Appeal to emotion may work for Palin's worshippers but you'll have to do better than that here.I feel like we are at risk of having the thread locked down, but I feel the need to respond still. :\
I agree with your statement, but I don't see how there can be any other answer than no. You believe that the suffering and abuse of thousands of animals is worth having a few laughs at their expense when you take your family to the circus? You enjoy your circus performances when you know that you are contributing to that kind of suffering?
1] It is not a given that it occurs in the majority of circuses, certainly not a given that it is occurring any the circus I might attend....the suffering and abuse of thousands of animals is worth having a few laughs at their expense...
2] "A few laughs" is deliberately diminufying the experience.
3] It is only at their expense if they are being abused. Which you haven't shown.
You have not demonstrated that I am contributing to that kind of suffering.You enjoy your circus performances when you know that you are contributing to that kind of suffering?
I do not deny that abuse is something to be targeted. I just do not agree that a unilateral ban is the answer to anything.