Tilikum and Seaworld... Is it a good idea to release him or not?

[Master_Yoma]

Let the whale keep killing people it would be funnier and funnier as they keep going into the whale tank

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Fome

Why don't you just put it to sleep.

This. Or give it to the Japanese.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

This. Or give it to the Japanese.

Isn't that the same thing?

[Irkalla]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Isn't that the same thing?

Essentially yes, but the Japanese are going to eat it after

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Zaseka

Essentially yes, but the Japanese are going to eat it after

Not sure how that will sit with animal rights activists
I think it would be a good idea also to send Tilikum to Alaska. They already have muktuk eating contests, maybe they'll like orcas too

[Nogitsune]

In my opinion, those removing animals from their natural habitat have a responsibility to take care of them. This means ensuring that they can lead happy, long and fulfilled lives - if that's not possible, then leave them where they are.
I don't care about species preservation as long as it's not necessary to keep the ecosystem stable. A species is an abstract concept that can not experience pain or suffering, whereas the animals used to preserve it are breathing, feeling individuals.

Now, if experts tell me that putting Tilikum back into the wild or bringing him wherever is better for him than leaving him where he is now, I'm all for it. Otherwise, however, I believe Seaworld has the responsibility to keep him - they knowingly took on that responsibility when they agreed to have him, and there are always people perfectly willing to risk their lives if it means they can work with such an amazing creature. If something else were to happen, it would certainly be bad press, but, well, too bad. An orca is a sentient being, not a piece of trash you dispose of because it troubles you.
They wanted him, now they have him.


And by the way... pitbulls are like any other dogs - if you treat them correctly, they won't just snap suddenly and bite your arm off, or that of someone else, except if they were already damaged that badly by a previous owner or have a disease that causes such a thing. Comparing them to orcas doesn't really work, although I agree with the general sentiment - training a wild animal is risky, and those who attempt such a thing usually are very aware of that.

[chikorita157]

Now, if experts tell me that putting Tilikum back into the wild or bringing him wherever is better for him than leaving him where he is now, I'm all for it.

If you recall to Keiko incident, we already know that releasing Tilikum, a whale that been living in captivity for 25 years is a very bad idea because it simply won't survive. I know some people want him released in good faith, but you have to think about the consequences. This is a main reason why Seaworld isn't releasing him, if ever.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

If you recall to Keiko incident, we already know that releasing Tilikum, a whale that been living in captivity for 25 years is a very bad idea because it simply won't survive. I know some people want him released in good faith, but you have to think about the consequences. This is a main reason why Seaworld isn't releasing him, if ever.

Well, theoretically, experts could come along and declare that they've it all figured out now. It's not very likely, though, or even realistic, which is why I added the "or wherever" (-> not the wild, but an alternative they came up with - not to say that will happen) and then moved on.

[RadiantBeam]

Originally Posted by Master_Yoma

Let the whale keep killing people it would be funnier and funnier as they keep going into the whale tank

Yeah, only funny until people start threatening to shut down the park.

[hinakatbklyn]

Originally Posted by Master_Yoma

Let the whale keep killing people it would be funnier and funnier as they keep going into the whale tank

Originally Posted by RadiantBeam

Yeah, only funny until people start threatening to shut down the park.

They wouldn't have to shut down the whole park (unless the whale is the main reason the park is open).

Whether it's a whale or any other wild animal, you can try and tame them all you want (it might work for a while), but somewhere down the line their instincts take over and that would put everyone else in danger.

To release a whale after being held captive for so long, not a real good idea. If it's a problem to tame an animal, it would be better not to have captured the whale in the first place, if it's going to go wild later on.

[RadiantBeam]

Originally Posted by hinakatbklyn

They wouldn't have to shut down the whole park (unless the whale is the main reason the park is open).

Maybe "shut down" isn't the right word, then. But if they continued to use Tilikum even after this incident, it would definitely cause them some serious problems, especially in the long run.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by RadiantBeam

Maybe "shut down" isn't the right word, then. But if they continued to use Tilikum even after this incident, it would definitely cause them some serious problems, especially in the long run.

The only problems it would cause are with the press. Newswires have a reputation of using any excuse to make any type of info look like bad news, and I'm pretty sure they'll give Seaworld bad rep for not listening to those activists who're trying to make the world right and release the whale to the wildlife where it belongs

/sarcasm

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by hinakatbklyn

They wouldn't have to shut down the whole park (unless the whale is the main reason the park is open).

Whether it's a whale or any other wild animal, you can try and tame them all you want (it might work for a while), but somewhere down the line their instincts take over and that would put everyone else in danger.

To release a whale after being held captive for so long, not a real good idea. If it's a problem to tame an animal, it would be better not to have captured the whale in the first place, if it's going to go wild later on.

If they really wanted, they should stop hunting for whales and just breed their own that will survive in such an environment. However, this approach takes a lot more resources and effort, but the benefit is that it will be tamed... probably.

Also, I don't care about Animal Rights activists mainly from PETA and other extremist groups like Animal Liberation Front... since they don't want people to use any animals at all for any purpose (not even seeing eye dogs for blind people or keeping dogs and cats as pets) while they mistreat vegetables. If Animals Right does exist, vegetables too needs to have rights as well, since what's fair is fair. Just saying... (not to offend people who support these beliefs)

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

Also, I don't care about Animal Rights activists... since they don't want people to use any animals at all for any purpose (not even seeing eye dogs for blind people or keeping dogs and cats as pets) while they mistreat vegetables. If Animals Right does exist, vegetables too needs to have rights as well, since what's fair is fair. Just saying...

Excuse me, but you are throwing all animal rights activists in one giant pot without informing yourself on the issue first. I feel slightly insulted.

First, there are many animal rights activists who do not mind the existence of pets, as long as they are treated well.

Furthermore, if you can't see the difference between a plant and an animal, that makes me wonder. Yes, they both are alive, but if you use a rabbit as a soccer ball, you will get in trouble with the law, while if you use a plant instead, no one will care. Why? Most likely because a plant is not capable of suffering.
A plant does not possess a nervous system, nor does it have a brain. There is absolutely no evidence that it is capable of feeling pain or having desires, like the desire to stay alive.

Many animals, on the other hand, are just as capable of experiencing suffering as we are. In the eyes of the average animal rights activist, there is no morally relevant difference - an opinion that I share. If you can point one out, however, I'm all ears.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Excuse me, but you are throwing all animal rights activists in one giant pot without informing yourself on the issue first. I feel slightly insulted.

First, there are many animal rights activists who do not mind the existence of pets, as long as they are treated well.

Furthermore, if you can't see the difference between a plant and an animal, that makes me wonder. Yes, they both are alive, but if you use a rabbit as a soccer ball, you will get in trouble with the law, while if you use a plant instead, no one will care. Why? Most likely because a plant is not capable of suffering.
A plant does not possess a nervous system, nor does it have a brain. There is absolutely no evidence that it is capable of feeling pain or having desires, like the desire to stay alive.

Many animals, on the other hand, are just as capable of experiencing suffering as we are. In the eyes of the average animal rights activist, there is no morally relevant difference - an opinion that I share. If you can point one out, however, I'm all ears.

I'm sorry to offend you or anyone who supports it and I applogize, but when I think about animal rights activist, it somehow refer back to PETA, an extremist animal rights activist group which had alot of questionable practices (namely killing dogs and cats as proven from petakillsanimals.com) which I don't agree with and their ethics. However, I believe that animals inherently doesn't have any rights, but animal welfare is far more important. What about the baby seals being beaten by clubs or even the issue here that whales are being put into small pools that can't take much of their size? I'm more concern of people humanely treating animals and not torturing them opposed to giving animals rights. This is just my view and you are free to disagree if you don't agree with my views.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

I'm sorry to offend you or anyone who supports it and I applogize, but when I think about animal rights activist, it somehow refer back to PETA, an extremist animal rights activist group which had alot of questionable practices that I don't agree with and their ethics.

Apology accepted.
Yeah, PETA is... creepy. I'm happy they are drawing attention to the issue, but I believe that many of the members are going too far in some respects while neglecting others.
People need to be educated on the issue, not simply shocked and provocated.

However, I believe that animals inherently doesn't have any rights, but animal welfare is far more important. What about the baby seals being beaten by clubs or even the issue here that whales are being put into small pools that can't take much of their size? I'm more concern of people humanely treating animals and not torturing them opposed to giving animals rights. This is just my view and you are free to disagree if you don't agree with my views.

Well, as I believe that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and non-human animals, I think they should indeed have rights, but really, as long as they are treated well, I'm happy. The whole point of animal rights is animal welfare, after all.

"Rights" are just a formality, though a very powerful one when it comes to the minds of the people.

[SaintessHeart]

Keep in mind that PETA should be considered a terrorist group, and is a perfect example of the Bush Admin not doing their job of designating it as one.

Personally, I feel that the "animal rights" thing has gone a little too emotional rather than breed logical sense. If any living being has rights, it wouldn't be in something called the food chain.

The idea of the word "rights" is derived from the opposing words "right" and "wrong". Which to logically mean that "rights" are a living being's justified course of actions, i.e shooting/stabbing a rapist is the "right of self-defence" (no pun intended). So is it not Tili's rights to "play" as an orca? And is it not Tili's "right" to remain in the ocean park because it is too domesticated to survive in the wild?

You can't just throw domesticated animals and their wild cousins together. They may be from the same species, but their lives are entirely different. It is like comparing an Chinese farmer to a Chinese politician when they lead different lives!

Btw the orca is an apex predator. It already has the rights in Mother Nature to play with us human beings as long as we are in its aquatic territory.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Keep in mind that PETA should be considered a terrorist group

By what definition?

Personally, I feel that the "animal rights" thing has gone a little too emotional rather than breed logical sense. If any living being has rights, it wouldn't be in something called the food chain.

Rights are a concept we created, true, but that doesn't mean we can't extend them to animals. Personally, I'm a firm believe in what is called the "impartial position".

So is it not Tili's rights to "play" as an orca?

Tilikum, in my opinion, has the right to be treated with the same consideration a human would be treated with. As he is a moral patient, not a moral agent, he does not have moral obligations.
That does not mean we should not try to prevent innocent bystanders from getting harmed, though. Just that basically putting him down when the people who'd take the risk of working with him do so willingly is not morally acceptable, at least not in my eyes.

And is it not Tili's "right" to remain in the ocean park because it is too domesticated to survive in the wild?

It is indeed.

Btw the orca is an apex predator. It already has the rights in Mother Nature to play with us human beings as long as we are in its aquatic territory.

Actually, he just has the right to be treated equally, in my opinion. If those people enter his territority knowing the risks, that's their thing. Otherwise, we should try to prevent them from being harmed.
However, I'm speaking of moral entitlements, not nature. Nature doesn't care about our understanding of morality or mercy.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

By what definition?

I take it that you do not read the news, or is born in the late 1990s. They are funding groups like ELF and ALF, who use violence to achieve their aims. Disgustingly hypocritical considering they advocate for animal "rights".

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Tilikum, in my opinion, has the right to be treated with the same consideration a human would be treated with. As he is a moral patient, not a moral agent, he does not have moral obligations.
That does not mean we should not try to prevent innocent bystanders from getting harmed, though. Just that basically putting him down when the people who'd take the risk of working with him do so willingly is not morally acceptable, at least not in my eyes.

Actually, he just has the right to be treated equally, in my opinion. If those people enter his territority knowing the risks, that's their thing. Otherwise, we should try to prevent them from being harmed.
However, I'm speaking of moral entitlements, not nature. Nature doesn't care about our understanding of morality or mercy.

Quoting Animal Farm by George Orwell :

All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

One thing. How equal? Remember that you cannot compare the rights of a human to an animal, there are things that we can do and they can't, and vice versa.

You shouldn't bring morality into an issue because it is nothing more than a set of sentences that has no physical meaning, and on a whole, contradicts itself within its own scope. Rather, you should look at it as a "win-win"/"win-lose" situation for both the animal and the ocean park management.

However, what you have stated is pretty much the reflection of "equality" in today's world : oppression in favour of the emotionally intelligent is the norm.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I take it that you do not read the news, or is born in the late 1990s. They are funding groups like ELF and ALF, who use violence to achieve their aims. Disgustingly hypocritical considering they advocate for animal "rights".

What I found on this issue is: "The only destructive action the ALF encourages is the destruction of property used to abuse and torture animals."
It's a crime, certainly, but calling it terrorism seems a bit much to me. I might lack some background information, though.

One thing. How equal? Remember that you cannot compare the rights of a human to an animal, there are things that we can do and they can't, and vice versa.

Like?
Not all humans are rational, or moral agents.

You shouldn't bring morality into an issue because it is nothing more than a set of sentences that has no physical meaning, and on a whole, contradicts itself within its own scope. Rather, you should look at it as a "win-win"/"win-lose" situation for both the animal and the ocean park management.

Actually, I believe morality is very important, and does indeed not have to contradict itself.

However, what you have stated is pretty much the reflection of "equality" in today's world : oppression in favour of the emotionally intelligent is the norm.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.