• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Kill tame bear, say animal nuts

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,870
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Sun Online - News: Kill tame bear, say animal nuts

ANIMAL-RIGHTS activists have called for a zoo’s baby Polar bear to be KILLED — because it relies on humans.
snip..

The hand-reared polar bear touched the hearts of the nation and became the symbol of Berlin Zoo.

He was even photographed by star snapper Annie Leibowitz for an international campaign.

But extremists in Germany claim Knut’s cuteness is against his own “animal rights” and he should be put to sleep.

Activist Frank Albrecht said last night: “The hand-rearing of Knut is a breach of the animal protection code.

“He’ll rely on humans forever and this cannot be right.”
 
Wow. That really was the headline.
 
Animal rights activists are speaking against an animal because of its cuteness? As opposed to every single other animal rights activist who only care about animals because of their cuteness.
 
"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."

link


That sounds pretty much like the arguments of the anti-choice nuts (not to mention the anti-gay nuts).
We are all just slaves to biology; prisoners of the whims of "nature".
Homosexuality is supposedly "unnatural", because same-sex couples can't reproduce, at least not with each other. Ergo, they should be prevented from having the same civil rights and protections as heterosexual couples.
Since both contraception and abortion are "unnatural" attempts by women to control their fertility and their lives, they are therefore "immoral".

Hmm... you'd think the fundies and neo-cons would be the first ones in line to condemn little Knut to death; what could be more "unnatural" than domesticating a wild animal? After all, the Right has assured us, Nature may be a harsh mistress, but we must all submit to her nonetheless. Anything else is "sinful" and threatens to destroy the moral fabric of society.

So, I don't get it. :shrug:
 
rathi said:
Animal rights activists are speaking against an animal because of its cuteness? As opposed to every single other animal rights activist who only care about animals because of their cuteness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty screwed up. But don't think this has anything to do with being liberal. This is...something else.
 
1069 said:
"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."
Click to expand...

It is a zoo,how can any animal actually be following the instincts of nature if they are being fed and cared for by humans,stared at by humans on a daily basis and living in a zoo?So the animal rights nutjobs are retards.
 
Last edited:
That's just sad.

I wonder how they feel about an "endagered species" where human intervention is the only buffer between extinction and reproduction/continuation of the species?

I don't know if that made any sense. :confused:
 
I interject that it is against the animal's nature that activists are attempting to impose what they perceive should be the nature of a certain animal.:roll:
IMO Animal rights groups are mostly just plain nuts and need to get their heads out of their collective asses.
 
What I don't understand, is that the animal rights activists are always spouting on about not interfering with nature. By proxy, does that infer that humans are not a part of nature??
 
1069 said:
"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."

link


That sounds pretty much like the arguments of the anti-choice nuts (not to mention the anti-gay nuts).
We are all just slaves to biology; prisoners of the whims of "nature".
Homosexuality is supposedly "unnatural", because same-sex couples can't reproduce, at least not with each other. Ergo, they should be prevented from having the same civil rights and protections as heterosexual couples.
Since both contraception and abortion are "unnatural" attempts by women to control their fertility and their lives, they are therefore "immoral".

Hmm... you'd think the fundies and neo-cons would be the first ones in line to condemn little Knut to death; what could be more "unnatural" than domesticating a wild animal? After all, the Right has assured us, Nature may be a harsh mistress, but we must all submit to her nonetheless. Anything else is "sinful" and threatens to destroy the moral fabric of society.

So, I don't get it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What in heaven's name are you blabbering about now? Sounds to me like the momma bear would've wanted an abortion as apparently she rejected both her babies. One died and the other she continues to refuse to care for. Bad moms happen. Luckily the cutie pie bear has been adopted and humans have taken over the reponsibility for it's total care. Polar bears don't have a constitutional right to abortion so hysterical mommy polar bears just carry their babes right up till they drop them and then reject them.

All of that aside I'd bet $$$$ that the protesters who want this bear killed are freaks who definitely without out question are not republicans. They are dollar to doughnuts abortion supporters and unlike feminists who just hate men this crowd most likely is the type that hates all humanity in general and thinks humans are a virus on the face of the earth.

Or they could just think that raising a polar bear that doesn't fear humans is somewhat dangerous and they fear the end result will be similar to the guy who wore the ugly vest and got eaten by his beloved tiger. Either way you took it as an opportunity to :spin: and bash so I returned the favor. :2wave:
 
WI Crippler said:
What I don't understand, is that the animal rights activists are always spouting on about not interfering with nature. By proxy, does that infer that humans are not a part of nature??
Click to expand...

Humans are a virus hell bent on destroying what would otherwise be a well balanced peaceful planet, don't you know. :mrgreen:
 
talloulou said:
Humans are a virus hell bent on destroying what would otherwise be a well balanced peaceful planet, don't you know. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but that goes without saying :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom