Have you heard of the Lujan Zoo in Buenos Aires? I was just made aware of it today.
Apparently, for fifty American dollars, this zoo will allow you shockingly hands-on interaction with the animals, including petting bears, feeding tigers, and riding lions. The zoo insists that the engagements with these legendary predators are entirely safe, but the extent of the precautions seems to be the accompanying presence of some human trainer who stands off to the side as you straddle a deadly man-eater. But the lawless operation has drawn greatest protest from animal rights activists, who have condemned the subjection of these majestic beasts to such decidedly unnatural activity.
It is easy for adrift bleeding heart liberals spoiling for a cause to condemn Lujan's unorthodox handling of its animals as cruel and immoral. But then I imagine that starry-eyed child, for whom the incomparable experience of riding a lion will forever be among the most cherished moments in a long life. And I say, what gives anyone the right to taint that memory by suggesting that it was animal abuse?!
If a man can ride a horse, why not a lion? If you can domesticate a dog, pet it, hug it, dress it up in people clothes, and ride it in your backyard, I ask you, why is the lion off limits? Better yet, allow me to quote renowned German philosopher Neinhalt Sieger, master of the fist and author of the existentialist manifesto Ich Habe:
"Let whoever would preserve the lion's pride above a man's renounce his own in accordance with his principles and take the lion's place between my legs."
This is just wrong.
Maybe if they offered a ride on a lijaguleps . . .
If the lijagulep is already an affront to nature, does that mean we can do whatever we want with/to/on it?
Post a Comment