Is there anything religion can’t make weirder?
American Family Association advocates killing the killer whale that killed the trainer. By stoning.
I wonder how long it would take to stone to death a killer whale?
26 Responses to “Is there anything religion can’t make weirder?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 4th, 2010 at 10:46 am
And how much pot would that take?? 😀
March 4th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot?
March 4th, 2010 at 10:48 am
It’s usually not religion that makes it weird – it’s the idiots that claim things in the name of religion…
March 4th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Perhaps we could kill it by beaching? That’s like inverse stoning.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Or one could use large blocks of ice. Environmentally friendly, and don’t need to be removed from the tank after the stoning is over.
Ya gotta be practical, ya know!
March 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
By stoning.
Actually, they didn’t say that at all. They are using scripture to demonstrate the figurative principle, not the literal method. HuffPo got the facts wrong.
You can see this in that they said explicitly that if they were the family of the victim they would sue the owners, not execute them even though that is literally what the scripture says. HuffPo conveniently implies that the group is being literal, but then hides evidence to the contrary. One might think that they were biased or something. But I’m sure that could never happen at that place.
The principle they are espousing is really not that weird at all. If the family pooch mauled and killed a neighborhood child is there really any question whether that dog would be put down? Or if it weren’t put down and that dog killed again that the owner would bear at least some responsibility for negligence?
That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Or perhaps what makes things weird are the people who so egregiously misrepresent what religious people say?
March 4th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Um, no. Just no. The trainer was a paid professional and knew the risks involved with the job. As cold and heartless as that may sound, it makes it no less true. The killer whale is just that. It isn’t a human or a corporate entity who can be held liable for anything. PERIOD! Heartless? Cold blooded? If you like. And what of “suing the owners”? Again, no. If you can show either willful negligence or liability on the part of sea world then yes, you can and should sue. If none can be shown then no. This is what insurance is for. If Seaworld wants to contribute to the trainer’s family it would be a good gesture, and they may even have had insurance to cover the trainer for something like this.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
If a dog, or a bear, or a frigging California condor had been responsible for the deaths of three people, it would already have been put down. Sea World merely sees the dollars it can make from this animal.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
“I wonder how long it would take to stone to death a killer whale?”
If the whale was in his tank, pretty close to forever. Out of the water…rocks aren’t required, just the critter’s weight will crush him to death.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Good job W.B.
I always enjoy it when “that guy” shows.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“I don’t think it ought to be blasphmey. Just saying Jehovah”
March 4th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Dumb asses.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
If you can show either willful negligence or liability on the part of sea world then yes, you can and should sue.
TDC, I think that this is the third person this whale has killed is pretty decent indicator of negligence. The only remaining question would be if SeaWorld had informed their trainers of this fact beforehand.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
How big is the rock?
March 4th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
The poor thing was not trying to kill anybody. It was trying to play with them the way they have been playing with it for twenty years. Except that they were not as durable as it is.
And I’m all for allowing these jacklegs to try to stone it. Provided that they do it by getting into the tank, carrying their rocks with them.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Or just give them nets and tridents, kit them like gladiators, and send them in.
Film it and put it on TV.
Betcha it makes millions … Fundies vs. Willie!
March 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Yu-Ain, there is the whole question. And do not forget these folk are supposed to be trained professionals. Somehow I don’t see Seaworld putting these folk in at gunpoint either. If they actually are trained then they know that even if everything goes perfectly you can be killed or grievously injured.
And if this is the third time, did the trainer know about the other two incidents? I think the new trainer will know what the score is and will still do it. As I said, these are “wild” animals, dealing with them is always a risk situation.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
In the Marines they trained us to kill orcas with stones. You just need a stone a little bit larger than the blowhole. Jam it in and Bob’s your uncle. As long as George Costanza doesn’t show you are fine.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I think the new trainer will know what the score is and will still do it.
If they were informed and still chose to do it, then that’s a different thing.
If they were never told, however, now SeaWorld has willfully put people in greater danger than the norm.
We each assume a certain level of risk when driving a car, but when the throttle get’s stuck *and* the manufacturer knows about it and sells it anyway without disclosure, that’s not just “Hey, he knew the risks and it sucks to be him”.
None of which really makes the principle that you have some responsibility when you knowingly put other people in danger “weird”. It may be incorrect as it doesn’t include “without disclosure” or some such language. But it isn’t weird.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
If a frigging California condor had been responsible for the deaths of three people the Ecoweenies would have it sainted by Pope Algore and it would become head of the EPA…
March 4th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
There are only two viable and defensible options since this particular animal has been involved in three human deaths. Kill it, or release it to the wild.
That’s it! Anything else, of necessity, must have an underlying indefensible reason behind it.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
One of the persons killed by this whale was an intruder (drunk) who may have entered the tank himself. Once he was there the whale didn’t let him back out and eventually he drowned.
This trainer did know about the previous two deaths – that’s why this whale is a “no one in the water” whale. She normally kept her hair short so it couldn’t be grabbed – I don’t know if the whales are just known for doing that sort of thing or if the whale’s first victim was dragged in in some similar way. At this time she had been growing it out for ‘Locks of Love’.
What I’m surprised they haven’t done is require all trainers working with this whale to wear some sort of emergency breathing gear so they have a chance to survive if they do get dragged in. Again, the whale didn’t do anything that would have harmed any of these people – well, assuming they could hold their breath and withstand hypothermia like a whale. Anyone who can’t stay underwater for 15 minutes without drowning is just something the whale can’t understand.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
ok, same point. the whale probably isn’t intentionally killing people out of malice. doesn’t change the fact that he can’t be trusted with people. turn him loose or kill him.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:17 am
but will the meat still be good if we stone it?
March 5th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Two words, albeit big ‘uns: Nantucket Sleighride.
Call me Ishmael.