Persuant to this post where I linked to a story on how an environmentalist openly declared truth to be irrelevant, comes this story via junkscience.com:
"Berlin's polar bear cub Knut is more famous than ever. Even star photographer Annie Leibovitz has been to take his picture. But not everyone loves the little bear. Animal rights activists want him put to sleep because he has been raised on a bottle." (Der Spiegel) WOW!
How many times have we seen animal rights people trying to rescue wounded or otherwise periled wildlife? But Zoos aren't allowed to?
How many times have we been told animals have rights--by the same people who want to kill Knut?
And what with all the hysteria over the polar bears going extinct in the Arctic, you'd think that saving one would be hailed as a noble and virtuous deed. Nope! He was tainted by humans. Kill him. Whatever their motives, concern for wildlife cannot be one of them.
There are 5 pictures of the little guy. I agree however, that no matter how cute he looks now, when he reaches puberty his natural instincts will take over and he will have to be returned to the wild where he should do just fine.
But I'm still shaking my head.
9 comments:
You want to take a fully grown polar bear out of a zoo where it has been hand reared, and release it in the wild with a sum total of zero hours in survival skills from the local bears?
I guess cruelty is in the eye of the beholder.
Plus if you had researched your story you would have found out that the director of the zoo was just saying they should be consistent with their policy, as they had put down the previous abandoned cub.
Wedard: you make a lot of irrational assumptions. That the bear has no natural instincts to guide it, that the zoo management are so dumb and inexperienced they will just plop the bear down in the wild and leave it, and even if the zoo mgmt isn't very experienced at returning animals to the wild, they are to dumb to consult some experts who are experienced.
Your accusation that I didn't research the story is asinine. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. If you had even read the story you would know that Knut was the first cub born to the Zoo in 30 years so there couldn't have been a "previous abandoned cub" that was put down. What you thought was a "previous abandoned cub" was actually a two day-old sloth that was put down for reasons not mentioned and that was at a different zoo.
The sloppiness with which you discern ideas that you wish to criticize tells me that you skim words rather than absorb their meanings.
The snide comment "I guess cruelty is in the eye of the beholder" is an insult suggesting my position is cruel. It is a form of the argument from intimidation. And doesn't work on me.
So, your first paragraph=irrational assumptions, followed by snide remark, followed by a flawed research argument mixed with false facts leads me to conclude you are not interested in facts but only in rationalizing your own position. In light of this I think it wise if you not comment here in the future.
So, your first paragraph=irrational assumptions,
There's nothing irrational about saying a bear, raised by humans, can be returned to the wild.
followed by snide remark,
Thin-skinned, as well as unable to examine consequences? It was not snide, it's irony.
followed by a flawed research argument mixed with false facts
Ahah - you knew there was more to the story than you presented - you have just admitted so. Witness: "What you thought was a "previous abandoned cub" was actually a two day-old sloth that was put down for reasons not mentioned and that was at a different zoo."
I think you have been exposed for selectively misrepresenting by omission the facts of the story in order to indulge your bias against environmentalists (as opposed to zoo directors, as the case may be. Now who is the irrationalist?
In light of this I think it wise if you not comment here in the future.
That's called a "cut 'n run" where I come from. Stand and defend your ideas against scrutiny, man. You write a blog, for goodness sake. It's not like I was rude to you - though I admit being brash - I simply challenged your ideas.
Oops:
There's nothing irrational about saying a bear, raised by humans, can't be returned to the wild.
I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:
www.americanlegends.info
If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.
Thanks,
David
Dave:
Glad you like my blog and the link is already done. Thanks again.
Wadard:
"What you thought was a "previous abandoned cub" was actually a two day-old sloth that was put down for reasons not mentioned and that was at a different zoo."
How is Mike witholding information, when that sloth incident happened at a different zoo? It has nothing to do with this story, and didn't need to be mentioned.
"Stand and defend your...I simply challenged your ideas."
In defense of bloggers, they do not have to defend their positions from any and all comments, especially rude nonsense such as:
"I guess cruelty is in the eye of the beholder"
Further, besides essentially calling Mike cruel, you accused him of failing to research the story(first comment), omitting facts(which had nothing to do with this story), and of being an irrationalist(second comment). This is far worse than merely being brash; it's simply intellectually dishonest.
If Mike were to block you from further commenting on his site, I wouldn't blame him.
I forgot to add that the bold type in Mike's quote in my last message was put there by me. I should have put [Bold mine] afterwards, but forgot. My mistake.
Post a Comment