U.S. Polar bear 'dies of a broken heart' after best friend shipped off by SeaWorld

a reply to: 123143
I didn't lecture you on how great we are for wildlife, I explained that this bear who everyone is mourning may not have even existed without the advent of zoos, nor would she have probably lived as long.

That's it...just putting a little perspective on the ridiculous assertion in the OP that humans are nothing but a disease to this planet. I was pointing out that your implication that this polar bear--or, really, the vast majority of any other zoo animals--is a wild animal, is a falsehood. She was never a wild animal.

Never--not for one day of her life.

The rest of your comment doesn't need a response.

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There was a time, the majority of time humans have existed that we would move before depleting the resources. Everyone knew how the natural system worked. We would move and use resources but before these resources were all consumed we would move to another area allowing the environment to recover we did this as a species for hundreds of thousands of years. We were a spiritual people, then we traded this spirituality for coin, for agriculture. After we made this choice all the negative of human society emerged. We lost our connection with the natural world. We went from living and adapting to our environment to reshaping our environment to suit our needs regardless of the environmental impact. If you take a wild animal and put them into a zoo, what happens to the animal, insanity occurs. We live in a zoo.

- LDragonFire

Even in those days, people would fight one another, because we are a people with a sin nature. Doesn't mean we don't belong here, though!

The way some flock to cities....never did understand that!! Not natural at all.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: 123143
I didn't lecture you on how great we are for wildlife, I explained that this bear who everyone is mourning may not have even existed without the advent of zoos, nor would she have probably lived as long.

That's it...just putting a little perspective on the ridiculous assertion in the OP that humans are nothing but a disease to this planet. I was pointing out that your implication that this polar bear--or, really, the vast majority of any other zoo animals--is a wild animal, is a falsehood. She was never a wild animal.

Never--not for one day of her life.

The rest of your comment doesn't need a response.

Never wild? You're obviously deluded. Ask any zoologist about whether or not zoo animals are wild.

One huge example is the big cats. You go ahead and tell me they're not wild.

Bears, rhinos, hippos? Not wild?

You've made an absolute fool of yourself.

a reply to: 123143

Calm down, Captain NameCaller...you must understand the context in which I used (and fully, more than once, described) the word "wild."

A wild animal, who is born in captivity and raised in captivity and resides in captivity its whole life can no longer really be considered "wild" in the true sense of the word.

I mean, since I don't want to look like a fool or anything, let's examine the simple definition of the word "wild," shall we?

Wild

adjective, wilder, wildest.

1. living in a state of nature; not tamed or domesticated

Seems simple enough to comprehend, correct? Is a zoo a "state of nature?" Is an animal that I described above in my second paragraph "not tamed or domesticated?"

Okay, I'll provide the definitions of "tame" and "domesticated" for you, just to make this even easier to understand:

Tame

adjective, tamer, tamest.

1.changed from the wild or savage state; domesticated:

2.without the savageness or fear of humans normal in wild animals; gentle, fearless, or without shyness, as if domesticated

Domesticated

verb (used with object), domesticated, domesticating.

2.
to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.

Now, I don't think that I need to explain to most people in this thread that a zoo animal, born into captivity and raised in captivity in a way that they become wholly dependent upon humans for their livelihood, fall under the definitions of "tame" and "domesticated," therefore falling out of the definition or classification of being a wild animal.

So, not to come across as a fool still or anything--I wouldn't want your opinion of me to define who/what I am or anything--but what you have with most zoo animals, and specifically this polar bear that is the subject of this thread, are examples of wild species of animals that do exist in the wild around the world, but that have been tamed/domesticated to such an extent that they are no longer consider "wild animals," just members of wild species that have been tamed.

Any other Ad Hominem attacks and accusations that you want to throw my way, or are you done? Because I can continue with your education on the matter. See, reading comprehension matters--please read what I actually write and not what you assume that I'm implying or saying.

Best regards.

SM

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I want you to go to your zoo and climb into the big cat exhibit. Get back to me after you've done that.

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I want you to go to your zoo and climb into the big cat exhibit. Get back to me after you've done that.

So, no intelligent response, even though I absolutely spelled out why a life-long zoo animal is not considered a "wild animal."

Very telling.

I do, however, have a wolf sanctuary in my area where I can get into contact with an three entire wolf pack for $25.

This is a place that has "wild animals" that are known for attacking and killing human beings, yet I can go in and physically interact with entire packs at a time for $25 (I get the veteran discount). So, maybe I won't jump into the big-cats exhibits at the Cincinnati Zoo (mainly because that's illegal...and stupid), but I'll certainly take my chances at the Wolf Creek habitat, where, under your apparent definition/implication, wild animals should be there ready to maul and attack any human with whom they come into contact.

The fact that you keep wanting to continue this discussion and hold fast to your inferences and claims about "wild animals" is amazing--but just for my own amusement, I'll keep it up.

(And for the record, I've actually asked more than one zookeeper if they consider their animals to be wild or tamed, and unanimously, they do not say that they are wild animals in the context that you are using)

I reiterate and expand, I want you to go to your zoo and climb into the big cat/bear/rhino/hippo exhibit. Get back to me after you've done that.