Sea World Orca Dies

[Anonymous]

^^^With all of this explaining that companies that exist to make a profit exist to make a profit, I am starting to feel like those Star Trek people with the really big ears, I forget what they're called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

Some fancy circular logic there. And, yes, you think that making a profit is evil.

No. 1 rule of making a profit: Have a product. Kill your product, you have no profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

Some fancy circular logic there. And, yes, you think that making a profit is evil.

No. 1 rule of making a profit: Have a product. Kill your product, you have no profit.

I feel bad for Sea World. They must have lost a lot of money when that orca died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

And therefore, it does less for conservation than the National Zoo?

Therefore, its primary motivation is to make a profit.

But PP said the National Zoo does more for conservation than SeaWorld. I would like to know why she believes that.

No, the PP did not. The PP said:

I do go to the zoo, because I believe the zoo is focused on conservation in a way that Sea World and Ringling Brothers are not.

Sea World, as a for-profit corporation, is appropriately focused on profit. Once again, THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION IS PROFIT. Not conservation. Profit. (Capital letters to indicate shouting.) Conservation may (or may not) be a secondary concern, but it is not the primary concern. The primary concern is profit. Because it's a for-profit corporation. That's what they're there for -- to make a profit.

The list of socially conscious capitalists is really long.

Whole Foods
The Container Store
First United Bank
Tata (in India)
Amazon.com
Adobe
CarMax
CostCo
Chubb
3M
Disney
Colgate Palmolive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

Some fancy circular logic there. And, yes, you think that making a profit is evil.

No. 1 rule of making a profit: Have a product. Kill your product, you have no profit.

Sea World's product isn't orcas. It's entertainment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you that won't go to Sea World because of the animals in captivity, do you also not go to see the circus with your children? How about the National Zoo?
I'm not trying to be snarky, just legitimately want to know.

Of course we don't go to the circus. Anyone who has any education about how these animals are treated does;t go to the circus. The zoo, at least those nationally accredited, are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do go to the zoo, because I believe the zoo is focused on conservation in a way that Sea World and Ringling Brothers are not.

Sea World, as a for-profit corporation, is appropriately focused on profit. Once again, THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION IS PROFIT. Not conservation. Profit. (Capital letters to indicate shouting.) Conservation may (or may not) be a secondary concern, but it is not the primary concern. The primary concern is profit. Because it's a for-profit corporation. That's what they're there for -- to make a profit.

The list of socially conscious capitalists is really long.

Whole Foods
The Container Store
First United Bank
Tata (in India)
Amazon.com
Adobe
CarMax
CostCo
Chubb
3M
Disney
Colgate Palmolive.



LOL. I'm not going to go through the list one by one, but 3M has had several lawsuits over pollution of various rivers. CarMax may soon be sued for selling car with recalls that have not been repaired.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention Amazon warehouse labor practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do go to the zoo, because I believe the zoo is focused on conservation in a way that Sea World and Ringling Brothers are not.

Sea World, as a for-profit corporation, is appropriately focused on profit. Once again, THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION IS PROFIT. Not conservation. Profit. (Capital letters to indicate shouting.) Conservation may (or may not) be a secondary concern, but it is not the primary concern. The primary concern is profit. Because it's a for-profit corporation. That's what they're there for -- to make a profit.

The list of socially conscious capitalists is really long.

Whole Foods
The Container Store
First United Bank
Tata (in India)
Amazon.com
Adobe
CarMax
CostCo
Chubb
3M
Disney
Colgate Palmolive.


LOL. I'm not going to go through the list one by one, but 3M has had several lawsuits over pollution of various rivers. CarMax may soon be sued for selling car with recalls that have not been repaired

Colgate Palmolive has deforested swaths of forests in Asia for their oil palm plantations.

[Anonymous]

First United Bank charged higher rates on loans to Hispanic borrowers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with turning a profit? That's just more incentive to keep the animals healthy.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nobody is arguing that profits are evil. However, if you exist to make a profit, that is what you will primarily worry about it. As a for-profit corporation, Sea World's primary concern is making a profit. This is so self-evident as to be a tautology. Sea World, a for-profit company, exists to make a profit.

Some fancy circular logic there. And, yes, you think that making a profit is evil.

No. 1 rule of making a profit: Have a product. Kill your product, you have no profit.

Did you...

Did you just justify slavery? Because slavers didn't want to kill their "product," either. But that still didn't make it ethical for people to be commodities, even in a capitalistic society. And it's not ethical for a corporation to make large, intelligent animals a commodity, either.

[Anonymous]

If animals were so smart, wouldn't we be the ones in cages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you that won't go to Sea World because of the animals in captivity, do you also not go to see the circus with your children? How about the National Zoo?
I'm not trying to be snarky, just legitimately want to know.

I wont go to a Seaworld, or a circus with animals in it.
I have been to the Natiomal Zoo which is not perfect but at least the animals arent abused and made to perform tricks for our benefit.

[Anonymous]

http://headlines.peta.org/uno-tiger-abuse-animals-in-entertainment/

here is how animals are trained, It is wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you that won't go to Sea World because of the animals in captivity, do you also not go to see the circus with your children? How about the National Zoo?
I'm not trying to be snarky, just legitimately want to know.

I wont go to a Seaworld, or a circus with animals in it.
I have been to the Natiomal Zoo which is not perfect but at least the animals arent abused and made to perform tricks for our benefit.

The National Zoo has several shows where training is demonstrated.