gavin said:
Joey, you started the topic about killer whales in captivity, so I'm not sure why you're getting so aggressive with all the "people only care about whales and nothing else" comments; it's what you asked us specifically to discuss!
I have not said "LETS TALK ABOUT WHALES" and then when everyone started talking about whales said "WHY ARE YOU ALL SO OBSESSED WITH WHALES??" like you're implying. What I actually did was say "hey, what do you think about this issue?" and then challenged people's opinions by going "yeah but what about this similar issue, then?"
The only time I've been "aggressive" it's been aggravation.
You keep clinging on to this notion that those of us who aren't too keen on the idea of orcas in captivity are some kind of brain-dead morons screaming for their immediate release, without the ability to think about the situation logically. Nobody in here is posting in a way that suggests that at all.
Well, It's weird how you were so obsessed with the grounds on which I started this topic in your last comment, but now that's thrown out the window.
Your entire argument seems based on some insane "all animals are the same" theory. Different species have different needs; it's as simple as that. Some animals are suited to captivity; others aren't. There are reasons why some animals make suitable pets while others don't, and why some animals do well in zoos, breeding naturally and living longer, easier lives than their wild cousins. There are some species, however, that simply don't. It's really not that difficult a concept.
Are you seriously trying to compare a couple of cockatiels, which are the result of countless generations of captive breeding, and are hardly the most intelligent of animals, to killer whales, which have managed to barely, and artificially, reach a third generation in captivity, and are proven to be amongst the most highly intelligent animals on the planet?
Boggles my mind.
I've not once implied all animals are the same, and you're twisting my points out of context of their original argument. Being captivity bred couldn't be further from the point with the cockatiels. Mine aren't tame, for a start, but the point itself is about how animals do not exhort energy without reason. The size of Orca enclosures is regularly attacked with benign comments like "they travel hundreds of miles every day in the wild" without ever stopping to realise that they do this
FOR FOOD and with a source at the ready, would they really travel so far?
I'm not sure why generations matter. All this implies is that "in the future, it'll be okay to keep orcas in captivity, but it's not right now" which clearly doesn't make any sense. And what of other highly intelligent species that have been kept for generations in captivity, like some of the higher parrots and other birds like corvids and the higher primates? Or Elephants? The only reason we're so far behind with Orca is because they are difficult to keep and technologically it's not even been possible until fairly recently. Does it suddenly become okay when the technology is sufficient?
All animals do indeed have different needs. But we do not understand those needs 100%. Phil's point about lions and tigers sounds legit, but what's the actual reality of it? I've seen lions pace in zoos and tigers play and sleep in zoos. Phil's point is trying to rationalise hypocritical personal desire to go to zoos, imo.
That's perfectly cool, but attacking me with emotional arguments of hypocrisy is just silly.