Is this animal cruelty?

[Universal Struggle]

Monkeys and bears race on bikes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkW3OtrA0Vw

My friend sent it me and i laughed like crazy but then i felt real bad.

Is this cruel wrong, what are your views.

Probably should move to chit chat.

[Ocean Seal]

I couldn't really look closely enough, but it appears as if no harm was done to the monkeys or bears. Maybe I'm wrong, because I don't know what kind of training these animals had to endure, but from the outside it doesn't seem as if there was anything terribly wrong.

[Palestine]

Yes am afraid it is animal cruelty, am pretty sure that monkeys and bears are not meant to ride bikes and definately not the easy way

[GreenCommunism]

i wasn't sure, they did seem to ride the bike pretty well :). but yes i think it is animal cruelty, i mean so many comments said it was animal cruelty.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't know about the bears but the monkeys seemed rather enthusiastic, probably loving every minute of it. Cruel or not, who thinks of this stuff? Monkeys racing bears on bicycles? Seriously genius.

[Spawn of Stalin]

i wasn't sure, they did seem to ride the bike pretty well :). but yes i think it is animal cruelty, i mean so many comments said it was animal cruelty.

Internet lesson #1
Never take notice of what YouTube commenters say.

[Universal Struggle]

is thi cruelty against asian basketball players?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBf6HTizYc&feature=related

[GreenCommunism]

yeah thats true :(

[Palestine]

I don't know about the bears but the monkeys seemed rather enthusiastic, probably loving every minute of it. Cruel or not, who thinks of this stuff? Monkeys racing bears on bicycles? Seriously genius.

excuse me but have you thought where do they keep the bears and monkeys?
and by default bears and monkeys are not supposed to ride bikes


is thi cruelty against asian basketball players?


well these are humans they went there willingly they chose that, did anyone ask the monkey or the bear whether they want to do it or not? they are forcing them to do shit, just for the sake of entertainment and making money out of it.

[x371322]

Cruel? Probably. But damn entertaining.

[Spawn of Stalin]

excuse me but have you thought where do they keep the bears and monkeys?

Probably in cages.


and by default bears and monkeys are not supposed to ride bikes

Neither were humans a long time ago, but it has now become a pretty standard form of transportation. Maybe if the Chinese keep this up monkeys can start riding bikes as a means of getting about too.

[Universal Struggle]

would give a whole new meaning to the Monkey bike :)

[leftace53]

I think if snakes were made to learn riding bikes, it could account for animal cruelty more than this can, but yea, why would a monkey or bear want to ride a bike? The methods of teaching this was probably cruel.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Once a monkey realises the benefits of being able to ride a bike, it won't need to be forced. Anyone who has ever read 'Dinotopia' knows it's a good idea, whether or not they will admit it is another question entirely. We could give monkeys bikes and use them as couriers, why not? We've been using birds for centuries, only difference is you can put a backpack on a monkey and have it carry stuff. Pizza delivery? You got it! I'd be all for integrating certain elements of the animal kingdom into our day to day lives. In 100 years time you will be able to go into a bar and get served by an elephant, but not before you get your ID checked by the bouncers, who happen to be rabid wolves.

[The Vegan Marxist]

When comparing animals to man, under mental capabilities that is, man can learn to ride a bike without the use of cruel force, but rather can build up what their parents are saying or what their trainer is saying. When it comes to animals, unfortunately, it takes some force, mostly for what is considered cruel, to get them to learn such. This is capitalism in another form. The use of cruel torture in the name of profitable entertainment. Humans aren't just the only ones suffering from Capitalism. Animals are too, & until we realize this, we will continue to harm them without notice.

[bailey_187]

This is capitalism in another form.

Because it is a capitalist owned theme park (i am assuming).



The use of cruel torture in the name of profitable entertainment.

Its not the "cruel torture" that makes it capitalist though, its the fact that to view it is being sold as a commodity for profit. If the Zoo was owned by workers and the "Peoples Zoo" decided it would be cool to put monkeys and bears on bikes for other workers to see, it wouldnt be capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Is this animal cruelty? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/animal-crueltyi-p1761557/index.html#post1761557)

No, it's harmless fun for children.

[Idle Bandit]

Is this animal cruelty?

Yes.

[Stand Your Ground]

When comparing animals to man, under mental capabilities that is, man can learn to ride a bike without the use of cruel force, but rather can build up what their parents are saying or what their trainer is saying. When it comes to animals, unfortunately, it takes some force, mostly for what is considered cruel, to get them to learn such. This is capitalism in another form. The use of cruel torture in the name of profitable entertainment. Humans aren't just the only ones suffering from Capitalism. Animals are too, & until we realize this, we will continue to harm them without notice.
Well said comrade. So many leftists miss this.

[Stand Your Ground]

Because it is a capitalist owned theme park (i am assuming).



Its not the "cruel torture" that makes it capitalist though, its the fact that to view it is being sold as a commodity for profit. If the Zoo was owned by workers and the "Peoples Zoo" decided it would be cool to put monkeys and bears on bikes for other workers to see, it wouldnt be capitalism.
Even without the capitalism, it would still be cruel.

[Universal Struggle]

Even with the cruel it would still be fun :)

The monkey at the end is so enthusiastic.

At first i thought it was really cruel, i thought the humans were trying to kick the monkeys off their bikes i was like WTF lol.

[bailey_187]

Even without the capitalism, it would still be cruel.

Maybe it is, maybe it isnt; i dont really care. I'm a Communist, not animal rights activist.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Maybe it is, maybe it isnt; i dont really care. I'm a Communist, not animal rights activist.

Really? Forgive me if I find the idea that animals & man being different as an absurd creationist view. Man is an animal, animals are man. Just because one is furrier, or doesn't speak like we speak, or looks different from us, doesn't mean they don't feel like us, don't think like us, & doesn't want a life of freedom like us. Capitalism exploits & harms both man & animal. As someone who believes in science rather than religion, I refuse to categorize animals differently from man, because I know, beyond the looks & acts, we are still the same, we are still a family of earthlings. I am just as much of an animal-rights activist as I am a human-rights activist.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I would argue that putting human life above animal life is the complete opposite to the creationist view, for creationism largely rejects natural phenomena, and of course it is entirely natural to have an attitude that basically says fuck the others, I'm going to ensure the survival of my own species and my own species only. That's exactly how the bears and the foxes and the ducks think. This is probably my main issue with animal rights people, and I wouldn't like to stereotype, because my Mum was once one of them, but they seem to think that everyone and everything is one big happy family sharing a planet as we hurtle through space, they think that humans have a duty to be nice to every species even if they are hostile to us, but in doing this they deny the one thing they are supposed to believe in the most - nature.

[Invincible Summer]

i think most monkeys would eventually figure out how to ride a bike on it's own. not sure about the bear? It is animal cruelty if either animal does not want to ride the bike, is being forced or physically manipulated to ride the bike. Somehow, I don't think that is happening here. From what I know about monkeys-- it is having a good time. from what I know about bears --it would rip the head off and then probably eat whoever was forcing him without his animal consent. So, no not neccessarily cruelty, but yes, they are most likely being expoited here for profit.

Animal Cruelty = horse racing, dog racing, dog fighting, chicken fighting, etc.


I think people are forgetting that even though there is no trainer physically forcing the monkey or bear to ride the bike, do tricks, etc while performing, they were most likely beaten and cruelly coerced into "learning" the tricks behind the scenes.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2KEjdcceng

[Black Sheep]

How the HELL did they teach them to ride bicycles?
I m pretty sure it wasn't with hugs and pettings.

The whip does wonders.

[Ocean Seal]

Internet lesson #1
Never take notice of what YouTube commenters say.
Yes just look at a video of a communist song and you'll hear some of the most ignorant comments you've ever heard.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Monkeys and bears riding bikes as animal cruelty? I really doubt it if the animals are domesticated (they probably are) and used to working with humans.

If people are whipping them behind the scenes then that's cruelty. Monkeys racing bears on bikes is not cruel. I find the concept mildly entertaining. If only if I got to ride a bike with the bears and monkeys. That would be awesome.

[ZeroNowhere]

Really? Forgive me if I find the idea that animals & man being different as an absurd creationist view. Man is an animal, animals are man. Just because one is furrier, or doesn't speak like we speak, or looks different from us, doesn't mean they don't feel like us, don't think like us, & doesn't want a life of freedom like us. Capitalism exploits & harms both man & animal. As someone who believes in science rather than religion, I refuse to categorize animals differently from man, because I know, beyond the looks & acts, we are still the same, we are still a family of earthlings. I am just as much of an animal-rights activist as I am a human-rights activist.
That's lovely and all, but creationism is irrelevant, because one cannot derive a moral 'ought' from an 'is'. Therefore, please don't try to advertise your morality as scientific, because that is silly and by no means accurate.


I would argue that putting human life above animal life is the complete opposite to the creationist view, for creationism largely rejects natural phenomena, and of course it is entirely natural to have an attitude that basically says fuck the others, I'm going to ensure the survival of my own species and my own species only. That's exactly how the bears and the foxes and the ducks think.Have you asked many bears and foxes and ducks about this? When it comes to humans, I do not see that there is much basis for saying that people presently hold this 'naturally', as one hardly has any 'natural' humans, whatever those may be, to compare the others to. On the other hand, one does have quite a few who do care about the survival of other species, and indeed quite a few who believe at least that animals are important enough to not be treated in certain ways when not necessary for human survival, which is generally what the animal rights movement is based on. Really, I don't see that there is any criterion for naturalness that may be used here, and it would seem that any part of the brain which states, "Fuck all other species," is rather malleable.

Even given this, denying that natural = good is not equivalent to 'denying nature'.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That's lovely and all, but creationism is irrelevant, because one cannot derive a moral 'ought' from an 'is'. Therefore, please don't try to advertise your morality as scientific, because that is silly and by no means accurate.


Actually, if you go by the "theory" of evolution, what I'm saying is of no means being "inaccurate", but rather only going by the fact that man is nothing more but another specie through the evolutionary process of genetic mutation. We go by the same process as other animals do, & vice versa. Just because we have a more intellectual characteristic, in which we evolved to gain in order to protect ourselves from the threat that our line of species was, at one time, facing, doesn't mean that we're better than other animals, but only at certain feats. Other species have characteristic gains that are more dominant than ours, & so on & so forth. I'm just explaining the fact that "man = animal; animal = man".

[ZeroNowhere]

That is to do with the use of technical terms in biology, and has no relevance to the ethics of the thing.


in which we evolved to gain in order to protect ourselves from the threat that our line of species was, at one time, facingTechnically, we hardly evolved with a conscious purpose, and we certainly don't know that the evolution had to do with a threat.


doesn't mean that we're better than other animals, but only at certain feats.Of course a fact does not "mean" an ethical stance, but it can hardly mean the opposite one because of this. You also seem to be conflating being better at doing things with being given more importance ethically, when the two have nothing necessarily to do with another. Indeed, nematodes are perhaps better at going inside people and causing diseases than people are, but nonetheless most people would rather kill a nematode than a person.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That is to do with the use of technical terms in biology, and has no relevance to the ethics of the thing.

Technically, we hardly evolved with a conscious purpose, and we certainly don't know that the evolution had to do with a threat.

Of course a fact does not "mean" an ethical stance, but it can hardly mean the opposite one because of this. You also seem to be conflating being better at doing things with being given more importance ethically, when the two have nothing necessarily to do with another. Indeed, nematodes are perhaps better at going inside people and causing diseases than people are, but nonetheless most people would rather kill a nematode than a person.

Does ethics really exist under of how it is defined? I mean, morals & ethics are nothing more than human conditions in one's own individual view of things. For example, today, we would see someone getting killed by a lion as a terrible situation & very grotesque. But let's compare that during the time of the Roman Empire, where children had to be good or listen to their parents if they wanted to join them to watch the lions eat the christians. It was seen as a moral & ethical stance back then, because they were conditioned to believe of such things as being moral & ethical. Just like today, where we see the act of killing a nematode, without reason, as a justifiable stance, because we see ourselves more dominant than it from how weak it is when compared to ourselves. Though, this could play out to those human beings as well who are crippled physically &/or mentally, & are at the same position as a nematode. Should we then just kill the nema-man without remorse like we would normally with a nematode?

[ZeroNowhere]

Human beings who are crippled physically or mentally are not nematodes, they are human beings.

[GreenCommunism]

i think we should consider racism in this, there was a study that had brain scan attached to people's head and they were shown images of a person of different races being hurt by a needle, the results said that most people were more affected if the person was of the same race as them. those people could be leftist,communist or so but would still do the same thing. why not the same with other species. don't you feel bad for an animal when it is hurt? you may feel less bad, but simply brushing off your sympathy for animals because he is an animal is no different than brushing off your sympathy for the pain of someone of a different race.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Human beings who are crippled physically or mentally are not nematodes, they are human beings.

And? You see, you're basing your argument towards the idea that humans, for some reason, are more precious & more worth saving than animals, when in fact each specie of animal needs each other for survival. We all play a role in keeping this earth alive. Yet you choose to look upon your own specie as the more dominant from other species. Why?