PETA want LSU to stop using live Tigers (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
saintstigers3

saintstigers3

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
912
Offline
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">PETA didn&#39;t wait long. They&#39;re calling for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LSU?src=hash">#LSU</a> to end the tradition of having a live mascot. <a href="https://t.co/VMCHzetlBF">pic.twitter.com/VMCHzetlBF</a></p>&mdash; Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) <a href="https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/735195562463481856">May 24, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
I'll add to the "PETA can kiss both cheeks" sentiments already expressed.
 
Mike has world class, round the clock veterinarian care, a three million dollar habitat, and he never goes without meals any day of his life. And Mike probably eats better than 80% of the students at LSU.

On top of that, tigers that live in captivity live longer lives than tigers in the wild. From his Wikipedia page: the new habitat ranks among the largest and finest tiger preserves in the United States and expanded Mike's home to 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2).
 
If I lived in a 15,000 square foot pad, ate steaks every meal of the day and had an entire University Vet program at my disposal then PETA and it's followers would hate me because of my excessive lifestyle.
 
It all stems from the belief that animals have rights.

My neighbor tried to have someone fined because they didn't leave a bowl of water out and the dog was drinking out of a swimming pool.
I'm Not advocating dogs drinking pool water but it should not be a legal requirement to have a bowl of water for a dog.
 
They might have a leg to stand on were it not for the extended lifespan of tigers in captivity.
 
MLU said:
They might have a leg to stand on were it not for the extended lifespan of tigers in captivity.
Click to expand...

I don't think that ends the inquiry. It gets into one of those really complicated argument about the rights of different species on the planet earth.

Since we are at the top of the chain, we make all the rules and the other species are not consulted too much. We took land from the Indians, who were here first, because we can. We take habitat from tigers because we can.

As we evolved, we felt guilty about the Indians so we gave them reservations and treaty rights. We have evolved with animals as well, we make our zoos and cages nicer to feel okay about putting them in cages.

Now it is true tigers live longer in captivity, but if you had a choice of living free to age 50 or living in a cage to age 80, what would you pick? And how would you feel if it was not your choice and some other species made the call for you?

At the risk of sounding too goofy, suppose aliens landed on earth next week and they were so advanced that when we tried to talk to them all they hear is a noise like a dog barking. We claim they are on land, but not only cant they understand us, but they claim they got our galaxy in a treaty with another alien group, kind of like Spain and France dividing up the US when they first got here.

Since the aliens are more advanced than us do they have the right to raise us like we raise cattle and eat us? If they eat so may of us we become endangered can they put us in cool cages for our own good?

I have kind of gone full circle with zoos and caging animals. I love Mike the tiger and grew up bringing my kids to see him. The older I get, the more I wonder if caging a beautiful animal like that so he can be a mascot for a football team is the right thing to do. I love going to the zoo to see all the world's animals. But lately I have these thoughts creeping in where I do question our right to enslave other species just because we can, and after we wipe out their habitat make ourselves feel better for caging them by saying its for their own good.

I do think the PETA group tends to be extreme in their views and that many of them seem like wingnuts to me. I cant say, however, that when it comes to caging animals they might not have a fair point of view.

Maybe its just me being a wingnut, but as much as I enjoy going to see Mike, a certain sadness creeps in when I think about him being in a cage. Your point is well taken, he is probably safer in a cage. Is he happier? is it the right thing to do? I am just not so sure anymore.
 
st dude said:
I don't think that ends the inquiry. It gets into one of those really complicated argument about the rights of different species on the planet earth.

Since we are at the top of the chain, we make all the rules and the other species are not consulted too much. We took land from the Indians, who were here first, because we can. We take habitat from tigers because we can.

As we evolved, we felt guilty about the Indians so we gave them reservations and treaty rights. We have evolved with animals as well, we make our zoos and cages nicer to feel okay about putting them in cages.

Now it is true tigers live longer in captivity, but if you had a choice of living free to age 50 or living in a cage to age 80, what would you pick? And how would you feel if it was not your choice and some other species made the call for you?

At the risk of sounding too goofy, suppose aliens landed on earth next week and they were so advanced that when we tried to talk to them all they hear is a noise like a dog barking. We claim they are on land, but not only cant they understand us, but they claim they got our galaxy in a treaty with another alien group, kind of like Spain and France dividing up the US when they first got here.

Since the aliens are more advanced than us do they have the right to raise us like we raise cattle and eat us? If they eat so may of us we become endangered can they put us in cool cages for our own good?

I have kind of gone full circle with zoos and caging animals. I love Mike the tiger and grew up bringing my kids to see him. The older I get, the more I wonder if caging a beautiful animal like that so he can be a mascot for a football team is the right thing to do. I love going to the zoo to see all the world's animals. But lately I have these thoughts creeping in where I do question our right to enslave other species just because we can, and after we wipe out their habitat make ourselves feel better for caging them by saying its for their own good.

I do think the PETA group tends to be extreme in their views and that many of them seem like wingnuts to me. I cant say, however, that when it comes to caging animals they might not have a fair point of view.

Maybe its just me being a wingnut, but as much as I enjoy going to see Mike, a certain sadness creeps in when I think about him being in a cage. Your point is well taken, he is probably safer in a cage. Is he happier? is it the right thing to do? I am just not so sure anymore.
Click to expand...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cKAnjHpvsgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
bclemms said:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cKAnjHpvsgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Click to expand...
LOL.

Survival of the fittest. That stubborn rule the left tries to ignore even though it's deeply engrained in the science they so love.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom