>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^Mcboinkens:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^A10anis:
All i saw was a sad caged animal. We put human emotions on these creatures. This is a poor animal that was taking advantage of looking at something different. Zoos and aquariums are a so, so, cruel. Even if they are being kept to "keep their species alive" it's still SO wrong. They live, they die, but let them be FREE ffs.

Yeah, you're right. Animals that get fed daily and never have to worry about predators are worse off then the ones who starve for weeks, wander aimlessly, and may be killed by anything.

How about I put you in prison for a few years and then see if you're singing a different tune? I don't really have a problem with zoos, but it does strike me as cruel to put an intelligent animal like an ape or a beluga whale in a cage just to be gawked at by slack-jawed yokels.


Yes, prisons and zoos are the same for all comparative purposes.
In terms of not.

It was a hyperbolic comparison, sure, but the fact remains that an animal like a beluga whale is almost certainly smart enough to realize that it's in a cage, and probably smart enough to be sad about it.


They keep me in a cubicle at my local prison. Honestly, I should be out there in the wild swinging from a vine. Damn you, society, damn you and your tendrils of pain!

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^A10anis:
All i saw was a sad caged animal. We put human emotions on these creatures. This is a poor animal that was taking advantage of looking at something different. Zoos and aquariums are a so, so, cruel. Even if they are being kept to "keep their species alive" it's still SO wrong. They live, they die, but let them be FREE ffs.

Yeah, you're right. Animals that get fed daily and never have to worry about predators are worse off then the ones who starve for weeks, wander aimlessly, and may be killed by anything.

How about I put you in prison for a few years and then see if you're singing a different tune? I don't really have a problem with zoos, but it does strike me as cruel to put an intelligent animal like an ape or a beluga whale in a cage just to be gawked at by slack-jawed yokels.


Yes, prisons and zoos are the same for all comparative purposes.
In terms of not.


It was a hyperbolic comparison, sure, but the fact remains that an animal like a beluga whale is almost certainly smart enough to realize that it's in a cage, and probably smart enough to be sad about it.

[redacted]

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^A10anis:
All i saw was a sad caged animal. We put human emotions on these creatures. This is a poor animal that was taking advantage of looking at something different. Zoos and aquariums are a so, so, cruel. Even if they are being kept to "keep their species alive" it's still SO wrong. They live, they die, but let them be FREE ffs.

Yeah, you're right. Animals that get fed daily and never have to worry about predators are worse off then the ones who starve for weeks, wander aimlessly, and may be killed by anything.


How about I put you in prison for a few years and then see if you're singing a different tune? I don't really have a problem with zoos, but it does strike me as cruel to put an intelligent animal like an ape or a beluga whale in a cage just to be gawked at by slack-jawed yokels.

>> ^A10anis:

All i saw was a sad caged animal. We put human emotions on these creatures. This is a poor animal that was taking advantage of looking at something different. Zoos and aquariums are a so, so, cruel. Even if they are being kept to "keep their species alive" it's still SO wrong. They live, they die, but let them be FREE ffs.


Yeah, you're right. Animals that get fed daily and never have to worry about predators are worse off then the ones who starve for weeks, wander aimlessly, and may be killed by anything.

All i saw was a sad caged animal. We put human emotions on these creatures. This is a poor animal that was taking advantage of looking at something different. Zoos and aquariums are a so, so, cruel. Even if they are being kept to "keep their species alive" it's still SO wrong. They live, they die, but let them be FREE ffs.

Nice screen saver. Is that Marine Aquarium?

>> ^chicchorea:

Nominal deviation, music does not make it significantly different, sorry, but
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Baby-Anteater-in-Tokyo-Aquarium


I agree with @ant that it's not a dupe, but close.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Nominal deviation, music does not make it significantly different, sorry, but
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Baby-Anteater-in-Tokyo-Aquarium

>> ^moodonia:

Dont know if it qualifies as a dupe but its close:
http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Baby-Anteater-in-Tokyo-Aquarium


It's not.

*music

Kill that baby anteater please.

Dont know if it qualifies as a dupe but its close:
http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Baby-Anteater-in-Tokyo-Aquarium

>> ^Grimm:

You need to check your math.
One liter of water weighs about 2.2 pounds so each balloon would only need to be 136 liters of water to weigh 300 pounds and not 300 liters (660 pounds).
Now I'm no expert with metric being an American so maybe I'm wrong. But I do know that 1 gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (8.35 to be more exact). That would mean these would only need to be 36 gallons of water to weigh 300 pounds. Having owned 40 gallon aquariums before I can tell you that these things look to easily hold 35-40 gallons of water.>> ^BoneRemake:
no way are those bombs 300 pounds, 3 one hundred pounders maybe. 300 pounds in water is 300 litres. like fuck those are 300 litre water bags.
lies



my entire life I have believed 1 litre is 1 pound. Now I am finding out its been a sham... I am glad i was forced to check myself before I wrecked myself.

You need to check your math.

One liter of water weighs about 2.2 pounds so each balloon would only need to be 136 liters of water to weigh 300 pounds and not 300 liters (660 pounds).

Now I'm no expert with metric being an American so maybe I'm wrong. But I do know that 1 gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (8.35 to be more exact). That would mean these would only need to be 36 gallons of water to weigh 300 pounds. Having owned 40 gallon aquariums before I can tell you that these things look to easily hold 35-40 gallons of water.>> ^BoneRemake:

no way are those bombs 300 pounds, 3 one hundred pounders maybe. 300 pounds in water is 300 litres. like fuck those are 300 litre water bags.
lies

With a ~0.00004% birth survival rate, Noah must have stuck far more than 2 of them into the Ark to help ensure their survival. Because with the huge volume of rain required to cover all landmass completely, the diluted ocean would certainly have caused salt water critters, as well as freshwater critters (due to ocean mixing), to perish. I'm glad Noah took such things into consideration. Otherwise certainly they would have become extinct. Just like the dinosaurs at the same time. I would have loved to see the giant aquarium Noah built in the ark. For certainly he mastered the art of keeping sea creatures alive before the invention of protein skimming (foam fractionation), filtration, and general understanding of chemistry required to maintain appropriate marine conditions within the GLORIOUS ship that the Ark was. Absolutely amazing that he, alone, was able to do ALL that for all the millions of unique species spread worldwide. Even then. The amazing effort it must have took to repopulate the planet after the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat. Fascinating. Even today with all of our technology and know-how. Such a feat would have been impossible. Noah. You da man!