Court To Decide Whether Orcas Can Be Enslaved

[Vaniver]

Izawwlgood: the Constitutional Amendment does not specifically refer to the enslavement of people, so they don't need to argue that orcas are people. If what's going on at SeaWorld counts as "slavery," it is prohibited (unless the judiciary feels like bending the Constitution), without granting orcas any other rights or responsibilities associated with being people.

[LaserGuy]

My 'stupid hypothetical' is no stupider than PETA suing for recognition that these animals are 'slaves'. Just like Bolivia declaring Mother Nature having the same legal status as a human, it's a shortsighted stunt that really only underlines how little thought they've put into it. By declaring Mother Nature, or Orcas, legal entities, Bolivia/PETA isn't just waving a magical legal wand that makes everything better for Mother Nature/Orcas, they're only neglecting to recognize the multifaceted ramifications this change would incur.

To be fair, we actually have similar rules that apply to children or the mentally disabled. Children have very limited liability, and have some limitations on their human rights, but are still protected from things like arbitrary deprivation of life, slavery, etc.

[Izawwlgood]

Which is curious, because I've yet to see a definition of the word 'slave' that didn't include the word 'person'. I agree that they don't have to sue for Orca personhood, but the tongue-in-cheeky thing I'm trying to point out is if an Orca cannot be held in slavery, then an Orca should also be responsible for x other legal things.

Also, why Orcas? There are a ton of animals that are kept in captivity for myriad purposes. You yourself pointed out beasts of burden, and surely EVERY animal, EVERYWHERE, would rather be running through the wild, free and gay, instead of, you know, stuck in a house, being fed Fancy Feast.

Which is my shtick; this is beyond idiotic, and doesn't really address... anything... beyond... anything.

[Ghostbear]

Also, why Orcas? There are a ton of animals that are kept in captivity for myriad purposes. You yourself pointed out beasts of burden, and surely EVERY animal, EVERYWHERE, would rather be running through the wild, free and gay, instead of, you know, stuck in a house, being fed Fancy Feast.

Because if they had picked one of those groups of animals to focus on, people would be saying "why not orcas?". They can't work on everything that they view as a problem all at once; they need to start somewhere, and presumably, they decided orcas were as good as any other.

It's a publicity stunt, with no intention or hope of actually winning- why should the potential legal ramifications matter if they know they won't happen? PETA are crazy, but you're missing the entire point of what they're doing.

[Chen]

It's a publicity stunt, with no intention or hope of actually winning- why should the potential legal ramifications matter if they know they won't happen? PETA are crazy, but you're missing the entire point of what they're doing.

I'm seeing them wasting tax money on a court case for their own publicity. Now I'd be ok if the court decides to make them pay all the court costs though, for a frivolous lawsuit. Would be nice in fact and maybe get them to tone to the crazy down a bit.

[Triangle_Man]

It's a publicity stunt, with no intention or hope of actually winning- why should the potential legal ramifications matter if they know they won't happen? PETA are crazy, but you're missing the entire point of what they're doing.

I'm seeing them wasting tax money on a court case for their own publicity. Now I'd be ok if the court decides to make them pay all the court costs though, for a frivolous lawsuit. Would be nice in fact and maybe get them to tone to the crazy down a bit.

They're probably completely convinced that everything they do is justified due to the (subjective) morality of their cause.

Note that they can still be wrong in this case.

Also, I guess they just choose Orcas because it 'seemed like a good place to start' or something like that...

[Izawwlgood]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate?

It's a publicity stunt, with no intention or hope of actually winning- why should the potential legal ramifications matter if they know they won't happen? PETA are crazy, but you're missing the entire point of what they're doing.

Nono, I totally understand that it's a publicity stunt; I'm just trying to point out how shortsighted it is.

[Ghostbear]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate?

Those would be just as arbitrary. Maybe they felt the SeaWorld conditions were sufficiently bad compared to conditions for dolphines and primates? Maybe they felt they could get the most attention with orcas. Maybe they threw a dart at their "which animal to care about" board, and it landed on orcas. They're going to need to select one of them eventually, and whichever they select will require something else to not be chosen.

Nono, I totally understand that it's a publicity stunt; I'm just trying to point out how shortsighted it is.

It's only short sighted it they expect the case to actually win, which is my point. They could probably drop the case tomorrow and get 80% of the publicity that they hoped to gain. Attacking the short sightedness of their official goal doesn't really make much sense, because no one involved expects it to happen. A more valid criticism would be that they haven't really seemed to do much to make people talk about the conditions at SeaWorld, but instead about how crazy PETA is (see: this thread).

[omgryebread]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate?

My roommate (A marine biologist) would fight you. I don't know enough to argue about it, but I think it's hard to definitively decide which marine mammal is "smartest." She'd argue that Orcas are smarter because of their more complex social groups. (She'd then find some excuse to segue into jellyfish and go on and on about them and you'd regret asking her about something below sea level). Also, choosing a species that mates via gang rape probably isn't the best strategy, so bottlenose dolphins are out.

[Webzter]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate?

Here's my posit. It's easier to go after a single entity (Sea World) then every place that has primates captive (plenty of metro zoos). It's easier to go after an entity that's seen primarily as a for-profit entity (go pay money and watch the animals perform trickses) then it is to go after entities that are seen by many as protecting endangered species. And, I'd imagine plenty of people already feel like they're doing lots for dolphins by buying dolphin-safe tuna (for example)

But, largely, I think it comes down to the fact that this enables them to go after a single entity and their mascot. Dolphins aren't the first thing that jumps to most people's mind when they think of Sea World, I would imagine. For me, it's Shamu the Killer Whale. It's mental images of this:

Spoiler:

and this

Spoiler:

so, arbitrary, sure, but likely calculated.

[Dream]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate?

Because the Orca is the most intelligent organism that is routinely made to work. Higher primates generally aren't, or at least I've never seen a chimpanzee-worked construction site. Dolphins are probably in the same category as Orcas, but that's six of one, half-dozen of the other.

I'm just trying to point out how shortsighted it is.

In what way is it shortsighted? It seems to be perfectly judged to me. It will very likely end with the judge ruling that yes, these animals are being put to work, but no, they're not constitutionally protected. That will make the news, and will arm PETA with a ruling that performing cetaceans are workers, unlike beasts of burden that are entitled to animal rights protection. They'll then argue that while the constitution doesn't protect performing cetaceans, the court's ruling implies that different protections are merited for these animals than others, which they will then pursue, either in court or by activism.

Shortsighted? That seems to imply there will be some negative consequence of this. What might that be, besides earning the ire of those who already dislike PETA anyway?

[LaserGuy]

Choosing Orca's just seems kind of arbitrary. Why not make a case with a smarter Cetacean, like dolphins? Why not make a case with a more easily anthropomorphized organism, like a primate.

Orcas are a species of dolphin. I don't know if we have methods for measuring "intelligence" accurately enough to be able to determine whether an orca would be smarter than, say, a bottlenose dolphin. Their cognitive capacities are probably very similar, though. Incidentally, there has been a movement in Europe to grant human rights to great apes.

[JBJ]

A little off topic, but totally cool. If you aren't familiar with Sea World, Google maps apparently now has a street level view of the park (at least in Orlando).
You can virtually walk around. At Shamu Stadium

[Izawwlgood]

I don't know if we have methods for measuring "intelligence" accurately enough to be able to determine whether an orca would be smarter than, say, a bottlenose dolphin.

From Wikipedia:

"The encephalization quotient varies widely between species. The Orca/Killer whale has an EQ of 2.57, the franciscana dolphin of 1.67, the Ganges River dolphin of 1.55, the bottlenose dolphin of 4.14, and the tucuxi dolphin of 4.56.[9] These are less than the human EQ of 7.44, but some are greater than that of chimpanzees at 2.49, dogs at 1.17, cats at 1.00, and mice at 0.50.[10]"

I'm not saying this is black and white metric, but it certainly suggests that some dolphins are smarter than Orcas. Also, Orcas have complex social groups, but so do dolphins.

Because the Orca is the most intelligent organism that is routinely made to work. Higher primates generally aren't, or at least I've never seen a chimpanzee-worked construction site. Dolphins are probably in the same category as Orcas, but that's six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Does the Orca do more stunts than a Dolphin at Seaworld? Or an Otter? Or a Seal? I dunno, it still seems highly arbitrary. I'll accept that they just went with a random choice for the 'what animal to be outraged about today'.

Shortsighted? That seems to imply there will be some negative consequence of this. What might that be, besides earning the ire of those who already dislike PETA anyway?

I listed a couple earlier.

Look, I understand, again, that this is a measure to gain public awareness of the poor oppressed Orca. I understand that. Kindly, everyone, refrain from repeatedly pointing out that it's merely a publicity stunt; I agree with that assessment. What I am pointing out is that yes, while it is a publicity stunt, it is shortsighted because of A ) the ramification if they actually hilariously succeed, and B ) because it also raises the ire of anyone/everyone who doesn't think PETA has two braincells to rub between it's entire memberbase. Will this recruit a couple bleeding heart college students to hand out flyers about how depressed Orcas are? Sure, maybe. I'm not particularly convinced it'll do much to further PETAs cause.

It's easier to go after an entity that's seen primarily as a for-profit entity (go pay money and watch the animals perform trickses) then it is to go after entities that are seen by many as protecting endangered species.

I'm pretty sure SeaWorld has a pretty large and vocal marine conservation agenda. I wager most people think of SeaWorld as a particularly flashy zoo.

My roommate (A marine biologist) would fight you. I don't know enough to argue about it, but I think it's hard to definitively decide which marine mammal is "smartest." She'd argue that Orcas are smarter because of their more complex social groups. (She'd then find some excuse to segue into jellyfish and go on and on about them and you'd regret asking her about something below sea level). Also, choosing a species that mates via gang rape probably isn't the best strategy, so bottlenose dolphins are out.

I would laugh at your roommate. For a couple reasons, given what you just listed.

[Dream]

Will this recruit a couple bleeding heart college students to hand out flyers about how depressed Orcas are? Sure, maybe. I'm not particularly convinced it'll do much to further PETAs cause.

You say you understand that it's a publicity stunt, but I don't think you understand how the publicity is to be garnered. It's not column inches or media hype. They get naked celebrities for that. This is about publicizing the nature of the existence of captive cetaceans, and about getting a judge to sign off on them as being bona fide working conditions. Not that that will mean the judge will rule in their favour, but the finding might well include an acknowledgement that the whales are workers in the strict sense of the word. This stunt will make people think hard about what a whale is, and whether it doing backflips for slackjawed fools is the same thing as a cow standing in a field for a few years before being slaughtered. PETA thinks they are qualitatively different things, and it wants you to think that too. Recruiting new activists, who you so arrogantly dismiss as bleeding hearts (because the give a shit about things and care?) is really not the purpose here.

[Izawwlgood]

Cetaceans (and Seals, and whatever else Sea World parades doing trickses) *are* different from cows. I'm not disputing that, nor do I think anyone thinks otherwise. SeaWorld would take great pains to remind you that these are intelligent beings. Which is why they're cared for and provided with intellectual enrichment.

PETA has it entirely backwards; SeaWorld is doing the worlds Cetaceans a much greater service by raising peoples admiration for, interest in, respect for, the worlds oceans. If some kid sees a dolphin doing a flip and solving a puzzle and hugging a trainer, you've just enlisted an environmentalist. PETA on the otherhand, turns off a ton of people (well, me anyway) because of how shortsighted, knee-jerky, and idiotic every one of their campaigns are. If PETA was really interested in saving animals, they'd be raising money for zoos involved in breeding programs, getting people to come to and donate to SeaWorlds environmental protection programs, etc. PETA is, and always has been in my mind, the temper tantrum having toddler that would rather kick over everyone's blocks than share or build something together.

Recruiting new activists, who you so arrogantly dismiss as bleeding hearts (because the give a shit about things and care?) is really not the purpose here.

I dismiss them because they know jack shit about what they're passionate about. My experience with most animal rights activists is that their arguments are sophomoric, their understanding of the organisms they're trying to defend is based on extraordinary levels of anthropomorphizing these animals, and instead of listing solutions to helping endangered animals, they do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeatedly go "Nope, nopenopenope, we need to stop ALL fishing in the oceans because it's harming them."

[Webzter]

If PETA was really interested in saving animals

Are they really interested in saving animals? (OT to the orca lawsuit but germane to PETA discussions)

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2008/01/ ... hterhouse/

Note, their euthanasia rate was still pretty darn close to 100% in 2010: http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bi ... &year=2010

[folkhero]

It's a publicity stunt, with no intention or hope of actually winning- why should the potential legal ramifications matter if they know they won't happen? PETA are crazy, but you're missing the entire point of what they're doing.

I'm seeing them wasting tax money on a court case for their own publicity. Now I'd be ok if the court decides to make them pay all the court costs though, for a frivolous lawsuit. Would be nice in fact and maybe get them to tone to the crazy down a bit.

I'm not sure why more people aren't upset that they are using court resources as a prop in their political campaign. Imagine if Dominoes sue Pizza Hut for not having enough cheese on their pizzas, or something equally inane. People would be (justifiably) livid that they were tying up court resources on a case they will never win just to drum up some cheep publicity.

[Dream]

PETA on the otherhand, turns off a ton of people (well, me anyway) because of how shortsighted, knee-jerky, and idiotic every one of their campaigns are. If PETA was really interested in saving animals, they'd be raising money for zoos involved in breeding programs, getting people to come to and donate to SeaWorlds environmental protection programs, etc

You are aware that the "ET" in the name stands for "ethical treatment", right? And that if you think a whale is an intelligent being, that imprisoning it in a miniscule tank and making it do trickses for your own enrichment might not in fact be Ethical Treatment? You seem to want PETA to be a spineless pushover advocacy group that doesn't want to change anything, just be a cheerleader for existing programs. It's not that, and judging its work by that standard is pointless.

they do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeatedly go "Nope, nopenopenope, we need to stop ALL fishing in the oceans because it's harming them."

I think we need to stop all fishing, at least at the industrial scale. Am I your idea of these activists?

[eran_rathan]

I think we need to let millions of people starve to death. Am I your idea of these activists?

ftfy.


Seriously - yes, there is some bad shit out there - but I'm all for saving people as opposed to doing something that vastly ignorant.

[Dream]

but I'm all for saving people as opposed to doing something that vastly ignorant.

The only ignorant thing here is your ignorance.

But please, carry on thinking that anyone who wants to change the way the world works in order to save some part of it from human profligacy must be stupid and simplistic enough to instigate a blanket ban on food production without regard to the lives it might affect, and should be happy to advocate starvation over alternative food sources because they think fish are more important than people. Really, do. Just do it somewhere I don't have to look at you doing it.

[Izawwlgood]

I think we need to stop all fishing, at least at the industrial scale. Am I your idea of these activists?

If you hold the position that we need to cease all industrial scale fishing, then yes, I think you're one of those activists. The above fixed quote is correct; I'll absolutely concur with you that we need to embrace more sustainable fishing practices (like, now), but 'cease all fishing on an industrial scale' is similar to saying 'stop all factory farms'. It, in my opinion, belies a complete lack of understanding how many people rely on foods produced via these systems.

You are aware that the "ET" in the name stands for "ethical treatment", right? And that if you think a whale is an intelligent being, that imprisoning it in a miniscule tank and making it do trickses for your own enrichment might not in fact be Ethical Treatment? You seem to want PETA to be a spineless pushover advocacy group that doesn't want to change anything, just be a cheerleader for existing programs. It's not that, and judging its work by that standard is pointless.

Maybe you need to click on the above link then, posted by Webzter. And more to the point, maybe PETA needs to decide what's more ethical; keeping a couple of animals in enormous tanks and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and having them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of the oceans, or not that.

If PETA gave a shit about animals and their future, it would be doing what I said previously. It's not; PETA is more interested in armchair activism and publicity stunts.

[yurell]

keeping a couple of animals in enormous tanks and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and having them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of the oceans

What kind of argument is that? How about keeping a couple of autistic kids in enormous rooms and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and have them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of autism. Would you support that, without giving either the kids or the parents a choice? I don't think orcas are as important as autistic kids, what I'm objecting to is transforming 'made to do trickses for the amusement of a crowd and the financial benefit of their captors' into 'intellectual enrichment'.

[Ghostbear]

If you hold the position that we need to cease all industrial scale fishing, then yes, I think you're one of those activists. The above fixed quote is correct; I'll absolutely concur with you that we need to embrace more sustainable fishing practices (like, now), but 'cease all fishing on an industrial scale' is similar to saying 'stop all factory farms'. It, in my opinion, belies a complete lack of understanding how many people rely on foods produced via these systems.

Wouldn't that above "fixed" quote only work in the case of "stop all industrial fishing overnight, and don't do so in a manner that gives time for alternative food sources to develop"? It's a mischaracterization of the people you disagree with to assume they're blind to the consequences of a decision and want to do so in an irrational manner.

[eran_rathan]

If you hold the position that we need to cease all industrial scale fishing, then yes, I think you're one of those activists. The above fixed quote is correct; I'll absolutely concur with you that we need to embrace more sustainable fishing practices (like, now), but 'cease all fishing on an industrial scale' is similar to saying 'stop all factory farms'. It, in my opinion, belies a complete lack of understanding how many people rely on foods produced via these systems.

Wouldn't that above "fixed" quote only work in the case of "stop all industrial fishing overnight, and don't do so in a manner that gives time for alternative food sources to develop"? It's a mischaracterization of the people you disagree with to assume they're blind to the consequences of a decision and want to do so in an irrational manner.

Assuming that it would be possible (hint: it isn't), what would you replace it with? Farms that degrade the soil planting monoculture crops like Monsanto? Cattle herds, or industrial chicken production?

No, our system isn't perfect by any means, and yes, it would be nice to see some improvement in the way that things are run (hint: they are consistently getting better, because A) people ask for it and B) its good business), but thinking that there is a way to feed the population of the planet in a non-industrial manner is absurd.

And before you go off on it, yes, I know, there are starving people everywhere and an obesity problem in industrialized nations - starving people isn't going to fix that, it'll just mean more people will die.

[Dream]

It's a mischaracterization of the people you disagree with to assume they're blind to the consequences of a decision and want to do so in an irrational manner.

My point exactly. It's lazy to assume that "we need to stop this" equates directly to "stop it and not replace it with anything else" or to "we need to stop it and no other needs should be balanced against that".

PETA needs to decide what's more ethical; keeping a couple of animals in enormous tanks and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and having them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of the oceans, or not that.

Clearly it thinks Not That. And like I said, you don't seem capable of understanding that they think that, legitimately, because it is in line with their actual goals. You want to twist their goals into your imaginings of their goals, then judge them on that. But they aren't interested in the maximum good. They think of animals and their suffering as an absolute negative, just like others think of human suffering. Psychologically and physically abusing one animal to "raise awareness" for another is not something they can condone, and rightly so.

[Izawwlgood]

What kind of argument is that? How about keeping a couple of autistic kids in enormous rooms and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and have them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of autism. Would you support that, without giving either the kids or the parents a choice? I don't think orcas are as important as autistic kids, what I'm objecting to is transforming 'made to do trickses for the amusement of a crowd and the financial benefit of their captors' into 'intellectual enrichment'.

Well, barring the fact that Orcas aren't humans (which is more than a little important to the analogy), if you want to equate some levels of autistic child intelligence with some levels of Cetacean intelligence (a comparison I don't inherently disagree with), you're basically suggesting that putting Orcas in a zoo is the equivalent to taking children, intellectually compromised or otherwise, from parents, who are probably not intellectually compromised. But lets just forget about that, and assume, for the sake of comparison parents aren't involved, that we simply have the display of human children in humane conditions to raise awareness of said conditions or simply for entertainment value... Have you heard of 'the circus'? While yes, there's a matter of consent between SeaWorld and, say, the Geek Show (perhaps anyway, insofar as economic incentives can remove consent), it's still 'someone/thing on display for the entertainment of others', something that still persists to this day in other various forms.
But sure, I don't really object to the idea of caring for an organism to the best of your abilities and putting it on display to raise money for a related support cause.
You also assume that 'intellectual enrichment' is limited to 'jump through hoops and ignore the cheers'. It's not, and I wager Marine Biologists would be pretty offended at being compared to a pet trainer.

My point exactly. It's lazy to assume that "we need to stop this" equates directly to "stop it and not replace it with anything else" or to "we need to stop it and no other needs should be balanced against that".

When you asked me:

I think we need to stop all fishing, at least at the industrial scale. Am I your idea of these activists?

You didn't really make much effort to nuance said opinion. By all means, clarify, and address, if you would, the fact that according to Wikipedia, approximately 15% of the worlds consumption of protein comes from fishery efforts.

Clearly it thinks Not That. And like I said, you don't seem capable of understanding that they think that, legitimately, because it is in line with their actual goals. You want to twist their goals into your imaginings of their goals, then judge them on that. But they aren't interested in the maximum good. They think of animals and their suffering as an absolute negative, just like others think of human suffering. Psychologically and physically abusing one animal to "raise awareness" for another is not something they can condone, and rightly so.

I don't recognize PETA as truthfully engaging in their goals, given the link provided earlier. Again, if PETA is more interested in euthanizing animals or preventing other people from raising awareness of animals, I do not consider the 'ET' in their acronym to be one they are making any good faith effort to fulfill.
Furthermore, the notion that SeaWorld is psychologically or physically abusing an animal is a statement that I'm going to throw out a huge Citation Needed for.

[Ghostbear]

Assuming that it would be possible (hint: it isn't), what would you replace it with? Farms that degrade the soil planting monoculture crops like Monsanto? Cattle herds, or industrial chicken production?

All of the above, and more sustainable fishing practices? Perhaps something else entirely? Some quick searching on Google would indicate that all animal products (e.g. not just fish) are a much smaller portion of human food intake as measured by kilo-calories. It's an even smaller portion for developing and transition countries. With kcals of animal origin being ~12.5% of the total for developing nations in the most recent data source, it seems laughable to me to write off the notion as not possible. Easy? Certainly not, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that we shouldn't be willing to consider seeing if we can make the process more sustainable.

[...] but thinking that there is a way to feed the population of the planet in a non-industrial manner is absurd.

It's a good thing nobody thought that then, eh?

You didn't really make much effort to nuance said opinion. By all means, clarify, and address, if you would, the fact that according to Wikipedia, approximately 15% of the worlds consumption of protein comes from fishery efforts.

You automatically assumed the least logical possibility for what was said, essentially assuming that people who disagree with you are too stupid to consider any of the consequences. Which is rather frustrating to deal with.

As for the protein source, ending industrial fishing does not mean the ending of all fishing period. Clearly there's other sources readily available (as they make up 85%), do you think it'd be impossible for fishing to become 7.5% of protein sources and those other sources to go up to 92.5%? Not overnight, not in the immediate term, but eventually, with effort and a well thought out approach?

[Webzter]

Maybe you need to click on the above link then, posted by Webzter.

Well, that really only establishes a possible baseline that PETA's main goal isn't to save animals (nor do they state that on their website that I could find). Their main goal is the ethical treatment of animals. I suppose it is possible to be both more humane and ethical by euthanizing an animal immediately versus boarding it in a cramped kennel where it's odds of adoption are small (and then eventually euthanizing it anyway when you run out of room)... euthanization rates at shelters runs around 50% (excluding no-kill shelters of course). Of course, that assumes a very strict either-or scenario and ignores the possibility of raising awareness to encourage animal foster homes and stronger advertising regarding pet adoption.

[Dream]

You didn't really make much effort to nuance said opinion. By all means, clarify, and address, if you would, the fact that according to Wikipedia, approximately 15% of the worlds consumption of protein comes from fishery efforts.

That topic is miles OT, so I just stated my opinion in passing. The real question is whether you think that a rational, informed person holding the views you object to is worth listening to, or whether they are by definition of their views, foolish and ill informed. The latter appears to be the case, which seems to me to be a rationalisation of your objections to their activism.

I don't really object to the idea of caring for an organism to the best of your abilities and putting it on display to raise money for a related support cause.

When you're talking about an orca, those are mutually exclusive. Humans don't have any captive habitats that can support a pod of killer whales and allow them their natural behaviour, but it's very easy to let them go back into the ocean, or never take it captive in the first place. We certainly aren't caring for them to the best of our abilities by keeping them captive.

[Plasma Man]

It really isn't easy to rehabilitate a captive whale so that it can cope with living wild again. This applies to a lot of animals, not just whales. Not taking them captive in the first place is easy, and I'd agree with that, with a possible exception for when a captive breeding programme is the best chance of saving the species (talking about all animals here, not just whales).

[emceng]

Maybe you need to click on the above link then, posted by Webzter.

Well, that really only establishes a possible baseline that PETA's main goal isn't to save animals (nor do they state that on their website that I could find). Their main goal is the ethical treatment of animals. I suppose it is possible to be both more humane and ethical by euthanizing an animal immediately versus boarding it in a cramped kennel where it's odds of adoption are small (and then eventually euthanizing it anyway when you run out of room)... euthanization rates at shelters runs around 50% (excluding no-kill shelters of course). Of course, that assumes a very strict either-or scenario and ignores the possibility of raising awareness to encourage animal foster homes and stronger advertising regarding pet adoption.

The bigger issue is there is no definition for ethical treatment. I consider it ethical to keep my cats indoors all the time. PETA's stance is probably that I'm a monster for confining them.

[Izawwlgood]

That topic is miles OT, so I just stated my opinion in passing. The real question is whether you think that a rational, informed person holding the views you object to is worth listening to, or whether they are by definition of their views, foolish and ill informed. The latter appears to be the case, which seems to me to be a rationalisation of your objections to their activism.

Firstly, I think it's a little unreasonable to get pissy with me for responding to a hastily stated opinion because I'm not responding to the full breadth and depth of it's obvious nuance, and then when prompted to do so, saying 'I only stated this opinion in passing' and not answering. But fine, we're OT, so lets drop the discussion of industrial scale fishing.
I don't think PETA consists of rational informed individuals. I have yet to speak to an animal rights activist with rational, informed opinions (Greenpeace falls into this category too!). One tried to convince me her pet chicken (yes, not at all ironic there) was a fully sentient organism with a range of feelings and emotions on par with you and me.
So in answer to your question, are informed people with different opinions from me simply rationalized away as idiotic? Absolutely not. Not in the fucking slightest. I will however continue snorting derisively at anyone whose argument hinges upon convincing me a chicken is as intelligent and complex as a human.
And before you ask, I would consider myself, compared to the average American, 'more concerned with the Welfare of Animals'

[omgryebread]

That topic is miles OT, so I just stated my opinion in passing. The real question is whether you think that a rational, informed person holding the views you object to is worth listening to, or whether they are by definition of their views, foolish and ill informed. The latter appears to be the case, which seems to me to be a rationalisation of your objections to their activism.

Firstly, I think it's a little unreasonable to get pissy with me for responding to a hastily stated opinion because I'm not responding to the full breadth and depth of it's obvious nuance, and then when prompted to do so, saying 'I only stated this opinion in passing' and not answering. But fine, we're OT, so lets drop the discussion of industrial scale fishing.
I don't think PETA consists of rational informed individuals. I have yet to speak to an animal rights activist with rational, informed opinions (Greenpeace falls into this category too!). One tried to convince me her pet chicken (yes, not at all ironic there) was a fully sentient organism with a range of feelings and emotions on par with you and me.
So in answer to your question, are informed people with different opinions from me simply rationalized away as idiotic? Absolutely not. Not in the fucking slightest. I will however continue snorting derisively at anyone whose argument hinges upon convincing me a chicken is as intelligent and complex as a human.
And before you ask, I would consider myself, compared to the average American, 'more concerned with the Welfare of Animals'

I'm sure your accurate blind sampling of animal rights activist is incredibly informational, but maybe don't judge entire groups of people based on your personal experience and an anecdote about one person and their chicken.

[Izawwlgood]

My entire experience with animal rights activists is of course limited to that one girl and her chicken. (That is sarcasm)

Also, PETA. (That is not sarcasm)

[omgryebread]

My entire experience with animal rights activists is of course limited to that one girl and her chicken. (That is sarcasm)

Also, PETA. (That is not sarcasm)

Your entire experience with animal rights activists is not representative of animal rights activists. I can say this confidently! The chance it is representative is really really low.

PETA is also not representative of animal rights activists!

also

your personal experience and an anecdote about one person and their chicken.

This meaning (i think fairly obviously): that one anecdote + other experiences.

[Griffin]

I have yet to speak to an animal rights activist with rational, informed opinions

Since you immediately twist every opinion that disagrees with you until its barely recognizable and notably absurd, of COURSE you haven't encountered any with rational, informed opinions - after all, the only rational and informed opinions are the ones you agree with, right?

Because seriously, thread after thread, the only thing I've ever really seen you demonstrate is an inability to see things from any point of view other than your own. If it doesn't fit into YOU (irrational, poorly informed) worldview, then by definition it is irrational and poorly informed.

Bravo on demonizing the opposition and insuring that any disagreement with your non-points is a waste of time.

Also, chickens ARE fully sentient and have a range of emotions. (On par with humans? I'd say probably nowhere close. But that's hypotheticals and I wouldn't really try to say anything on it one way or another. Humans aren't human because of our emotional complexity so much as our sapience and intelligence and a whole host of fairly rare psychological quirks chickens obviously lack.) That you put that forth as the essence of how these people you don't like are absurd is, if anything, a point against your own arguments - you seek to discredit them not by arguing the things they do are wrong for so and so a reason, but because obviously they are wrong, and you expect us to all nod and agree.

[LaserGuy]

keeping a couple of animals in enormous tanks and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and having them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of the oceans

What kind of argument is that? How about keeping a couple of autistic kids in enormous rooms and providing them with a full time staff for intellectual enrichment and have them perform for the purposes of raising money and awareness of autism. Would you support that, without giving either the kids or the parents a choice? I don't think orcas are as important as autistic kids, what I'm objecting to is transforming 'made to do trickses for the amusement of a crowd and the financial benefit of their captors' into 'intellectual enrichment'.

I suspect, relative to their size and range (during migration season, a killer whale can travel over 100 km per day), the tanks are probably fairly small and boring as far as the orcas are concerned. Also, the autistic children in your examples would be required to reproduce in captivity be artificial insemination.

[Zamfir]

Then again, human beings can easily walk 20 to 40 kilometers every day, unless they have been kept indoors and untrained.

[eran_rathan]

Also, chickens ARE fully sentient and have a range of emotions. (On par with humans? I'd say probably nowhere close. But that's hypotheticals and I wouldn't really try to say anything on it one way or another. Humans aren't human because of our emotional complexity so much as our sapience and intelligence and a whole host of fairly rare psychological quirks chickens obviously lack.) That you put that forth as the essence of how these people you don't like are absurd is, if anything, a point against your own arguments - you seek to discredit them not by arguing the things they do are wrong for so and so a reason, but because obviously they are wrong, and you expect us to all nod and agree.

sentient:
a. Aware: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.

EDIT: Anywho, its moot - the judge tossed the suit.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -whales-/1