4 ms·
This is a perfect example of where thorough reading (not the first few paragraphs only) sheds light on the matter. Two ears and one mouth.
by _HMCB_ 4y ago
This is a perfect example of where thorough reading (not the first few paragraphs only) sheds light on the matter. Two ears and one mouth.
- harpiaharpyja 4y agoYes, the headline is particularly misleading.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThorough reading presents both arguments, but I certainly didn't finish the article with any idea what course of action would actually be better for the chimps.
- kelnos 4y agoBecause it's just not clear. It depends on if you trust the veterinarians in the lab to provide an objective assessment, and also just believe that they are correct. And I do wonder if they might be correct for some of the animals, but not all, so maybe some should be kept to retire in place, and some should be sent to the shelter. Regardless, on a more personal note, I wouldn't want to subject my cat to the kind of transportation and relocation they're talking about, regardless of health or age. And I believe chimps are much more self-aware and intelligent than cats; I expect they'd find it much more stressful. I think this is a case where the law was well-intentioned, but didn't provide any escape hatches for situations not considered by the law.
- CobrastanJorji 4y agoIt's true. I saw the headline and thought "wow, what a thoroughly evil thing to be on the side of not sending chimps to a sanctuary," but the NIH's stance seemed extremely reasonable.
- dang 4y agoOk, we've attempted to give the article a more neutral title. If anyone can suggest a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the article), we can change it again.