Scandalous SeaWorld

 

Hello All!

This post may seem rather random, but I thought it was a particularly interesting article I stumbled upon (not necessarily from that oh so conveinent website). Please take a look at this link to see what this is all about.

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/10/25/peta-sues-seaworld-for-violating-orcas-constitutional-rights.aspx

Everyone loves SeaWorld, right? Dolphins doing flips. They even have manatees! When was the last time you saw a manatee? PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, certainly do not love this theme park.

Now, I agree with a lot of what PETA offers, but this I’m not sold on. I’m not against it, per say. I need your help to sway me on one side or the other. Does PETA have the right to sue SeaWorld under the 13th Amendment through charges of “slavery”? Is this going too far into what the constitution has to say?

This article may not seem very relevant to our class, but I found it to be the opposite. We had a conversation about how far the government interferes on our lives, but not so much about people expecting too much out of their government. Americans are all for criticizing the government for not supplying enough resources; “Oh, I don’t have enough social security! I want to retire!” Blah, blah, blah. How do we standardize ethics? Clearly we are against the government watching our every move, but maybe to some people that behavior is acceptable. Clearly PETA is against these whales being captured from the wild in order to use them for entertainment. But how who is really right or wrong here?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Scandalous SeaWorld

  1. EL7 says:

    I have to say I don’t agree with PETA on many things, but I do agree with them on the case of SeaWorld. I’m as big of a fan of sea creatures as the next person (if not more) but SeaWorld’s treatment of these animals is pretty disgusting. A tank with plain walls, miniscule space, dead fish and being forced to do dumb tricks is actually the polar opposite of a whale’s life in the ocean. I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say that the whales aren’t happy with their living conditions. I remember hearing on the news about the trainer at SeaWorld who was almost killed by a whale during a performance at SeaWorld. Maybe that’s a sign that hey…. maybe we shouldn’t be playing around with these several ton animals. I understand if an animal is endangered and you want to capture it for the purpose of saving the species, but merely using an animal for prophit and entertainment purposes (that aren’t necessary) is a completely terrible thing to do.

  2. BIGmac says:

    If the American founding fathers were concerned about the rights of animals in 1787 (the same year Pitt was founded…yeah I am a Pathfinder) when the Constitution was formed, then we would all be strict vegans by now. Therefore, the use of the 13th amendment by PETA in litigation is absolutely absurd and completely out of context. Even though someday I hope my life is immersed in law, this story makes me sick. It is similar to the radical members of the Westboro Baptist Church who protest outside churches during soldier funerals, with harsh anti-gay slurs. It is horrible enough that the Constitution gives protection to these individuals, I don’t know what I would say if the protection is extended to animals.

    People are quick to run for governmental assistance when they it, but become extremely angered when the government interferes with their lives. It is an interesting paradox, that can even be seen in the novel Makers with the “citizens” of the shanty town. They are quick to ask for the government assistance (the aid of the firefighters), but do not want the police to restore order by kicking the squatters (themselves) off the land. So no matter if its animal rights activists or criminals, they are not consistent with the idea of their perceived role of the government.

  3. EllieJane says:

    Many arguments that PETA makes I find totally convoluted, most of the time I think they need to relax. While they many come from a place of concern for animals, they can easily go over the top. Their newest move is no different, while it is true that if the animals in SeaWorld are legitimately being mistreated PETA can have an argument against them, the reality is that SeaWorld provides a great place for families to come, enjoy themselves, and even learn to respect and understand sea-life. So while PETA may be arguing against their practices, they need to open their eyes and see the good that SeaWorld is capable of doing. They hire trainers, they are reputable, trained in their field and legitimately care about the well-being of these animals.

    Even if this isn’t true, and SeaWorld is mistreating the animals, they CANNOT be protected under the 13th amendment. They are not United States citizens; in fact, they are not even human. So while there is a possibility that they have a solid argument for the animals safety, they make it into a joke by suggesting that the constitution covers whales. As usual, PETA needs to relax and argue against society a little less, or at least consider the logic behind their arguments first.

  4. regina says:

    Many years ago when I first became a vegetarian, I thought it would be a good idea to sign up to be a member of PETA. In some ways I regret this decision, and in some ways I do not. I do not regret it because they do in fact keep informed; but at the same time, they make me embarrassed to be a vegetarian. I wanted to be proud of being a vegetarian and sticking up for animal rights, not shove it in peoples’ faces. PETA throughout the years has kept me informed through emails, so I have seen plenty of stories similar to this. Once again, PETA has gone too far. I do believe that animals in general should not be kept in confinement, but I also believe that they are not subject to the same rights as humans under the Constitution. PETA needs to take a step back and approach the situation from a different angle. I am sure there are more reasonable solutions to such problems, not to mention they would probably be taken more seriously.