PETA has named 5 Orca Whales as Plantiffs in a lawsuit... .. Yes, they really are THAT stupid

[Badnik Mechanic]

if you don't know what a Plantiff is... In very basic legal terms... a Plantiff is someone who makes a complaint against someone else and takes the matter to court.

In the famous case of

Rockmore was the plantiff, he brought the complaint and tried to sue Luna Tuna for $20 million, however when the case was brought to court Mr Kimbell broke down and confessed that he was he who dropped the screw in the tuna, the case collapsed.

You see Kenan the original complaint, he was therefore the Plantiff.

PETA are suing Seaworld for treating it's whales as slaves, they want them to have the same constitutional rights as humans do.

However, in their case dispute... they have named the 5 Orca Whales at seaworld as plantiffs... in other words... they are claiming that the Whales themselves have made the complaint.

Now I'm all for animal rights, I love animals, especially my cat, and I love Whales too... but can someone explain this to me in very simple terms just in case I may have missed a tiny tiny detail.

How on earth can a Whale file a complaint against... anyone?

Well aparently PETA are filing it on behalf of the Whales... which again begs the question... how did the Whales speak to PETA to ask them to do this?

The case isn't likely to go very far/anywhere for one simple reason, the consitution is written for "We the people" and as pointed out by Seaworlds lawyer, Whales and other animals are not people.

Source

Part of me almost wants this to go to court so we can actually hear the judge contain laughter when they say "Would the Plantiff like to read a statement," and then everyone turns to look at Shamu!

Disclaimer: There probably is some legal legislation somewhere that says 'yes you can name something other than a human being as a plantiff... but it's still funny that they have listed the Whales as plantiffs.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Hogfather

[Diogenes]

I don't think they are as dumb as it sounds; I would guess this is mostly for the sake of attention rather than making a serious case.

They're still pretty fucking stupid, tho'.

[Old dead account]

no other words are needed

[Spooky Mulder]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but if I were PETA I would probably look for some legal precedent in which the plaintiff in a lawsuit was someone suffering from some sort of severe mental disabilities that made it impossible for them to technically file the complaint themselves. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an applicable case out there.

[Jeffhog]

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5545460

icould'nthelpiti'msosorry

[Blue Blood]

Yeah, a lot of PETA's stupidity is just rallying up attention really. But I'm sure it only makes everyone hate them more.

[Badnik Mechanic]

I don't think they are as dumb as it sounds; I would guess this is mostly for the sake of attention rather than making a serious case.

They're still pretty fucking stupid, tho'.

It is that, at least thats what I suspect is going on, another one of those 'hold up a sign and point' and hope other people agree with you kind of actions.

If people do head out to seaworld and hear that there has been accusations of... slavery... then it might be on their minds... but I doubt they'll do much about it once they start laughing at people sat in the splash zone.

[Tornado]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but if I were PETA I would probably look for some legal precedent in which the plaintiff in a lawsuit was someone suffering from some sort of severe mental disabilities that made it impossible for them to technically file the complaint themselves. I'd be surprised if there wasn't an applicable case out there.

I'm guessing that would only apply when power of attorney is already established when the matters go to court.

I've seen examples of how ridiculously convoluted it is to determine who has power of attorney when isn't set up beforehand, and there isn't really any precedent established in such cases because they inherently need to be done on a situational basis.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Gilda

[Kamicciolo]

If the power of attorney actually comes into dispute in this case, then there is only one man who can be presented with that right...

The Whale Biologist!

[SchemingMinor]

I was reading a book about this type of crap that people like the ones at PETA pull a couple of months ago and there is a very large distinction between animal rights and animal welfare.

Animal welfare is what people think of when they hear the term "animal rights" being thrown around - basically it's humane treatment to animals (SPCA, Humane society, zoos, ect.)

Animal rights however, is another ball game. Animal rights are equating the rights of an animal to yours, basically no animals in zoos, used for consumption (not only meat, but for other by-products created by or from animals - honey, eggs and milk) and liberated from being pets to name a few examples. This is what PETA, the ALF, and other hardcore organizations strive for in the end. They value their rights over yours and if you think I am exaggerating this point, then only one can turn towards the insane founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, for an example in class bullshittery. Many people who sign up with PETA are not aware of this distinction, however, and the organization knows this term and tries to ease the person into their radical ideology or mask the fact that they are associated with this train of extreme thinking.

I am for animal welfare, but not for animal rights.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Kintobor

[Nintendoga]

PETA is stupid. Why make whales the plantiff? At least be more sensible and make someone who has had tons of experince with Whales, like this guy>

I hear he's had great chemistry with Whales before.

EDIT: Surprised the Japanese haven't countersued the whales for that thing they did to them

Edited February 8, 2012 by Mike Dawson

[Nitwit_Speed]

I hope they have a whale of a good time embarrassing themselves yet again. I don't like the fact that they ultimately strive for animals to have full rights, which would probably give them more rights than us human beings.

[Starman Swift]

Oh that wacky PETA! When will their antics cease? Around the time people stop throwing money at them I suppose, but I digress!

Giving the whales human rights might've caused me to raise an eyebrow, but PETA has decided that it will be crazy again to gain media attention. I mean, what would they have done if the defense called the plantiffs to the stand?

This is the only answer.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Swift

[Abominal SnowTaz]

Wow. I maybe I can get 13 trees to be plantiffs in a rape case. I'll win for sure then...

[Johnny Boy]

People like these make me lose faith in humanity.

[Solkia]

http://objection.mrd...o.php?n=5545460

icould'nthelpiti'msosorry

EDGEWORTH HAS SPOKEN

But seriously, PETA just keeps digging the hole in their credibility deeper and deeper. They aren't even worth mentioning at this point.

Not that they had credibility to begin with.

[JezMM]

I don't agree with a lot of PETA's opinions but I can at least agree that animals should not be taken into captivity for human entertainment. Fair enough if the whales respond well and enjoy it, and are at a point where releasing them into the wild would just be a death sentence, but I can appreciate the core point PETA make. They just aren't very good at accepting some aspects of relationships between humans and animals are too fargone to recover from without several centuries of, basically, UNdomesticating.

PETA are stupid, but at least they aren't dicks, which is more than I can say about the average person's reactions to PETA's antics.

People like these make me lose faith in humanity.

People who sympathise with animals to the point that they want them to have complete freedom - like us - make you lose faith in humanity? Really!?

Edited February 8, 2012 by JezMM

[Your Vest Friend]

People who sympathise with animals to the point that they want them to have complete freedom - like us - make you lose faith in humanity? Really!?

I think it's less the freedom part and more the fact that they're seriously trying to suggest that Whales have a human level of law knowledge.

[JezMM]

I think it's less the freedom part and more the fact that they're seriously trying to suggest that Whales have a human level of law knowledge.

Well that's fair enough. Just checkin'. D= I doubt they're as stupid as people think though. It's prolly all quite calculated deliberate ridiculousness to get as much attention as possible. But damn it's stupid if they think people will like them more for it.

[Tornado]

PETA are stupid, but at least they aren't dicks

I hope you aren't being serious.

[JezMM]

I hope you aren't being serious.

Well... okay this particular case is not one of the examples where they have been dicks.

[#AR]

I am currently facing a hit and run charge, including demands for legal compensation. Those deer just don't know how to forgive and forget.

Hope it wasn't this deer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydk5o-sc73E

[SuperStingray]

It's amazing the lengths PETA goes to to get everyones attention simply because they can't find a bullhorn loud enough to be heard by everyone in a ten thousand mile radius. Protesting mistreatment of animals is one thing, but PETA is to animal rights activism what SOPA supporters are to preventing piracy.

I am, however, in favor of their get-hot-celebrities-to-post-nude-on-posters campaign. THAT's the kind of attention they should be aiming for.

[Milo]

PETA:

Me:

Whatever remaining credibility they had (which was pretty much the size of several crumbs of toast in the palm of your hand....so they hardly had any at that point) they shot it in the face with the Mario Tanooki suit fiasco.

[Axl.EXE]

Saw this on NationStates yesterday.

I'll be honest, I saw 'PETA' 'Whales' and 'Lawsuit' in the same topic title and thought, Ohh, this is going to be one of THOSE threads again.