Bears Playing Hockey: How Are They Doing It?

[dreiter]

I don't really see where you are making a point.

1. Circus abuses often occur.
2. Going to one animal show (humane or not) will economically motivate the creation of more shows, which will lead to more abuses, because not all of those new shows will have 'humane' trainers.
3. Therefore going to 'humane' circuses still supports abuse of animals.

Let me know if there is more elaboration that needs to be done here...

 

[Sorry!]

This recent bear hockey video is just another example of humans abusing animals for so they can have their 'fun' day at the circus...

Whatever, your original point had nothing to do with 'endorsing other abuses on animals by attending circuses that use them. Your point was quite clearly about the abuses by humans on the bears so they 'can have their fun day at the circus'. Regardless, I see how you are going to try to 'win' your point by utilizing multiple fallacies for various reasons so it's cool man. You are right.

 

[dreiter]

Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...

 

[Sorry!]

Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...

Sarcasm? I wasn't being sarcastic in my post at all. I'm glad you know what obviously 'stresses' a bear. Can you come to my place and let me know why my pet snake hasn't eaten for the last 2 weeks? I'd appreciate that, thanks. (Oh by the way, this is what is known as 'sarcasm' if hadn't the slightest clue as to what the word implied.)

 

[Galteeth]

Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...

Same goes for homo sapiens.

 

[DaveC426913]

Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.

It is not our obligation to let all animals in the world roam free on the plains and live and die by natural means.

The question is not whether this or that stresses the animal, the question is: in the big picture of their lives, are they healthy, well-fed and cared for.

 

[DaveC426913]

All that being said, my position is in flux.

I followed up on the some of the links dreiter posts, including the Humane Society's position on the matter. They point out some things that are hard to dismiss.

Wild animals used in circuses and other traveling acts are routinely subjected to months on the road confined in small, barren cages. With few exceptions, the animals are provided with limited and inconsistent veterinary care. These animals often live in filthy and dilapidated enclosures or are chained in one position for the majority of the day--with no chance to move, let alone express their full range of natural behaviors or to socialize with other members of their species. Their routine care is often entrusted to seasonal or temporary circus employees who have little or no experience caring for such animals.

While abject cruelty is arguably (by me) few and far between, I find it very plausible that the above excerpt is descriptive of most circus care. In fact, I would suppose that care in any other form is an exception.


And Now I see where the slavery aspect comes in. It's not that "the slave has no freedom" (which is what I was thinking the argument was) - it's that the slave has no one to care about its well-being beyond its ability to perform. No matter how much the handlers "care" about their animals, they can't control whether the animals have adequately-sized paddocks, get adequate exercise and stimulation, vet care, nutritious food, etc.

 

[Galteeth]

Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.

It is not our obligation to let all animals in the world roam free on the plains and live and die by natural means.

The question is not whether this or that stresses the animal, the question is: in the big picture of their lives, are they healthy, well-fed and cared for.

This always bugs me for some reason, but I think you mean "non-human influenced natural means." I am always very confused by the dichotomy between "natural" and "un-natural."

 

[dreiter]

Same goes for homo sapiens.

Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.

The problem with the above statements is that humans have a choice in 'working for a living' whereas the animals are forced to do whatever job is created for them. This is animal slavery.

And Now I see where the slavery aspect comes in. It's not that "the slave has no freedom" (which is what I was thinking the argument was) - it's that the slave has no one to care about its well-being beyond its ability to perform. No matter how much the handlers "care" about their animals, they can't control whether the animals have adequately-sized paddocks, get adequate exercise and stimulation, vet care, nutritious food, etc.

Dave, I just want to say thanks for actually reading the links I posted. In debates I think it is far too common for opposing links to go unread. And you are quite correct, circus animals are only useful to humans in that they have an inherent economic value assigned to them. Once that value is gone, they are then discarded and replaced.

Sometimes I feel like I could make a clear point if only I could type a bit faster. :)