Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand
The only person (people) or animal with any culpability here is the trainer and the management staff of Sea World. If the animal is so unpredictable, that it needs to be isolated, then so be it. But, that's not license to kill it out of pure convenience.

You consider saving human lives a matter of 'pure convenience'?

You do understand that one of the three dead was not a trainer or on the staff, correct? I had initially made the same point you did in my 'mitigate' comment in my first post, before realizing my mistake of saying only trainers are at risk. While not condoning trespassing in the least, it's clear that trainers are not the only ones at risk if they are not the only ones who have already died.

I believe in liberty - that is, freedom to act in within a moral context. That applies solely to humans who operate within a moral framework. It does not extend to animals in either sense. That is, I don't blame the animal for 'murder' in a human sense, but neither to I say the animal is blameless and that it should be allowed to kill again. The dead victim's liberty has been dramatically curtailed, and that is what matters.

59 posted on 02/25/2010 12:28:50 PM PST by Liberty1970 (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lydiablievernicht)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: Liberty1970
"You do understand that one of the three dead was not a trainer or on the staff, correct? "

He was trespassing after hours. You can hardly blame a wild animal for killing or eating someone who breaks into their cage. They're in a cage for a reason, after all.

"The dead victim's liberty has been dramatically curtailed, and that is what matters."

No ones liberty has been curtailed. The Killer Whale wasn't a member of the US government. It was an animal acting like animal. What part of "the trainer assumed all risk", don't you understand. If anything, liberty was upheld, not curtailed. The trainer did what she wanted to do.

62 posted on 02/25/2010 12:37:08 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: Liberty1970
I'm going to try and be civil. But you post makes me very angry. If we followed your logic we would have to outlaw a huge portion of the things many find enjoyable. The list would be endless. But as it applies to this case, you couldn't have any acts with large Cats like Lions, Tigers, and Leopards because one of these cats just might kill or severely injure the trainer/handler.

I'm sure you remember the famous act of Siegfried & Roy. Roy was severely injured by one of the Tigers in an act. Despite horrific injuries, Roy begged that the Cat not be put down. He knew the dangers of what he was doing. Please think about liberty, Liberty.
63 posted on 02/25/2010 12:42:15 PM PST by truthguy (Good intentions are not enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson