PDA

View Full Version : Knut, a baby polar bear, should be killed, say some animal activists


Snivi
April 4th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Knut is a cute baby Polar Bear at the Berlin Zoo. (First one born there in over 30 years.) He was rejected by his mother so he is being raised by humans and some people want him dead. Luckily the zoo will not hear of such a thing. What do you think? I think Knut should live. I don't see the harm.

Knut Should Be Killed, Say Some Animal Activists

Berlin's polar bear cub Knut is more famous than ever. Even star photographer Annie Leibovitz has been to take his picture. But not everyone loves the little bear. Animal rights activists want him put to sleep because he has been raised on a bottle.
source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,472480,00.html

Forest Grovyle
April 4th, 2007, 04:29 PM
This isn't so much of a poll as it is a discussion thread, so I think this belongs better in Other Chat.

*moves*

--FG

Amachi
April 4th, 2007, 04:43 PM
Making bears into humans has to stop as soon as possible, but we cannot put him to sleep. He has a right to live.
That's exactly what I was gonna say. He has the right to live, it's as simple as that.

Jack O'Neill
April 4th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I find it highly ironic that the "animal rights" activists obviously don't have the animal's best interests in mind.

Otter Mii-kun
April 4th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Just how can any "animal activist/rights advocate" want to have any animal killed?

This world is going totally nonsense, really...

Allstories
April 4th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Why is it only not okay to kill animals that are cute. Honestly, if it were a naked mole rat that could tap dance it would not be the same situation, I assure you.

Persona
April 4th, 2007, 05:20 PM
How can these animal activists which claims to love and care for animals decide on thier own free will that this bear must be killed? Once again, the fate of an animal lies in the hands of human beings. We are the caretakers here, so why should we put down something that is living and not grant the polar bear an opportunity to live? They should start to think about the welfare of animals in the world and not about their own agenda mixed with politics.

Cherrim
April 4th, 2007, 06:17 PM
I can see putting it to sleep if it were seriously injured or incapable of living comfortably but...just because it's not living naturally like other bears is meaningless; it's still perfectly healthy despite being raised by human hand. I don't agree with this at all.

I am surprised to hear it's happened before with other animals, however. I mean, I know it's not "natural" to be fully dependent on zookeepers but...it's not like they're going to be out in the wild anyway if they're raised to be kept in containment at the zoo. I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. o_o;

Frostweaver
April 4th, 2007, 09:31 PM
The activists should first criticize themselves why they're using manmade electronic products and visiting the supermarket for food instead of hunting for them like what 'nature intended them to be.'

Seriously... great if they can live on their own, but if they can't, then we just kill them off? Pandas basically leech off humans now with only less than 100 of them in the wild to reproduce with biologists' help in order to withstand extinction... nobody complained about them huh >>;

It's just one of those things where when you get too famous, *somebody* will want you to die or sue you for billions, even if you are an animal and not a famous human being.

MegaFuz
April 4th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Let the little bugger live for god sakes. What's the harm? o.o

Suki
April 5th, 2007, 06:06 AM
I think the idea of putting him to sleep is just absurd and shouldn't even be thought of. Like Lightning said, he shouldn't just be killed because he has been brought up by humans.

Idiot!
April 5th, 2007, 11:04 PM
Living things are here for a reason, and everyone has the right to live. It's just too bad a lot if people doesn't appreciate what only Earth has that no other planet does.

Gunn
April 6th, 2007, 12:48 AM
Well, if the mother doesn't want it, I don't see the use of it for humans. But truthfully, I am indifferent in this situation. Live or die, I don't care. I feel more on the animal activist side though.

...

UH I MEAN. He is the kawaii-whatever-desu! He shouldn't be killed! ) ' :

Fox♠
April 6th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Yeah, let's kill off an animal that's already rapidly heading towards extinction, good call there Animal rights guys.

Why in God's name would you kill an animal because humans are caring for it? It's still a Polar Bear.

Cherrim
April 6th, 2007, 08:19 AM
Well, if the mother doesn't want it, I don't see the use of it for humans. But truthfully, I am indifferent in this situation. Live or die, I don't care. I feel more on the animal activist side though.

...

UH I MEAN. He is the kawaii-whatever-desu! He shouldn't be killed! ) ' :
Well, for one, it's going to be displayed in a zoo, so it does have use to humans, even if it's just to generate money from paying visitors. It's a polar bear--an animal--so people will come to see it. I don't see how its being raised by humans can change that. I'd assume killing any healthy animal would be detrimental to a zoo.

But then, I really have no idea how zoos work. XD

Gunn
April 6th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Haha, I forgot that this -was- some whole zoo thingy. Just remember, I won't mind when some kid is chucking a few peanuts at it.

Fox♠
April 7th, 2007, 02:15 AM
Most zoos have banned stuff like that. You can only feed animals on special attractions in England now. Not sure about Germany though.

Jolty-kun
April 7th, 2007, 02:18 AM
I've heard of loads of cases like this, there should be something to sort this situation before the baby animla can get even moe stressed. Because more than one time or another, I've saw a baby animal get rejected by it's Mother. And sometimes I've saw it get put to sleep, and sometimes I have saw humans raising it.

Yes, humans CAN raise it, but it would take a lot of effort to be brought into the world like all the others, with no mother, and just humans to guide it through the world. If I would of been in that position, I swear I'd be lost. o_o; But then again, if humans have enough dedication to bring the Knut by itself, then they should, it shouldn't be left out like this.

Gunn
April 7th, 2007, 02:54 AM
Most zoos have banned stuff like that. You can only feed animals on special attractions in England now. Not sure about Germany though.

Uh, I didn't mean it like that. It was just a bit of a reminder on how much I appear apathetic about it. I mean, what zoo would allow food throwing? :/

DarkDoom3000
April 8th, 2007, 04:23 AM
thats like saying if some kid got abonded by his mother and was raised by a family of chimps we will kill him!

<lets all go kill tarzan and george!>
and they call themselfs animal whatever activists

Jim
April 8th, 2007, 12:23 PM
I saw it on the News, yes the news :laugh: . It looked really cute and acted like an over excited puppy! As if! They shouldn't kill it just because it dosen't know how to be a Polar Bear, it's not like it's going to be released into the wild at all! It could be a movie star!

Kura
April 8th, 2007, 02:51 PM
The activists should first criticize themselves why they're using manmade electronic products and visiting the supermarket for food instead of hunting for them like what 'nature intended them to be.'

Seriously... great if they can live on their own, but if they can't, then we just kill them off? Pandas basically leech off humans now with only less than 100 of them in the wild to reproduce with biologists' help in order to withstand extinction... nobody complained about them huh >>;

It's just one of those things where when you get too famous, *somebody* will want you to die or sue you for billions, even if you are an animal and not a famous human being.

o_o I agree entirely with you~ @@ I really don't see why people would say that a poor defenseless cub should die. I don't think people have a right to say that. >/ It makes me even more upset to hear that it is activists who think that it is better to kill the poor bear off.

._. I say let it live. Give it a chance~

Shift
April 8th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Shift thinks Knut shouldn't die unless he's killed a human or did something else that was really bad.

Dr. SmoothSeks
April 8th, 2007, 03:03 PM
:O

HE'S NOT NATURAL! HE'S GOTTA DIE NOW!!!

Seriously, what the hell? It's stupid for these people to want to kill it just because it wasn't raised 100% naturally. Humans never cease to amaze me with new displays of idiocy...

Shift
April 8th, 2007, 03:07 PM
Precisely. Compare Knut with a human being such as ourselves. If the human wasn't raised naturally, let's say, the human was raised by wolves. Would we kill them? Shift thinks not.

TRIFORCE89
April 10th, 2007, 04:30 PM
Animal activists wanting to put an animal death. Wow, that's different.

Look at Sea World and Busch Gardens. They do great things in terms of animal conservation. Al baby animals rescued are bottle fed, why is this polar bear such an issue?

Hakeen
April 11th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Aw, Knut is adorable, cute creatures don't deserve to die. Only ugly ones do! Nah, but it's unfair just unfair ;;

Fallen Angel_Messiah Of Black Roses
April 14th, 2007, 09:42 PM
Lets use it for the Coke commericals, 0_0

JK. I think little Knut should livE!

Drifblim
April 15th, 2007, 02:49 AM
Once 'euthanasia' and 'bottle' came into the same sentence, it automatically had no validity.

PiplupRocks
April 17th, 2007, 09:53 AM
OMG Isn't that animal abuse? Then if so.. I think we should say NO to killing animals! Just like tearing down rainforests! that's not fair isn't it?

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
April 20th, 2007, 03:42 PM
thats not fair, its an animal its not its fault, and shift is right

:t354:~*!*~Queen Boo~*!*~

Cherrim
April 20th, 2007, 06:48 PM
Aw, Knut is adorable, cute creatures don't deserve to die. Only ugly ones do! Nah, but it's unfair just unfair ;;
While there is some scientific merit to the idea of "cute" ... for the most part, everyone has a different view of what's cute. For example, I find spiders, beetles, and bugs like that absolutely adorable at times, yet most people I know don't feel the same way. A creature's life shouldn't be weighed solely on how it looks. =\

Jack O'Neill
April 20th, 2007, 11:47 PM
Aw, Knut is adorable, cute creatures don't deserve to die. Only ugly ones do! Nah, but it's unfair just unfair ;;
Why is it only not okay to kill animals that are cute. Honestly, if it were a naked mole rat that could tap dance it would not be the same situation, I assure you.
Nothing more needs to be said, really. Like Erica said, an animal's life should not be weighed solely on its appearance.

For the record, a tap-dancing naked mole rat would be left alive merely for its novelty value.

Jeremy
April 21st, 2007, 11:43 AM
Okie, I don't get it sweeties. Animal activists wanting to kill an animal... What's wrong with the world?

But still, everything has the right to live. I don't see the purpose of killing the lilttle fella. I don't care if the sweetie is cute or ugly, a creature's life should not be taken away.

GeorgeWBushSupporter
April 21st, 2007, 04:31 PM
Aw, Knut is adorable, cute creatures don't deserve to die.

Some day that cute, cuddly polar bear will have a strong appetite for penguins.