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.

[ApocalypseAelis]

Some parts of the debate were leaning away from the subject of zoos and abusing plant/animal life, so I'm going to try to push them back...



They didn't legalize slavery; the Federal government nullified their laws against slavery.

It's like medical marijuana. California didn't abolish it; the Federal government is preventing California from giving perscriptions.

In reality, the States managed to get around the Court decision by passing laws that made life so hard for a slave owner that no one dared to even try.


It doesn't matter what happened or didn't happen after the court decision. My point is, the laws we make are not always perfect or right. The court decision was against slavery, and that obviously was biased and wrong.

If there are not any laws that prevent animal abuse, there should be, and if there are any, they should be upheld.


That's how everyone thinks. If you give money to a charity, you gain benefit from feeling better about yourself and the world--that's worth more than the money, so you do it.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest, or what I like to call "reason". Everyone acts to fulfill his preferences--these preferences may involve other people or just himself, but the fact remains that they are only his preferences.arn.


You are overlooking the
"because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"
part.

Of course every should put themselves above the interests of others. But should everyone destroy and manipulate all living things that serve no use to them?


They would be legally bound to pay taxes on any money they earn.

If a blind person pays a homeless person to escort him somewhere, then the homeless person would pay taxes on that.

If a blind person pays a dog to do that, the dog would not pay taxes on it.


A blind person wouldn't pay a dog in the first place.

I find it ridiculous that it would be necessary for dogs and other animals to go by all our laws or pay taxes to be treated as living things.

Animals don't earn wages, have any use of money, understand anything about spending money, or need money. It is their owner's decision to keep them and pay for their food and shelter. They don't barge into our homes and demand to be taken care of. It doesn't add up to make animals pay taxes when we take them to live with us.


Dogs help us in little ways, differently than humans do. I have already mentioned this -

"Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards."

Which you haven't responded to yet.


Yes they do. They pay taxes on the money they earn; they pay taxes on things they buy -- we just give them back more than they pay in.
Have you ever heard of sales taxes?


Exactly - homeless people are taking money from the government. So should we kill them?

And who pays the sales taxes for children? Their guardians. Who pays the sales taxes for animals? Their guardians.


No, we punish them in accordance with our legal system. If they don't uphold a law, they are given a trial, and then have the obligation to serve the sentence in the trial.
If a robber robs me, I can sue him. I can't sue a dog that bites me.


No; however, you can sue the dog's owner. If a child grows up spoiled and violent, whose fault is it? The parents'. If a zoo animal escapes from its cage and causes injury to the public, it will be the zoo's reputation that is hurt. It is the zookeeper's responsibility to see that the animals are taken care of.


Exactly; they aren't apart of human society, so human rules of conduct don't apply.

It's good etiquette for a man to pay for a date in China, but in Holland, the rule is that both pay for themselves. Thus, because the Dutch do not live in Chinese society, the Chinese are not bound by the rule of "guy pays" when they deal with Dutch people.
Of course; they do that all the time. Wolves were a major threat to farmers in ancient societies, because the wolves would attack their farms and their sheep.


Currently editing and responding to...


They're tasty. (j/k, but that was in line with your pillow comment)


That reminds me of when my mom complained to me about her mom eating the family dog. Blaargh. D:


Do you eat meat? Should the government ban you from eating meat? Certainly, if animals have rights, the right to life must exceed some guy's desire for more protein.

And while we're at it, why don't we ban vegetables too. Plant rights all the way.

And antibiotics--they kill living things by the billions.

Listerine?


You mean the right to life must exceed someone's right to food.

How long do you think you will last without eating? Two weeks? Maybe three? All creatures have to kill others to feed themselves-it's a natural process. If they don't, overpopulation occurs and the thriving species suffers in the end anyway.

If we all have the right to life, then surely we must have the right to eat.

Antibiotics are made to kill virulent microorganisms that thrive in our bodies. How many microogranisms are there living inside us? Millions and millions. Antibiotics kill off the microorganisms that harm us, and thereby save the rest of the microorganisms that live in our organs. Why do you think people fight wars if wars kill so many people? Because the good outweighs the bad in the end. (well, unless you lost the war, but antibiotics usually work.)

Same goes for the germ-killing Listerine.

Germs are a lower life form than humans, animals, or plants. They thrive in the millions; destroying some in our mouths won't affect their survival one bit. We treat different forms of life in different ways. The way we'll treat a cat should be different from the way we'll treat germs floating in a drop of water.


A small oxygen bar could fit in my house. A large oak tree could not.



Oak trees aren't the only plants that give off fresh oxygen. Roses, dandelions, grass, shrubs, and small trees will fit into a yard.

Oxygen bars usually cost about 60 dollars for an hour of service. Helping a plant grow costs way less. There's a significant difference between growing a garden and enjoying the free benefits and paying to sit in a chair with oxygen being pumped into you through a tube in your nose.

But I love sushi!

California rolls are the best. But I meant the chase a deer and chomp down on the leg you ripped off sort of raw meat.


A cheetah can run a lot faster than even the fastest humans. Should they be thus held accountable for it? Every species is different--people build computers and earn wages now because that's what we're good at. Cheetahs run because that's what they're good at.
In the wild, a discplined tiger that intelligently and skillfully lies in wait and stalks his prey has a better chance of surviving then a stronger and more agile one that bites everything in its path.

The traits needed for survival in people and animals are a lot more similar than you think.
We're still genetically animals. We have to be; we're not plants, or fungi, or protists, or bacteria, right?


Most animals with legs can run. Cheetahs are just faster.

Even if the traits needed for survival in people and animals were completely the same, they would still be utilized in completely different ways.

We are animals, but our species is more advanced than others.


It's a supreme act of arrogance to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. Each species has its own method of survival, that may be better or worse suited for a particular environment. Evolution is about adaptation, not about 'progress'.


And yet it isn't a supreme act of arrogance to say that only humans should be treated with respect and kindness?

It isn't arrogant to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. It's a plain, undisputed fact.

Our intelligence surpasses by far that of any other creature on earth. We have culture, we live in houses of brick and steel, our lives are ruled by a carefully built government, we have personalities, we have consciousness.


We cannot expect any other animal to act like us or understand our laws. This does not mean we shouldn't treat their lives with respect.


Once again, double standard. A cow's activities are considered 'natural', but somehow a human's aren't?

If you're saying that human industry tips the scale for CO2, I can make an equally good argument that cow flatulence tips the scale and we should wipe out all the cows.

In fact, my argument would be better, because you admit that there is more cow flatulence than industrial CO2. CO2 is CO2 no matter which way you cut it.
Too bad 99.7% of the world's total ice is in Antartica, very far away from the northern hemisphere.


and we can wipe out all animal life and hold in our gas until our fossil fuels run out. Then we're just going to have to hope our flatulence will be enough to balance the atmosphere, and the chances of that happening are less than Nader's were of winning the election.

Whether some human actions are 'natural' or not is a subject for another debate; let's not discuss it now.

Yes; we like to call it "Thermodynamics".

Thermodynamics explain relations of heat. What is the explaination of global warming? Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Hey, and guess what happens if you aren't able to catch your prey in the wild? You starve to death!
Starving to death is pretty painful IMHO...


And yet, animals have somehow still not died out...guess a mother lion's pretty good at teacher her cubs.


When did I say they shouldn't? Having cagefights and improving society are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly capable of watching a cagefight on Sunday, and then going off to my doctoring/lawyering/businessing/engineering on Monday.

I think most people are.

No, no, compulsive gambling is as much of a sin as drunkeness. Drinking isn't a sin; people drink at weddings; and they even drink at liturgies. There's a difference between drinking and drunkenness, the same way there's a difference between playing Texas Hold 'Em (or betting on a cagefight every now and then) with good friends and using your and your spouses' welfare check to buy lottery tickets. (Although I'd rather them buy lottery tickets than say, crack)


It is not right to treat an animal like a human. Humans are a higher life-form than a horse or dove. However, it is right to treat all life with respect. If we abuse and display cruelty towards animals, it will eventually become a human's nature to be violent and unkind towards each other. There's a reason why animal lovers are viewed by people as kindhearted people.


Texas Hold'em doesn't involve bloodshed.

I did not say that gambling was a sin! Nor have I said drinking was a sin! I myself have gambled before!

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.
Touching the ceiling is as much of a sin as touching the floor.
Eating chocolate cake is as much of a sin as drinking water.

You get it.


Guys are whipped, and there are too many feminists. What else is new?

Although I severely doubt adrenal insufficiency--it seems we have too much adrenaline, because of all the stress and steroids of modern society.
And living closer to nature, where there are even more viruses and bacteria, will cure that... how?

...result from living in the middle of the rainforest or other areas without Supermarkets.
Good contradiction there.

It's a lot easier to get vitamins today then it has ever been in history. If you want to argue vitamin imbalance, that's fine, but with the advent of Centrum, vitamin deficiency is rare to nonexistent in developed countries.
That contradicts with the drugs again. Not everyone is mentally well-balanced to begin with. Most hormone imbalances you can live with. If you really want to treat them go use some drugs.

But that's nothing new. People have been using drugs to treat depression for centuries.

Ouch. It would have to depend on how low the thyroid is. Like, is it just a little bit low? Or does it crush the base of your neck? Or is it as far down as the top of your lungs? I've never heard of someone with a "low thyroid" before. They should really consider surgery for that kind of thing.


I'm sorry; I was doing research on the causes of cancer and I came up with this website. It seemed to know what it was talking about, so I used it. Since a low thyroid isn't possible, the rest of the cancer information must be wrong too...

Cancer isn't contagious, but it can be caused by certain chemicals, which may be found in natural settings, can it not?

Natural settings? I thought you said before that anything natural was the result of animal or human activity. You're contradicting yourself.

Lung cancer from cigarettes and tobacco isn't you call natural.

Steering back to the topic at hand - the discussion on cancer came from benefits and injuries of the rainforest, which came from your suggestion of abortions in zoos.

Abortions in zoos aren't necessary. Animals aren't distressed or confused from growing up in an artificial home; zoos replicate their habitats very well. To abort all animals in zoos and just take more from the wild will destroy the whole point of zoos protecting endangered species. It'll just make animal populations suffer more.

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to

"Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source."



I do believe that was the longest post I've ever made in my entire life.

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't matter what happened or didn't happen after the court decision. My point is, the laws we make are not always perfect or right. The court decision was against slavery, and that obviously was biased and wrong.

Yes, it matters a lot. If someone makes you give them your money at gun point, it's THEIR fault that you gave them your money, not yours.

Similarly, if someone forces you to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, then slavery was THEIR fault, not yours. The Supreme Court undemocratically ruled slavery legal, whereas the majority of people in a majority of States thought that they did not want slavery in their state. Therefore, it wasn't a law that "we" (we implies democratic) made. At least not in the North.

If there are not any laws that prevent animal abuse, there should be, and if there are any, they should be upheld.

No there shouldn't. It's proven that animal rights and human rights go against each other. If you look at states with strict animal protection laws, like Maryland and Virginia, you'll also see that they have high taxes, use of the death penalty, less due process in their court systems, more crime, fewer guns, etc. Whereas states like New Hampshire with very little animal protection also tend to be "free states", where people's rights are best protected.

You are overlooking the
"because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"
part.

Of course every should put themselves above the interests of others. But should everyone destroy and manipulate all living things that serve no use to them?

That depends on the benefit they get from it.

A blind person wouldn't pay a dog in the first place.

I find it ridiculous that it would be necessary for dogs and other animals to go by all our laws or pay taxes to be treated as living things.

You don't want them to just be treated as living things, you want them to have equal rights under civil law. If you want equal rights under civil law, you should have equal responsibilities, correct?

To be treated as a "living thing" means the law of the jungle--survival of the fittest.

Animals don't earn wages, have any use of money, understand anything about spending money, or need money. It is their owner's decision to keep them and pay for their food and shelter. They don't barge into our homes and demand to be taken care of. It doesn't add up to make animals pay taxes when we take them to live with us.

A human can't claim a dog as a dependent for tax reasons. Remember the widow in England who left all her property to her cat? The cat can't pay inheritance taxes.

The fact is, animals do not have the same responsibilities under civil law; so if you want to give them civil protection, they have to have civil responsiblities. Like, if a dog bites me, I can sue it and put it in jail/force it to pay me compensation.

I know it's ridiculous, but that's the natural conclusion of your argument.

Dogs help us in little ways, differently than humans do. I have already mentioned this -

"Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards."

Which you haven't responded to yet.

Yes I have. If they do not respond to human standards, they should not be treated as humans. Simple. The law of the jungle is survival of the fittest--this applies to everyone. The law of civil society depends on the society, and applies to the members of that society--who agree to follow its rules in exchange for its protections.

Exactly - homeless people are taking money from the government. So should we kill them?

The government is giving it to them. They aren't taking it away (taking implies using force--I don't see an army of homeless converging on DC). Through a democratic process, homeless people agree to be bound by our laws, and recieve our protections.

And who pays the sales taxes for children? Their guardians. Who pays the sales taxes for animals? Their guardians.

No, if an 8-year-old goes into a store to buy some candy, he pays sales tax on his own. If the guardian buys something FOR an 8-year-old, then they pay sales tax--but the thing they buy is technically their property.

No; however, you can sue the dog's owner. If a child grows up spoiled and violent, whose fault is it? The parents'.

Nope. We have a juvenile justice system alongside our normal one. Children don't have all the rights of adults (can't vote, can't bring a lawsuit, etc.), thus they dont have all the responsibilities. However, they still have SOME responsibilities (children are still expected to abide by laws like don't drink, can still get citations, and can still be thrown in jail or sued).

A dog, however, has NO responsibilites under civil law, and thus should have NO rights.

If a zoo animal escapes from its cage and causes injury to the public, it will be the zoo's reputation that is hurt. It is the zookeeper's responsibility to see that the animals are taken care of.

Then people won't go to that zoo anymore and the zoo will be out of business. So?

You mean the right to life must exceed someone's right to food.

You don't HAVE to eat meat to survive. And you don't HAVE to use Listerine--the right to life certainly overrides the right to be free from bad breath, does it not?

How long do you think you will last without eating? Two weeks? Maybe three? All creatures have to kill others to feed themselves-it's a natural process. If they don't, overpopulation occurs and the thriving species suffers in the end anyway.

Exactly--the law of the jungle, which is the natural state of life.

Antibiotics are made to kill virulent microorganisms that thrive in our bodies. How many microogranisms are there living inside us? Millions and millions. Antibiotics kill off the microorganisms that harm us, and thereby save the rest of the microorganisms that live in our organs. Why do you think people fight wars if wars kill so many people? Because the good outweighs the bad in the end. (well, unless you lost the war, but antibiotics usually work.)

Same goes for the germ-killing Listerine.

Most germs that Listerine kill cause nothing more than bad breath.

And most antibiotics kill ALL bacteria, not just the bad ones. That's why, when you take a strong antibiotic, you also have to take a probiotic, such as certain kinds of yogurt, that replenish the good bacteria with new ones from outside.

Germs are a lower life form than humans, animals, or plants.

So what makes animals equal to humans?

They thrive in the millions;

So do ants. And most animals, as a matter of fact.

destroying some in our mouths won't affect their survival one bit.

Collectively, no, but individually, yes. The individual is more important than the collective--the Nazis didn't come close to wiping out the Jewish people, but we still remember them as evil people because they killed so many individual Jews.

We treat different forms of life in different ways. The way we'll treat a cat should be different from the way we'll treat germs floating in a drop of water.

And the way we treat a cat should be different from the way we treat a human, should it not?

Oak trees aren't the only plants that give off fresh oxygen. Roses, dandelions, grass, shrubs, and small trees will fit into a yard.

And cause allergies.

Oxygen bars usually cost about 60 dollars for an hour of service. Helping a plant grow costs way less. There's a significant difference between growing a garden and enjoying the free benefits and paying to sit in a chair with oxygen being pumped into you through a tube in your nose.

Well, by the time you pay for all the allergy drugs you're going to need because of the small plants, they won't.

California rolls are the best. But I meant the chase a deer and chomp down on the leg you ripped off sort of raw meat.

Some people eat their steaks rare. And how do you think people lived before the advent of Denny's?

Most animals with legs can run. Cheetahs are just faster.

And we've taught really smart chimpanzees to type. All animals with fingers can type--humans are just better at it.

Even if the traits needed for survival in people and animals were completely the same, they would still be utilized in completely different ways.

We are animals, but our species is more advanced than others.

What makes it more advanced? Evolution is adaptation, not progress. If we were stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and so was a blue whale, guess who would have the better chance of surviving?

And yet it isn't a supreme act of arrogance to say that only humans should be treated with respect and kindness?

I'm saying only humans should be treated with respect and kindness by other humans because it's an agreement within humans. I'm not saying that other species are not free to make the same civil agreement within themselves. Like prides of lions and packs of chimpanzees treat other members of their prides/packs with respect and kindness--because they have entered into a civil society, of sorts, where each member agrees to act a certain way to others in exchange that others act a certain way towards him.

We do NOT have that same social contract with animals.

It isn't arrogant to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. It's a plain, undisputed fact.

And Chimpanzees are different from all other animals. And Zebras. And Horses. And Cats. And Ants. And Snakes. And the list goes on and on...

Of course we're different, I'm not saying we aren't, but you can't also say that we're somehow objectively more "advanced". Every animal is different in some way from every other animal. We've just adapted better to a technological society.

Our intelligence surpasses by far that of any other creature on earth. We have culture, we live in houses of brick and steel,

We're smarter. So what? The African Swift's flying speed vastly surpasses any other creature on Earth. The blue whale's size vastly surpasses any other creature on Earth. So what? It just means they've adapted better to their surroundings, not that they're more advanced.

A debater is better at debating than a basketball player, who is better at basketball. Who is more advanced? Neither--the debater is just better adapted to a debate, and the basketball player better adapted to a basketball game.

The same applies, on a much greater scale, for all species.

our lives are ruled by a carefully built government,

Most of the world would disagree.

we have personalities, we have consciousness.

So if animals don't have personalities or consciousnesses, why does it matter how they are treated? They can't think or feel or know how they are being treated.

We cannot expect any other animal to act like us or understand our laws. This does not mean we shouldn't treat their lives with respect.

If they aren't going to abide by our laws that say respect each other, then they cannot enjoy the protection of said laws. Simple. A pride of tigers might very well attack and eat a human being, even though they wouldn't attack and eat each other, because a human doesn't belong to their society, isn't bound by its [informal] laws, and thus isn't protected by them.

and we can wipe out all animal life and hold in our gas until our fossil fuels run out. Then we're just going to have to hope our flatulence will be enough to balance the atmosphere, and the chances of that happening are less than Nader's were of winning the election.

I didn't say that was a good idea; I just brought it up to show how ridiculous your argument that people were responsible for "tipping the scale" was.

Thermodynamics explain relations of heat. What is the explaination of global warming? Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thermodynamics can also explain natural climate flux coming from things like the sun burning its energy at a slightly faster rate because there's less energy left, etc.

The ONLY human-caused heating occurs in large cities, which is called the "urban heat island effect", due to the large population density. One of the reasons our measurements are so exaggerated is because most measuring stations are within these heat islands. Measuring Manhattan between 1700 and 2000 will show an increase in heat, but measuring a field in Iowa will not. The fact that most weather stations are in or near big cities throw off the averages, and make the statistics uncredible.

And yet, animals have somehow still not died out...guess a mother lion's pretty good at teacher her cubs.

Or she just has so many of them that it doesn't matter that most of them die. There are different evolutionary survival methods. Turtles, for example, might lay dozens or hundreds of eggs, so even though most die off, a few survive.

It is not right to treat an animal like a human.

Is this not what I have been saying?

Humans are a higher life-form than a horse or dove. However, it is right to treat all life with respect.

Yet you support Listerine, which kills trillions of harmless bacteria, just so we can impress girls more.

If we abuse and display cruelty towards animals, it will eventually become a human's nature to be violent and unkind towards each other.

No it's not. The vast majority of people who torture animals as a kid grow up to be well-adjusted people.

There's a reason why animal lovers are viewed by people as kindhearted people.

Actually, most people view "animal lover" organizations like PETA as paramilitary thugs. If you don't believe me, check this out. Would a "kindhearted person" write that?

Texas Hold'em doesn't involve bloodshed.

Billy the Kid would disagree.

I'm sorry; I was doing research on the causes of cancer and I came up with this website. It seemed to know what it was talking about, so I used it. Since a low thyroid isn't possible, the rest of the cancer information must be wrong too...

Well, I've proved that those causes of cancer are mostly results from living too close to nature, so you just torpedoed your own argument there.

(Also I think they meant low Thyroxin, the hormone secreted by teh Thyroid; but low Thyroxin would just give you a lower metabolism, I don't see the connection to cancer. Whatever.)

Natural settings? I thought you said before that anything natural was the result of animal or human activity. You're contradicting yourself.

Natural setting sans humans. Just a slip.

Lung cancer from cigarettes and tobacco isn't you call natural.

Tobacco comes out of the Earth. It was entirely possible to get chewing tobacco a million years ago.

Now, if you want to argue asbestos or something, that's different. But the amount of cancer recieved from asbestos is tiny compared to the amount gotten from non-human made sources.

Steering back to the topic at hand - the discussion on cancer came from benefits and injuries of the rainforest, which came from your suggestion of abortions in zoos.

Abortions in zoos aren't necessary. Animals aren't distressed or confused from growing up in an artificial home; zoos replicate their habitats very well. To abort all animals in zoos and just take more from the wild will destroy the whole point of zoos protecting endangered species. It'll just make animal populations suffer more.

Okay then zoos are good. Good.

"Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source."

No, beacuse I didn't see what relevance that had. We can 'interact with' and 'learn from' animals all the time--as we are doing in zoos, and as we would do from watching them cagefight.