a baby polar bear alive and then turn around and argue against the killing of animals is crazy. In fact my brain is likely to shut down now

Well maybe they think we should start doing the same thing with people. Kids are given up for adoption instead just kill them. It would solve quite a few problems.

B


----------



## Laurentkd (Mar 21, 2007)

This makes no sense at all!
Now, I am am inclined to believe that there is probably something wrong with the cub for the mother to abandon it, but why would that stop us from doing everything we can to keep the little guy alive.  How is it a violation of animal rights to help him? I am with you guys, I can't figure it out.
Man, if he stayed that little and cute I would take him home!! Polar bears have always been my favorite ever since I was a little girl though.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 21, 2007)

aww take him to azoo or something but dont jus tlet him die  hes to cute and cuddly ​


----------



## Drac (Mar 21, 2007)

exile said:


> I have the same recollection, Drac..


 
I remember that the narrator said the cubs eat every few hrs and make this God awful noise when they are hungry..


----------



## HKphooey (Mar 21, 2007)

Put him to work in one of these Coca Cola commercials.


----------



## Drac (Mar 21, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> Put him to work in one of these Coca Cola commercials.


 

Someone should let the Coke execs know about this...


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 21, 2007)

Drac said:


> I swear I saw one of those animals programs where they raised a polar bear cub and he was eventually release back to the wild without incident..


 
Yes it was on National Geographic a couple year ago


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2007)

Laurentkd said:


> How is it a violation of animal rights to help him?


I hate to break this to you: animals don't really have rights.

I'm torn between the cuteness of the animal and wondering what polar bear veal tastes like.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 21, 2007)

They dont have rights like we have rights. But they do have certain natural rights. Like not to be abused, maimed, or killed for no reason. They have a right to live if it is within our power to see that that happens.

Dont get me wrong, im not part of PETE they are a bunch of morons. I just believe that we as humans should help animals that cannot help themselves.

B


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> They dont have rights like we have rights. But they do have certain natural rights. Like not to be abused, maimed, or killed for no reason. They have a right to live if it is within our power to see that that happens.


They may have certain man-made protections, like not to be "abused" but these are not "natural rights."

And other than claws and teeth, they have no way to enforce their "rights."



KempoGuy06 said:


> im not part of PETE they are a bunch of morons.


How is Pete these days?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> They may have certain man-made protections, like not to be "abused" but these are not "natural rights."
> 
> And other than claws and teeth, they have no way to enforce their "rights."
> 
> How is Pete these days?



If we never intervened for animals alot more species would be extinct than already are. "Man-made protections" are necessary. As for PETA, I too think they are a bunch of morons with absolutely no common sense whatsoever, and in their zeal over "animal rights" do more harm than good. 

I forget where I saw this quote, it might even be someone's siggy here, but I think it's quite appropriate.



> Most people are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it is much easier to harrass rich women than bikers.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 21, 2007)

Drac said:


> I remember that the narrator said the cubs eat every few hrs and make this God awful noise when they are hungry..


Sounds like a good reason. Lets kill it.(ha ha) actually as endangered as the Polar Bear is becoming we had better learn to raise them.
Sean


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> If we never intervened for animals alot more species would be extinct than already are. "Man-made protections" are necessary.


I believe that over the history of this planet, science would say that mankind is responsible for a small percentage of extinct species.  Those that cannot adapt are doomed to failure...you don't think mankind will be around forever, and forever be the savior of all living species?  That would be counterproduct to the natural evolutionary process.

for the record, I am against abusing animals too.  But I do love to eat meats of many fowl and mammal.

I haven't decided if I'm against abusing PETA members though.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> I believe that over the history of this planet, science would say that mankind is responsible for a small percentage of extinct species.  Those that cannot adapt are doomed to failure...you don't think mankind will be around forever, and forever be the savior of all living species?  That would be counterproduct to the natural evolutionary process.
> 
> for the record, I am against abusing animals too.  But I do love to eat meats of many fowl and mammal.
> 
> I haven't decided if I'm against abusing PETA members though.


Mankind will never be around forever? I dont know the answer to this neither does anyone else. Some may say yes, some may say we will all die tomorrow but until that day come how about we save as many animals from extiction as we can. 

How is it counterproductive? If we, like scientists say, are the cause of declining animal populations why would it be counterproductive to try and save them? We are only trying to rectify a mistake. Using your logic, had it not been for us they would not have been near extinction. Of course this is an argument that could go different way, depending on whether or not you see the hunting of game animals by human as part of the natual evolutionary process. 

B


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 21, 2007)

The logic that the bears can't handle separation from their human carers is seriously flawed as when they get older they naturally separate from their natural mothers! 
It's one small polar bear for crying out loud, give it a chance! 
(I don't think you can eat them, I seem to remember that at least one bit of them, the liver, is poisonous, maybe more of them)


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 21, 2007)

Tis stupid, tis sad and yes there was a program (animal planet I think) that shown how a baby polar bear, rejected by it's mother was hand raised (well sorta... they limited human contact) until it was old enough to go off on it's own... 
Show mentioned that while it didn't recieve the "training" from it's mother on how to find food... bears aren't stupid and they're instinctive animals by nature so they weren't too overly concern about it's ability to eat. 

Animal activist... definitely need to get their heads out of their arses.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 21, 2007)

As far as I can tell, the only reason this animal is in a zoo in the first place is because he was born in a zoo - otherwise, it's unlikely that anyone would know about him anyway.  Since he is a zoo animal, born in a zoo to an animal that performed in a show (an unnatural life, and probably part of the reason why the mother was not maternal - although there are other possible reasons), and he is likely to be turned loose - I see no problem with a hand-raised bear being in a zoo.  If he should have been allowed to die in the first place, then it should have happened when his twin died.  To save him and then kill him is wrong.


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Mankind will never be around forever? I dont know the answer to this neither does anyone else.


Actually, I believe that we are eternal.  I was trying to play the devil's advocate; I've since decided that he can hire his own advocate.


KempoGuy06 said:


> Some may say yes, some may say we will all die tomorrow but until that day come how about we save as many animals from extiction as we can.


You might be right.


KempoGuy06 said:


> How is it counterproductive? If we, like scientists say, are the cause of declining animal populations why would it be counterproductive to try and save them?


That was some more advocacy on my part.  Honestly, I think that little bear is cute as heck.


----------



## green meanie (Mar 21, 2007)

I don't know.... it looks pretty dangerous to me. In a cute and cuddly sort of way.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 21, 2007)

I saw this in the paer this morning, and thought it was probably a joke. Kill an animal because its mother abandoned it? What a ridiculous stance to take on a life!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Isn't the cub already in a zoo? I swear, animal rights activists don't have any common sense at all.


 
Yes, the cub is in a zoo and the keepers intend for it to stay there.  I have the disntinct impression that the animal rights activists involved were not in full possession of the facts when they opened their big mouths.  It looks like they thought it was going to be kept as a pet or something.  

By the way, aren't you Americans not supposed to talk about polar bears?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> I believe that over the history of this planet, science would say that mankind is responsible for a small percentage of extinct species.  Those that cannot adapt are doomed to failure...you don't think mankind will be around forever, and forever be the savior of all living species?  That would be counterproduct to the natural evolutionary process.
> 
> for the record, I am against abusing animals too.  But I do love to eat meats of many fowl and mammal.
> 
> I haven't decided if I'm against abusing PETA members though.



Poachers have many wild species on the verge of extinction, and some already gone. If there were no laws in place against it, the animals in question would _already_ be gone. I'm not talking about the natural laws of survival of the fittest, nor am I refering to history. I'm talking about protecting what we have now from further extinction due to our own carelessness. And all this with some common sense. People who protest developing some area for the sole fact some mosquito or fly's habitiat will be disrupted are out of their ever lovin minds. Everytime a house is built, some spider, some mouse, some bird, some cricket, some rabbit is going to be disrupted. However, we probably want to preserve the habitats of endangered species. Animal rights activists don't get the distinction. 

For the record, I also love to eat the meat of animals, and I like leather. Once again, I'm talking about common sense here. PETA does not use common sense. They don't look at the big picture. They think fish should not be kept in tanks for cryin out loud. It's ridiculous. As in the case of this polar bear cub. The argument to kill the cub under these circumstances is ridiculous. Where's the common sense?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 21, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Isn't the cub already in a zoo? I swear, animal rights activists don't have any common sense at all.


 
Completely understandable reaction and one that I find carries a lot of water with non-extremist view-holders i.e. by taking such an 'anti' stance on absolutely anything and everything, the so-called animal-rights activists effectively undermine both their own position and the possibility of anything useful actually being done ....

:grr:

Sorry for the long sentence there by the way ... perilously close to 'rant mode' methinks :blush:.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Poachers have many wild species on the verge of extinction, and some already gone. If there were no laws in place against it, the animals in question would _already_ be gone. I'm not talking about the natural laws of survival of the fittest, nor am I refering to history. I'm talking about protecting what we have now from further extinction due to our own carelessness. And all this with some common sense. People who protest developing some area for the sole fact some mosquito or fly's habitiat will be disrupted are out of their ever lovin minds. Everytime a house is built, some spider, some mouse, some bird, some cricket, some rabbit is going to be disrupted. However, we probably want to preserve the habitats of endangered species. Animal rights activists don't get the distinction.
> 
> For the record, I also love to eat the meat of animals, and I like leather. Once again, I'm talking about common sense here. PETA does not use common sense. They don't look at the big picture. They think fish should not be kept in tanks for cryin out loud. It's ridiculous. As in the case of this polar bear cub. The argument to kill the cub under these circumstances is ridiculous. Where's the common sense?


 
You're definitely right.  Animal rights activists should not be confused with rational people using their common sense.  They have found a way to claim the moral high ground and will not relinquish it, no matter what.  They cannot afford to look at the big picture because then they would realise how small they really are.

PETA bothers me a lot.  For the first instance it appears to actually be a charismatic cult.  In the second instance they euthanise somewhere between 1500 and 2000 animals each year,which is strictly against their stated principles.  And, lastly, they are supporters of one of the nastiest animal rights organisations I have heard of (can't recall the name of this group off the top of my head).


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> I hate to break this to you: animals don't really have rights.
> 
> I'm torn between the cuteness of the animal and wondering what polar bear veal tastes like.


 
Are you teasing, *ray*? .  I hope so ... then again, a fully grown polar bear that's hungry wouldn't even spare a thought about the cuteness of the human, so 'turn about is fair play' I suppose.

EDIT:  Sorry, *Ray*, that's what I get for jumping in at the end of a thread rather than reading all the posts first :rei:. {sheepish mode}points to Ray's earlier posts{/sheepish mode}

On the subject tho', I would imagine that polar bear meat is not palatable to us as they're largely carnivores and we prefer herbivore flesh (not so 'gamey').

As to 'rights', I used to feel that because we had the power to subjugate and exploit animals, which seemingly have no speach or cognition, then it was okay for us to do so.

Nowadays, altho' I'm by no means about to turn vegan or somesuch, I'm also by no means so sure that we have the right to feed off other species when we have the means *not* to do so if we choose.  We certainly should do what we can to ensure that there is no needess suffering involved in either their lives or their end as they journey towards our plate.

That's a whole other thread tho'.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2007)

This is sad.  I saw a news clip on it tonight.  Personally, while the cub may not have the skills to survive in the wild, as I would imagine this is something learned from the parents, this cub is being kept in the zoo correct?  If thats the case, there is not really any need for survival skill.  If there was worry of him not fitting in with other bears in the zoo, this one is simply kept seperate.

Mike


----------



## Laurentkd (Mar 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> I hate to break this to you: animals don't really have rights.
> 
> I'm torn between the cuteness of the animal and wondering what polar bear veal tastes like.


 

I agree with you here, I was merely restating the original quote

who wants a steak!?!?! (Don't think I could do a polar bear steak though...)


----------



## Amazon (Mar 21, 2007)

Laurentkd said:


> This makes no sense at all!
> Now, I am am inclined to believe that there is probably something wrong with the cub for the mother to abandon it


 
Not necessarily the case.  Sometimes it just happens. 



Steel Tiger said:


> You're definitely right. Animal rights activists should not be confused with rational people using their common sense. They have found a way to claim the moral high ground and will not relinquish it, no matter what. They cannot afford to look at the big picture because then they would realise how small they really are.
> 
> PETA bothers me a lot. For the first instance it appears to actually be a charismatic cult. In the second instance they euthanise somewhere between 1500 and 2000 animals each year,which is strictly against their stated principles. And, lastly, they are supporters of one of the nastiest animal rights organisations I have heard of (can't recall the name of this group off the top of my head).


 
You should hear about some of the things that my husband (Empty Hands) has seen.  He is getting his PhD in medical research and people that he has worked with have gotten letters with razor blades in them, had their kids harassed and followed on the way to school, had people show up at their house during a gathering and harass people and shout at them.

I find it particularly interesting that the head of PETA is diabetic and takes insulin that was originally developed in rats.  She'd die without it.  But when she is confronted about this her answer is that the rats would want her to have it because she's fighting for them.  :bs1:


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 21, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> By the way, aren't you Americans not supposed to talk about polar bears?


HUH? What? I don't get it? Mind clarifying that? 

~a clueless American


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> HUH? What? I don't get it? Mind clarifying that?
> 
> ~a clueless American


 
It is a reference to a statement made by someone in your government about global warming and its effect on polar bears.  Basically, it was an implicit directive to the scientific community to stop talking about man-made global warming.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> It is a reference to a statement made by someone in your government about global warming and its effect on polar bears. Basically, it was an implicit directive to the scientific community to stop talking about man-made global warming.


 
This is the second post this evening, Steel Tiger, in which you demonstrated excellent knowledge of the political activities of a country as far away from you as possible, while remaining on the same planet. 

I commend you for your planetary awareness.

:asian:


----------



## Carol (Mar 21, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> By the way, aren't you Americans not supposed to talk about polar bears?



I'm watching for the men in black as we speak.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 21, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I'm watching for the men in black as we speak.


They are in that Black Helicopter just outside your window.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2007)

Tell you what let Knut grow up and then Mr. Albrecht is more than welcome to walk into his pen and discuss this with him.

Give me a friggen break, leave the little fuzz ball alone.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 21, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Tell you what let Knut grow up and then Mr. Albrecht is more than welcome to walk into his pen and discuss this with him.
> 
> Give me a friggen break, leave the little fuzz ball alone.


 
Huzzar!

Okay, not the most eloquent of posts but I think you catch the drift of my approval there /


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> This is the second post this evening, Steel Tiger, in which you demonstrated excellent knowledge of the political activities of a country as far away from you as possible, while remaining on the same planet.
> 
> I commend you for your planetary awareness.
> 
> :asian:


 
I thank you for your generous acclaimation.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 21, 2007)

exile said:


> I have the same recollection, Drac...
> 
> Funny what some of these folks are contruing as `rights', eh? I think this is a fringe positionDefenders of Wildlife and similar orgs would never take this stance as long as the animal were healthy and there were hope of returning it to the wild along those lines.


 
So true! There are actually folks who believe that having pets is cruelty to animals. I suppose I should send my cat back out to live outside where, before I rescued him and took him in as a pet, he got his rear leg nearly chewed off by a raccoon and had two major infections (UTI and Kidney) that, even with the hundreds of dollars in medication and vet bills I payed, were very nearly fatal. By their logic, I would be kinder to him by letting him die rather than sit in a nice warm apartment with all the food and play he can handle (the guy has toys all over the place).


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 22, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So true! There are actually folks who believe that having pets is cruelty to animals. I suppose I should send my cat back out to live outside where, before I rescued him and took him in as a pet, he got his rear leg nearly chewed off by a raccoon and had two major infections (UTI and Kidney) that, even with the hundreds of dollars in medication and vet bills I payed, were very nearly fatal. By their logic, I would be kinder to him by letting him die rather than sit in a nice warm apartment with all the food and play he can handle (the guy has toys all over the place).


 
I wonder what they would say about the rather disturbing feral cats we have down here.  These are animals which have "returned" themselves to the wild in an environment not prepared for them.  The result?  Within 30 generations they have returned to the original wildcat size (between 5 and 15 kg) and are pretty much unrivaled as hunters.  They are devastating the native animal species, especially the birds.

Which group of animals' rights should we look to uphold?  The indigenous animals or those who have slipped the bonds of their human slavery?


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 22, 2007)

Since they are becoming endangered as a species, this cub should not be killed. As many as possible should be saved at this point.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 22, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I wonder what they would say about the rather disturbing feral cats we have down here. These are animals which have "returned" themselves to the wild in an environment not prepared for them. The result? Within 30 generations they have returned to the original wildcat size (between 5 and 15 kg) and are pretty much unrivaled as hunters. They are devastating the native animal species, especially the birds.
> 
> Which group of animals' rights should we look to uphold? The indigenous animals or those who have slipped the bonds of their human slavery?


 
So true, which is why so many of these "hardcore" animal rights groups are so misguided. I'll keep my cat indoors, thank you. 

I read about your cats! One that was killed was so large than DNA testing was done to see what it actually was (puma or feral cat). It was a feral cat! I live in a rural area and the feral cats at the stream outside my window will attack and even kill domestic cats. A few weeks ago I chased one off that was dragging my neighbors young cat down the stairs in its jaws. The little domestic survived, but what a scene that was.


----------



## exile (Mar 22, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So true! There are actually folks who believe that having pets is cruelty to animals. I suppose I should send my cat back out to live outside where, before I rescued him and took him in as a pet, he got his rear leg nearly chewed off by a raccoon and had two major infections (UTI and Kidney) that, even with the hundreds of dollars in medication and vet bills I payed, were very nearly fatal. By their logic, I would be kinder to him by letting him die rather than sit in a nice warm apartment with all the food and play he can handle (the guy has toys all over the place).



The fact is, domestication changes a species' physical characteristicsthe evolutionary ancestors of modern cattle were larger boned and reflect other differences that change in the course of domestication. The wild ancestor of domestic cats, say, was a different species from modern cats, even if a domestic cat can survive in the wild and eventually start a completely feral line of descendants. So from one point of view, house pets are animals which have adapted to a particular new environment and thrive in itan environment involving a symbiotic relationship with another species. This kind of symbiosis in not unprecedented elsewhere in nature: there are plant/insect relationships which involve mutual protection and nourishment (wish I could think of the examples, but I know that certain African ant species work this way in relation to particular plants in their environment). To argue that the human/pet relationship is cruel and deprives animals of their `rights' (right to shorter lifespans in the wild? Right to hunger and suffering for much of the population much of the year?) is mystification pure and simple: it's based on a vision of a pristine nature in which the human ecosystem doesn not exist, and which therefore shouldn't be available as ecological niches for other species to take advantage of. Out and out mystification, as I say...

The weird thing is that this rejection of the human environment as a possible ecosystem for other animals goes hand in hand with a disinterest in individual members of animal species; the PETA people apparently are only concerned with whole populations. The logic in the case of this little bear seems to be: evolutionary pressure culls the weak members and makes the species stronger over time; evolutionary pressures thus determine that only a subset of offspring will survive; this particular cub would not survive under normal conditions, in accord with natural selection; therefore allowing it to live is to try to cheat the normal course of evolution. There are so many things wrong with this chain of reasoning that one doesn't know where to start, but at bottom, I believe it reflects a lack of basic warmth, the response of life to protect other life at the level of the individual creature.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 22, 2007)

I hope the little guy makes it and survives. The fact that people believe he needs to die because he has no mother is rediculous. Im really thankful humans arent like this and that someone didnt put a bullet in my head when my father left.

So from this day on im forming PEDA (People for the Eating of Delicious Animals) Who's in?

B


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 22, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> So from this day on im forming PEDA (People for the Eating of Delicious Animals) Who's in?
> 
> B



That's ok, I'm already a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals)


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 22, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> That's ok, I'm already a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals)


Thats cool. Im a memeber as well, but I though we could change it a little bit so that we can seperate ourselves from people with their views and kill baby animals mentality. 

B


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 22, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Thats cool. Im a memeber as well, but I though we could change it a little bit so that we can seperate ourselves from people with their views and kill baby animals mentality.
> 
> B



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 22, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So true! There are actually folks who believe that having pets is cruelty to animals. I suppose I should send my cat back out to live outside where, before I rescued him and took him in as a pet, he got his rear leg nearly chewed off by a raccoon and had two major infections (UTI and Kidney) that, even with the hundreds of dollars in medication and vet bills I payed, were very nearly fatal. By their logic, I would be kinder to him by letting him die rather than sit in a nice warm apartment with all the food and play he can handle (the guy has toys all over the place).


While children are starving in Starvania!:soapbox: 
Sean


----------



## kenpotroop (Mar 25, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Isn't the cub already in a zoo? I swear, animal rights activists don't have any common sense at all.



Doesn't killing it or letting it die violate what these idiots stand for.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

kenpotroop said:


> Doesn't killing it or letting it die violate what these idiots stand for.



Uh-uh. See my earlier post (#46) above. PETA cares only about whole species, so far as I can tell. To hell with individual animals, if their survival depends on human intervention. By virtue of that intervention, the blind course of natural selection is supposedly thwarted; therefore such intervention is unacceptable, since it's natural selection that ensures the health of the species... you see the train of `thought'.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> Uh-uh. See my earlier post (#46) above. PETA cares only about whole species, so far as I can tell. To hell with individual animals, if their survival depends on human intervention. By virtue of that intervention, the blind course of natural selection is supposedly thwarted; therefore such intervention is unacceptable, since it's natural selection that ensures the health of the species... you see the train of `thought'.


 
I'll have to get a hold of the PETA dictionary and find out how they define ethical and, well, animals.  

I suppose they could have called the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Species but the acronym for that is PETS!!


----------

