Glad to finally see a response to Blackfish from SW

[The Empress Lilly]

WOW!!! I am a researcher and this is the type of work/evaluation that I do for companies/programs.

No you don't. Or rather, no this isn't.

This is the work of dumb and dumber, some SEA fanboys. It would get a fourteen year old a D in High School, well maybe a C minus for effort.


Maybe I'll do some more of their points. *throws dice*

#69! (*eyes his fiancee*)
Blackfish:

Scrolling Statement:

“SeaWorld repeatedly

declined to be interviewed for

this film.”
​

'Rebuttal'

Spoiler

As is shown in the Film, the filmmakers had complete access to the transcript and other

materials from the OSHA hearing. SeaWorld’s trainers and veterinary staff provided

over 71 hours of recorded testimony under oath before OSHA, yet the Film

misleadingly incorporates only several sentences – each taken out of context – in a

transparent attempt to cast SeaWorld in a false and extremely negative light. In

addition, in the days, weeks and months following Ms. Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld

personnel and executives, including CEO Jim Atchison, COO Dan Brown and Chief

Zoological Officer Brad Andrews gave hundreds of media interviews. Chuck

Tompkins, Head of Animal Training, gave more than 50 interviews, most of which

were via satellite link, and Mr. Atchison gave a press conference, broadcast live via

satellite around the world, at which he took questions from more than 30 media outlets.

Accordingly, had it been the purpose of the Film to fairly and legitimately present

SeaWorld’s position on the various issues and events portrayed in the Film, there was a

mountain of testimony and interview material from which to choose. However, as was

apparent from the filmmaker’s very first communication with SeaWorld, and as is

obvious from the Film and the comments of the filmmakers, the cast and third parties

such as PETA in the media, the purpose of the Film was not to present a balanced

treatment of the issues, but to pursue an anti-SeaWorld agenda. Under these

circumstances,

SeaWorld correctly chose not to participate in the Film.

​

So...they show the inaccuracy of Blackfish' statement that SEA declined to be interviewed by stating that SEA declined to be interviewed?

Are these people clinically insane?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

It's one thing to put out a flowery press release, it's another to develop a thoroughly researched document with citation.

I would rephrase that as 'a thoroughly researched document with citations is another thing than this steaming pile of crock'.


Let's have at it some more, while I'm on a roll. *throws dice*

#68
Blackfish:

Marino: “All whales in

captivity have a bad life.

They’re all emotionally

destroyed. They’re all

psychologically traumatized.

So, they are ticking time

bombs. It’s not just Tilikum.​

'Rebuttal':

The Film portrays Marino’s statement as if it is the opinion of the scientific

community, and as such is false and misleading. There is no scientific evidence to

support such a blanket statement. To the contrary, the Journal of Zoo and Aquarium

Research recently published a paper that discusses the history of this very issue. Killer

whales in captivity have an excellent standard of living and have access to food and

state of the art medical care.

Evidence:

Fay E. Clark: “Marine mammal cognition and captive care: A proposal for cognitive

enrichment in zoos and aquariums” July 24, 2013

​

The rebuttal claims that the statement is misleading for going against the scientific community. This they seek to prove by citing a source dated July 2013, so...from long after the statement was made. But how can a statement be called misleading for going against someting that didn't even exist?

Bonkers.
These high school kids - and not very talented ones at that - have no idea how science works. It is not 'misleading' to go against consensus. Nor is the scientific community a monolith, of one set mind. Not does one quote random sources that reaffirm a point - every point can be re-affirmed with a Google. The scientific work is to be up to date with current debates in a field. Which, incidently, could've saved these kids the embarrassement of both quoting as their evidence a source that says orcas are, and one that says they aren't, psychologically destroyed. Useless.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Sadly, I realise it won't matter that this 'rebuttal' is nothing but a massive pile of crock so steamy it attracts more insects than those poor exposed and defenseless orcas in captivity.*

All that people will take away from this is that 'Blackish was rebutted point by point'. Such is the nature of confirmation bias and all that.


Incidentally, how come there are no calls as of yet to have this thread closed? Surely it isn't because this thread was critical of Blackfish until now? Surely we aren't that puerile, are we?

@919Florida , just before the latest thread was closed you said 'I do not understand why the mods of this board still allow blackfish to be debated here. The other site I belong to has a beautiful SeaWorld forum and one of the rules is no bringing up blackfish'. Yet here you are, liking every anti-Blackfish post? Shouldn't you instead have been asking for this thread to have been closed too?




* That's right, unlike in the wild, orcas are bitterly exposed to mosquitoes in captivity, to which they have no defense. They are driven mad, are greatly hurt by them, and die. But keep reading the propaganda of the billion dollar exploitation industry about shiny happy orcas in their bathtubs. Here's some actual science:

Marine biologists John Jett and Jeffrey Ventra of Stetson University and Louisiana State University respectively have published a paper in Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology that suggests captive orca may be more at risk of dying from mosquito borne illnesses than has been previously thought.

In their paper Jett and Ventra note that two captive orcas have died from mosquito born ailments since the animals became tourist attractions at water parks.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-highlights-mosquito-borne-illnesses-captive.html#jCp​

 

[disney4life2008]

No you don't. Or rather, no this isn't.

This is the work of dumb and dumber, some SEA fanboys. It would get a fourteen year old a D in High School, well maybe a C minus for effort.


Maybe I'll do some more of their points. *throws dice*

#69! (*eyes his fiancee*)
Blackfish:

Scrolling Statement:

“SeaWorld repeatedly

declined to be interviewed for

this film.”
​

'Rebuttal'

Spoiler

As is shown in the Film, the filmmakers had complete access to the transcript and other

materials from the OSHA hearing. SeaWorld’s trainers and veterinary staff provided

over 71 hours of recorded testimony under oath before OSHA, yet the Film

misleadingly incorporates only several sentences – each taken out of context – in a

transparent attempt to cast SeaWorld in a false and extremely negative light. In

addition, in the days, weeks and months following Ms. Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld

personnel and executives, including CEO Jim Atchison, COO Dan Brown and Chief

Zoological Officer Brad Andrews gave hundreds of media interviews. Chuck

Tompkins, Head of Animal Training, gave more than 50 interviews, most of which

were via satellite link, and Mr. Atchison gave a press conference, broadcast live via

satellite around the world, at which he took questions from more than 30 media outlets.

Accordingly, had it been the purpose of the Film to fairly and legitimately present

SeaWorld’s position on the various issues and events portrayed in the Film, there was a

mountain of testimony and interview material from which to choose. However, as was

apparent from the filmmaker’s very first communication with SeaWorld, and as is

obvious from the Film and the comments of the filmmakers, the cast and third parties

such as PETA in the media, the purpose of the Film was not to present a balanced

treatment of the issues, but to pursue an anti-SeaWorld agenda. Under these

circumstances,

SeaWorld correctly chose not to participate in the Film.

​

So...they show the inaccuracy of Blackfish' statement that SEA declined to be interviewed by stating that SEA declined to be interviewed?

Are these people clinically insane?

huh?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

huh?

I mean, that as a PhD researcher, you would not produce this sort of work.

 

[disney4life2008]

I mean, that as a PhD researcher, you would not produce this sort of work.

As an evaluation specialist yes. When you are contracted to do an evaluation to develop a response - you pretty much have to limit real facts and give the stakeholders what they want. As a PhD researcher - absolutely not. But the difference here is that - the research would be my own findings, results and conclusions. Whereas evaluations are guided by the stakeholder and a lot of information is removed before public posting.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

As an evaluation specialist yes. When you are contracted to do an evaluation to develop a response - you pretty much have to limit real facts and give the stakeholders what they want. As a PhD researcher - absolutely not. But the difference here is that - the research would be my own findings, results and conclusions. Whereas evaluations are guided by the stakeholder and a lot of information is removed before public posting.

I get it. That makes me sad though! I am still always a bit naive to the ways of the world.

I suppose this is what happened here. 'limited real facts', 'giving the stakeholders what they want', 'information removed'. Not any attempt at any factual correctness, but merely serving contracted nonsense presented as facts.

 

[NormC]

BF was very one sided BS and used only information and people that would bolster their point. A real documentary would allow scientific studies and factual data from both sides to be presented accurately and allow viewers to make an educated opinion. BF instead steered the viewer to side with their opinion by playing with the viewers emotions with creative editing.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

BF was very one sided BS and used only information and people that would bolster their point. A real documentary would allow scientific studies and factual data from both sides to be presented accurately and allow viewers to make an educated opinion. BF instead steered the viewer to side with their opinion by playing with the viewers emotions with creative editing.

But by that logic, those studies and factual data from both sides fail the test too. Those sides should've been presenting both sides! And, turning this into a Zeno paradox, the two sides they ought to have presented should've etc etc...

Or, put differently, no, Blackfish can simply state its case. Everybody else in turn can state their cases.

 

[NormC]

There were no "both sides" in BF. It was only the anti-SW side and it was creatively edited and borderline deceitful. There was very little factual data. It was a very opinionated piece much like a Michael Moore-on "documentary".

 

[919Florida]

There were no "both sides" in BF. It was only the anti-SW side and it was creatively edited and borderline deceitful. There was very little factual data. It was a very opinionated piece much like a Michael Moore-on "documentary".

You are so right and glad you can see that. So many people are brainwashed into agreeing with blackfish and have no clue what they are even agreeing too. The majority of the film plays with peoples heartstrings and wants them to beleive what the filmaker wants them to beleive. Its amazing how such a one sided film out to destroy a business can get so much attention. If only people did research or actually went to SeaWorld they could see the truth

 

[lazyboy97o]

Being one-sided is not a problem, being manipulative is a problem. Blackfish was more concerned with making SeaWorld look bad when a strong end to orca captivity, besides just letting them die, is going to need SeaWorld's money and experience.