Swiss Law Protects Goldfish, Guinea Pigs—But Not Popular Baby Hippo

J.D.
Mar 15, 2009 12:26 PM CST

Don’t worry, Andrea. We all still understand that liberals care more about animals than human beings. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

ALSO, it’s going to be hard flushing that hippo down the toilet.

Flag this comment

J.D.
Mar 16, 2009 7:45 AM CST

Conservatives also killed a lot of Nazis. Are you suggesting that was a bad thing too, Jenn?

Flag this comment

Heidi O
Mar 16, 2009 10:08 AM CST

Excuse me.  I meant to say that Andrea had made a good point supported by facts—relevant facts that Martha had left out of her story.

Flag this comment

Heidi O
Mar 16, 2009 11:36 AM CST

Interesting definition of apoplexy.  You are very good at putting words into other people’s mouths and attempting to pair them with beliefs that they don’t hold.  I have no idea what the goldfish in Switzerland are up to nor, frankly, do I care.  In your typical rush to judgment and lack of attention you have attempted to define who I am in your over-simplistic terms.

I have indeed commented on this site before, but not much lately because there doesn’t seem to be much point in engaging you in debate because you seem to be more interested in being clever and judgmental than in discussing issues.  I learn much more about you while reading your comments than I do about the issues.  So what’s the point?

But since you insist on bringing the personal into play, I will correct your judgment of who I am.  I think abortion is a horrendous and terrible thing that does indeed end human life (not potential human life, actual human life).  No need to emphasize limb-cutting with me.  I am well-aware of what abortion is.  I have carried 3 children to term and delivered them into healthy lives.  I also happen to think embryonic stem cell research is immoral and will result in more harm than good to us as human beings.  I believe that we cannot live as human beings while ignoring the big picture of what we are doing to each other and to our own habitat, not to mention the habitat of every other living creature we share the planet with. 

Strangely enough if I had to choose between your life and the life of my dog, I would probably choose yours, even though my dog has a much more pleasant disposition than you apparently do.  So I am not completely devoid of species loyalty.  But I am not arrogant enough to believe that other creatures are without value or should be made to suffer for my own comfort or entertainment. 

Does that make me a liberal with a mental disorder (which apparently for you is a redundancy)?  You may continue to judge me and everyone else who disagrees with you, but I will simply consider the source and get on with my life. 

It’s just too bad that you spend so much energy cutting off issues-oriented debate to serve your own ego.  This forum has the potential to be a place of learning and sharing of opinions.  But you have made quite certain by the nature of your postings that those who disagree with you will dismiss what you say without even considering it.  That’s too bad because you probably have some valuable insights buried in the natural fertilizer.

Flag this comment

J.D.
Mar 16, 2009 12:20 PM CST

Heidi, I think you’re consistent and I probably don’t have any beef with you, and we’d probably get along just fine. My concern was, first, with Andrea who seems abnormally concerned about animals’ feelings. It’s not always bad thing—I usually relocate any spiders outdoors before turning on my shower should I find one in the tub.

But when Andrea—a person I’ve never seen posting on here before—insults an ABA employee within her first sentence, and then follows it with a confusing, verging on nonsensical rant, I’m going to call out her stability. And since you came to her defense, I prematurely lumped you in with her, and I apologize.

It seems you understand the inconsistency of many of these animal rights types who fret over foreign goldfish, but don’t bat a lash on abortion. And there’s PETA’s efforts—such as attempting to brainwash children into thinking fish are “sea kittens”—which are verging on lunacy.

I’m certainly not the type who likes hunting. In other words, I’m a potential recruit. Unfortunately, the way these animal rights people carry themselves is such a turn off to the average person and they’re doing damage to their own movement.

Oh, and then there’s Jennifer who thinks only “conservatives” killed Iraqis—but that’s whole different topic.

Flag this comment

Paul Scott
Mar 17, 2009 10:27 AM CST

I think everyone is missing the point. The policy is one that is not actually enforced, it is one that any zoo can adhere to if they wish or exclude themselves from too.
Culling of zoo stock goes on all the time to keep populations healthy. Older animals are frequently offered to other zoos in order to keep bloodlines healthy and strong. However, if the animal is not wanted then the only option may be euthanasia.
This leads onto the other point: if culling is prevalent why don’t you hear about it? The simple answer is, would you notice one more or one less ostrich? What about a wallaby? A zebra mouse? A hamster? However, I am certain you would miss a missing dolphin, elephant, gorilla, tiger or hippo!
Why? Because they have charisma and star power. It might seem cynical but some zoos breed certain animals in order to raise footfall into the zoo. If a baby tiger, hippo or elephant does that then so be it. But this time the zoo found themselves with a baby they can’t get rid of that will either be segregated on its own or attacked and killed by its father as it reaches maturity. Sadly, they allowed the baby to be born and hoped a zoo would take it. None can and unfortunately euthanasia is probably the only step left.
It is certainly better than being mauled to death by its father. Cynical yes, but true nonetheless.

Flag this comment