77
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
77 points (96.4% liked)
Not The Onion
17644 readers
349 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, I didn't think there would be so many crazy psychos in the comments.
I can get that people might not feel as much empathy with animals than humans (get, not approve) but most of the comments are kitten-drowning level.
You get a pet, which is supposed to be a companion and basically part of your family, and you don't mind them being torn to shreds?
Okay then, I guess if your kid has a terminal cancer we can also feed him to the tiger? After all in the end it's just a bunch of meat.
This is a fair way to feel about it, but if the question is only what is done with a body after it has been euthanized it seems more like a cultural consideration than an ethical one. Like there are cultures with strong feelings about treatment of human corpses to the point where organ donation is taboo, but that doesn't mean being ok with family members being organ donors is some awful thing.
There's a larger question about how pets and other animals are treated, and the thought of someone euthanizing a healthy pet for petty reasons is really disturbing (like stories you sometimes hear about this being done as a way to emotionally abuse someone), but that isn't exactly the fault of the zoo or its practices.
That's why it's back on the menu, boys! The circle of life is brutal. I think everyone in these comments is just externally processing horror at the idea of sending their own pets.
Right? Fucking bunch of irrational horror-filled replies.
Nobody's suggesting that beloved pets get donated just for the sake of feeding the animals. But if you have a pet you're planning to get rid of anyway, for whatever reason, some people would prefer to see the pet's death contribute a final something back. Put it in the same logic as organ donation. Nobody WANTS to see their loved one's corpse cut open and such, but knowing it helped somebody else in a small way can give some closure.
Getting rid of doesn't equate to killing unless you're incapable of planning and managing for the future.
If I'm dying, give me to the birds. But if I've, stopped entertaining you, then fuck you.
In many cases, getting rid of a pet does involve killing the pet, as there is only so much space in animal shelters and inflow is a lot more than adoptions. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.
Not my kid, but if I'm terminal I'm gonna add "killed by some food-safe means and then fed to tigers in front of zoo patrons" to my potential death plans.
"The funeral will be at the civic building at 10am, and the viewing at 12:00 by the tiger sanctuary in Edgewater Zoo"
it's probably a bad idea for everybody else, as now there's a captive tiger, that is one that will be around humans forever, that also already are human meat, which is a suboptimal combination
If you have a terminal illness they won't take you as they only want "healthy animals".
I dunno if they're psychos, exactly, I'm mostly seeing interesting takes, like the chicken coop that blew away or the fisherman. Varying degrees of "how close are you to this animal," especially since critters like mice could be a lovely pet or food for an equally lovely snake.
But yeah, couple people don't turn off their dark humor either, but that's just the internet. I don't mind it, I imagine only 1% are actually psychopaths (which is iirc the statistical average, except in business where it's 4%. And I guess politics, now).
Then again, my instance blocks certain other instances, too. Lol
I'll agree that it's weird to say the least that they're askit for pets, pets should be worth more than just their money.
Having said that, predators need food too. Predators aren't evil, they just evolved to eat other animals, it's what they do, it's what they've done for a billion years or so.
I think Denmark should fund zoos better
Apparently nobody here bothered to read the article. It isn't about funding. Everybody's just putting their own emotional spin on it without even being aware of the details.
I'm aware of the details
Why don't they buy hamsters and what not themselves from providers so that there aren't emotional connections to the animals at least?
It's weird to ask for animals where there are inherently emotional connections
Then the question: don't they have the money?
They're making the offer available to those who want it, in other words those who don't see a problem with it emotionally. Some of whom even benefit emotionally from it. Is it very hard to comprehend that different people have different viewpoints on things?
That's a weird comparison, and it's honestly a sign that you are struggling with separating the two on an emotional level. Which is ironic based on your opening sentence.
Alternatively, you're too good at separating humans and animals on emotional level, to the extreme degree.
Well the animals are being euthenized then fed to the animals to diversify their diets. If assisted suicide was legal here and I elected for it, I would have no qualms with checking a box that said feed my meat sack to the tigers. Although they might not want to do that as it may encourage the idea that the handlers/vets look a lot like food.
The comparable situation would be if your family grew tired of you, and some day decide to euthanize you and feed to tigers.
To which your answer is probably "well, I'm a human, you can't do this to me, I don't want to be killed against my will", and we will be back to square one.
No, you're making this about a humans ability to kill the animal, not what should be done with the dead carcus. The animals fate is already sealed, it's dead whether or not it goes to the zoo. Just means it is either thrown in a furnace or processed some other way.
If you don't like that humans get to choose whar happens to the animals, I understand.. but that's something that should be protested or brought separately to your politicians.
This is more like saying people shouldn't be able to elect to donate organs.
Edit: or rather your family deciding to donate those organs to a someone who needs them after you're dead.
I agree with the other response - I don't care about my meat sack once it's no longer operational. Harvest my useful organs for donation, then feed the rest to the kitties.
The difference between humans and other animals is that we understand the concept of death and can make our post-life wishes known.
If my children told me they wanted to be fed to the tigers I'd probably still be horrified by the image of it but I wouldn't push back.
Our pets can't communicate their wishes to us, and in all likelihood they don't care what happens to them when they're dead. Putting their meat to some kind of use seems far more ethical to me than turning it into ash or sticking it in the ground.
Yeah some of these comments were just disgusting. Do better Lemmy
Not gonna lie, I'm borderline getting used to extremism and antisocial behaviour on lemmy. This place feels like 4chan that hates 4chan. The wake-up call for me was when I was arguing against killing everyone on earth because of how shitty the people are, saying that some of us very much enjoy the life. Got downvoted.
I've also seen several calls for genocide against Jews. Pretty ironic for a platform that so loudly hates the current genocide.
You're painting everybody together with one brush. I'm against humanity ending, I'm against genocide, whoever it's practiced on. I also don't see a problem with this (what I do have a problem with is the number of commentors who didn't bother reading the article and are claiming it's because the zoo is broke).
What did you expect from the platform that was created because reddit banned extremists? Fewer extremists than the place that banned them? Why?