the zoo Options

[capsule]

Those who know where I got this topic from...hush

So...what is your opinion on the zoo? Now...think about it for a sec. Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents? Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like? Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information? By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive. And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also. Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

[ComradeRed]

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

Yes.

Everyone says its educational..but who doesn't know what a monkey looks like?

www.freestarmedia.com --> Scroll down and check out the Social Security Monkey. You've never seen a monkey, until you've seen the Social Security Monkey.

Isn't an encyclopedia a better alternative source to knowing what certain animals look like and their background information?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

By having them shoved into cages, we are ruining their lifestyle...we feed them food and have them just stand around doing nothing...if that animal were to be sent out to the wild...it wouldn't survive.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And let's not forget about the offspring...undergoing an artificial lifestyle, it would impact them heavily also.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Is it worth ruining the lifestyles of various animals for the pure sake of "wanting to know what [so-and-so] looks like in real life?"...I don't think that really balances out.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Yes.

Why?

Haha: Ever since Wikipedia was launched, I've learned not to trust encyclopedias.

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking. The information isn't always correct. A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited. The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Animals can have abortions too, you know.

Yes; great idea. To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals! Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages. What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

That's why we should make them cagefight.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them.

Well, how else are people in Pennsylvania going to see what African creatures look like? Gladiator fests? That's what the Romans did; which brings me back to the cagefight idea. I think it's worth looking in to.

Books. Television. Media. Movies. Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France. You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

[ComradeRed]

Why?

Why not?

Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia.  On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking.  The information isn't always correct.  A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited.  The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it.  Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes; great idea.  To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals!  Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages.  What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them. 

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Books.  Television.  Media.  Movies.  Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France.  You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

[ApocalypseAelis]

Why not?

Is it right for animals to be penned up in a cage so people can oogle at them and throw them feed for that 25 cents?

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water. Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat. It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.

Yes, editors are people too. People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences. Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts. Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.

Yet another brilliant idea. To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild. We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting. Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway. Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural. If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

||edit||

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary. I'm using it as an example.

Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.

Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young. Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild? You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

I agree with you on this one. You're right. Like I said before, I support zoos as long as the quality is acceptable.

[ComradeRed]

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water.  Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat.  It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.

It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.

Yes, editors are people too.  People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences.

Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.

Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts.  Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.

What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.

Yet another brilliant idea.  To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild.  We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting.

When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.

Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway.  Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural.  If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary.  I'm using it as an example.
Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young.

Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?

Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.

Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild?  You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.

Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.