Should Animal Rights Campaigners Boycott Zoos? (Part 1)

I keep seeing various articles crop up all over the place about how boycotting zoos is the only way forward if you care about animals, and as a man who's planning to spend the rest of my life dedicated to animal interests I thought I would try and debunk the myth that zoos are inherently bad places to go. The most common and influential culprit of this fad are my favorite charity, or money laundering service as I like to call them, PETA, who have given us a nice article to sum up why boycotting zoos is best for everyone. (http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/zoos/)

The primary problem here seems to be that PETA is manipulating its supporters into approaching this issue, which is solely about animals, from a human perspective. Not only is that completely irrelevant, but it's a sure way of giving animals human emotions despite captive animals themselves having no idea what freedom is and so obviously won't react in a similar way to humans. What PETA are doing here is effectively dictating an animal's emotions and assuming that they know the inner workings of its brain when in actual fact scientists are still debating over this issue to this very day. There's a varied range of different organisms inside zoos, and so different organisms are going to react to captivity in different ways. Are PETA seriously suggesting that a chimpanzee has the same cognitive functions as a cockroach, whose behaviour is designed for survival, not self satisfaction? Science has told us that humans hate being in captivity for long periods of time, but humans aren't the organism in question, so PETA need to can this generalisation schtick that unfortunately runs throughout the whole article. PETA do the same thing with the evil cluster of zoos that are clearly all the same no matter where they're located. Zoos are varied areas that differ in how they operate, coming under totally separate guidelines. But PETA don't target the minority that are solely in business for the money, and instead use these broad generalisations to demonise a problem that largely doesn't exist. Here's how they justify their radical reaction:

The reasons PETA give for boycotting zoos are lacking any scientific evidence for them to actually come across as valid. They do have a point here about a problem they call 'zoochosis', which when given its scientific name is actually known as 'stereotypical behaviours'. This is actually a very important issue to highlight, but will under no circumstances be solved by simply boycotting the zoos in question. Stereotypical behaviours can be reduced by providing a highly enriched enclosure that can only be achieved by a constant stream of funding. Boycotting will lead to a decrease in revenue that can be spent on animal welfare, and so this problem is just going to escalate without the public funding that you're trying to stop. The sole evidence you bring forward is about the use of drugs on animals, which if I'm not mistaken is standard medical procedure for depressed and agitated human beings. Still, this issue has only been reported very few times, so to use this as a reason for boycotting all zoos is incredibly naive. I've just never understood the logic of giving less money to zoos and suddenly expecting the conditions of the animals to suddenly improve. You must be aware that businesses require money to operate, so why the hell are you trying to deny a positive environment for the animals to live in?

Again, despite using the word 'instances' you still use this point to try and prove that every single zoo is evil. I doubt that every charity out there is entirely reliable, but does that mean all charities are wasteful with their money. Actually I wouldn't answer that if I was PETA considering they're ranked very lowly when it comes to where their money goes on websites such as 'Charity Navigator', which only just gave them a score of 2 out of 4. Still, you could of at least found a few more sources considering that the two you cite here are from the same article. You didn't even mention that the Cologne incident was caused by a keeper not shutting the gate properly, and not because the animal was frustrated and desperate to escape like you falsely claim. If your total sample number is one, and even that is invalid, then you cannot possibly make a broad generalisation on the activities of zoos in general on a global scale, especially when your sole source doesn't even mention any atypical behaviour that would cause me to doubt the animal welfare of that single location. Also, how did that tiger try and 'regain its freedom'? In my funny little world I would of thought to 'regain' freedom you would've been free at some point in your life, not born into captivity. Yet again another false statement from supposedly the world's leading animal welfare charity. Shameful.

Well first of all zoos are a small gene pool segregated from the wild, so actually they are the stand between extinction for wild animals; that's just basic logic. It's also interesting to note that despite zoos hiring educated experts, PETA assume that all zoos are idiots when it comes to animal welfare and have to remind them that captive animals won't fare well in the wild, which coincidentally also invalidates PETA's argument that all animals should be free. It's all very well saying establishments such as 'SeaWorld' should empty their orca tanks when you admit yourselves that the process would just end up with more suffering. Zoos are aware of this and so they support breeding programmes that you completely fail to mention despite this process being an integral part of conservation in zoos. Instead you focus on how many zoos dispose of their animals, despite again providing a single source that isn't definitive proof. That source by the way refers to Knowsley Safari Park, which contrary to your beliefs occurred due to the animals simply dieing of natural causes, and not just culled or sold on the black market, as that goes against WAZA regulations. Again, surely if zoos are so evil then you must be able to provide at least a few reliable sources, but so far there has not been one.

We then go onto this bullshit argument that zoos divert money away from conservation efforts, despite the fact that breeding programmes themselves are conservation methods. To call the protection of the natural habitat 'the only effective and sustainable way' is simply bogus. In no way have schemes to prevent habitat loss been sustainable in the last few decades as fragile environments are declining at a record rate, with various statistics coming out daily on how long they have to last. It's interesting that you say it's the only sustainable way, yet when reading your annual report I couldn't seem to find any expenditure from your charity into these so called 'sustainable' projects. Funny that. Schemes such as ecotourism in Rwanda have worked wonders for the local gorilla population, but your so called 'sustainable' approach is just wasting money on a problem that isn't being rectified. Surely the sheer number of new animals appearing on the endangered species list is enough evidence for you to realise that your solution is absolutely hopeless, and maybe you should actually leave this conservation issue to people who know what they're doing; you know, the people who are employed by zoos. But no, just as long as the animals are free then all their problems are gone. The only reason this breeding programmes exist is because your solution is so fucked up, and so drastic measures are needed. By boycotting zoos you're making the process of extinction a thousand times worse, which you don't seem to care about. Animal welfare doesn't make any difference if the animal in question has become extinct.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Even from personal experience I can say that thanks to the educational facilities at my local zoo I'm now going into a degree that centers around the science of animals. The fact that zoos have a great number of educated professionals working directly for the animals shows that not only are they educational places, but probably the best educational method for conservation that doesn't require you to spend thousands of pounds. Thanks to zoos you don't have to fly halfway around the world for the slim chance of seeing an animal in the wild, as you can see the same animal just down the road for a fraction of the price, with the same awe inspiring effect. At the end of the day PETA have to pick their poison and prioritise which issue is far greater. Is the real evil a business that confines and personally cares for their animals, or the natural world that is constantly under threat from habitat destruction and mineral exploitation? Does a tiger that's been bred in captivity care about its natural context? Of course it doesn't, it has no knowledge that even exists. Zoos don't segregate an animal from its natural habitat since the animal never had one, and unlike humans has no notion of the concept.

Here's a little factbox for gullible idiots. I refuse to call these actual facts as they're simply misleading. The survey in which Bristol University students found that over 75% of zoos didn't meet minimum animal welfare standards was determined through visits that often didn't last a single day and was funded by an organisation known as 'Born Free'. That doesn't sound biased at all does it. It also turns out that the majority of 'zoos' who didn't meet the standards were actually farm zoos, and therefore not members of the BIAZA, who claim that 83% of their members meet all of the minimum welfare standards. But somehow it gets worse, as we have the life expectancy of ONE animal found in zoos. One. That is quite possibly the worst generalisation I've ever seen, when in fact the reality is that captive animals generally live longer than their wild counterparts due to the decreased selection pressures found in controlled environments. The explanation for the last statistic is that breeding programmes are often used as an insurance method, just like seed banks, and so the animals often become sources for scientific knowledge and act as ambassador species for their wild counterparts. Breeding programmes are a global initiative, and like any initiative the results have been mixed. However populations of animals such as the Siberian tiger have rebounded from 40 to over 500 in the last 70 years according to the WWF, so unlike your prevention of habitat destruction plan, this method is proven to work. Let's just say the UN isn't so positive when it comes to estimating habitat loss each year, which of course is the only sustainable solution.

So no PETA, zoos should never be boycotted by the public on the grounds of animal welfare issues. Your reasons given for avoiding zoos are blatant lies to manipulate idiots into thinking they're making a difference in the world. I urge people to support their local zoos, as contrary to what PETA believe they are not the enemy, and are the simplest way in helping to maintain biodiversity on our precious planet. PETA on the other hand operate like hypocritical assholes, and are actually part of the problem they're trying to erase. They have the audacity to say just watching animals on a television screen is good enough, when everyone knows that seeing and experiencing things for yourself is a totally different, and much more beneficial experience. So actually I agree that we should withhold our money from inhumane establishments that profit from exploiting animals, and that begins with boycotting PETA. Yes these are the hypocrites that have no problems with people owning a pet, but object to them visiting zoos. The worst thing is it gets worse when you actually look deeper into their operations.

Morons of the Internet: Viral Women (25/07/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we return to the website 'Viral Women', who have once again let their feelings get in the way of common sense. Apparently logical scientific practices should always be inferior to the feminist agenda, even if that does involve ignoring peer reviewed studies and decades of statistics.
______________________________________________________________________________________
http://viralwomen.com/post/vaccine_choice_is_a_feminist_issue
______________________________________________________________________________________

I'd like to start by pointing out that I do actually agree with the law that California has just passed to instigate mandatory vaccination unless a valid reason is given, and failing to do so will result in children not being allowed in public schools. As far as I'm concerned vaccination of common diseases should be compulsory as there is clear scientific proof and statistics to show that not only does this prevent the spread of diseases, but also eradicates some if the vaccine is particularly effective. The author of this article doesn't understand that, and instead is ignorant enough to deny other children a healthy working environment for the sake of feminism, yet still demands that she needs the benefit of free schooling. She totally neglects the idea that this new law has been founded on public safety and years of peer reviewed studies and statistical analysis. Just because you can't feel the effects of vaccination programmes doesn't mean they're not effective, despite whatever statistics you bring to the table. That would be like standing under another persons umbrella when it rains and then deciding that your own umbrella cannot possibly stop you from getting wet as you still kept dry without taking it. The statistics you do source are actually laughable. Where you got that '8% required to preserve herd immunity' statistic from I don't know, but the reality is that it simply isn't true. Different diseases require different levels of vaccination, or herd immunity threshold as it's known. According the World Health Organization measles requires a 92-95% vaccination rate that by your own admission is not enough to stop the spread of the disease if some people are allowed to opt out. The measles vaccination has a 95% success rate, and so it's imperative that everyone is vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity. The statistics clearly show that contrary to your belief the vaccination rate of California is not high enough to adequately deal with some diseases, and so surely regulation was the correct solution.

What a surprise, another invalid source. The link for showing that vaccines aren't as effective as first believed has been deleted; what a surprise. If you had bothered to do some research you would discover that according to the webMD, the reason why diseases still exist after vaccination is due to newer vaccines not lasting as long as before, and the contribution of the good old people who object to vaccination. This is further evidence that an even greater number of people should be vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity, despite your claims that even more vaccines will not solve the problem. Need evidence that more vaccines will solve the problem; well here you go:

The issue here isn't that schools aren't beneficial. The issue here is that they're a congregation of various groups of children from different backgrounds that will easily allow a spread of diseases to a large number of individuals.Why should law abiding children have their health put at risk by a minority of ignorant parents who think they know the bodies of their offspring better than science? I wouldn't say that was naive, I would say that's a necessary precaution. It is true that those children will be visiting the same recreational facilities, but unlike school that won't happen on a daily basis, and so contrary to your theory the risks of contracting an illness will be greatly reduced thanks to a reduced amount of contact. The law may be a drastic measure to improve public health but you have not provided me with any evidence to suggest that this would have a detrimental effect, and science has proven that the exact opposite would happen, so why are you putting your opinions above the health of average citizens? Face it, you have no fucking clue about the technical details of vaccination, and so are in no position to start dictating over the wellbeing of the public, unlike the lawmakers who have been thoroughly educated on this decision and haven't just passed the law for the banter. I still don't see how this is a feminist issue. Just because women predominantly care for the child in the family doesn't mean that they instantly have a greater knowledge of vaccination processes. The actual bill has nothing to do with gender, and so maybe you should be more concerned with women in third world countries who cannot get vaccinations because of their background. That is the only thing that seems to be a feminist issue here.

How the hell does breastfeeding, ear piercings and circumcision affect the health of other children? You are aware that herd immunity isn't just going to be of benefit to individuals, but a whole community. It's hardly fair to call this bill extreme when serious illnesses that can be prevented by vaccination are still rising in America on a daily basis. You have proven that you have no idea about medicine on a national scale, yet alone a global scale, so how about leaving this debate with science and not just uneducated feminists. I would like to know what your opinion is on narcotics. Where do we draw the line on that? You know that drugs such as heroine have negative effects on the human body, but under your logic they should be legalised by the government as a women has the right to choose over her body. I'm sure this feminist stance on drug use would certainly not be beneficial on public health in the same way that their views on vaccination would also lead to a decrease in public wellbeing. I just hate this view that because a woman has the power to make informed decisions for their child they can do as they please. You wouldn't give your child prescription medication that's suitable for over 18s because it would have a negative effect on their health, yet the hypocrisy here is that you simply ignore this for vaccinations even when the science, or the label in the case of my metaphor, is clear on the consequences. It would be interesting to hear the views of body autonomy off a person who's contracted measles due to not being vaccinated. I think that person would prioritise health over body autonomy.

So now being injured by a vaccine is becoming the new issue? I know you're now clutching at straws and trying to avoid a scientific debate at all costs, but wouldn't you rather be injured by a vaccine than die of a disease that could easily be treated. Just for the record if you are injured by a vaccination then you are entitled to compensation. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has reported that 2,620 people have been injured by vaccines since 1988, as opposed to the 545,000 who have died from measles alone since 1990. I'd say that not using vaccines because there's a risk of injury is a bit like campaigning against the use of airbags in cars since I'm told they're not the most pleasant of objects to hit your face on, despite the fact they save thousands of lives and are a mandatory safety feature in cars. But then I'm sure you hate that the government forces you to have an airbag in your car as after all it's your car and not theirs. Trust me, I'm a huge supporter of car autonomy.

However the thing that pisses me off most about this article is the blatant denial that millions of people are affected every year by diseases that could be treated with vaccinations, but you don't give a damn. All you care about is your own personal agenda, showing no sympathy or respect for the people that are in desperate need of something you take for granted, and even campaign against. That's the issue here, not your body as a method of trying to adhere to the feminist ideology. You conclude by saying that feminists should support the rights of women even if they make stupid choices, which not only implies that women are somehow being victimised by vaccinations, but also that this is an issue that solely affects women. Your narrow-minded, ignorant and irresponsible approach makes you look like an idiot, and I hope that no sane human being actually believes this bullshit propaganda that's quite obviously false.

Top 10 Action Movie Stars

One time being an action hero didn't just mean walking away from explosions in mundane films. Once it meant beating the living hell out of everything that moved in the most awesome way possible. This surge of testosterone from the acting talent managed to fuel a whole generation of films that aren't necessarily my favorites, but thrilling rides nonetheless. This is a list of my top ten favorite action stars.

#10 Bruce Lee

Notable Roles: Enter the Dragon (7/10) The Chinese Connection (7/10)

We literally kick things off with a man who is quite simply the greatest martial arts pioneer of all time, who tragically lost his life at the young age of 33. Had he lived longer then he may have become the ultimate film star of the new age, but as it stands all we have to remember him by is some epic kung fu moves. Lee's story begins with street fighting in San Francisco, and through that reputation he was able to become a cultural icon, developing a film genre that helped to pave the way for many others on this list who have prospered from this man's legacy. The stories that have been told about this legendary human being are quite extraordinary. There are many tales scattered around that describe how he would beat up any challengers, but the truth about his personal life is an area we simply don't know much about. However what we can witness are his action packed films that lack any sort of emotion or detail, and just rely on Lee kicking many people in the face in order to look totally badass.

Lee's dream was to conquer the world of Hollywood for his Chinese heritage, that he felt was often misinterpreted in the fictional realms of Hollywood action movies. The results are films which depict Lee bashing the privileged whites, including Chuck Norris on one occasion, showing the world just how epic thoughtless violence could be on the big screen. In his career Lee only appeared in five feature length films, which when you consider his impact on popular culture is an incredible achievement. I'll admit it's not my style of movie, but back in the day this raw violence was a breath of fresh air that captivated American audiences, in turn popularising many martial art forms into Western society. Lee died of a cerebral edema whilst filming his epic 'Enter the Dragon', quite literally giving his life for the film industry. His ideology now lives on in his martial art 'Jeet Kune Do', which translates into English as 'the way of the intercepting fist'. He is such an awesome man, and a huge loss.  




#9 Jason Statham

Notable Roles: Snatch. (7/10) The Transporter (5/10)

A man from London that I would happily believe can knock out any human being in the world, and almost has done in his extensive roles in the action genre. The man's brutal British charm has landed him in some unforgettable roles over the years, and as a result he's become an iconic name in the business. Unbelievably Statham started out in life as a professional diver, which might actually be the least macho thing a man could ever do. Looking at pictures of Statham's diving career is hilarious now considering what an intense psychopath this man has become in recent years. Statham's deep voice and chiseled physique could make any jacked up thug shit his pants, and don't think he's a fake either; he performs all his own stunts. Statham is a genuine tough guy, and will no doubt never lose that image. He may not be the best of actors, and he can fuck off for the atrocity that was the remake of 'The Italian Job', but you can't fault his dedication and legendary status when things need to get blown up in style.


#8 Vin Diesel

Notable Roles: The Fast & Furious (7/10) The Chronicles of Riddick (7/10)

Vin Diesel can thank the 'Fast & Furious' franchise for launching him into the spotlight, and also giving this man a well earned career as an action hero. If that sounded like I was being enthusiastic about his talent then I'm sorry to have mislead you, as although Diesel is an action mainstay, he's certainly not the world's greatest actor. However things blowing up have given this man a purpose in life, and when he sticks to that he's a quality cast member with a lot of charisma. Diesel just works as protagonists like Riddick and Dominic Toretto from the 'Fast & Furious' series, as they just fit his rough and tough attitude towards acting. Diesel lives for those roles, and although that has led him to become a slightly monotonous character, it's still a positive influence on what have been some good films. Diesel's hardman antics, name and deep voice that only his mother could love would make you believe that Diesel is a black belt in sixteen million martial arts, but he's actually a bigger fan of 'Dungeons and Dragons'. Yep, one of the most loved action heroes is actually a bigger nerd than I am. That's like finding out The Pope is a big fan of BDSM.


#7 Jackie Chan

Notable Roles: Rush Hour (6/10) Shanghai Nights (3/10)

Are Bruce Lee films too mature for you? Well then I present to you the legendary Jackie Chan. Chan admits that he hates violence in films, so naturally he became a star in the action genre that very, very rarely contain any violence whatsoever. But the amazing thing is that Chan managed to fit right in, and even made his name from films that are relatively 'PG' compared with more full blooded adrenaline fueled box office smashes that a normal action hero relies on. Chan's films might not be the most gritty and mature, but they do make you laugh in a way that most over the top sequences do. I'm not a huge fan of that myself, but as something unique it's elevated Chan's career to that of legendary status, so fair play to him.

Chan is a man that is obviously dedicated to his career. Under all the joking is a guy that is passionate about performing some fucking awesome stunts. So much so that Chan usually can't get insurance for his films as the stunts are so dangerous, and his track record is also extremely poor. Chan has been injured numerous times over his extensive career, even fracturing his skull on one occasion, so I think we'll let him off for not going to those extreme levels now that he's in his twilight years. As a result of turning down the stunts, Chan's recent films have been shocking, and the quality of his film's is now no longer existent. If anything he's known more for his political activism these days than anything else, which is a shame for a man who's appeared in countless iconic films. 'Bruce Lee lite' he may be, but their similar approaches to stardom have made them both legends of action films, standing the test of time and remaining cultural icons to this very day.


#6 Dwayne Johnson

Notable Roles: The Scorpion King (5/10) Fast & Furious 6 (7/10)

In my opinion this guy is one of the most awesome people in human history. Everything this man does is so smooth that you can't help but admire his personality. To wrestling fans he will always be known as 'The Rock', and for me that was a time when Johnson was at his best, laying the smackdown on anyone else with his legendary charisma and screen presence. Even now he's still one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, and although that can't be said for his acting abilities, he was still the highest grossing actor of 2013. He's obviously a man that many people enjoy watching, including myself, and I would be lying if I said I didn't get sexually excited every time this man appears on my screen, because you know with this guy that things are about to get intense.

The problems with Johnson begin when you take into account his previous work, which are properly shit. Aside from the 'Fast & Furious' series, Johnson always manages to find himself on the wrong side of some terrible films that only a man of his charisma can even try and rescue. I'm genuinely struggling to think of any film Johnson has been in that's even decent, which I honestly don't understand from such an awesome personality. Surely 'The Rock' doesn't deserve train wrecks like 'Tooth Fairy'. Do people believe that he can only do hardcore or gimmicky performances and so just ignore him? Come on, the guy's an absolute tank; he's made for huge blockbusters. Okay he might not be the world's finest actor but the effort he shows towards himself, his fans and the industry is commendable to say the very least, and I couldn't think of another guy who's presence is anywhere near as epic as Johnson in this day and age. He's an extraordinary person, that me and many others would love to see appearing in better quality action films to finally complement that legendary career.


#5 Jean Claude Van Damme

Notable Roles: Universal Soldier (4/10) Kickboxer (5/10)

How can you have one of these lists without including 'The Muscles from Brussels'? He may be a pretty shit actor that's graced some of this age's shittest films, but he's a shit actor that's very talented at kicking people in the face, and looking damn fine doing it. Van Damme is quite simply a martial arts machine that must have fucked up every B-movie actor in his low budget atrocities. His films all have the same basic premise, and that's watching Van Damme beating the shit out of everyone, and then maybe if he's feeling pumped up the odd bit of showboating for good measure. I'll admit that doesn't make his films very good,*cough* 'Street Fighter', but as testosterone filled thrills they're fucking epic when you've had a lot to drink. Van Damme's legitimate badass persona is what sets him apart from his competitors, yet never enough to get the guy some serious popularity. As a black belt in shotokan and an action movie legend it's no surprise that Van Damme has been the inspiration for many performers over the years, but nobody has quite managed to become as brutally sexy as the man himself.


#4 Chuck Norris

Notable Roles: The Hitman (4/10) The Delta Force (5/10)

Hugely christian, hugely republican and a former member of the air force that enjoys beating the hell out of bears and insurgents; Chuck Norris must be the most American person of all time. However what makes him special is his skills in martial arts that have even led him to creating his own discipline known as 'Chun Kuk Do', which probably doesn't mean anything in Japanese but sounds pretty intense anyway. However reading the personal code is like looking at a scout promise and so I'm amazed that Chuck Norris has become famous for being the manliest bastard in the known universe. Norris has a black belt in judo, a black belt in jiu jitsu, and a huge list of badass action films that do support the various jokes that are littered across the internet that suggest this guy is the toughest guy in history. I still doubt that he has the ability to come into my house and smash my face on the keyboard when I piss him off like some jokes suggest, which at least reassures me to say that I think Chuck Norris is actually a terrible acto kdfg m'dfslgskmgmlsgkmkgsdrsytshsrfjuytsitstuxfgs


#3 Sylvester Stallone

Notable Roles: Rocky (8/10) First Blood (7/10)

An actor so epic that even his mere presence is enough to make any man cry. He's a walking lump of testosterone fueled action who's become an iconic actor even though he hasn't yet gained the ability to talk in proper sentences. It's almost a crime against humanity that this once legendary man has been demoted to appearing in really crappy low budget films that are just painful to watch. He's a man of great talent having written the script for both 'Rambo' and 'Rocky', so why the hell does he keep on appearing in the same crap over and over again? I just hate that his presence is now solely to elevate already shitty films, which although impressive for a 68 year old, is still not acceptable for a man with a history as grand as this man's. I do hope I'm that badass when I'm 68, but then I doubt I'll beat up every action star worth knowing about, even taking a shot from Dolph Lundgren and Steve Austin, ending up in intensive care both times. Sure he might be a dreadful actor, but you can't help but get all excited when this man pops into shot. He's possibly the only man alive that can get away with a monotonous voice and wooden acting in action epics and still look fucking fine doing it. Stallone is a man that can make a shit ton of money from blowing a few things up, and that's why he's become an action film icon.


#2 Arnold Schwarzenegger

Notable Roles: The Terminator (8/10) Predator (8/10)

It took us a while, but we've now finally come to the action icons that have frequently starred in some good films. The first of those is a man with the greatest one liners in human history, and that's helped cement his place in cinema's hall of fame with some memorable roles in the action genre. That's an amazing feat considering that Schwarzenegger started out in life as just a bodybuilder who impressively won the Mr. Universe crown on three separate occasions. That simply translates as a man not destined for acting, but that doesn't really matter when you can blow things up with a fuck load of charisma. Just look at him holding that rocket launcher in the photo above; how badass does he look? Couple that stature with an iconic monotone voice and his legendary charisma and the products are various films that Arnie dominates from start to finish. He's not in the action spotlight anymore, and has recently made his name in the political world preaching about the environment, which isn't much like the man who bought the first ever Hummer. Still, back in the day everyone could recognise that Arnie was an absolute legend.


#1 Bruce Willis

Notable Roles: Die Hard (8/10) Armageddon (5/10)

Is there another action movie better than Die Hard? I can't think of one, and so Bruce Willis has become synonymous to me with the whole action genre in a way that nobody else has. His role in 'Die Hard' alone is enough to make him an action god, but I even believe that he surpasses legends such as Schwarzenegger when it comes to blowing things up in an over the top fashion. Of course there are now many films on the market that cater to the adrenaline filled action market, but Willis' role as John McLane helped kick start an era of flammable objects detonating for no apparent reason. The thing that makes Willis' explosions much more appealing is that he does it in style, and given the immense amount of charisma this man possesses, anything he does appear in is usually a box office smash.

It just doesn't matter whether Willis decides to be a police officer or in the military, as it always produces a pretty epic result. He's done his fair share of other genres, showing that he's actually a decent actor, but you never end up with a laid back snoozefest when Willis is around. He may have toned down a little since his glory days of the late eighties, and so now unfortunately only produces crap in a similar decline to almost every other action star in history. The most recent installment of the 'Die Hard' franchise was an episode were Willis didn't look like he cared anymore, appearing as though he's become bored of being cast in that same tough guy role with good morals for the past few decades. We should only remember Willis when he actually used to show the world his talent for punching people in the face, and even when deciding to veer away from those stereotypical manly roles.