Well the idea is that these "activists" believe they are there only to make profit off of these poor animals. That was the reasoning for including the "money first" into the post.
Blackfish Backlash
- Thread starter Nicole
- Start date
The minute you accept your opponent's premise, you lose the debate.
NONE of these animals, besides Tilikum, was caught in the wild. All were bred in captivity, and for you who believe that shit rag of a film you are as blind as Anne Frank!
I didn't know Anne Frank was blind? And I even visited her house, lovely place with lots of secrets rooms.
Lee if you go back that bill was already addressed by another article and I believe on the last page I posted a memo about the legislation to all SeaWorld Team Members from CEO Jim Atchison.
Lee if you go back that bill was already addressed by another article and I believe on the last page I posted a memo about the legislation to all SeaWorld Team Members from CEO Jim Atchison.
Party Rocker said:
I wasn't clear.
If you allow your opponent to frame the debate, you have given him an advantage. It generally more effective to ignore his "assumptions" and base your arguments on your own.
But when making a compelling argument you need to appeal to your audience and make them feel like you understand them, rather than isolate them away from you entirely. You can't just spit out facts and people accept them. You need to have people feel in order for them to actually listen and hopefully accept your view. It's very much like compromising except, you can attract your listeners attention without actually changing your views.
I was only using the phrase as a way to show that these people feel this specific way. This is helpful in argument because it can be used to create an emotional feel towards them to help them listen to our views and hopefully accept them, if we were to argue that phrase in a certain way.
For example, people claim that SeaWorld is a greedy company because they are for profit and use the animals on display as a primary source of profit. Well you can appeal to that audience by saying that SeaWOrld's profits are used to fund research and education projects that help and aide in conservation and keeping their animals safe and healthy.
That helps them understand that while yes they do make profits, those profits are not just siting there collecting dust. They are used for beneficial programs and such.
I was only using the phrase as a way to show that these people feel this specific way. This is helpful in argument because it can be used to create an emotional feel towards them to help them listen to our views and hopefully accept them, if we were to argue that phrase in a certain way.
For example, people claim that SeaWorld is a greedy company because they are for profit and use the animals on display as a primary source of profit. Well you can appeal to that audience by saying that SeaWOrld's profits are used to fund research and education projects that help and aide in conservation and keeping their animals safe and healthy.
That helps them understand that while yes they do make profits, those profits are not just siting there collecting dust. They are used for beneficial programs and such.
Party Rocker said:
She wasn't, it is a line from Clerks 2.
SeaWorld appeal of OSHA citations denied
Full Article
Edit:
Looking at captions, how is this for inflammatory word choice. They have a clear bias:
Full Article
Edit:
Looking at captions, how is this for inflammatory word choice. They have a clear bias:
Nic said:
This bad boy is going to go to The Supreme Court. The same pushing for "no telling a woman what to do with her body" are the exact same trying to stifle trainers in the water. I see a massive hypocrisy issue being raised on how can one argue freedom on what to do with one's body and conceived child while trying to ban someone from doing something with an understood perceived risk. This one could get nasty.
Gosh I hope they win, they REALLY need to win. I went to Seaworld yesterday and today, and I'm just afraid without trainers in the water shamu shows will progressively get worse, because if One Ocean is the best show they can produce with the trainers out of the water, then things are going to get very bad.
Aren't they working on a rising floor for the pools, just in case there was an incident, they could easily push the floor up to prevent the trainer from getting pulled down? Couldn't that be their argument, that they're making it full-proof?
Aren't they working on a rising floor for the pools, just in case there was an incident, they could easily push the floor up to prevent the trainer from getting pulled down? Couldn't that be their argument, that they're making it full-proof?
I doubt there is any way to make working with killer whales completely safe. What they can argue is that they have made every effort to mitigate the predictable dangers, and more importantly, the trainers are experienced professionals who understand the risks.
The basic question I see is whether the State has the right to prevent the trainers from choosing to get in the water. The dissenting judge called it a specialized industry and likened it to football. He stated that OSHA overstepped its bounds.
The basic question I see is whether the State has the right to prevent the trainers from choosing to get in the water. The dissenting judge called it a specialized industry and likened it to football. He stated that OSHA overstepped its bounds.
Oh look, another poorly written article. See here for the explanation on the majority of that "decline" in attendance in the first quarter: http://forum.parkfans.net/thread-3233-post-97938.html#pid97938
Tosh.o briefly said not to buy tickets to SeaWorld. Then again he is a comedian so perhaps hehasnt fallen victim to Blackfish.
Party Rocker said:
He's comedic satire, pretty much 102% of what he says isn't supposed to be taken seriously.