This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
PETA Says SeaWorld Keeps Slaves
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Pwntiff
PETA is suing SeaWorld for violating the constitutional rights of their performing orcas.
That's right. PETA says killer whales are afforded constitutional rights in the US Constitution, namely protection under the
13th Amendment
in this suit. Their primary assertion is that since the 13th Amendment does not exclude animals, that it must include animals. And while I agree with PETA sentiments in some cases, this is one that is way out in left field.
Source Article
Post by
Monday
I was unaware that killer whales are American citizens.
Post by
530888
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I know whales are mammals, but PETA were the ones who wanted to rename fish as
sea kittens
. Can we really take this seriously?
That being said, Funden, the citizenship status isn't an issue - you're not allowed to hold non-US citizens as slaves either.
Post by
Monday
I know whales are mammals, but PETA were the ones who wanted to rename fish as
sea kittens
. Can we really take this seriously?
That being said, Funden, the citizenship status isn't an issue - you're not allowed to hold non-US citizens as slaves either.
Let me elaborate: I was unaware that non-humans were protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Pwntiff
I know whales are mammals, but PETA were the ones who wanted to rename fish as
sea kittens
. Can we really take this seriously?
That being said, Funden, the citizenship status isn't an issue - you're not allowed to hold non-US citizens as slaves either.
Let me elaborate: I was unaware that non-humans were protected under the U.S. Constitution.
That's one of their points I believe, that since they aren't explicitly excluded by the Constitution, they are implicitly included.
Post by
Monday
I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court is gonna strike this one down. Hard.
Post by
Adamsm
So are we going to count Dolphins under that as well?
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
For the record, the 13th amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I'm not going to get too much into this debate. I just think it's sad that the headlines made in animal rights news, as the headlines tend to be in most arenas, are about the most idiotic, unrealistic and ridiculous members and ideas that come out of the cause, and not the mainstream, legitimate issues.
No court, anywhere in the US, will ever give animals civil rights.
Post by
Pwntiff
Except that the argument of following a strict or loose interpretation to the constitution has existed as long as we've had the constitution. Unless I'm mistaken the Supreme Court has uses a stricter interpretation of the constitution rather than a looser one.
Depends on issue and the Justices, really. But then again, that's what they're there for. One of PETA's arguing point (which I don't agree with at all) is, as I said, that since they aren't excluded, they're included.
Are performing animals mistreated? Some most definitely are, some quite possibly are, and some only are if you think that any animal not in the wild is being mistreated. Which does SeaWorld fall under? It's not my place to say. Is SeaWorld violating orcas' constitutional rights? Orcas would have to have constitutional rights in the first place. And the Preamble quite clearly states "We the People."
If PETA wants to argue that animals are people, they can do that, but as the constitution was framed, animals were not considered to be people.
For the record, the 13th amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I'm not going to get too much into this debate. I just think it's sad that the headlines made in animal rights news, as the headlines tend to be in most arenas, are about the most idiotic, unrealistic and ridiculous members and ideas that come out of the cause, and not the mainstream, legitimate issues.
No court, anywhere in the US, will ever give animals civil rights.
Agreed on all points.
Post by
Squishalot
The 13th Amendment does not exclude plants, so it must implicitly include them.
Plants cannot perform voluntary servitude (lack of consciousness), therefore, any service they provide must be, by definition, involuntary.
Therefore, all subjugation of plant material in the US must immediately come to a halt as it is in breach of the US Constitution.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
pezz
Non-living machinery and molecules aren't excluded either.
STOP BREATHING PEOPLE. IT'S SLAVERY OF OXYGEN.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Eesh, way to marginalise support. It's a shame, because there are legitimate animal rights issues... Since nobody wants to debate them and there aren't any real advances, PETA has to resort to shock tactics. When they do that though, nobody is willing to engage in a rational debate on the issue and the epithets fly thick and fast.
I just hope the government doesn't resort to the French/Greenpeace method.
Post by
OverZealous
I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court is gonna strike this one down. Hard.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Eesh, way to marginalise support. It's a shame, because there are legitimate animal rights issues... Since nobody wants to debate them and there aren't any real advances, PETA has to resort to shock tactics. When they do that though, nobody is willing to engage in a rational debate on the issue and the epithets fly thick and fast.
I just hope the government doesn't resort to the French/Greenpeace method.
The problem isn't (entirely) that people are somewhat apathetic about real animal rights abuses, although I won't try to pretend that isn't true, but that PETA doesn't talk about the legitimate issues.
Trying to bring PETA to the table to discuss legitimate animal rights issues rather than nonsense is like trying to bring a Tea Partyer to the table where they know you're going to insist on at least a modest tax hike. It's a waste of time. In PETA's case it's because they're spending all their time on insane lawsuits and
killing puppies
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.