white Americans being against immigration is still and always will be the greatest irony of all time
that is the face of satisfaction no man can guarantee
favorite unpopular characters meme: a character you love who is often villainized for their relationshipslori grimes, the walking dead.
Seriously, her whole arc I was like “Why do people hate Lori?” she thought her husband was dead, it’s the dang zombie apocalypse, cut a girl some slack.
Because the fandom is sexist and can’t give a woman a break for trying her best to deal with terrible circumstances.
It’s so stupid, because this fandom always forgets that as soon as her husband came back she ended it with Shane. Shane keeps coming after her after she says no, stop, go away, I don’t love you anymore again and again and again, and he even freaking tries to rape her but nope.
No one criticizes Shane, in fact, they continue to whine about how Lori is too mean to the man that disrespects her and her boundaries. Because obviously, this is all her fault and she’s a terrible person -__-
Remember, that cute little lizard you saw in the pet shop window will probably not stay little for long…
Got a couple asks about this so I’m just going to answer this one if no one minds.
I could find ways to objectively understand the Marius situation. I don’t agree with it, it’s the worst case scenario, but nonemotionally I could get it. Zoos cull, there was no good place for Marius to go where he wouldn’t perpetuate inbreeding or have a permanent home. Ideally, the zoo would have had the foresight to not breed an inbred individual in the first place but that’s no longer here or there. I’m in the middle on culling. In some situations it’s necessary, in others it’s completely avoidable.
But this, with the lions, I am deeply upset by. This is literally wiping out an entire family of viable, healthy lions for a single male. To me, a responsible zoo that does not have the capacity to take in another animal says “no thanks, we don’t have room, try going here” not, “yeah that’d be awesome, we gotta kill four animals first.” And I can’t even say it would come from a financial standpoint because they literally had all the makings of what is commonly deemed a lucrative attraction at a zoo: cute cubs and the majestic male. So why kill them all for just one more male? What was so special about that additional male? What it shows me is really poor management and planning on Copenhagen Zoos part. They should have never agreed to take that male in the first place, it was irresponsible, cruel, and unnecessary.
Except they needed a new male because their previous one was old and would have begun inbreeding with his offspring if left in place. Like with Marius the zoo were not permitted to allow their animals to inbreed, so the only option they had was to get in a new, unrelated male.
The cubs also had to be killed because it would have been impossible to integrate them with the new male. He would simply have killed them the first chance he got.
It might not be nice, but like with Marius it was the only ethical and practical choice the zoo had.
I think there’s a general lack of understanding about the brutality of the natural world. Man did not create the social dynamics in a pride of lions.
When a new male takes control of the group, which is a very common, and necessary occurrence to prevent inbreeding and the dilution of the gene pool, he kills the existing cubs. Those cubs are not related to him, and they require so much parental care that they prevent the females from breeding with the new male.
Fifty percent of lions cubs die before they reach maturity, at about two years.
The adult male would likely have fought the new male for dominance. Without the new male, there was the very real risk that the existing male would try to mate with his own offspring. The adult female was believed to be at risk of a dangerous pregnancy because of her age were she to breed again, which would be the first act committed by the new male.
Wild animals live a difficult, grisly, and often short life.
Is it sad to have to euthanize young animals? Absolutely. Is it sad to have to euthanize elderly animals? Absolutely. So be sad about it. But you can’t really be angry about it. It’s how the world works.
Except that these animals were not in the wild. They weren’t even in a rehabilitation park, or a wildlife park. They were contextually removed from where they SHOULD have been, where all the above applies, and placed in a context where the norm no longer applies.
They are a zoo - and a zoo is a museum. And the number one rule of any museum is to manage its collections appropriately. And in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM did this zoo properly manage its collection in this case.
I can almost accept the arguments for euthanizing the adult male and female that you supply, but given the age of the cubs and their supposed “unable to survive without parental assistance,” this action could certainly have been postponed until the cubs were at a more stable age. The male lion is CERTAINLY not going to attempt to breed with the cubs at that age. And if the female does become pregnant in the interim - then the logical “this is what happens in the wild” reasonings you suggest should then apply.
You don’t euthanize a healthy animal because it MAY become sick. You euthanize it when it DOES become sick (and, you know, unrecoverably, not just from a cold).
And I also don’t buy their argument that the cubs were too young to be left alone, considering the number of hand-reared cubs in zoos and rehabilitation clinics across the globe. If the zoo didn’t have the resources to step in and rear the cubs by hand if the mother suddenly took disinterest in them, then they should never have accepted a breeding pair of lions to begin with. If they could not handle raising the two cubs by hand, they should have sought and PAID FOR professional help from other institutions, rather than purchase a new male. This was not unchartered territory. Other institutions have dealt with these issues, and done so successfully.
If the zoo has no way to separate the male from the female for a prolonged period, then they have no right to have a breeding pair. This is - or should be - basic zoo protocol.
If the zoo did not have a plan in place for properly rehousing their “cast off” breeding pair, then they have no right to accept a new lion at this time.
Simply put, the only reason any of those animals should have been euthanized is if their genes were overpopulating the zoo’s breeding stock, as in the case of Marius.*
This is simply NOT how modern zoos should be run.
*I have NO issue with Marius’ death. That was a proper example of zoo collection management, done for the better care of the collection as a whole. But you don’t sell ten of your lesser known artist’s paintings just to buy a new Monet. You just DON’T.
(And what are they going to do with their one new male? Do they have other breeding females available? Do they plan to integrate the male into a zoo-wide breeding program? I feel as if this is a major PR screw up on so many levels…)
It was my understanding that they did seek a new home for the lions. Transferring the male is difficult for the same reasons that they couldn’t introduce a new male with him around. Most females in a pride of lions are related in some way, and the elderly female may not be accepted. Not to mention, they were both near the end of their natural lives, and lions cost a ton of money to keep alive. Again, that’s an unpleasant truth, but zoos work on a budget like everyone else.
The cubs might have been viable if they were hand raised, and probably could have been transported fairly easily. From what I’ve read, none of the other EAZA zoos had space or the ability to take them in. Not to mention, cubs which are not related to the dominant male are generally not welcome in an established pride.
They have two recently matured females born to the original breeding pair in 2012 - they were the individuals that had the zoo concerned about the possibility of inbreeding. These were the only two viable females in the breeding program.
I completely agree that they should be able to separate the male and the females, or the new male and the cubs. But the EAZA takes a pretty firm stance on maintaining a “natural” cycle of life, reproduction, and the raising of young. It’s the same reason why they don’t use contraceptives or sterilization (which would have prevented all of this in the first place). They likely believed that isolating the animals from the social structure in which they belong would cause undue stress.
I much prefer the AZA model where contraceptives are used regularly to prevent this kind of situation. But that doesn’t fit with the values of the European organization.
Side note: you know I have tons and tons of respect for you, so I hope you take this in the manner it was intended, and not as an attack!
Side note more important than rest of post: Oh no, I know it’s not an attack! And I hope you know that my comments were not meant that way either =) I was hoping for respectful discussion and contemplation on what is (obviously given the example) a real situation that we encounter, tbh, and that’s exactly what you gave me, so I’M happy! I’m always happy to learn and reconstruct my stances!
And really, my primary anger at the situation is directed at the cubs (well, not AT the cubs, because of the cubs…). I’m exasperated at how they handled the adults, because it certainly could have been handled better PR-wise and I don’t think the zoo is going to ever really recover from this, but honestly the cubs are just…. completely baffling to me.
The EAZA model is head-ache inducing hypocritical in some manners, and I think that is at the root of the problem - because they value quality of life over quantity (which is good), but only so long as it is convenient for the institution (which is the opposite of good). But there are so many reasons that trying to maintain the “natural” cycle is completely impractical, and this is the perfect example of one. If every EAZA zoo is filled to capacity where they are euthanizing healthy cubs, then they have a major overcrowding problem that needs to be addressed. Maintaining quality of natural lifestyles is meaningless when you’ve taken away all outside forces that would enforce normal lifespans. Insert massive plug here about how contraceptives and later-life neutering are GOOD THINGS in these situations.*
(Obviously I much prefer the AZA model, which incorporates the meaning and ethics of maintaining natural conditions within the actual limits made available by the confines of what they are - a zoo, pretending to be 6,000+ environments, usually within the confines of gigantic cities).
Thank you about the info concerning the two viable females - that was not presented in the few articles I had read, and was a major missing piece to the puzzle that greatly changes the scenarios. It would be interesting to know if they were housed in the same facility/grounds as the breeding pair, in which case they may have been willing to “adopt” their sibling cubs - presumably they were, otherwise the male would not have been breeding with them. Although admittedly, such a situation would create either four genetically similar sisters (very much emulating a real female pride), or at least one male that would later have to be re-homed, and still leaves you a significantly long time to introduce the male to the new pride. Basically, there is nothing about the EAZA model that makes me happy precisely because of no-win situations like this.
(Although given new (and exciting!) research being done in the Sahara concerning male lions and pride interactions, the EAZA could soon find itself challenged to constantly maintain contact between the males and the female pride. Recent preliminary studies suggest that males may actually “float” among multiple (2+) female territories, and maintain a “network” of prides, if you will - one of the reasons why their natural lives seem so much shorter than the females.)
I agree with you. On paper, the idea of improving quality of life over quantity is great, but it does create situations like this more often than it should, and that’s something that needs to be addressed. There’s something to be said for allowing animals, particularly those species with complex social structures, to breed naturally. But perhaps there’s a happy medium to be found in introducing contraception after the first reproductive event or, in the case of the Danish lions, when they had healthy females capable of carrying on the genetic line.
They knew (or should have known) the minute those cubs were born that this was the eventual outcome. And it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. I think that their actions are justifiable given the circumstances, but if they hadn’t backed themselves into a corner the way they did, there would have been a better outcome.
I’d heard some rumblings about the research you mentioned, but I haven’t really gotten into it yet. Thank you for the reminder! :)
In which carriemp does a much better job summarizing and vocalizing my disparity at the Denmark Lions situation than I did.
Every word of this is worth reading. I love civilized debates.
A Wet Dream on Elm Street (2011)
how do you even jerk off to this
ARE THOSE VIBRATERS ON HIS FINGERS
Yo that isn’t even a cheap halloween mask. That is a full quality professional prosthetic. Also the dialogue is fucking gold. Trailer here.
Australian cast of The Lion King sings on a plane. Because actors are nerds no matter where they are.
Are tears what you wanted because that was fucking beautiful.
Sometimes I really hope my ex feels like shit for treating me so badly I developed PTSD, but then I remember that she probably doesn’t know and is probably still denying the fact she abused me.
I really shouldn’t be so consumed with rage that I just want to see her suffer twice as much as she made me suffer. This was not like me before I developed PTSD…
Well, maybe someday I’ll learn to let it go.
When petting Phoenix:
Phoenix: Oooh yes, scratch my ears like this, pet meee, pet meee ooohh yes I do like the attention WAIT NO WHAT ARE YOU DOING STOP TOUCHING ME IMMEDIATELY GET AWAY FROM MEEEEE
If this is to end in fire
Then we should all burn together
I don’t have any fire on hand so the closest I could get is a Roy Mustang pose.
Now all you need to do is start screaming about girls in mini skirts.
QUEER UP, SHIT.
if you want posts to be about “everybody” go fucking make your own posts like “everybody deserves to be protected” “everybody is beautiful” or whatever bullshit don’t fucking steal someone else’s post about a specific group of people jfc