Animal ‘rights’ activists believe polar bear shouldn’t have the ‘right’ to be taken care of by humans

Idiots.

I wonder if this same crowd would advocate putting to death those poor polar bears supposedly trapped on melting ice due to “global warming” rather than having them taken from the melting ice and being raised by humans? I mean, after all, we need to ‘save the earth’ for the animals – and the cheeeldren – right?

Hat tip: BCB

16 Responses to "Animal ‘rights’ activists believe polar bear shouldn’t have the ‘right’ to be taken care of by humans"

libertarian observer says:

March 20, 2007 at 4:00 pm

And this is the “sophisticated” Europe the left would like us to emulate? I think not.
Baklava says:

March 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Algore will make his upcoming May 11th trip to Chile “carbon neutral”

Also contained in this post is the following info:

Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been called “science fiction” in a new paper prepared for Congress. “Al Gore put global warming on the map,” said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, at a Capitol Hill press conference on Friday. He called “An Inconvenient Truth” the “most politically influencing documentary.”

But Lewis added: “Nearly every significant statement that Vice President Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or wrong.” Lewis outlines these arguments in a 140-page congressional working paper released Friday, ahead of Gore’s trip to Washington, D.C., to provide congressional testimony on global warming.
Tom TB says:

March 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm

The only thing I know about orgs like PETA is that they kill dogs and cats and throw them in super-market dumpsters. We as humans have profited in countless ways by the domestication of animals, and you notice that “Animal Rights” advocates always live in cities.
Great White Rat says:

March 20, 2007 at 5:23 pm

From the linked article, a compassionate moonbat offers Euro-drivel:

“It is not correct to bottle-feed a small polar bear. He will always be fixated on his keeper and will never grow to be a proper polar bear.” Knut, he argues, should have been killed when Tosca rejected him. “One should have had the courage to kill him much earlier.”

OK, exactly who appointed this elitist clown the arbiter of what constitutes a ‘proper polar bear’?? Did it ever occur to him that the bear is in a zoo, not out in the wild? It’s going to be dependent on the keepers for food and everything else for the rest of its life.

Or maybe the moonbats want to consider this an interference with the “right to choose” of the mother of this poor cub. After all, she did try to kill it.
libertarian observer says:

March 20, 2007 at 6:08 pm

I vote we bring Knute here to the US and let him live a long and happy life. Anybody up for starting a fund to collect money to make it happen?
Severian says:

March 20, 2007 at 6:56 pm

The only thing I know about orgs like PETA is that they kill dogs and cats and throw them in super-market dumpsters.

Bingo, that’s exactly the same attitude as shown by the idiots who want to kill this bear cub. Ever wonder why, if PETA is so fond of animals, that they’d euthanize hundreds of them instead of trying to find them homes as they promised to do? It’s because in the eyes of these eco-terrorist freaks, pets and domesticated animals are guilty of “collaboration” with mankind, and/or are so contaminated that their “animalness” is compromised, so they have to die. It’s a disgusting, twisted, vile group of people who can rationalize things like this. Just as people who torture animals often graduate to doing the same to humans, so too is it a small step from things like this to shoving people into ovens if they don’t agree with you.
libertarian observer says:

March 20, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Ummm… I’m SERIOUS about getting Knute here. Anybody have any contacts and/or media savvy about getting a campaign started to save Knute? It worked for “Free Willy.”
forest hunter says:

March 20, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Now if we were to concede their point and begin with eliminating THESE hoodwinked dimwits, how long before the balance of Natural Laws are restored?

What was it that these morons were bottle fed by their keepers, because they’re certainly fixated on something other than a normal lucid thought process?

As opposed to the animal kingdom, these nitwits have rejected nearly every form of common sense known to mankind and cling to the *inability to reason*, as though it was the last life jacket on the Titanic.

If only we knew under which melting rock these brain dead carbon units spawned………we could redeploy them here: LINK
NC Cop says:

March 20, 2007 at 10:27 pm

OK, exactly who appointed this elitist clown the arbiter of what constitutes a â€˜proper polar bear’??

I’m not sure GWR, but I propose we take up a collection to send him north to interview real live Polar Bears in the wild to find out what they have to say?

Who’s with me?!?!?
CZ says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:07 am

“and you notice that “Animal Rights” advocates always live in cities.”

Yep,Tom TB, they do.

Tonight I enjoyed deeelicious deer chili. Made it the simple Caroll Shelby way.

Yummo!!!
forest hunter says:

March 21, 2007 at 12:56 am

NC: I say rope them in a conga line and march’em through the wolves and then the grizzlies first. Then have’m stop off at the petting *zoo’s* (Lakes and marshes) while their are calves a plenty and communicate with the moose. The survivors who still haven’t received proper education can continue north and a higher education than the last joint.
Leaning Straight Up says:

March 21, 2007 at 3:52 am

Animal Rights Activists: Kill the bear

I am guessing no one asked the little polar bear cub if it particularly minded being human raised in captivity.

Jerks. What hypocrites. To protect it, it must die? This is how we protect animals?

The abandoned cub who fa…
Tom TB says:

March 21, 2007 at 8:11 am

I’ve visited Peta.org, and can’t find out how they think all the critters on Earth would survive without Human help.
Leslie says:

March 21, 2007 at 11:50 am

Obviously (and I assume the cub has been examined and found to be healthy and not instinctively rejected by Momma Bear as defective) the cub should be allowed to live his life, even if he ends up being the most improper of polar bears.

Nature may be red in tooth and claw, but mankind need not be.
Great White Rat says:

March 21, 2007 at 1:23 pm

**** UPDATE – German moonbat backpedals ****

Apparently the so-called ‘animal rights activists’ caught flak from nearly everyone – including the Green Party – for this idiotic position, so they’re now into damage control mode:

He explained that though he thought it was wrong of the zoo to have saved the cub’s life, now that the bear can live on his own, it would be equally wrong to kill him.

Big of him, isn’t it? I still think NC Cop’s idea is a great one – set him loose among the Arctic polar bears and let him interview them for their views on the subject.

LINK
Ferd Yancy says:

March 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Hey, if these ‘animal-properness’ zealots think this innocent little polar bear cub should be euthanized because of rejection by his mother, then maybe the zealots should be euthanized because of rejection by sane society.

Comments are closed.