Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IcyTea31]

I actually agree that animals should generally not be held in captivity. However, a private company is under no obligation to inform the public of its every operation, and shouldn't be considered scummy for avoiding a protest that would serve no purpose and would endanger the operation and animals involved if it got violent.

Furthermore, the dolphins are arguably better off in a larger dolphinarium than in the wild, as they have lived their whole lives in captivity (Särkänniemi had bred them for a couple generations). Releasing them might not end well for them.

[Akura]

Aren't those dolphins used to captivity and unlikely to survive if released into the wild? It might be crueler to free them then.

PRE-EDIT:Ninja'd by cold leaf juice.

[alexandertnt]

I actually agree that animals should generally not be held in captivity. However, a private company is under no obligation to inform the public of its every operation, and shouldn't be considered scummy for avoiding a protest that would serve no purpose and would endanger the operation and animals involved if it got violent.

Furthermore, the dolphins are arguably better off in a larger dolphinarium than in the wild, as they have lived their whole lives in captivity (Särkänniemi had bred them for a couple generations). Releasing them might not end well for them.

I don't see how the companies legal obligations would effect the animal rights groups response. Why do you think its relevant? They are concerned for the animals, not legal responsibility of the company.

[Criptfeind]

Alright, well. I don't think the dolphins should go free, but you're still not looking at it from the perspective that they should (even if you think that's a stupid perspective to have.). I'm just saying that you said you don't understand what the big deal is, but if you just shift your perspective and temporarily accept something you think is untrue as the truth for a moment, it's quite easy to see. You don't have to agree with it, but that's how one would come to understand it.

As an aside, we clearly don't have the full story here on their in the wilds viability, but if you say the company was considering releasing them, then they'd ether have to be pretty fucking heartless (which would bring the rest of their decisions into question to be honest) or they'd be viable as a wild population. Er... Edit here real quick, or perhaps "considering" means "researching" and they decided the answer was no. Which from my perspective, would make what they did a perfectly reasonable and even morally correct choice to make.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Well, I suppose ultimately it depends on your perspective if you agree with the animal rights protests. I think, given your response, you don't agree with them (and to be honest I don't ether although it's a complicated issue that I don't think I really have the answer too). But seeing it from their angle: Keeping dolphins in captivity is wrong, they want to free the dolphins, this is a good chance to do so but they don't have a legal way of forcing the park to do so, however, if they can get a good protest going and turn public opinion against keeping them in captivity, maybe they can free them, which, remember, from their point of view is a very very very good thing. However, from their perspective the zoo duplicitous snuck out the dolphins under cover of night in an attempt to avoid any chance of backlash or public opinion. I think, idk. It makes sense to be angry if you ultimately agree with the animal rights activists. "Private corporation being private" Is not an excuse really when you think they are still ultimately being evil.

Seen from the other angle, that keeping the dolphins in captivity is right, they cleverly managed to avoid meaningless harassment. Ultimately... Well, I can see the argument both ways here.

Edit: Obviously that's a generous assessment for the animal rights activists mindset, that they've actively decided that this is a case of the dolphins not belonging in captivity and needs to be specifically stopped, and not just "We do protests. Damn we missed a chance to protest." And also a generous assessment of the parks mindset, that they've actively decided that this is a case of the dolphins belonging in captivity and needing to stay in it, and not just "Lol, of course we're gunna sell these blowhole motherfuckers off, now how can we do it with as little attention as possible?" But I guess without further information I'm fine being that generous.

I miscommunicated my thoughts. I lack the vocabulary to express my thoughts and opinions at the moment, although I was not supporting or opposing the parties. I am interested in the wording of the post. (The small number of emojis on this board makes me want to revisit the idea of narrating my thoughts when I post.)

[Criptfeind]

I don't understand what you now mean, but luckily that's academic since my post wasn't for you specifically, but rather for anyone who was confused as to why the protesters were angry. I had thought that included you under it's umbrella but it really doesn't matter to me that it doesn't, because I would have made the same post for just a single IcyTea31.

As for the wording, I have no idea what you're talking about, as I can't see anything particularly strange about it.

[IcyTea31]

I don't see how the companies legal obligations would effect the animal rights groups response. Why do you think its relevant? They are concerned for the animals, not legal responsibility of the company.

It's relevant because this is a case of a company doing everything legally and (arguably) ethically and still falling under fire. There are better targets for such protests in this country.

but rather for anyone who was confused as to why the protesters were angry.

I do understand why they would be angry, but not why they make a huge media circus about it.

[Criptfeind]

I do understand why they would be angry, but not why they make a huge media circus about it.

For the same reason that they are angry? I'm not sure I understand what you mean now. Like hell, you don't even have to understand their perspective at all to understand why they are making a media circus. They are doing so to get attention to the issue the best way they can to achieve their goals. You don't have to care about or understand their goals at all to understand that.

[IcyTea31]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean now.

I'm not so sure myself anymore.

Anyway, a big deal was made of something I don't see as a big deal today. That is my WTF.

[alexandertnt]

There are better targets for such protests in this country.

There are always better targets for any protest, or any movement really. They are just picking something that is relevant to them. Seems fair enough to me.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

I really need to sleep.

[Edmus]

Go to bed.

[ChairmanPoo]

Go to bed.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Edmus]

You fill me with sadness.
...like a pillow filled with depressed penguin down. 

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Meh. That isn't nearly as scary as rapacious, raping burglars. Goodnight.