Zoo's good or bad?

[GeeJay57]

Chester is supposed to be one of the better ones, ( although I've not been) go, you may like it, if not I'm sure there is a Cafe on site that you can wile away the hours in,
Take a lap to and "play" on TP

Yes there are cafes on site. It is IMHO a very good zoo, but it's still a zoo and therefore not for everyone. The original premise for the project was to build 'a zoo without bars', and this is still largely how it is.

 

[htid]

How you choose to see it is irrelevant.
In the eyes of the law (which you have to abide by the same as everyone else whether you like it or not), bestiality (repulsive as it may be) is not classified as the rape of an animal. In fact, far from it.

Fair enough but I'm not talking about in the eyes of the law. I'm not implying what happens is illegal just unethical IMO.

 

[Cobra]

The original premise for the project was to build 'a zoo without bars', and this is still largely how it is.

Very much like ZSL Whipsnade ( which is only 20 mins from me)
One day I'll make it up to Chester though

 

[htid]

Very much like ZSL Whipsnade ( which is only 20 mins from me)
One day I'll make it up to Chester though

Btw I will reply to your other post, I'm just waiting till I can get to a computer as multi quoting on a phone is too difficult.

Back on the zoo issue though, do any of these zoos no matter how good exclusively house critically endangered animals? I'm not saying they don't as I don't know but I'd imagine not. If the premise of the zoo is conservation how do you justify them also housing non endangered species?

 

[wardy07]

Btw I will reply to your other post, I'm just waiting till I can get to a computer as multi quoting on a phone is too difficult.

Back on the zoo issue though, do any of these zoos no matter how good exclusively house critically endangered animals? I'm not saying they don't as I don't know but I'd imagine not. If the premise of the zoo is conservation how do you justify them also housing non endangered species?

Chris, I'd be interested in your views on Monkey World on Dorset - the animals kept there are not endangered but have been rescued from many owners / places where they have been abused. Some are ex circus animals, photographers sidekicks that have been turned into drug addicts and 'pets' that have been in humanely caged.
They basically give the animals an environment which is very spacious and as natural as possible and rehabilitate them to give them a life after this cruel world they were forced to live in. They are sterilised mainly to prevent breeding.
Not being provocative here but would you prefer they were euthanised or do you think this is a viable enterprise?

 

[Cobra]

do any of these zoos no matter how good exclusively house critically endangered animals? I'm not saying they don't as I don't know but I'd imagine not. If the premise of the zoo is conservation how do you justify them also housing non endangered species?

I would say that you have raised two separate issues, although maybe they are inextricably linked.

Zoos have pretty much always existed, well certainly going back to the early 1800's, (London zoo for example) and the likes of Rothschild, ( yes the Rich one) and the Duke of Bedford ( both families are local to me ) were bringing back exotics from their travels,
for private collections and to show people what exists beyond this island of ours.
Look at the Massive amount of work that goes on in Madagascar for example, ( And the amazing work of Gerald Durrell) the whole place is pretty much a unique conservation area.
As most of the animals ( and flora, lets not forget the plant life ) are only found there, many are endangered, and its an island, is it in fact one large zoo?
Yes the animals are free to roam but being largely territorial, don't roam far

The Endangered / breeding programme species, are funded largely by people visiting the zoo's to see the other animals as well as the endangered.
If Zoo's didn't have a range of animals, people would get fed up looking at the "same old" and wouldn't visit, there goes the "conservation revenue".

I agree, not all conservation ( breeding) programmes take place in the eyes of the public, even in zoo's
( Whipsnade for example, has breeding programmes out of public view)
And much also takes place in their country of origin, but again a lot of that is funded by ZSL and other organisations,
such as WWF that relies on donations book sales etc.

 

[GeeJay57]

If the premise of the zoo is conservation how do you justify them also housing non endangered species?

Financial expediency is my guess. Need footfall and entry fees to pay for the conservation side of the operation. Chester Zoo is a charity and from what I've seen, most of the animals housed are to a greater or lesser degree threatened in the wild. I don't know whether or not there are fat-cats in its management system, I've never researched that. From those I've met at the zoo and those I've known that worked there on the animal side of the activities, there seems to be genuine and heartfelt interest in the welfare and health of all of the animals being cared for. I know I bowed out of this thread earlier, but as long as we're discussing the main topic, I'll contribute where I can.

 

[Carlh]

I was thinking exactly along those lines Viv.

Strictly speaking anyone who owns a dog or cat or hamster (I could go on and normally do) etc. is guilty of slavery.

Tell that to my dog. She'd lick your face for that comment! Its more like the other way around. If my dog served me food, went to work and earned money for me or done <anything> <for> <<me>> then I'd call it slavery. Otherwise I would call it companionship. If my dog wants to run away when I leave her off the lead - she can go do it. Im not going to stop her. The only reason I put her on a lead is she goes after other dogs and I am protecting <them> from her.

EDIT: Perhaps I am a slave master as I keep my kids (3yrs old and 18months old) locked up in the house and dont let them out as they're too young and trusting to be out in the wild. Perhaps I should leave them go out, live in the natural habitat and fend for themselves.

 

[Cobra]

Otherwise I would call it companionship.

I often wonder who owns who TBH
But yes I agree, its a symbiotic relationship

 

[jakeblu]

also could you please explain how your biology shows you've evolved to eat meat when you have no canines for ripping open bodies and in general you can't eat raw meat?

Many evolutionary scientists believed that eating meat is what set us apart from earlier hominins, and pretty much helped us to evolve into what we are today.

We might not have the tools to eat meat but we improvised

 

[jakeblu]

Very much like ZSL Whipsnade ( which is only 20 mins from me)
One day I'll make it up to Chester though

Not sure if its been mentioned already but there is a good series about chester on CH4 Secret life of the Zoo

 

[viv1969]

Tell that to my dog. She'd lick your face for that comment! Its more like the other way around. If my dog served me food, went to work and earned money for me or done <anything> <for> <<me>> then I'd call it slavery. Otherwise I would call it companionship. If my dog wants to run away when I leave her off the lead - she can go do it. Im not going to stop her. The only reason I put her on a lead is she goes after other dogs and I am protecting <them> from her.

EDIT: Perhaps I am a slave master as I keep my kids (3yrs old and 18months old) locked up in the house and dont let them out as they're too young and trusting to be out in the wild. Perhaps I should leave them go out, live in the natural habitat and fend for themselves.

Have you sent them up the chimney yet?
If not you're ok so far....they're just little lodgers

 

[Nod]

As a biologist (which my girlfriend also is), ID expect that you'd be exactly the type of person who would realise that we are no different to animals really. Our brains may be, yes, but that's about it. We are made of the same cells and genes as (nearly) any animal so why you should think we're so special, I don't really understand.

On the definition, so what, it's rape as I see it, if you don't, that's your choice.

They may have come from wild stock, and the wild relatives of these animals would still remain if things were as I've suggested.

Just because we evolved to eat something doesn't mean we should. If we have the brain to show compassion and the ability to live healthy lives without meat, the only reason to have it is "i want what I want and I'm going to have it because I'm a human and I have the right to do whatever I want (within the law)". That's a very selfish viewpoint as I see it.

No different to animals? Maybe because we ARE animals! As for the horrific way in which we despatch food animals, surely that's far better than the way most (other) animals kill their prey, often starting to eat and/or dismember it while it's still alive. Teeth not suitable for eating raw meat? Doesn't stop us chewing on small animals such as insects, molluscs etc..

 

[jonbeeza]

Chester is supposed to be one of the better ones, ( although I've not been) go, you may like it, if not I'm sure there is a Cafe on site that you can wile away the hours in,
Take a lap to and "play" on TP

The missus keeps telling me it will be great and I should take my camera and tripod, she says I will be able to get some good photos of the animals. I have been to Zoos and the likes before, last place was Martin Mere and I did take my camera and tripod. Felt a little boring, as everyone else is taking photos, and you line up to take turns of taking photos that everyone else is taking. Much rather take photos of wild life in my local park, animals are free to roam wherever they like. Much more fun and enjoyable

 

[simon ess]

Take a discreet camera and take pictures of the people.

That's the real wildlife.

 

[jonbeeza]

Take a discreet camera and take pictures of the people.

That's the real wildlife.

I did take my DSLR and 50mm prime to the park a while ago. There was a music festival on and while everyone was trying to get photos with their zoom lenses of the singers, I was getting photos of some wacky and weird characters at the event. I did not get noticed at all, now that was fun..

 

[htid]

We are classified as animals, Higher Apes / Mammals in fact, I'm not disputing that.

OK good

Plus opposable thumbs and speech sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

This debate is all relating to anthrophomorphism which in turn relates to whether something has rights or not (I compared animals to humans and you won't accept that stating this is anthrophomorphising, which I take to mean that they don't deserve the right not to be what I'd class as murdered or rape.

So on this point, does this mean rights stem from whether or not something has opposable thumbs and speech? As you well know, the great apes have opposable thumbs, as do the following: http://srfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/other-animals-with-opposable-thumbs.html

Also as you'll be aware as a biologist, many animals display communication which can be defined as speech between the individuals of the species. So do any of the animals listed in the link or who display 'speech' deserve more rights? Dolphins are highly intelligent and communicate but don't have opposable thumbs, yet I doubt you'd be happy with them being treated the same way as pigs (although of course I don't know for sure you think that).

Other animals have adaptations that we don't. Why do these two adaptations you've chosen determine that the right not to be killed or have your children killed is taken away?

Imagine a more intelligent, more advanced alien species came down. Imagine they started treating us as we treat farm animals, would you just think "it's ok they have the right to murder us because it's not murder as they aren't the same species as us (which is what you're implying)

In law it isn't. Its a procedure to increase the population, cheaply and effectively.
Is IV or Ai in humans rape? no its a means to an end.
Should we also ban that?

IV and Ai in humans is voluntary. Once it happens the children aren't taken away from the mothers to be killed once they are born. Again just because it is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.
Yes we should ban IV and Ai in humans. The world is overpopulated enough as it is. The inability to have children is as you'll know, evolution and natural selection. Nobody has a god given right to have children. If you want them and can't have them, too bad. I want to be rich and never work again but it ain't gonna happen.

The wild descendants of cattle still exist, in the buffalo etc, sheep were domesticated around 13,000 years ago, and they evolved from there, possibly from Mouflon. a goat like creature.

Yep...I haven't mentioned their descendants. I'm simply saying we should allow the current farm animals to die out naturally, I've not mentioned their ancestors or wild relatives. That's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

The canines are there all be it now somewhat, retracted, we learned to use hunting tools long before we "invented" fire.
Fire was "discovered some 125,000 years ago
Hunting tips for spears and arrows have been dated at around 500,000 years ago,
That's conclusive proof that we were eating animals long before we discovered fire.

As we have got "soft" by cooking meat, ( and veg) our digestive tract has also evolved to digest cooked meat, rather than raw meat.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist so even if I believe you (I'm skeptical as I've read conflicting things about our biology for eating meat and everybody will be biased), it doesn't mean you should just because you are able to. Again it comes back to having the ability to survive without causing harm. Chosing to eat meat is, as I said, simply the mindset of somebody who thinks "It's my right to take a life just because I enjoy the taste of something"
.

 

[htid]

Chris, I'd be interested in your views on Monkey World on Dorset - the animals kept there are not endangered but have been rescued from many owners / places where they have been abused. Some are ex circus animals, photographers sidekicks that have been turned into drug addicts and 'pets' that have been in humanely caged.
They basically give the animals an environment which is very spacious and as natural as possible and rehabilitate them to give them a life after this cruel world they were forced to live in. They are sterilised mainly to prevent breeding.
Not being provocative here but would you prefer they were euthanised or do you think this is a viable enterprise?

I have no problem with monkey world. Any place that rescues animals for the sake of rescuing them and giving them a better life rather than making money is fine by me.

@Cobra (and others) Fair enough I understand that they need lots of animals to attract people in to carry out their conservation effects, but I'm sure many zoos have highly paid bosses and make profits. If they truly did it for the animals they'd work for a modest wage and put 100% of profits into conservation. But regardless, at the end of the day conserving species does not warrant the breeding of non endangered aniamls to live a life of captivity in my opinion.

@Carlh I don't see pets as being slaves as long as they are well cared for. I don't agree with breeding animals as there are many in rescue centres due to over breeding by people who just want to make money.

@jakeblu Is it something to be proud of, what we've become? We've messed up the planet, destroyed species, ruined ecosystems etc etc. If eating meat has made us what we are, maybe we should have been vegan loooong ago!

@Nod I know we're animals, it was Cobra that made it sound like we're different. Wild animals don't have a choice, they have to work with what they've given and they don't have the intelligence to consider there are alternatives. We on the other hand do so why would you choose to kill things when you could choose not to. The only reason as I've said is because "I want to eat what I want because I can't survive without having a flavour in my mouth, even if something has to die for that to happen". It's a very selfish attitude and one that most humans have.

 

[Gremlin]

Very much like ZSL Whipsnade ( which is only 20 mins from me)
One day I'll make it up to Chester though

Let me know when you do, I'll make sure I'm not there to embaress you again

 

[htid]

A very interesting discussion and, I for one, am happy that it hasn't resulted in a personal slanging match that so often happens on forums. You've all put across some very valid points.

Agreed, usually these things get out of control which is why I didn't want to continue this, but everybody here seems to be an adult and able to discuss this rationally which is good.

 

[Gremlin]

Blimey, stay away for a few days and things do move on.

Not sure I agree that castrating etc. all animals is the way to go, evolution plays some part in what the have become.
It is now thought that rather then us taking wolves from the wild and turning them into pets etc. a few saw the advantage of living around humans and sharing in the
spoils of their hunting, thus becoming a sort of early pet, so can we be blamed for domesticating the dog ?
Ok so I don't agree with what breeders have done to some breeds to gain fame by winning, but be fair the bonifide breeders aren't
the big problem, it's puppy farms that churn out the ones that end up in rescue, most breeders I know will take back any dogs they have bred
rather then see them in rescue

 

[wardy07]

That's what I fell too Chris. Having visited several times and seen first hand the animals in the environment there, it seems a well run establishment.
Also the TV series that followed the owners around when they were rescuing some of the inmates, showed they were so full of emotion and compassion and not 'in it for the money'.
It wasn't a trick question for the record, I just was interested on your viewpoint.
I'm not Vegan but do agree with some of your comments, particularly the way in which some places slaughter the animals - chicken farms being among the worst culprits.
There is a new proposed chicken processing farm at planning stage in my next village which has caused a lot of protests and opposition due to the nature of their workings. Even the local farmers are against it, barbaric is not harsh enough for the way they're treated, particularly the 6 week old male chicks you mentioned in an earlier post.

I admire your commitment and morals which is often not carried through by people I've experienced before who have similar views but only when it suits.
Well done for sticking up for yourself and defending your beliefs.

Please note, this is not a slur against the other opinions, they are just as valid as people are all entitled to their views and beliefs.
For me though, I do agree with a lot of Chris's points and wish I had the knowledge and conviction to back it up.

 

[GreenNinja67]

The only offence I take is Chris calling us names.

Adults indeed!

We have a reputation to downhold you know.

 

[nickEnackEnoo]

I too think Chris makes some valid points, as others have with opposing views.

However, I really would like to see some solid figures with regards to the amount zoos donate to conservation and whether there are Fat Cats just in it for the money.

 

[GeeJay57]

Please note, this is not a slur against the other opinions, they are just as valid as people are all entitled to their views and beliefs.
For me though, I do agree with a lot of Chris's points and wish I had the knowledge and conviction to back it up.

FWIW, While clearly I don't agree across the board, I do also agree with some of what Chris has said and also (as already stated) respect that he has adopted a lifestyle that aligns with his beliefs. I also agree with Wezza13, this has stayed an adult conversation (notwithstanding any unknown mod activity). I certainly don't feel slurred by you comments at all.

Sadly so much of our world is run by avaricious people with no scruples. I can't imagine that all zoos are 'fat cat' free.

 

[wardy07]

FWIW, While clearly I don't agree across the board, I do also agree with some of what Chris has said and also (as already stated) respect that he has adopted a lifestyle that aligns with his beliefs. I also agree with Wezza13, this has stayed an adult conversation (notwithstanding any unknown mod activity). I certainly don't feel slurred by you comments at all.

Sadly so much of our world is run by avaricious people with no scruples. I can't imagine that all zoos are 'fat cat' free.

I agree with you that there are a lot of animal establishments are almost certainly run purely for financial gain, that's the part that is alarming and needs to be dealt with, which it seems unfortunately it isn't.
There are equally many great organisations that have nothing but the animals welfare in their agenda which is some comfort in a very sad and money driven world.
We can only hope that future generations are educated and have access to the better ones and continue to fight for the eradication of the cruelty that surrounds many of the others.

 

[viv1969]

@Carlh I don't see pets as being slaves as long as they are well cared for. I don't agree with breeding animals as there are many in rescue centres due to over breeding by people who just want to make money.

Then how do you see them?
Pets exist for one reason only...to provide pleasure to humans.
From an ant farm to a horse, if kept as pets their sole purpose is to be pets!
We restrict their movement, restrict their breeding; we feed them at our will, not theirs (and often inappropriately). We cuddle them for comfort...does anyone ever ask the pet if it wants to be cuddled, or walked, or sleep in a cage?
If that's not a form of slavery, what is it?

 

[htid]

Symbiosis (mutualism).

 

[Cobra]

Have you sent them up the chimney yet?
If not you're ok so far....they're just little lodgers

They are never too young to go up a Chimney

This debate is all relating to anthrophomorphism which in turn relates to whether something has rights or not (I compared animals to humans and you won't accept that stating this is anthrophomorphising, which I take to mean that they don't deserve the right not to be what I'd class as murdered or rape.

Despite everything I've said, on this subject there appears to be absolutely no way that I can convince you that you cannot rape or murder an animal.
So I'll leave you to your belief with that.
anthrophomorphism is simply the notion that animals share human traits and emotions, none of this is true.

Also as you'll be aware as a biologist, many animals display communication which can be defined as speech between the individuals of the species. .

As you said, animals communicate, but they do not speak.
Yes my hawks communicate with me, by using posture or whistles, when out hunting, especially if they have quarry pinned down in undergrowth,
but cannot get to it, so they "expect" me to either go flush it out, or send in a dog to flush, but they do not speak to me.

Imagine a more intelligent, more advanced alien species came down. Imagine they started treating us as we treat farm animals, would you just think "it's ok they have the right to murder us because it's not murder as they aren't the same species as us (which is what you're implying)

Some people will tell you that it is happening, has happened.
( Some people will believe anything TBH )

Yes we should ban IV and Ai in humans. The world is overpopulated enough as it is. The inability to have children is as you'll know, evolution and natural selection. Nobody has a god given right to have children. If you want them and can't have them, too bad. I want to be rich and never work again but it ain't gonna happen..

I'm not going to argue against that, point, as I largely agree, however medical science has advanced over the years ( ignoring IV) and saves millions of lives each year, helps us to live longer etc etc.
You would prefer that we are still in the dark ages dying from now curable diseases that would certainly thin out the population!
( unfortunately, it does still happen in some so called 3rd world countries, are you happy about that?)

.

Chosing to eat meat is, as I said, simply the mindset of somebody who thinks "It's my right to take a life just because I enjoy the taste of something"
.

approx 2.5 million years of evolution have brought us to where we are today.
OK so there is a fraction of the population that don't like meat for what ever reason, ethical, religious, or just don't like the taste of it.
That's their choice. I'm certainly not going to try and force a bacon buttie down their throat even if they don't know what they are missing.
.

@Cobra (and others) Fair enough I understand that they need lots of animals to attract people in to carry out their conservation effects, but I'm sure many zoos have highly paid bosses and make profits.

I'm sure they do!
.

If they truly did it for the animals they'd work for a modest wage and put 100% of profits into conservation.

In an ideal world, yes I agree, but the world is far from ideal.

I know we're animals, it was Cobra that made it sound like we're different.

We are higher apes I've always said that, but we are miles apart from "animals" we are not cows / sheep or anything else for that matter,
yes we have a lot of DNA in common, but we also share a lot with Banana's too,
so following that logic, each time I eat a banana I am in fact practising canibalism

Wild animals don't have a choice, they have to work with what they've given and they don't have the intelligence to consider there are alternatives.

My point exactly.

Let me know when you do, I'll make sure I'm not there to embaress you again

I've never been to Chester zoo

FWIW, While clearly I don't agree across the board, I do also agree with some of what Chris has said and also (as already stated) respect that he has adopted a lifestyle that aligns with his beliefs. I also agree with Wezza13, this has stayed an adult conversation (notwithstanding any unknown mod activity). I certainly don't feel slurred by you comments at all.

None at all, there has been no need whatsoever

Sadly so much of our world is run by avaricious people with no scruples. I can't imagine that all zoos are 'fat cat' free.

I'm sure your right, and its sad fact that it happens across the board, with animal charities ( ignoring zoo's for a moment )
and of course kids charities have been in the news both at home and for kids abroad

 

[Gremlin]

I've never been to Chester zoo

Me neither yet, but I intend too, just thought it best to make sure we aren't there at the same time

 

[wardy07]

Then how do you see them?
Pets exist for one reason only...to provide pleasure to humans.
From an ant farm to a horse, if kept as pets their sole purpose is to be pets!
We restrict their movement, restrict their breeding; we feed them at our will, not theirs (and often inappropriately). We cuddle them for comfort...does anyone ever ask the pet if it wants to be cuddled, or walked, or sleep in a cage?
If that's not a form of slavery, what is it?

Surely slavery is when something is kept against its will - given the intelligence level of an animal and its inability to communicate in a human way which we would understand, there is no way that there will could ever be corroborated.
I think there has to be an element of common sense when terms such as this are used for anything with limited communication skills that can't ever provide a definitive answer.

 

[viv1969]

Surely slavery is when something is kept against its will - given the intelligence level of an animal and its inability to communicate in a human way which we would understand, there is no way that there will could ever be corroborated.
I think there has to be an element of common sense when terms such as this are used for anything with limited communication skills that can't ever provide a definitive answer.

I couldn't agree more.... And would cite the use of the word rape in connection with animal AI, from someone who previously claimed in this thread not to use emotive language, as another example.

 

[wardy07]

I couldn't agree more.... And would cite the use of the word rape in connection with animal AI, from someone who previously claimed in this thread not to use emotive language, as another example.

Yes I agree there too - artificial insemination is no different in principal to IVA in humans, it's just helping nature when it needs it imo. Fair enough to the animal doesn't have say in it but I don't believe you could ever equate it to rape which is a criminal offence amongst intelligent beings so I'm totally with you on that one.

 

[Cobra]

Surely slavery is when something is kept against its will - given the intelligence level of an animal and its inability to communicate in a human way which we would understand, there is no way that there will could ever be corroborated.

Quite possibly not, but as I mentioned and the other Chris did, a bit later, a symbiotic relationship.
And this was formed from the minute that Wolves / prehistoric dogs scrounged scraps
from the human settlements, and probably guarded or at least "warned" by their actions, the developing humans, of predators in the vicinity.

And slowly over millions / 10,1000's years, the relationship was cemented, Canines like to be around humans, they could easily run away,
they get fed and in return, and in more modern times provide protection for humans, their livestock, or at the very least companionship.

Many people don't seem to realise that an animal's needs are very basic, they don't need to go clubbing, go the iMax or shop at Harrods.
They need food, water and shelter, that's it, and if they don't need to go looking for it, so much the better.

Urban Foxes are a classic example, in the wild, they hunt rabbits, rats and all other assorted goodies.
But they have learned, that every night humans throw out all manner of edible items, and so are just waiting for the dinner gong to go off,
if there is a garden shed close by that they can live under, all the better, no need to waste valuable energy hunting, they can spend most of the day and half the night sleeping.

 

[wardy07]

This will probably start a war but is not intended to but...I do believe that the people I've had cause to be involved with who have radical views on subjects such as Animal Rights Activists, Political & religious fanatics, have a very driven attitude to their beliefs and often (not aimed at you Chris as I don't know you personally) don't see the picture from the other side and expect everyone to believe the same ideals. If that were true, dictatorships would prevail in many walks of life as nothing would be questioned.
Views from all sides are equally relevant as they are personal views or opinions, no one person has the right to believe there opinions are the only ones we should listen to and should respect that without drawing parallels that don't bare comparison. That's when volatile arguments arise.

 

[Cobra]

(not aimed at you Chris as I don't know you personally)

This is getting complicated, there are at least 3 Chris's in this thread

I've had cause to be involved with radical views on subjects such as Animal Rights Activists....,

Like you, I to have also experience this, the crazy thing about that group off people, is they will release captive animals into the wild, where they have little chance of survival,
or in the case of the mink, devastate many of our native species.

They will also, given the chance kill or mame humans, You may or may not remember, but not exclusively,
the fire-bombings of the scientists homes / cars etc of those that worked at Huntingdon Life sciences some years ago.

 

[htid]

This will probably start a war but is not intended to but...I do believe that the people I've had cause to be involved with who have radical views on subjects such as Animal Rights Activists, Political & religious fanatics, have a very driven attitude to their beliefs and often (not aimed at you Chris as I don't know you personally) don't see the picture from the other side and expect everyone to believe the same ideals. If that were true, dictatorships would prevail in many walks of life as nothing would be questioned.
Views from all sides are equally relevant as they are personal views or opinions, no one person has the right to believe there opinions are the only ones we should listen to and should respect that without drawing parallels that don't bare comparison. That's when volatile arguments arise.

It won't start a war as far as I'm concerned but unfortunately I'm that type of person. If I could, I'd have a dictatorship where everybody is forced to be vegan, but that's because I value an animals right to life above a human's right to eat a meal just because they want it and like the taste. When it comes to opinion, one such as mine that gives more rights to more things is more valid than one that gives less rights. That's how I see a civilised and constantly evolving society anyway. I don't know how providing less rights can be seen as a positive thing unless there is reason for rights to be taken away. The inherent right to live without being killed should be a basic right of everything on the planet. This obviously can't be applied to other animal predators as they NEED to eat meat and have no alternatives. But if rights can be given and we have the mental capacity to give them, how can it be seen as worse to give them?

I keep saying it but at the basic level it comes back to two things (which cobra will class as anthropomorphism). 1) would I want it to happen to me? If not I shouldn't force it on something else and 2) is there an alternative to death? If there is, the only reason to choose death is because you want the taste/texture at the expense of a life.

 

[htid]

This is getting complicated, there are at least 3 Chris's in this thread


Like you, I to have also experience this, the crazy thing about that group off people, is they will release captive animals into the wild, where they have little chance of survival,
or in the case of the mink, devastate many of our native species.

They will also, given the chance kill or mame humans, You may or may not remember, but not exclusively,
the fire-bombings of the scientists homes / cars etc of those that worked at Huntingdon Life sciences some years ago.

Let's not bring animal testing/huntington life sciences into this or I'm going to get permabanned pretty quickly.....

Anyway I'm on holiday for a week now so although I'll be on TP I'm going to quit this thread. It's been a good debate and I'm glad people have said they see my point of view and not flat out ridiculed me. But unfortunately seeing the views of people who don't agree with me (ie a lot of the population) doesn't do much to leave me in a good mood and I'm not keen on feeling rubbish every day on my holiday.

Thanks to everybody for keeping it civilised!

 

[GeeJay57]

I too think Chris makes some valid points, as others have with opposing views.

However, I really would like to see some solid figures with regards to the amount zoos donate to conservation and whether there are Fat Cats just in it for the money.

This is the annual report for Chester Zoo 2014...
http://www.chesterzoo.org/~/media/f...ices/chester zoo annual report 2014.pdf?la=en

 

[Cobra]

If I could, I'd have a dictatorship where everybody is forced to be vegan,

But then you are forcing your will on all humans, and yet you condemn humans for "forcing" their will on animals,
Fortunately we live in a largely free society, only tin pot regimes, and those that set themselves up as demi-gods
try to force their will on the rest of their society / subjects.

Genuine question, I assume that you have been vegan for a lot of years, and your body has adapted has been adapted over the years,
to a minimalist diet?
If you forced the rest of the world to switch to a minimalist diets, I know that there will be a very unhealthy population, for quite sometime to come, possibly generations, reduced fertility
( which may not be a bad thing) and all manner of "ills" befalling the world.

Let's not bring animal testing/huntington life sciences into this or I'm going to get permabanned pretty quickly.....

LOL I can take it I have broad shoulders, but I guess I feel the same about anti's as they do about me

Anyway I'm on holiday for a week now so although I'll be on TP I'm going to quit this thread.

I was typing when you posted, enjoy your holiday have a good one