|
Scribbly Gum FAQ |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 16/08/2002 16:29:21 |
| Subject: Bruce | post id: 21928 |
| Hi, Location: South Australia We found an injured Galah that has been surviving in the road-side foliage about three weeks ago. Bruce, as we have named him, had been hit by a car and his right wing and shoulder were damaged. The shoulder has repaired itself but the joint between the ulna/radius and the hand, is cactus. This morning we found a small bone protruding from that area which was not noticed before. His greater exertions of late have most likely made it visible. The vet thinks, as infection has not already happened, that it will not. (Time will tell) Bruce will never fly again and is now living in our back room (7 metres X 3 metres) where we spend most of our time, where it is warm. He has a cage that is permanently open, from which he can come and go as he pleases. He also is free to sit up high in a phone box size alcove that leads from the outside into the room. This he goes to when he wishes. On warm days we place him in a 20 foot aviary for a couple of hours. Bruce puts up with us being close but bites (Quite hard) when handled and thick gloves are necessary when doing this. He accepts the routine that is our life and is only perturbed when we get too close. He has learnt to adjust to his new circumstance very well and given time, he may even have trust enough not to bite humans and become a sook. There is no guarantee of this though. His week or so in the wild, as an injured animal has him being very thin, with his keel bone quite sharp but improving all the time. The warmth of the room is helping him to survive and he has all the appearance of being happy. (As happy as he can be under the circumstance) We are not up-close animal people and we are looking for a good home for him. He would suite someone that could replicate his living style as explained above or someone that has another captive Galah(s) that is/are in need of a friend. Our choice would be the latter. Without being judgemental at all, our inspection and approval of his new living conditions would have to be a part of the deal. Love to hear from anyone out there that thinks they can give Bruce a new home and life, where all party’s can eventually enjoy each others company. Hopefully, DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 18/08/2002 09:49:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 22310 |
| IMO, this is bordering on cruelty. You are keeping a wild animal that can never be released again into the wild as a pet. Which in most states would be illegal. Not illegal to stop you enjoying native species as pets, but because it is cruel. As you have mentioned the bird is not happy living in close proximity with you. You are not happy living in close proximity with it and are willing to hand over this bird to someone else. And to cap it all off, you are allowing the bird to continue on with a compound fracture! IMO, the kindest thing to do would be to have your vet euthanse the animal. I find in these situations asking yourself why you are doing what you are doing is a good start. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 18/08/2002 10:14:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 22316 |
chrisy, I appreciate your concern for the Galah. Having looked after many sick and injured (and raised) Galah’s, I have a feel for their emotional state. When I say it does not like being in our proximity, I mean within three or four feet at present, and closing. You must remember this is a wild Galah that has never encountered humans at this level before. It is adjusting very well indeed. The injury to the wing is of a type that is not repairable and the bone will or has lost the blood supply to the exposed part. Galahs are very intelligent creatures and we are giving it a chance at life, the only life it will ever have. At the present it has all the appearances of getting on with this only life and until evidence to the latter is observed, we will not kill it. If it showed any signs of behavioural disorder/distress, euthanasia would be instant. Animals appear to enjoy living as do humans and prematurely destroying them is often taken too lightly a task. It is good that you have spoken out about Bruce, but be assured that we judge his fortunes on a constant basis and would teach any future carer to do likewise. We are very strict with any future situation of injured animals and visiting rights and prognosis remains in our hands. As far as pets go, we are absolutely opposed to the idea of keeping healthy birds in captivity even if they are bred in captivity. But, when there is no other choice than to do so, it is often better than death, which is final. Cheers, DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 18/08/2002 10:49:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 22334 |
| David, There is a large amount of anthromorphising in that post. I again, ask you ...... are you caring for this bird, because it is the best thing for the bird, or because you cannot bear to euthanase it.... A lot of people make the statement, well any life must be better than death..... I for one, don't belive that is true. A life of capativity for a wild bird is horrible.... | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 18/08/2002 11:03:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 22335 |
chrisy, I spend an inordinate amount of time euthanasing animals of all kinds. It is not a task I enjoy, but if necessary, I do it without a second thought. My attitude to animals is anthropomorphic free, more so than anyone I know. I have not said than “any life” is better than death, for it is evidentially not. As humans can compromise with life and we are animals, then so can other animals. It is all in the care of the human or other animal that is important. A life in captivity for a wild bird (or indeed, any animal) can be horrible, but the knowledge that humans possess can ease the pain. We do not make blanket rules, for all situations vary. It is a case by case judgement. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 09:26:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27422 |
-Update- Some Scribblers may remember I found Galah with an injured wing by the side of the road. The damage to the wing was permanent and the now named Bruce would never fly again. That was about seven weeks ago. Bruce was extremely thin, indicating he had been wandering around without flight for some time before found. He was very wild and difficult to handle, possessing an accuracy of biting ability that often found the most sensitive parts of any hand holding him. (Mine!) Lack of body weight disallowed Bruce living in an outside aviary because of the extreme cold. A small cage was set up in the heated back room atop of an old sowing machine with a stick for him to get to the floor. A small opening allowing him to come and go at will. Eventually he semi-adjusted to his new circumstance, although he was always very wary. I made perches in places he liked best. One, four feet high so as to allow vision through the rear window, another in the kitchen under the work table and another in the lounge in front of the gas fire. The two fold effect of these perches was that they gave him choices of location and with small pieces of vinyl underneath, the bulk of his dropping were caught and easily cleaned up. Weeks went by with all kinds of food being offered in an attempt to win his confidence. His favourite turned out to be pistachios with also a liking for almonds, smoked almonds and peanuts in the shell. Thankfully he is a Galah and doesn’t eat much. Persistence of talking to him and trying to make Galah type noises and hand feeding shelled pistachios paid off. About a week ago he allowed me to pat his head. Very timidly at first, with any “wrong” movement answered with a bite or a screech loud and unexpectedly enough to freeze blood. (Which it often did) Three days ago, the patting of the head extended to stroking him under the chin and even picking him up for the small journey from the gas fire to his back-room home. (With only half-hearted attempts at biting) Yesterday morning as I lay on couch next to the slow combustion heater, after he had just moseyed up to be patted by my hand dangling on the floor, he flapped violently and clawed his way up on to my lap. Bruce appears to have accepted his lesser situation in life and is trying to make the best of it. That afternoon, he displayed the happy Galah antics of hanging up-side down and screeching and wing stretching in a very uninhibited manner. Bruce had regained his love of life and his need of love. The moral of this story is not to be too quick in making the decision to euthanase an injured animal. Think it through without the interference of the convenience of euthanasia, keeping in mind the best interest of the animal in question. What the future holds for Bruce is somewhat uncertain, but that can be said of all of us. Cheers, DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 09:44:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27424 |
| cheers back .... 3 of them. :) | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 10:29:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27430 |
| YAYYYY Bruce!!! I read this with interest & found that I agree with DAT. If an animal is injured, cannot be released, but is NOT in pain then why cant it be kept as a pet. Bruce has shown that he has adjusted & is quite capable of getting what he wants, & making the best of his new world. I find it very hard to accept that any animal that is not in pain, but unable to be released is better off dead. | |
| From: Speedy ® | 01/10/2002 10:30:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27431 |
| Congratulations DtA. *and a little scratch for Bruce too* OUCH!!! | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 10:33:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27432 |
| >>>>> The moral of this story is not to be too quick in making the decision to euthanase an injured animal. Think it through without the interference of the convenience of euthanasia, keeping in mind the best interest of the animal in question. Hang on.....moral of the story?.....'convenience of euthanasia' ? You are happy with your actions as you see nothing wrong with keeping a wild animal captive as a pet. This is based on your own judgement on the animals wellbeing. Your quite lengthy post on what you have done to help this bird *adjust* to its new lifestyle...begs the question who are you trying to convince....you or us ? To me when l read your post l read of a bird that was agressive with fear of humans, a bird that wouldn't eat.......and when these behaviours ceased an owner who is pleased at how he has manage to tame the 'wild beast'. Your assumptions on how the animal now sees its life and its level of contenment are frighting. "Bruce had regained his love of life and his need of love.............? are you the one in need of love? do birds even feel love? I would ask you to question the reason why you have done what you have done? is it for you or the bird? also take a look at the bigger picture.......are you personally willing to take in all the un-releasable animals l euthanase every year...? nope......how about half? anyone else? Nature parks aren't going to take our groups 400 injured Magpies that are euthanased a year. Before you question the actions of others....a little critical thinking...... Also euthanasia is NEVER a convenience......! | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 10:52:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27433 |
| Chrisy, why do you feel that death is better than living a different life? I'm not judging or anything, just interested in your way of looking at it | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 10:54:21 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27434 |
Chrisy, When I say that euthanasia is often a convenience, I say so to try to overcome the attitude that has people “putting animals out of their misery.” This little jingoistic phrase is used ad nauseum to alleviate any guilt feelings of killing, to take away any future responsibility and for many other reasons. As for love of the Bruce, I would very much prefer not to have him or any other animal and eventually will find a home for him with others of his kind that I think is suitable. You have a very narrow opinion of the mental capability of Bruce and most likely other animals. Life is full of unintended change and as humans can adapt, what makes you think that other animals can’t. Bruce is as happy as any bird in captivity can be at the present and I think it far preferable to have a bird that cannot live in the wild in a captive situation than one that is healthy and “bred” into captivity. Do you really think that having a bird bred into captivity takes away the genetic needs of such a bird? Are you sure you are just not defending your own earlier statements about Bruce? I cannot look after every injured bird but I can do something about the ones that cross my path. What is your point in making that comment? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 10:56:47 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27435 |
| >>>> Chrisy, why do you feel that death is better than living a different life? Firstly what is wrong with death? Humans have multiple hang ups about death. The practical side of things alone suggests that this option is ineffective. Where do we place all these animals? How do we duplicate their requirements in an artifical environment? How do we ensure that animals living a *different* life are not suffering? How do we ensure our own feelings and needs to not cloud our judgements? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:08:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27437 |
| >>>> I say so to try to overcome the attitude that has people “putting animals out of their misery.” This little jingoistic phrase is used ad nauseum to alleviate any guilt feelings of killing, to take away any future responsibility and for many other reasons. could another of those 'many other reasons'...be because it is in fact the best thing to do in many situations? Funny that you mention that euthanasing animals frees people of future responsibility...when you yourself although not choosing the route of euthanasia are also freeing yourself of the long term repsonsibility of caring for the animal... hmmmmmm hypocritical maybe ? Perhaps it is not my 'narrow opinion' of the birds mental capability that needs to be questioned but why you feel the need to make the bird adapt to 'unintended change'? I cannot look after every injured bird but I can do something about the ones that cross my path.What is your point in making that comment? To highlight the simplistic conclusion you have made. Just because you have enjoyed the process of keeping a wild animal as a pet, and you belive it to be best.....you cannot expect or support that all wildlife be given the same opportunity...there just isn't the resources regardless of whether or not it is the *right* thing to do....... People make throw away comments on euthanasia mae carers......without little thought on what alternative options exist. Again l ask who did you do this for *bruce* or you ? Who is going to gain the biggest benefit from your actions? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:09:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27438 |
Chrisy, How do you know that dogs and cats are not similarly affected? Let me answer that for you. By observation. I have been involved with animal rescue for about 20 years and observation is my guide. I have no hang ups about death. Have you noticed I call myself David the Atheist? If I had hang ups in this regard I might call myself David the Buddhist - Muslim - Christian etc. I would just about guarantee that you are not volunteering to meat the grim reaper before your time now, are you? DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 11:11:55 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27439 |
| "meat the grim reaper" ... i love it dta . :))) a VERY friendly smile ... jj | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:13:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27440 |
Chrisy, I do not enjoy looking after Bruce or any animal. I do not like having pets. Period! So what are you suggesting? No-one rescue any animal that they find injured and if they do then it should be euthanased. You are getting yourself into a mental muddle. DTA | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 11:13:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27441 |
| >>>>The practical side of things alone suggests that this option is ineffective. Agreed in some cases, but even ifwecant save *all* arent *some* better than none >>>>How do we duplicate their requirements in an artifical environment? Food, shelter, easy, stimulation mentally easy. >>>>>>>>How do we ensure that animals living a *different* life are not suffering. You have had prolly way more experience with injured & healthy birds so you know when a bird is happy or not, if I can tell then you certainly can. I'm not saying any injured animal should becoome a pet, re release when & where possible ....BUT if not& someone is willing to give an animal a chance at a differnt life why not?? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:14:13 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27442 |
Why....thank you ma'am! :o)) DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:16:56 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27443 |
| >>>> How do you know that dogs and cats are not similarly affected? Let me answer that for you. By observation. Domestication? the welfare of wildlife and the welfare of domesticated animals is completely different........dogs and cats much further removed from the wild orgins than 'bruce'..... I have no hang ups about death. Have you noticed I call myself David the Atheist? Ok then why is euthanasing 'bruce' a bad thing? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:19:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27444 |
| >>>>>I do not enjoy looking after Bruce or any animal. I do not like having pets. Period! You are getting yourself into a mental muddle. No David you are the person who is advocating keeping un-releasable animals as pets....but then saying.....'but l don't belive in that'.....????? I never thought l would agree with Gaspode but you are a hypocrite aren't you? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:22:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27445 |
Chrisy, Apart from the obvious rebuttal of why would it be a good thing, my reasons are very simple. We and all the other animals have only one life. Why would I take that life away without extremely just cause? Then we are in agreement that no-bird should be in a cage. Many have had a relatively short time of “domestication”. But, when it comes to a compromised life and no life, what would you choose? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:23:10 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27446 |
| Hey Sue >>> You have had prolly way more experience with injured & healthy birds so you know when a bird is happy or not, if I can tell then you certainly can. define happiness and explain how we tell if an animal is or not? do animals even feel happiness? how much of what we belive about an animals state is what we want to belive based on our own emotions? | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 11:26:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27447 |
| Chrisy, gotta go out, but I'm thinking thinking :) :) bbl | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:27:53 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27448 |
Chrisy, how much of what we belive about an animals state is what we want to belive based on our own emotions? How do you know that your world-view is not influencing what you are saying? Why wouldn’t animals experience happiness if they can experience unhappiness? That is what you say. Be careful of the hypocrite word, it has a habit of rebounding. DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:28:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27449 |
| >>>> But, when it comes to a compromised life and no life, what would you choose? Wasn't this the original question?????? Ok *breathes in* 1. I don't belive we can tell the impact keeping a wild animal capativity. You would know from your years of experience that not all animals will show outward signs of stress. 2. The resources needed to allow these animals a second lease of life do not exist. 3. I question the right we have to alter a wild animals life to that degree. don't forget what you have done is illegal as well........ All un-releasable animals l have are euthanased. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:35:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27451 |
Chrisy, You are spitting the doctrine of WIRES. Do you have one yourself? The resources exist for people to keep healthy birds in captivity. What is the difference? You are not questioning the right we have to alter anything. You are trying to justify your reasons for euthanasing anything that cannot be released. This is South Australia. It is not illegal. What is your world view? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:44:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27452 |
| You are not questioning the right we have to alter anything. You are trying to justify your reasons for euthanasing anything that cannot be released. and you to justify your your own actions.... I hope that this thread will encourage people to think about how and why they see wildlife, especially in relation to the issue of euthanasia. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:52:31 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27454 |
Chrisy, I think that those viewing this thread will have some doubts about how some of us treat other animals. You may call it wildlife as an amorphous name, but wildlife is made up of individual animals that all have feelings not too removed from our own. Let me be very direct with you. Do you believe if I kill Bruce, he will get another chance with reincarnation or something else like that? You are not answering my questions on your world view and that could be very telling. Get this out of the road so I can argue in a more enlightened way. DTA | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 11:55:34 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27456 |
| Ok then why is euthanasing 'bruce' a bad thing? Euthanasing Bruce apparently wasn’t necessary. Chrisy what if you have a car accident tomorrow that makes you a paraplegic. This will force you to live a very different life to what you do now. Would you like to be put down because that forced change could be too mentally difficult for you? I’d think not. Give the bird some credit. There are domesticated galahs out there who would be in much worst condition than Bruce from simply neglect or the like. He’s been given a second chance at life, and he seems to have to chosen to adjust and get on with it. Nature parks aren't going to take our groups 400 injured Magpies that are euthanased a year. If there are not the places to release rehabilitated birds, why do you raise indian minors? Now David, congratulations on Bruce, but: When I say that euthanasia is often a convenience, I say so to try to overcome the attitude that has people “putting animals out of their misery.” This little jingoistic phrase is used ad nauseum to alleviate any guilt feelings of killing, to take away any future responsibility and for many other reasons. I’ve had a few of my pets put down in the past and I can assure you it was nothing to do with conveniance. Please don’t make blanket statements like that David. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 11:58:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27458 |
| >>>>but wildlife is made up of individual animals that all have feelings not too removed from our own. Aha! there it is......you belive that wild animals share our range of emotions. That is an assumption you have made and you are basing your actions on this. I don't belive wild animals share our range of emotions. Get this out of the road so I can argue in a more enlightened way. l will leave that one alone. Basically l have steered away from your questions that are not relevant to the thread. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 11:59:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27459 |
fraenata, I did say "often" and not "always" and I know that euthanasia is something that has to be done every now and then. I do it far more often than I would like and do not shy away from it when there is no other choice. Cheers, DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:02:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27460 |
Chrisy, There lies the rub. Thank you. I consider it to be very relevant and I must ask you why you do not? If animals do not share our emotions, then why are you rescuing them? Why not let them all die? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:03:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27461 |
| >>>>>Chrisy what if you have a car accident tomorrow that makes you a paraplegic. This will force you to live a very different life to what you do now. Would you like to be put down because that forced change could be too mentally difficult for you? I’d think not. But it isn't me we are talking about is it? It is a wild bird. Once we start drawing comparisons between how we would handle a situation and how a wild animal would we start to project our own values and emotions on to the animal. If there are not the places to release rehabilitated birds, why do you raise indian minors? Whoa back there Bec..... There isn't enough wildlife parks to take UN-RELEASABLE animals, we are able to release rehabilitated animals. I have never raised Inidian Mynas...l have raised Noisy Miners...slightly different | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 12:07:13 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27462 |
| >>>do animals even feel happiness? (I'm not here) but it sure is happiness when I arrive home & am greeted by the dog, cat & birds all making a racket. there is plenty of tail wagging,..an accepted sign of a dog beening happy, the cat purrs & winds himself around my legs, purring accepted happiness from a cat, now the birds...a bit harder but definatly behavoir that *I* recognise as pleasure to see me So yes I would say animals show happiness | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:07:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27463 |
| >>>> If animals do not share our emotions, then why are you rescuing them? Whether wildlife has emotions or not doesn't matter....l rescue them to ease their physical pain and give them a second chance at life back in the wild. I enjoy working with and handling native animals. Furthermore l enjoy the opportunity it gives me to interact with people and discuss different aspects of wildlife conservation. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 12:09:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27464 |
| Oh I see, two mistakes I made there. By wildlife Parks I took it to mean national parks/reserves, where they would actually be released, and therefore are releasable. Do you mean nature parks that keep the animals in captivity? And I thought you said before that you do raise Indian Minors as well. Oops :-) | |
| From: sue ® | 01/10/2002 12:11:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27465 |
| (I'm really not here but...) >>>>>But it isn't me we are talking about is it? It is a wild bird. Once we start drawing comparisons between how we would handle a situation and how a wild animal would we start to project our own values and emotions on to the animal But Bruce had the will to live!!! he was eatting road side folage, if he wasnt meant to live, & he didnt have the will to live, why didnt he just die?? He wanted to live, his instincts are to survive so why not help him forfill his will to live? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:12:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27466 |
Chrisy, When Bruce arrived he was in pain. Humans feel pain. He was cold. Humans feel cold. He was frightened. Humans feel fear. He was hungry. Humans feel hunger. Bruce now is jumping around and doing Galah type things. He did not do this for quite a while. Bruce is now not cold, hungry, frightened, in pain and is showing signs of love. What are the emotions that animals, or if you like, Bruce, do not have that you do? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:13:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27467 |
| >>>> Do you mean nature parks that keep the animals in captivity? Yes, zoos and alike. This is where some of our un-releasable animals are sent. However parks are only interested in note worthy species....eg Wedgies >>>>And I thought you said before that you do raise Indian Minors as well Nope never, we don't even get them here. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:18:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27468 |
| >>>> But Bruce had the will to live!!! he was eatting road side folage, if he wasnt meant to live, & he didnt have the will to live, why didnt he just die?? He wanted to live, his instincts are to survive so why not help him forfill his will to live? All animals want to survive. It is their main goal in life, to survive and to reproduce. He didn't die because David is now providing for him. He would have died otherwise. "will to live" wouldn't have prevented him from dieing. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 12:21:48 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27469 |
| Personally I'm quite sure that some birds, especially galahs, feel affection and attachment to some people, maybe that is love; but we can't even define that for people so how can we for an animal? Let me share an anecdote which could be proof. My Mum's galah, bella just loved a freind of our family, who would always give her hugs and chatter with her for hours when she came over, but she hasn't been to visit for about a year now. Last week I visited there with a new freind of mine who is a lot like Jen, same appearance, same voice same body language. Bella got so excited I'm sure she would have squeezed through the bars of her cage just to get to her, and when we did get her out it was near impossible to get her out from underneath Sarah's ear, where she was snuggled in whispering her excited chatter. Does that not show recognition and great affection for someone? Are these not traits of love? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:22:57 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27471 |
| What are the emotions that animals, or if you like, Bruce, do not have that you do? I question whether wild animals can love, have acceptance or have the ability to assess a situation and decide to make the best of it. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 12:27:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27472 |
| But if you don't know, why should you take away their choice? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:30:11 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27473 |
Chrisy, question whether wild animals can love, have acceptance or have the ability to assess a situation and decide to make the best of it. You may question this all you like. But considering that emotional states in humans are deep down in our ancient brain and have little to do with our higher thinking capacities, then your questioning has little ground for being supportable. I err on the side that I am an animal and so are other animals. Your world view may be getting in the way of this. I guess we will never know, hey? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:33:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27474 |
Chrisy, Now we are venturing nearer to the truth, how about explaining my “hypocrisy” in clear and understandable term for all to read. DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:33:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27475 |
| >>>> But if you don't know, why should you take away their choice? Good question. I can't say either way how a wild animal would adjust to a life in capativity. I have strong doubts on whether or not this is in the best interest of the animal though and every animal is going to be different. The way you have worded that question is interesting.....'take away their choice'... If this was a choice the animal could make...fine. If it is a choice a human is making for the animal.......don't know. Reasons being the in my experience that many people cannot see a situtation without including themselves in it. People may find it difficult in accpeting the death of an animal as the right outcome. Therefore l worry whether someone is doing this for their own piece of mind or really for the animal. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 12:43:34 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27477 |
| Therefore l worry whether someone is doing this for their own piece of mind or really for the animal. That is sometimes the case I'll admit. I know I certainly like looking after joeys. But the ones we have raised are, by all indications, very happy and well adjusted animals now. So it's a win-win situation. Then there's case of a regent parrot I once picked up off the side of the road (after the car in front of me hit several of them and kept going). She wasn't much fun to look after, and she didn't like being in a cage. But after a few days rest and quiet as recommended by the vet, we let her go and she flew off confidently in the direction of her home. Mission accomplished; still a win-win situation. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:45:57 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27478 |
fraenata, Fine story about the Bella. It is only human, egocentric speciesist arrogance that dismisses the notion that other animals have emotional lives. DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:48:48 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27479 |
| I think you are picking up the difference between hand raised wildlife and adult wildlife kept in care. This is why Davids actions with an adult Galah raised my hackles. These animals have had little or no interaction with humans. They see us as top dog predators. It is for the most part a stressful experience to be in our company. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 12:53:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27480 |
Chrisy, Some humans can change to meet new ways of existing, discarding old "bleliefs" in favour of new ones. Humans are animals and I will need some fairly heavy evidence to demonstrate to me that other animals cannot also. So far the evidence is that Bruce has adjusted very well. To kill him would be a crime of imagination. DTA | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 01/10/2002 12:53:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27481 |
| How I bite my tongue ... Chrisy, how can you (of all people) say that there is no proof of animals needing or showing emotions. This has been proven by many animal behaviour specialists, and you see it daily with your own pets (think about the situation with your cats). Humans are animals too right? Then other animals would surely share the experiences and thoughts that our body gives us and expresses as emotions, obviously some animals show this more than others. I agree with DTA that the term "putting out of their misery" is used to help justify euthanasia and often to hide guilt. I know once after having euthanaised an animal and the moment I said those words I felt a terrible sense of guilt and thought "what if I could have done more?". Sometimes you can't .. but what if you can? I agree with Chrisy that not every animal can be saved and for a number of reasons it is not viable to continue treatment. However .. this is a case/story about ONE bird .. DTA is not going around turning every injured animal he finds into a "pet". Also the wildlife carers course I did said that we should actually keep 1-2 of our charges as pets because it helps us psycologically. It's a job where we are exposed to death everyday and keeping the animal reminds us that not everything has to die. In my opinion DTA has done a wonderful job. He has given the galah a second chance at life, even if it isn't the same life as before. Galahs are highly intelligent animals and in the wild they are very sociable and affectionate to members of their flock. This has been shown to be the same with captive birds and their owners. The wonderful thing about parrots/cockatoos is that their ability to communicate with humans (and I don't mean by mimicing speach) they become more than pets they become friends, partners and family members and are treated as such. Congratualtions DTA .. I hope you and your bird have a wonderful life together. - Q | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 12:53:44 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27482 |
| Oh and David don't forget >>> It is only human, egocentric speciesist arrogance that dismisses the notion that other animals have emotional lives. and the lack of scientific evidence...... Whether or not an animal has emotions came up in this thread because l suggested people can project their own emotions on to animals and this is why people find it hard to think of death as an option. This is how your threads normally wind up in such as confusing mess. My world view, whether l am a member of WIRES, whether l am a speciesest...etc is not relevant. I belive that what you have done with 'bruce' is not in the animals best interest and that your emotions may have clouded your judgement. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 12:57:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27483 |
| I think you are picking up the difference between hand raised wildlife and adult wildlife kept in care. True. There's no doubt that when all animals mentioned above first came into care they would have been very frightened. But the point is they dealt with it, and now they're happy (at least we think the parrot is). What's better, a few days stress followed by a continued life, or a few days slow death? | |
| From: Seed ® | 01/10/2002 13:00:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27484 |
| An excellent thread so far. Lots of good points from many different views | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 13:00:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27485 |
Chrisy, Evidence is around. There was a post on SSSF recently that had an article by Peter Singer. In this article Peter Singer quoted many specialists in the field we are discussing that very conclusively concluded that animals do indeed have emotions similar to our own. I am surprised that you, as a rescuer have not been able to draw your own conclusions and suspect it is because you do not wish to. The tread is only muddled by your attempts to not answer pertinent questions and to maintain a view that is out-dated. In any case, where is my hypocrisy? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:01:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27486 |
| obviously we disagree This has been proven by many animal behaviour specialists, and you see it daily with your own pets (think about the situation with your cats). My cats don't get along because they are naturally solitary animals and l have introduced two into one house and one cat is particuarly agressive. This is a behaviour not an emotion. Humans are animals too right? Then other animals would surely share the experiences and thoughts that our body gives us and expresses as emotions, obviously some animals show this more than others. I think it is highly debatable whether or not the emotional range a higher order animal such as humans have can be directly compared to other animals. You have also picked up on a vital point 'obviously some animals show this more than others'. This is very true, and how do we know if an animal is in distress. Not all animals will outwardly show such signs. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 13:03:55 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27487 |
| Chrisy, Emotions cannot be directly compared between humans either. This does not give the right to euthanase them thought. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 13:04:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27488 |
though | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:07:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27489 |
| again..... the question of whether animals feel emotions only came into this thread because l suggested people can project their own emotions on to an animal just because l belive an animal doesn't have the same range of emotions a human does, doesn't mean l advocate euthanasing them.....sheeks, how a thread gets twisted nor does it mean l wont rescue them l belive that human emotions cloud judgements...whether or not wildlife have a range of emotions is not relevant the long term welfare of a wild animal kept captive was my question | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 13:08:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27490 |
Chrisy, Server time is about to expire so have to go. You have not satisfactorily explained your case and you will not answer questions that have a strong bearing on the subject. Even so, it has been fun. Bye for now. :o)) DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:09:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27491 |
| thiking of different ways of expressing myself... Whether a wild animal shares emotion is a spirtual matter..... i suggest that decisions regarding euthanaising wildlife should be free of a persons belifes and values... | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:11:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27492 |
| I too must get going. David l have enjoyed discussing this with you. It is something l have thought critically about for a while. Five years ago l would have been right with you and Quarrion......but my experiences have lead me to think about why l belived what l belived....... If anything comes out of this thread that we can all agree on is the value of critical thinking. | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 13:18:27 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27493 |
| G-wiz ... if yu get to this point ... this is one of those threads I'd like to get into a word document ... I just keep messing it up. Later I'd like to do the same with a thread about caring for animals without the acknowledged likely outcome of maintaining them not-in-the-wild. It's much the same dilemma for people with (life constraining?) illnesses and injuries I think ... or for the people making the decisions ... and the resources that each takes takes up. jj | |
| From: wiyaka ® | 01/10/2002 13:19:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27494 |
| Having read that thread, I must say that I am shocked at chrissy's attitude, and quite worried that she takes a prominent role in wildlife management and rescue. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:21:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27495 |
| >>>> It's much the same dilemma for people with (life constraining?) illnesses and injuries I think ... or for the people making the decisions ... and the resources that each takes takes up I agree. My mother and l share our support of euthanasia in humans. We both feel that because we make these decisions daily with animals that come into care, we have thought more about the issue. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:23:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27496 |
| >>>>> I must say that I am shocked at chrissy's attitude, and quite worried that she takes a prominent role in wildlife management and rescue that is ok, also realise that what l am suggesting is legislation in NSW and part of our licensing requirements with NParks. | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 01/10/2002 13:25:59 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27497 |
| >It's much the same dilemma for people with (life constraining?) illnesses and injuries this has been one of my reflections of this thread. if sarahs mums mum had of 'belonged' to sarahs mum she wouldn't have lived the last 18 hours of her life. i know my mum wanted hard to live. *sarahs mum spins around in confuzzlement* | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 13:37:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27500 |
| Cchrisy, When you say you have thought more about the issue I find that really confronting, even though I agree with what you have said. I would find it less *not-sure-what-the-word-is* if you were to say that as a result of your caring etc you have thought more about the issue THAN YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE. It MIGHT be correct that you have thought about it more than joe bloggs or even David, but it doesn't automatically follow and that someone else comes to a different conclusion needs to be heard. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 01/10/2002 13:37:59 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27501 |
| How do you monitor the survival rates of animals that have been cared for and then released? Do you do any kind of site survey on the release site (ie food availability, predators, shelter, water, climate, competition)? What about the stress levels of the animla being released into an unfamilar area where it has no territory or knowledge of the area? | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 13:39:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27502 |
| I would find it less *not-sure-what-the-word-is* if you were to say that as a result of your caring etc you have thought more about the issue THAN YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE. I thought that's what she meant anyway... | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:41:01 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27503 |
| >>>>> I would find it less *not-sure-what-the-word-is* if you were to say that as a result of your caring etc you have thought more about the issue THAN YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE. >>>>>>I thought that's what she meant anyway... It was....sorry to offend jj | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 13:42:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27504 |
| You could well be right ... I was trying to make the connection that it was sounding as though there were no other conclusion to have been reached by anyone who had thought about the issue ... etc tce tce ... i think it is there in all the caring threads ... but it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things... jj | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 13:43:15 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27505 |
| no no, it's not a matter of offending it's merely a matter of ensuring the message content is heard. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 13:43:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27506 |
| How do you monitor the survival rates of animals that have been cared for and then released? Observations, some banding, some tracking....dependant on resources Do you do any kind of site survey on the release site (ie food availability, predators, shelter, water, climate, competition)? Yes, of course. What about the stress levels of the animla being released into an unfamilar area where it has no territory or knowledge of the area? Sure, it is a factor. We attempt to minimise this stress through good site surveys and soft release options. Monitoring survival levels helps us assess how we are going. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 13:51:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27508 |
| Having read that thread, I must say that I am shocked at chrissy's attitude, and quite worried that she takes a prominent role in wildlife management and rescue. Having read the thread, I'm hugely encouraged at Chrisy's cool head, and clear thinking. You go, girl... ;-) | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 14:04:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27511 |
| Oh, and to justify that... (1) I don't think it is logical in the least to compare human illness and disablement with animal rescue. As a species, we sometimes make a committment to rescue the weak amongst us. This is virtually unheard of in species outside of homo sapiens. It is a choice we make. In our own species it only happens in groups that have achieved a standard of living that enables them to carry passengers. (2)I think wildlife carers need to strongly focus on the animals that are most significantly in need of care. Resources are not infinite. I too m would probably have felt differently about this once upon a time. Almost certainly [I think] I would have felt differently if I was a city person. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 01/10/2002 14:15:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27512 |
| I care for wildlife and I live in the city Good to hear about those other points chrisy. What kind of success rate do you get? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 14:34:34 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27514 |
| >>>>> Good to hear about those other points chrisy. What kind of success rate do you get? After release? hard to say......Only to odd one or two don't make it in the short term. Usually these were runts and were slow to develop. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 15:21:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27518 |
| I care for wildlife and I live in the city Yep, I didn't say city people don't care for wildlife, Q. :) I said I would probably not have the outlook I have now, if I lived in the city. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 01/10/2002 15:24:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27521 |
| Soooo .. why should that matter? | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 15:29:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27524 |
| Well, oddly enough, I thought it was relevant to where Chrisy said she *had once thought differently*. I was attempting to make the point that one's ideas can change with the circumstances. Or isn't that what you meant? | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 01/10/2002 15:37:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27526 |
| Oh. I thought you were hinting that the views of carers would differ depending on if they lived in the country or city. Sorry - my misunderstanding. :) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 17:39:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27538 |
Quarrrion, Thank you. Our life together depends on the availability of a good home with Galah friends. This is most unlikely to happen as I am very strict in my requirements. Live in hope though. :o)) DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 17:40:15 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27539 |
Chrisy, Whether a wild animal shares emotion is a spirtual matter..... i suggest that decisions regarding euthanaising wildlife should be free of a persons belifes and values... “Spiritual” and “beliefs” in the context of your post can not be separated. “Spiritual matters” is a guessing game with NO evidence for support. This is exactly what I am getting at. “Spirituality” is a multi-edged mind-game and animals should not be subjected to its many failings. It becomes the luck of the draw in which “spirituality” a carer may “believe“ to be true. Free of beliefs, yes. Free of a person’s values, NO. Good discussion apart from the hypocritical word. Think you should watch that in future. Cheers, DTA | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 17:53:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27542 |
| The first thing I want to say is That pink makes my eyes bleed DtA. Pick another colour will you? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 17:58:31 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27543 |
G-wiz, Oh! So it does work!!!! Pink is a Galah colour. :o)) DTA | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 18:00:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27544 |
| If the cap fits <8-p | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:04:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27545 |
What cap? DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 18:10:55 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27546 |
| I'd do a "mine's bigger than yours" ... but I can't ... :( :P | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 18:11:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27547 |
| >>>> “Spiritual matters” is a guessing game with NO evidence for support. This is exactly what I am getting at. “Spirituality” is a multi-edged mind-game and animals should not be subjected to its many failings. It becomes the luck of the draw in which “spirituality” a carer may “believe“ to be true. I think your values are linked to your spirituality and hence why they shouldn't come into play when making such decisions. I totally agree with your above statement. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:21:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27549 |
Chrisy, I don’t know how to say this any better but, I have no spirituality - not an inkling or a smidgeon or a nano-part. If some kind of evidence was produced, any kind, for there being a spiritual part of human nature I would grab it very enthusiastically. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:22:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27550 |
jj, Have we degenerated into size is all that matters. Geeesh, DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:23:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27551 |
I would like to make a little statement. I am not nor do I regard myself as being morally superior to anyone else. In fact, some of my life has been less than, shall we say, beneficial to other creatures both human and non-human. Unable to rectify these past demeanours does not diminish my understanding as to how they arose and I try and pass on this information. Even with my “experiences” of life as a teacher still has me being a naughty fellow in many regards. One thing I have learned is that, at least on a theoretical level, rationality is a hard won prize, not easily obtained nor initiated into the real life experiences of living. But it is still a very worthwhile goal in it’s attempt. DTA | |
| From: gerri ® | 01/10/2002 18:24:48 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27552 |
| when we were kids in the early 60's we watched LOTS of nature docos on tv.......our parents were super big on tv being educational... and back then on the docos lots of animals died due to various accidents, incidents,etc and very frequently being eaten by a predator......especially just when the audience,aka my sisters, had fallen in love with the featured creature......... however when my sisters cried at the animals' misfortune my dad always said "well that's nature" and i think a bit more of this attitude would sometimes but not always moderate the anthropomorphism with which we are all so afflicted and ultimately assist the animals | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 18:27:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27554 |
| >>>> when my sisters cried at the animals' misfortune my dad always said "well that's nature" and i think a bit more of this attitude would sometimes but not always moderate the anthropomorphism with which we are all so afflicted and ultimately assist the animals Seconded ! ahhhh look at these people, even David, so clearly state what l have spent most of today trying to explain..... *slaps forehead* | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:28:33 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27555 |
gerri, Nature sucks. No argument. Humans can make choices on the suffering they come across. That's what makes us humans. DTA | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 18:31:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27556 |
| I missed this one before: Whether a wild animal shares emotion is a spirtual matter..... No it isn't. In no way is it a spiritual matter. Animals are living creatures just like us. We don't have to believe in some higher order to be able to share emotion, so neither do the animals need to. I completely fail to see how spirituality and animal emotions are at all related. | |
| From: gerri ® | 01/10/2002 18:32:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27557 |
| Nature sucks. sorry DTA.......wrong nature does NOT suck it is nature.....ie the way it is hell damn and blast i wish i could use the fancy script for emphasis cheers | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 18:32:44 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27558 |
| Oh it's too hard. I find myself wanting to save the animal for emotional reasons and I think that in the case of things like galahs this is sometimes achievable but with a broken wing he will never be able to interract properly with more able bodied birds and will always be bottom of the pecking order. Finding a human only home is probably the only suitable option. You have made some hypocritical statements DtA. OTOH Chrisy's argument is completely sound and probably the best option under most circumstances ie. for animals which will never accept domestic life. I think this is probably one of the best threads we've had for a while and probably because you guys didn't allow it to get personal. Good work. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:33:07 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27559 |
fraenata, I'm with you on that one. Cheers DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 18:34:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27560 |
| Bec, >No it isn't. In no way is it a spiritual matter. Animals are living creatures just like us. We don't have to believe in some higher order to be able to share emotion, so neither do the animals need to. I completely fail to see how spirituality and animal emotions are at all related. I am talking about 'spirituality' in a non-religous senario. No church or higher being..... How you see and relate to wildlife, l belive is a type of spirituality. Aboriginals, Native Americans....their spirituality is based on nature and how they intereact with it... *any way l am getting off the track* | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 18:37:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27561 |
| PS. that pink looks nothing like a galah...thankfully :-) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:39:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27562 |
G-wiz, Name the hypocricy? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:41:11 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27563 |
gerri, Aids, earthquakes, floods, fires, pathogens of all kinds. Sorry to bring you into the real world, but nature sucks. DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 18:41:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27564 |
| Wouldn't it be that that which drives each of us to respond to something (anything, for the sake of the argument) is likely to be particular (as in different) for each person ... or COULD be? Why does what _I_ would call it (for me, in my case) have to be the same for someone else? In which case, how can I ever think I know what it is that drives someone else? I agree that the outcome is debatable and should be debated right out there in the public arena as chrisy and david have today. As I indicated before, I agree with chrisy by and large in principle ... and have on different occasions done both things ... killed, or rescued and fed critters I have found damaged. Where I find this all too hard is when people start naming the reasons (or whatever you want to call them) that they ascribe to the other person's actions. I think that a person's motivation is (or ought to be) beyond another's right to name it. Once it is named then people seem to get caught up in defending or at least describing their personal belief or value system in ways that can always be picked off. OR maybe we should go that road ... for myself I prefer it when we are talking about how best to make use of inadequte resources ... including where time and money canNOT go because we have used it elsewhere ... all those things come into human health care too ... every single day. These are critical questions FOR ME embedded in the simple one of whether to keep a galah alive or not. JJ | |
| From: fraenata ® | 01/10/2002 18:42:13 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27565 |
| Chrisy, I would see sprituality as whatever mystical higher being a person believes in to expalin how life came about, if they cannot accept that it just happened. Christians believe in god, the pagans believed in druids and earth elements, the aboriginals believed in the dreamtime where mysterious 'gods' did strange and powerful things. Some are more closely related to nature but they always add more to it than is scientifically proven. Wild animals are there, we know about they exist and we know where they came from; they're not a spiritual entity IMO. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 18:44:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27566 |
| Name the hypocrisy! Here's the big one post id: 22335 "My attitude to animals is anthropomorphic free, more so than anyone I know." post id: 27466 "Bruce is now not cold, hungry, frightened, in pain and is showing signs of love. What are the emotions that animals, or if you like, Bruce, do not have that you do?" Seems to me you are saving the animal for your own sense of humanity. Nothing inherantly wrong with that imo but perhaps Chrisy is right about it not being happy in a bird sense. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 18:46:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27567 |
| "Sorry to bring you into the real world, but nature sucks." That's anthropomorphising too. Nature doesn't suck. It just is. Gravity sucks | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:47:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27568 |
jj, The main thing I try to promote is not organisational care of animals that come to the notice of humans. I think that all humans should be responsible for the animal they run over and damage due their actions. If this were the case, there would be not so much pressure on the organisations making up for our “sins”. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:49:33 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27569 |
G-wiz, Sorry, but I do not see any hypocrisy. Nature sucks is in my other post. Have a read then have a say. DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 18:51:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27570 |
| that makes good sense to me ... no issues there ... my problem is that i can usually see both sides of view and get into strife trying to wangle a way through them. I am just thinking of all the times this business of anthropomophising comes up ... and how very un-pc it is these days ... and of the many examples we could find of each other doing it and what it would prove ... probably that we all read too many Peter Rabbit books or something ... meanwhile ... gravity is sucking away ... I mean ... look where my chins are today. In a 100 years ... gawd! :)) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:52:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27571 |
jj, Like I often say. I am the least anthropomorhpic person I know of or have ever met. :o)) DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 18:54:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27572 |
| why does it matter? I don't get it? | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 18:54:58 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27573 |
| I suggest you update your dictionary then DtA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:57:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27574 |
jj, When animals are treated like humans there is a multitude of disagreement as to what that means. If animals are given the values their animal status demands, then their treatment by humans would be standard and rational. This is essential in the opinion of logical thought. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 18:59:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27576 |
G-wiz, I would certainly do that if it was required. It is not. DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 18:59:11 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27577 |
| wiz ... can you explain to me why it is an issue? I am not trying to say anyone is or isn't, or should or shouldn't be. I don't give a damn one way or the other ... it is just a weird thing to me to make an issue of it, of one's own or someone else's position. If it helps make a "correct" decisions then it's useful and if it doesn't then it's not ... it seems to me to be a fashion thing ... I think ... jj | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 19:04:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27581 |
| Actually you're right JJ. It's not a critical issue and not worth pursuing further. | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 19:07:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27583 |
| ok ... step at a time ... "When animals are treated like humans there is a multitude of disagreement as to what that means." Absolutely ... as there is on how humans should be treated ... "If animals are given the values their animal status demands,..." and here we see "given" and "values" and "status" and "demands" all of which are debatable in some sense that even I can see. "... then their treatment by humans would be standard and rational." and here "standard" and "rational" ... bring to mind "one size fits all" ... a single rule for all cases ... "This is essential in the opinion of logical thought." And on this one you lose me completely. It is a blanket statement that does not allow any discussion ... does not allow for any appreciation of the shades of meaning that ARE in almost every situation. I guess I am having an attack of something unpleasant related to living/ working with people who say in actions very often ... and words occasionally ... well I have thought about this long and hard and if I thought your position had any merit I would be agreeing with you. I envy them their certainty ... sometimes ... but would not want to be there. Nor in the kind of world that I fear their certainty would produce. As it happens, I think I do know what you mean when you say that nature sucks ... anyhow ... time for me to go now. cya jj | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:11:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27584 |
G-wiz, jj or your saying it is not a critical issue, is only a statement. Obviously by the response to this thread other perceive it to have some kind of relevance to today. No animal species has regard for another species. But we are humans with a higher thinking capacity. What is so terribly wrong with admitting that we are making huge blunders with the way we perceive other species, at least in principle? Are our minds so fragile that we have to make out that everything is all right in our attitudes to the same? Even though it is demonstrably not so. DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 19:13:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27586 |
| tea time ... bye. jj | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:13:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27587 |
jj, The certainty of Bruce's situation without my intervention, was unpleasant death. He now has adequate happiness. I know which I would prefer. DTA | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:15:29 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27588 |
| ">>>He now has adequate happiness." Adequate for you undoubtedly. Adequate for him, probably not. ">>>I know which I would prefer." And that's exactly what you have based your position on, what you prefer. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:16:51 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27589 |
| >>>> He now has adequate happiness. I know which I would prefer. Which brings up back to the beginning of this thread quite nicely. Just because you know you would prefer this outcome (if you were a bird?), why do you seek to impose this on to a wild animal which has no say either way? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:18:07 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27591 |
Gaspode, The other option, apart from adequate happiness from actual observation of Bruce in his daily life, is death. What would you choose? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:19:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27593 |
Chrisy, Circle - why would you choose death? (Let me answer that - WIRES policy) DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:19:34 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27594 |
| Hey Gaspode "And that's exactly what you have based your position on, what you prefer." That is it. Quite telling isn't it? | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:22:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27595 |
I am finding it very difficult to come to terms with the unabashed conditioning of culture. It is truly amazing. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:24:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27596 |
Here is what you are saying. Find Galah with intractable injury and without even considering it may be able to have a life of another form, hit it on the head. Christ! DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:25:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27597 |
| Circle - why would you choose death? (Let me answer that - WIRES policy) Nope, read the thread........ The resources involved and the welfare of the animal in question. You on the other hand have only provided the thought that because you would personaly prefer an altered life to death (either as a human or bird)that the bird should get this option as well. You state that you do not project your feelings or emotions on to animals however this is the basis of your whole position. I suggest that by doing so your judgement is clouded on the decisions you make as you cannot seperate yourself from the decision and the animal. | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:26:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27598 |
We're going to have to stop agreeing like this Chrissy, peolpe will talk. The trouble is david that you cannot understand something that people have known for millenia: that animals aren't little people in fur coats. I would prefer to live in a spacious and well lit room, but I wouldn't subject a rat to that because I prefer it. I prefer to eat meals with lots of fat and protein, but I wouldn't force that diet on a galah because I prefer it. Why the hell would I presume my preferences have any relevance at all to what an animal desies? The combination of presumptuous arrogance and hypocritical ignorance inherent in the question would astound me had anyone else asked it. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:27:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27599 |
Chrisy, I am an animal. Other animals are animals. The thinking required is that basic that I’m not sure of your reasons for denying it. Which word do you not understand????? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:27:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27600 |
| >>> Find Galah with intractable injury and without even considering it may be able to have a life of another form, hit it on the head. Wildlife has only one form of life......wild If there is another form of life it is one that we have chosen and provided for it. This is a significant decision on our part, and one that l hope is not based on what we would want to happen to us if we were in the same situation. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:30:18 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27601 |
Gaspode, Support if you must, your religious beliefs, but I not imposing on the Galah anymore than those that would imprison healthy species. In fact, I do less as there is no other choice other than death. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:31:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27602 |
Chrisy, Why not? DTA | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:31:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27603 |
| ">>>The thinking required is that basic that .." you have only done very basic thinking. A neat little trick to test the validity of your position David, it's called extending an argument to its logical conclusion. I am an animal. Other animals are animals. I like living on a high fat, high protein diet. Why dont I force my budgerigar to live on that diet? We're both animals aren't we? I like going for long runs on hot summers days. Why don't i take my horse for long runs on hot summers days? We're both animals aren't we. The argument can't be extended to its logical conclusion. QED the argument is illogical. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:33:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27605 |
Gaspode, That is a load of rubbish not worth replying to considering the circumstances presented.. DTA | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:37:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27606 |
| “>>>I not imposing on the Galah anymore than those that would imprison healthy species.” And as ususal David your argument twists as soon as the faintest breeze of logic unsettles it. The point of contention isn’t whether others do equal or more harm, it is whether you are doing harm. I doubt a judge would accept as a defence your plea that you are not imposing on the old lady anymore by stealing her handbag than those that would beat her to death. That there are worse acts you coul be performing in no way lessens the evil of this act. “>>>That is a load of rubbish not worth replying to” No David, that is an incontrovertible proof of the logical fallacy underlying your position. I don’t expect you to reply, you never do when your position is shown to be illogical and based on quasi-spiritual beliefs. I merely present these proofs of your illogical and unethical belief system so that others can more clearly see your position for what it almost invariably is: sanctimonious posturing. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:38:53 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27607 |
Gaspode, Previous encounters have conclusively shown that you live in a mind maze when it comes to other animals. Why are you even responding? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:39:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27608 |
| I agree with Gaspode, David. You have gone in circles on this one. You have said that your reasoning for keeping bruce was because of how you felt about the situation. You have said that you do not project your emotions on to animals. You have said that it is unfair to project ones belifes on to an animal as the animal usually suffers. But you can't put the three together. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:39:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27609 |
Do we have to revisit an animal is not as important as a rock????????? DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 19:40:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27611 |
Gaspode, ...you cannot understand something that people have known for millenia: that animals aren't little people in fur coats. Not such a bad view to take... we *are* just animals with polyester coats after all. Why the hell would I presume my preferences have any relevance at all to what an animal desies? I don't think it's such a bad view of the world to have... unless there is other evidence, I would suggest that assuming that a galah would rather live in captivity than die is a reasonable assumption to make. Any new people around may like to contribute to the New Survey thread. It's not compulsory, just a bit of fun :) Just go to the above post and copy the text in it and paste to the reply window. Fill in your answers where it says answer ;) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:42:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27613 |
Chrisy, Forgive me but I have said the following. Bruce was injured. He is still injured. He shows all the sign of accepting a new life. Not unlike the unmercenary incarceration of birds in cages. In this case there is no other choice and he appears to be happy as he can be. DTA | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 01/10/2002 19:44:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27615 |
| Can I just butt in and say the thread is at risk of going off the rails now. We've all made our points and the logic of each can be judged as each sees fit, repeating them does no good. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:44:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27616 |
| >>> In this case there is no other choice ahhh but there is, isn't there.... David, you talk about looking at other options before us 'killing happy carers' knock everything on the head.....did you consider death as an option for Bruce? especially you are unwilling to care for him long term ? | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:44:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27617 |
| “>>>>I don't think it's such a bad view of the world to have... unless there is other evidence” No judgements on good or bad, it’s just not logically supportable. Most of he things we want are not what animals want, most of the things animals want would scare us silly. | |
| From: Tapperboy (fasto) ® | 01/10/2002 19:44:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27618 |
| I put me money on the fridge and I's off now to feed the chooks :) *backs out of room very quietly, then breaks into a run, pheww that was close ;) | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 19:46:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27620 |
| Why is death considered such a terrible alternative, that even crippled forms of life are considered better? When my uncle came back from being a POW in WW2, he ran wild in town and released all the caged birds. [no doubt to their extreme detriment]. This says something, but I'm not sure what. He was anthropomorphising no doubt, but he did have a bit of an idea of what it is like to live at the whim or not, of another human. On the other hand, after 50 years of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, he is now moderately functional, so, I dunno really. Parrots and people live similar spans, that is some responsiblity, to "own" one. | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:46:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27622 |
| I've made my point loud and clear. I've demonstarted that David's position is logically unsuportable. David can't even respond, he justs pulls his usual trick of arguing in circles. My work's done, I'm outta here. | |
| From: jj ® | 01/10/2002 19:48:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27624 |
| LOL@tapperboy ... i think he should see what's IN my frig (that used to be alive ... ). I will do the same though ... and keep going! We will continue to just do the best we can on the basis of what we can find out ... and now we know more, we will keep our heads down ... except when we are watching the skies. jj | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 19:48:44 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27625 |
| My work's done Yessiree, SuperGas. ;-p | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:49:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27626 |
Chrisy, Recently I took into care a young female Kangaroo that had had its stomach skin ripped apart by a dog. If the Kangaroo was not a wild one, injections of anti-biotic would have had a cure in no time at all. It was a wild Kangaroo and even though I could have it in a compound, catching it to give the antibiotics would have been a continual distress. I advised the vet to euthanase this animal. I was very fond of it, by the way. DTA | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:49:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27627 |
| Last comment. Brilliant analogy mizmolly. By implying that whatever humans wnat birds must want, then we would have to release all those caged birds to die. The fact that they would be terrified and unable to survive can't be taken into account because to a human freedom would be desirable. Really points up the silliness of such a position. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 19:49:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27629 |
most of the things animals want would scare us silly. Most of the things we want scare me silly. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:51:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27630 |
Gaspode, Continually saying that my position is logically unsupportable is only for those that are influenced by such bullshit. This is a way you have of argument, very successful I admit, but it is still bullshit to seasoned thinkers. DTA | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:52:21 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27631 |
If sex scares you silly you are either doing it wrong, or very very right. | |
| From: Gaspode ® | 01/10/2002 19:53:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27633 |
| ">>.Continually saying that my position is logically unsupportable" I proved it David, I didn't say it. Argument cannot be extended to logical conclusion proves argument is logically invalid. Gone. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:53:51 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27634 |
| Gaspode, As you know, I am not implying that all caged anmimals should be released ad hoc. DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 19:53:56 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27636 |
| I'm with Wiz and Gaspode.... I have enjoyed this thread. Been a while since l have made this many posts in a day. David go and check bruce's ears aren't burning by now. I am going to go and feed some more faces, maybe even my own. This thread has given me something to think about and to question how much WIRES policy and the training l have been given has influenced my actions. David l hope you too can see my side of the discussion and likewise are able to think about this over time. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 19:59:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27641 |
Chrisy, I assume that you are a full-on rescuer and therefore come in contact with many more animals than I. I used to be a part of such an organisation but burn-out got the better of me. Still, there is an organisation in South Australia that follows the path I am stating and does not kill all un-releasableas. It is Fauna Rescue and I think at the moment it is fighting Government agencies that are leading it down the euthanasia everything road. (Environment Australia) They are fighting back very successfully. Maybe you could contact them. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:00:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27642 |
Gaspode, Proved it in your head......maybe?????? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 20:02:18 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27643 |
| >>>>>Still, there is an organisation in South Australia that follows the path I am stating and does not kill all un-releasableas. It is Fauna Rescue and I think at the moment it is fighting Government agencies that are leading it down the euthanasia everything road. (Environment Australia) They are fighting back very successfully. Maybe you could contact them. surprise, surprise l have.... I have a slightly different understanding of how and why South Australian legislation is different to NSW. *another day* | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:03:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27646 |
| Chrisy, Okely dokely (spelling) :o)) DTA | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:08:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27647 |
| The awful truth is, that no matter which of you is right...habitat is more important than wildlife caring. Wildlife caring takes care of the individual...habitat takes care of the species. My hope is that what little resources are available, will go to habitat rehab, protection, whatever it takes, and not be diverted into the little picture. *each night before I go to bed...* | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:10:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27649 |
mizmolly, You can rest in peace. Resources for injured animals is as low as it can get. Resources for humans is at a premium. DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:11:06 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27650 |
*IMO* any galah that needs more resources than it would take to euthanase it should be put down... saving the limited resources (both financial and human) for less numerous (and 'increaser') species. Same with 'roos >:) Any new people around may like to contribute to the New Survey thread. It's not compulsory, just a bit of fun :) Just go to the above post and copy the text in it and paste to the reply window. Fill in your answers where it says answer ;) | |
| From: chrisy ® | 01/10/2002 20:11:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27651 |
| >>>habitat is more important than wildlife caring. praise be to miz-molly..... i agree | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:13:28 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27652 |
Boxy, Good to see you are back to your old self. Gotta go, but it was a good thread, NO! :o)) DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:14:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27653 |
Had enough eh... can't really blame you >:) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:17:02 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27654 |
| Boxy, I can take logic all day. Other stuff....Mmmm.....bit wearing. DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:21:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27655 |
Don't get me started David :) Logic depends on a persons starting perspective (mostly). >:) | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:22:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27656 |
| Gak, David...I aint six-foot under yet! I care very much that other species [including the unfashionable species] don't get the resources that homo sapiens gets. That's why I am a pragmatist who can only rationalize those scarce resources to go where the greater good, as I see it, may be found. Cherish your galah...That's OK. It is neither here nor there, in the greater scheme of things. I'm just always concerned about the red herrings that sincere environmentalists [unintentionally?] create. Such as Old Growth Forests. And plant a billion trees. And galahs. etc. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:23:07 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27657 |
Boxy, Logic to many is many faceted. To me it is a folowing of conclusions that are not usurped at any stage. When they are, it is no longer logic. DTA | |
| From: Dr. Julius Strangepork ® | 01/10/2002 20:24:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27658 |
| kill kill kill cull kill Have a nice day ;-) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:24:26 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27659 |
| mizmolly, Are you suggesting I do not care also? DTA | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:25:31 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27660 |
| saving the limited resources (both financial and human) for less numerous (and 'increaser') species. BH, do you mean, *not* saving the resources for the "increaser" species? ? *confused* | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:26:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27661 |
| Dr Julius Starangepork, Is there some meaning there that I have missed? DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:28:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27662 |
MM Yes that's what I meant... less 'increaser' species. Didn't make as much sense as I thought it did first up :) Mmmm, subtle Dr J, subtle :-P | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:29:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27663 |
| Are you suggesting I do not care also? No...why? You said I may rest easy that only human needs are politically expedient. I was responding to that, by saying that I'm sorry that is so. My agenda is plain. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:29:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27664 |
mizmolly, My attitude is to care for the planet globally and to act locally. The Galah is an example of local. DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:31:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27665 |
DtA, To me it is a folowing of conclusions that are not usurped at any stage. When they are, it is no longer logic. The problem being that for others to accept a persons logic they all have to start from the same starting position, accept the same things as given. Doesn't usually happen, and that's what makes for a long thread :) | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:32:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27666 |
| Yes that's what I meant... less 'increaser' species That is what I thought. We share that belief then. Pragmatism, I think. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:34:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27667 |
Boxy, It makes for a more difficult time when the "stuff" that interferes with logic has been known about for yonks. By this I mean how humans are capable of deluding themselves. Not a judgement, rather a fact of life. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 01/10/2002 20:35:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27668 |
| Really gotta go, maybe another time - place - dimension - or something, hey! Bye DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:36:18 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27669 |
We share that belief then. Pragmatism, I think. Seems so... no doubt it could be hard do personally for some people who would become carers though. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:36:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27670 |
| My attitude is to care for the planet globally and to act locally. The Galah is an example of local. What you do is fine David, OK with me. Galahs are feral here, and I wouldn't hesitate to despatch it. But it is purely the logic of your position I was discussing. Whether it is better to spend those scarce resources on this, or on habitat. You don't have to be logical, you're human after all.:) | |
| From: boxhead ® | 01/10/2002 20:37:47 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27671 |
We *all* have "stuff" :) cya DtA. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 01/10/2002 20:40:56 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27672 |
| Seems so... no doubt it could be hard do personally for some people who would become carers though. I would say so...but that being said, there are some who conduct their efforts on more stringent lines. Like some carers who feed [euthanased] increasers that have come into care, to their endangered charges. Hard to rationalise caring for a 28 parrot, that is shot in it's millions, when you have to graft to feed your peregrine falcon. Pragmatism born of desperation, probably. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 07:35:27 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27693 |
Scribblers, Last night I re-read the Bruce thread and then spent a large proportion of the night thinking about it. I arose early this morning and sat with Bruce on my lap for a couple of hours in the pre-dawn light, trying to work out what was best for his interests. Many of you presented a case that Bruce should die and I thank you for your input. I came to the conclusion that you were right. One hour ago I took Bruce out to the Kangaroo compound, to his favourite spot, and as I gently stroked his face I dropped a couple of pistachios onto the ground in front of him. As he lowered his head to pick up his favourite nuts, I shot him in the head with a 22 long rifle bullet. Because I have had to do this on many occasions before, the bullet was very accurate and Bruce died without knowing that I had betrayed the trust he had placed in me. I buried him under a wattle in the wild state he had lived in. I offer my sincerest apologies to those that were in defence of Bruce’s right to a second chance at life. I must admit to feelings of great sadness about this, but maybe it was the best thing. Might not visit Scribbly for a while until I get over this. Had a lot of wind damage to trees a couple of weeks ago, so will keep my mind occupied with cleaning that up. Thanks again, :o( DTA | |
| From: Rooster ® | 02/10/2002 07:39:10 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27694 |
Ive read the pros and cons of this thread; but for this comment I will refrain. >I must admit to feelings of great sadness about this me too | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 07:42:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27695 |
| jj | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 07:46:01 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27696 |
An extremely thought provoking post. | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 02/10/2002 08:25:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27697 |
| :'( As to anthropomorphising: What else CAN you do as a human, eh? IMO, there are those of us who do "anthropomorphise" and those who are dellusional. *angry, sad, and making no apologies for my emotions* | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 02/10/2002 08:29:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27698 |
| A very though provoking thread. I will have to re-read it again in another couple of days. I'm not sure what I think at the moment. The hard decisions are never easy. I congratulate everyone on their behaviours. Thinking of you DTA - I think you are very brave. | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 02/10/2002 09:26:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27699 |
| Gets my award for the most profoundly emotionally affective thread @ Scribbly Gum that I've come across so far. My thoughts = scattered, state of shock. Did you really kill the little guy? Life and Death. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 02/10/2002 12:08:55 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27704 |
| I'm sorry for your pain, DTA. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 14:56:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27732 |
| I feel physically sick. After everything the bird went thru, the accident, the vet, adjusting to it's new way of life and very lastly .. trusting you ... you go and betray his trust because of AGAIN what you think would be the right thing for him! If you were going to kill him you should have done it long ago. Chrisy & Gaspode. I hope you are happy with yourselves now .. you win. The bird is dead. This is seriously F***'d up!! - Q | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 15:09:58 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27734 |
| I can only agree quarrion. I feel sick ... probably for different reasons ... but the result is the same. I think sometimes we play with people in a way we would not with animals. This is NOT to blame anyone for anything ... we are ALL responsible for our own actions ... absolutely ... we are each of us responsible for our own ... david included. I recall having done such a thing as he has described in quite a different field, on having been convinced it was the "right thing to do". I will not ever forget it ... and would not do it again ... well ... i would not talk to others about it again ... I would just keep quiet. But it is also true (I believe) that none of us can really see into another's heart or mind or whatever we want to call that inner place where we live and make decisions. I know none of this prating matters really ... it doesn't matter ... EXCEPT inso far as we could begin to see that the "presenting issues" here on scribbly will almost always carry underlying invisible (or not quite visible) issues ... maybe they could be yearnings to do the right thing along with honest intentions and understandings and misunderstandings ... who knows. If we can come away from this with a bit more awareness of some complications as well as bigger pictures then we will all have won a few centimetres in our journeys towards what some would call (maybe?) a greater humanity. I don't know, but I DO know that you folk here mean a lot to me and I think it's worth working through in ways that allow us to support each other while we disagree. We will all disagree on lots of things ... it's how we go about it ... and yes ... i am aware of how often I put my foot in it too ... jj | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 02/10/2002 15:22:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27736 |
| Well said JJ, Q, I dont think it is fair to "blame" Chrisy & Gaspode, David made up his own mind. I dont think anyone is "Happy" about the outcome. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 02/10/2002 15:23:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27738 |
| Q...are you remembering that D was not prepared to keep Bruce himself? He was hoping to rehome him, in very particular circumstances. Maybe he lucked out on finding a new home. And he kept him initially in an attempt to repair him for release...at least, that's my understanding of it. In other words, the picture had changed. Both for David, and Bruce. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 15:26:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27740 |
| Well, I only hope the people involved realised that what they have contributed to an internet chatroom has resulted in the loss of an animal's life. Neither of these people had actually seen the bird, seen it's living arragement or actually spoken to the holder of the bird to really assess the situation. An individual case has been judged by generalisation. When DTA decided not to euthanase the bird in the first instance, he then accepted full responsibility to care for the bird and if he could not to find someone who could. - Q | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 15:31:33 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27744 |
| Q, I dont think it is fair to "blame" Chrisy & Gaspode, David made up his own mind. You think? Or was he convinced otherwise by "stronger" voiced members of the forum. If you read his earlier posts he seems pretty well decided in his views. The way I see it is peer pressure winning .. HOWEVER even if the death of the bird may not have been their intention/s .. their opinions still influenced his decision. - Q | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 15:34:29 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27745 |
| "The way I see it is peer pressure winning .. HOWEVER even if the death of the bird may not have been their intention/s .. their opinions still influenced his decision." I think it is worth noting that it is always encouraging when people see arguments as valid and change their minds as a result ... and this could well be what happened ... but it can also be peer pressure ... I LOVE seeing that mentioned here ... we are so quick to think that it is only an issue for children ... we are as prone to it as anyone. jj | |
| From: Jezery ® | 02/10/2002 15:39:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27748 |
| You think? Or was he convinced otherwise by "stronger" voiced members of the forum Yes, I definately think. Having read some of DtA's contributions over the last year or so, I find it very hard to envision him as being someone easily convinced by others. I very much hope I'm wrong, but his post this morning, (describing stroking the bird, feeding it its favourite food and then shooting it), seemed to me like a deliberate attempt to evoke exactly this reaction. | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 02/10/2002 15:40:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27749 |
| Actually, I'm so confused, I'm not even convinced that the bird is dead. It is hard to judge people when you haven't met them face to face. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 15:41:27 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27750 |
| Which reaction Jerzey? Me/others being p***ed off? Or that he was coerced into killing the bird? | |
| From: fraenata ® | 02/10/2002 15:42:10 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27752 |
| My reaction was exactly the same as Quarrion's, the only reason I didn't say so is that David hardly needs to be chided after he's just done a very difficult thing, it's not as if it can be undone now. Chrisy & Gaspode. I hope you are happy with yourselves now .. you win. The bird is dead. I hope you are too. | |
| From: sue ® | 02/10/2002 15:52:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27755 |
| what do you say?????????????????? am having to explain to my girls why Mummy is crying later | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 15:53:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27756 |
| Last post this afty ... I don't think it matters whether the bird IS dead or alive ... it will never be an uncomplicatd joyful relationship now. I think that David, who is a great narrative writer, has managed to convey what it would mean to him ... to even make that decision ... much less carry it out. He may well have done it. I believe it is possible ... but like littletot and chocolate biscuits ... there is an underlying thing happening here ... which the "obvious" is obscuring ... whether it is an actual death or a symbolic representation of a death ... each equally well illustrates the point for us if we can see it. Bye for now. jj | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 15:56:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27757 |
| Tell them ... grownup make mistakes ... do things ... things that upset you ... they will know the feelings. Children are not destroyed by seeing that we are whole people .. there will not be a more important lesson for them ... let it out .. share it with them. It's neither shameful or proudful (whatever?)... it is part of being alive ... (really gone now) jj | |
| From: katydid ® | 02/10/2002 16:04:57 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27758 |
| jj as always I love your contribution. :-) really going now. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 16:13:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27759 |
| Sorry Bec. There has been so many times on this forum I have held my beak shut and to avoid confruntation I have walked away. But I will not censor myself on this matter. DTA … please let me know if you really did destroy the bird .. or if you were merely illustrating the situation - maybe I will forgive you .. quarrion@iinet.net.au | |
| From: Jezery ® | 02/10/2002 16:19:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27760 |
| Quarrion: Which reaction Jerzey? Me/others being p***ed off? Or that he was coerced into killing the bird? The first. Hottentot: Actually, I'm so confused, I'm not even convinced that the bird is dead. It is hard to judge people when you haven't met them face to face. Ditto. I'm finding it really hard to reconcile the image I have built up of DtA from his other posts over the last few months, with the action he says he has taken with respect to the galah. | |
| From: Tapperboy (fasto) ® | 02/10/2002 16:19:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27761 |
| My first thought when I read Davids' A HREF=" http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/posts/post27693.shtm" target = new > post was a sneaking suspicion that indeed Bruce was not dead and then, I got to wondering IF Bruce had even existed in the first place????? I feel strange saying this but I'm saying it anyway :( | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 02/10/2002 16:21:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27762 |
| >:0 Cue Twilight Zone muzack... | |
| From: Tapperboy (fasto) ® | 02/10/2002 16:21:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27763 |
| ? | |
| From: Jezery ® | 02/10/2002 16:47:10 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27764 |
| a sneaking suspicion that indeed Bruce was not dead and then, I got to wondering IF Bruce had even existed in the first place????? Ditto on the first, but I wasn't quite Machiavellian enough to get as far as the second. However, now that you've mentioned it..... I feel strange saying this but I'm saying it anyway :( Better to say it upfront, sad as it may be to have those sort of doubts about people. I'd guess that you weren't the only one thinking along those lines. :( | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 02/10/2002 16:47:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27765 |
| Re-reading DTA's last post... Would Bruce have sat quietly on his lap for a couple of hours? All that aside - it has got me (and hopefully others) thinking. Too much thinking done today - I'm off home. | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 02/10/2002 17:00:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27766 |
| >I'd guess that you weren't the only one thinking along those lines. :( nup. | |
| From: Regnans ® | 02/10/2002 17:04:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27767 |
| ....mmmmm being a long confirmed skeptic, two possibilities spring to mind. 1.'Bruce' is a fiction designed purely as a point making exercise. 2. The bird was euthanased but DTA was able to deflect his guilt for the act onto others...(successfuly looking at the follow up) In either case the word nasty isn't far away. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 17:08:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27769 |
Does it matter to anyone whether the bird exists or not... I don't think that is relevant to the thread. Treating this conversation as if the bird did exist is all we can do. Are we comfortable with our input to this thread? Other threads? Other arguements? *I* think the leason from this thread is that the forum's *are* real... it's sometimes hard to believe, but real damage can be done here. The internet and R/L are not seperate. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 17:11:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27770 |
Maybe I should add that I often wish I could take things back :) | |
| From: Regnans ® | 02/10/2002 17:13:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27772 |
| Boxy....If people are going to justify 'involuntary' acts with...'someone on an online forum told me too.....' I don't see the forum as the problem. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 17:18:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27774 |
It's ok Regnans... you don't have to agree with me, it's just the way I see it. Any new people around may like to contribute to the New Survey thread. It's not compulsory, just a bit of fun :) Just go to the above post and copy the text in it and paste to the reply window. Fill in your answers where it says answer ;) | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 17:28:13 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27778 |
| Well, if it the existance of “bruce” is a hoax … then there's gonna be one peeved little tiel flying around here ... It's not the thing I would consider funny or to pull such a stunt just to make a point. >:( - Q | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 02/10/2002 17:32:55 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27779 |
| Just make sure you don't go getting yourself stuck behind the fridge if you do giorlie ;) | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 02/10/2002 17:43:44 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27785 |
| This is probably one of the most important threads at Scribbly imo. Very thought provoking. I'm inclined to agree with most of what Jezery has said although I suspect the bird exists ......... still. I also have a suspicion that the bird was never taken to a vet in the first place. | |
| From: Neophyte ® | 02/10/2002 18:01:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27792 |
| DTA's gone very quiet since his last post...wonder if/how he'll respond to all this? | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 18:06:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27794 |
| He said he would be away from the forum for a while after what he said in his last post. I am assuming he’s still lurking to watch people’s reactions. Which is why I asked him to contact me privately. | |
| From: wiyaka ® | 02/10/2002 18:48:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27801 |
| I am pretty p***** off with DtA, playing with sensitive peoples emotions. Shame | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 02/10/2002 18:51:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27802 |
| Wiyaka, It hasn't been confirmed, we have surmising only thus far, it is all conjecture not fact. | |
| From: wiyaka ® | 02/10/2002 19:02:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27804 |
| What are you saying? There is not much difference. First DtA never hinted Bruce is fictious, it might be wishful thinking of some now after the killing. DtA's action is hurtful and disrespectful. It is playing with sensitve peoples emotions either way. I demand a fair dinkum apology. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 19:17:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27808 |
Scribblers, Bruce is a real Galah and Bruce is alive and well. I am guilty of perpetrating an intentional hoax. I am sorry for any pain that that has caused, but I am sorrier the pain was not prevented by stronger support when Bruce was “alive”. I am hoping my explanation is not hijacked by accusations of “talking down” or condescending to any of you good people. The thread has raised considerable interest, and that alone is of interest. Scribbly Gum is visited by 100,000 people per week (So I believe) and we who use this new method of communication have a responsibility to accuracy in language and ideas. This cannot be underestimated. To deny the influence shows little understanding of human nature and the Internet. My example is that many really thought that I had shot Bruce. Bruce is a one Galah. His species is not threatened - members of his family are stolen from nests and kept in appalling conditions for life - they are traded to anyone who wishes to have an imprisoned bird and they are shot and poisoned as pests. The point of the hoax was to bring to the fore the real emotions behind the tough façade that permeates societies because of remote “intellectualising”. How many bombs would pilots drop if they had to actually know the enemy before personally throwing them? The thread had all the facts necessary for evaluation, but still politeness in response to absolute rubbish was the order of the day. It was only after it was assumed that Bruce was “dead” did the anger come to the surface. And who really was and is that anger directed at. It was not me; it was an internal reprimand for not preventing the “death” when a chance was given to do so. Just to clear up a few points and to make some pertinent observations: Bruce was not taken to a vet initially. The injury was of a type that I have knowledge of and I knew he would never be releasable. A vet was spoken to by phone because of the protruding bone. (Which has disappeared?) I admire the written efforts of many contributors before Bruce’s “death” and those after. It is noticeable that some are missing?????? !!!!!!!(Or were at my last looking) Don’t forget this!!!!!! You may severely scold me for my deception, and I will accept that. It would do no harm to also scold those that use deception as a way of argument sometimes. Was very pleased to see that a couple of notables were onto me straight away. A pretty good use of evidence and comprehension, I would say. And just a parting word: Don’t be angry that you were upset - be proud that you were…….. Over to your adjudication. Cheers, DTA PS While I was clearing fallen trees today, Bruce, who has the run of the house, chewed up a reasonable looking cabinet, the little b……….d! Feeling very buggered and need food. Will look in later. | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 02/10/2002 19:22:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27810 |
| You bugger DTA. Verily, may Bruce bite you on your typing finger. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 02/10/2002 19:26:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27811 |
| I'm glad you have seen fit to admit the truth DtA. I'm not sure I don't agree with the deception just a little bit for the sake of the exercise too. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 02/10/2002 19:29:03 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27813 |
| I was going to call you out on the Vet business earlier btw but I'll let it pass. | |
| From: Rooster ® | 02/10/2002 19:29:09 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27814 |
No grudge held by me, but a lot of people were upset to read your post this morning. Some points cannot be proven to other people. | |
| From: Ian B. ® | 02/10/2002 19:50:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27818 |
| Yup....'nasty'. The technique should be familiar to anyone who's seen 'Animal Rights' groups material. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 19:58:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27821 |
Tapperboy, I say unto you…..Bruce has bitten all my typing fingers, but he doesn’t do that any more. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 19:59:21 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27822 |
G-wiz, Glad you agree a little. Not sure what you mean about the vet thing though? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 19:59:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27823 |
Rooster, I’m sorry also but I do not agree with your evaluation of “other” people’s capability of accepting proof. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 20:00:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27824 |
Ian B, Nice of you to make an appearance….now! DTA | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 20:16:23 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27827 |
DtA, I'm glad you didn't kill the bird, but not for the birds sake, for you own. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 20:17:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27828 |
Boxy, Somewhat cryptic? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 02/10/2002 20:32:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27831 |
Scribblers, Leave you with it. Goodnight and sleep tight DTA (And Bruce :o)) ) | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 20:37:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27833 |
DtA, I wasn't worried that the bird had lost it's life... I was worried that what you had done would effect you in a negative way. It seemed to go against your character... and I'm sure you would have regreted it if you had done it in such a hasty manner. | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 02/10/2002 20:41:56 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27834 |
| DTA, Should I be speaking to you??? In reflection: For the same reason as Boxy I'm glad you didn't kill the bird .. but it wasn't a very nice way to make a point - especially when the point being made was already evident to some members here. You could have easily just posted your ideas in an unrelated thread - but that probably wouldn't have been as fun. I don't appreciate having my feelings played with and now I feel like an idiot for not realising what you were doing. I still stand by my comments though .. 1)I think throughout the thread a certain amount of bullying did take place and 2) that people's comments on the forum/internet can have effects in R/L. I would have liked to have seen the reaction of Chrisy and Gaspode to the "death" of the galah. all that said .. I'm still angry with you >:p - Q | |
| From: boxhead ® | 02/10/2002 21:04:11 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27840 |
You shouldn't feel like an idiot for taking someones word as the truth Quarrion. That will be the worst harm that is to come out of this thread IMO, reducing peoples trust. Keep believing Q >:) | |
| From: jj ® | 02/10/2002 21:13:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27843 |
| ok ... so do we need to say "this is a hypothetical"? Would that help take the heat out of it and produce more acceptable discussions? I am thinking of how we are supposed to help our students recognise and respond to different writing styles .. to choose the style that best conveys the important point of their argument ... maybe this is a way? jj *gone* too ... gravity is fine ... even if it does suck sometimes ... there are always things we can do better working with it than against it. levity is nice though a bit thin on the ground at present ... ... :)) | |
| From: bushwalker ® | 02/10/2002 22:08:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27847 |
| I justlooked at this thread so this is a very very late comment,the bird decided to live itself.Animals like people can choose to die if they want.It happens all the time,so by not killing the bird DTA gave the bird the choice. Animals do have emotions,just watching them lets you know that. | |
| From: gerri ® | 02/10/2002 22:16:11 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27849 |
| one of the best threads i've ever seen here but boy it became complicated and i find i'm still pondering over it today | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 02/10/2002 23:08:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27861 |
| I think this trick should cement DTA's lack of credibility on this forum. There is no justification for this type of manipulative stuff. As for Chrisy and Gaspode...hell's bell's, they called it like they saw it. I might not go along with some of the way they expressed it..I might not even agree [I might, or not], but they don't deserve to be vilified over this. They had the guts to take the non-populist view, I personally don't think that's easy. Much easier to go "awwww shucks, a cute birdie, saved from a terrible fate". Whether you see it or not, that IS the easy way. There IS a big picture. There will be no hope for the wildlife of Australia if all the good will is hijacked into this kind of emotional morass. . >:-/ | |
| From: Toni D ® | 03/10/2002 00:34:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27873 |
| That was nasty DtA. Very nasty. | |
| From: The Natural Philosopher ® | 03/10/2002 02:19:29 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27875 |
The point of the hoax was to bring to the fore the real emotions behind the tough façade that permeates societies because of remote “intellectualising”. How many bombs would pilots drop if they had to actually know the enemy before personally throwing them? I can understand the internal desire to appeal to raw emotion rather than reason when it comes to ethics debates, or indeed other debates, where something we value personally is at hand. I believe David Hume said something along the lines of 'Reason is the slave, not the master of, our passions.' Yet appealing to emotional sentiment can also 'fog' up the argument and obscure good, rational arguments for considering (and respecting) the rights of animals as living beings. It is not my aim to offer an opinion on the morality of this debate, but rather to highlight why 'appealing to emotions' may backfire rather than work in debates. | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 03/10/2002 05:20:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27876 |
| > reducing peoples trust he has certainly done that. to me, it makes my clicking on a DTA post less likely. i have an aversion to mind games. | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 03/10/2002 09:48:12 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27890 |
| Well DTA, you were doing so well, until your final stunt. I haven't paid much attention to your previous threads. I think that a lot of what you say is a lot of clap-trap. This one however was quite thought provoking. But then you stuffed it up. I hope you know that you have now lost whatever shred of credibility you had. Just like the boy who cried wolf, no one is going to believe you again. You should not try to manipulate people's feelings. I just hope that you treat animals' "feelings" or "emotions" than you do people's. | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 03/10/2002 09:54:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27892 |
| The Natural Philosopher said:...It is not my aim to offer an opinion on the morality of this debate... and, as he so often does, he practised it:) While I applaud this, I wish I could emulate such a control of my emotional side a little more often:) But, perhaps unfortunately, my "wiring" seems more aligned with Nietzsche who just HATED Socrates for his "rationality at any price" philosophy. Is it not time now, to "lay off" David the Atheist?? I feel ill at ease at the ad hominem attacks that seem to be raining in on him. | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 03/10/2002 10:04:48 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27894 |
| ooops! should be I just hope that you treat animals' "feelings" or "emotions" BETTER than you do people's. And Woman I dont think it is time to "lay off" DTA - I personally think he is manipulative and nasty. Just the type of person who gives "greenies" a bad name. . | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 03/10/2002 10:13:42 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27895 |
| fair enough, Hottentot. I was just expressing a personal malaise. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 10:15:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27896 |
| Well imagine my interest to see the “bruce” thread still up an running when l logged on this morning. For those who have speculated on my absence over the last day, l went to a funeral yesterday and spent the day being there for my partner and our friends. My reaction when l read David’s post was ‘you bastard’. I was angry at him for playing with people’s emotions. I doubted whether David had actually killed the bird, if he did, l questioned whether he did it because he had a changed perspective on the situation or because he was spiteful. I still stand by my position. If this bird had have been rescued by me it would have been euthanased on the spot. I still believe that David’s anthropomorphising over ‘bruce’ has biased his judgement on what is and was the best thing for the birds long term welfare. If David had of killed the bird, l would have no guilt. I didn’t advocate the killing of this animal. I never said to David once ‘you shalt kill it’. I tried to illustrate how anthropomorphising can alter people’s actions and how l believed that his decision was wrong. I take offence to certain peoples statements “I hope you are happy with yourselves now .. you win. The bird is dead.” It was not my intention to win . David is a grown man. David is someone who speaks his mind strongly and debates issues with passion. If David had of decided to kill ‘bruce’ it would have been his decision alone. I too find it hard to believe that David would be coerced into anything, hence my first reaction to his post. This attitude and “Well, I only hope the people involved realised that what they have contributed to an internet chatroom has resulted in the loss of an animal's life.”…..very simplistic. We all contribute to animals death daily. Because l held a view point different to others, because l held a view point that upset and startled people, it doesn’t give these people the right to take the high moral ground and try to diminish me or try to make me feel guilty. | |
| From: Speedy ® | 03/10/2002 10:25:59 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27898 |
| I personally think he is manipulative and nasty I personally applaud DtA for risking this type of revolt against him in order to make his point - although I still don't agree with him, nor Chrisy and Gaspode. It bothered me when DtA stated he had killed the bird, simply because his acceptance of others' opinions would have resulted in a much more biased Scribbly - and that's not what I come here for. | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 03/10/2002 10:27:44 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27899 |
| Chrisy I congratulate you on how you handled yourself. You expressed and explained your beliefs. And you were HONEST! I can certainly understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure if I agree. But hey, it was you who made me see that it wasn't helping anyone by feeding ducks! Keep up the good work. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 03/10/2002 10:33:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27901 |
| If this bird had have been rescued by me it would have been euthanased on the spot. For the record, I would have killed him too, because he's a galah, and I have done with injured galahs before. Yes I am specisist, but I don't like putting effort into rehabilitating somthing that's a pest. A different species may have been different. | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 10:51:53 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27903 |
| Before l go something l thought of over the last day or two... I try to limit my anthropomorphising so l can attempt to make rational decisions in realtion to wildlife. For those of you who support David's decision to keep 'bruce' and don't see anthropomorphising as a bad thing in deciding his fate remember this... 'Bruce' had a compound fracture of the wing. He recieved no vet attention. In fact 'bruce' was lucky to not die of infection. David kept 'bruce' with a compound fracture, no pain relief, justing waiting for it to calluse up. Now put yourself in 'bruce's' place....what would you want done.......? | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 03/10/2002 11:05:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27904 |
| *popping* Hi Chrsy:) Now put yourself in 'bruce's' place....what would you want done.......? Isn't that encouraging anthropomorphising? Apart from its spelling, I really do have a big problem with that concept and have not received yet an even half-way satisfactory answer to my loaded question: What else can one do - as a human - but anthropomorphise. People who say: "animals do not have the same feelings as we humans" do - IMO - excactly that, of which they accuse others, and often vehemently ie anthrompomorphise *back later*. | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 03/10/2002 11:10:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27905 |
| P.S.: IMO People who claim or try soo hard NOT to "anthropomorphise" do IMO just that, but minus the "empathy" ingredient. *really gone till later* | |
| From: Speedy ® | 03/10/2002 11:25:21 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27906 |
| Now put yourself in 'bruce's' place....what would you want done.......? I will never know, because I am not Bruce. We can only speculate on what is best for those who can't speak for themselves ... and we will never know if we were right until the day the exact same thing happens to us. | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 03/10/2002 11:30:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27907 |
| *not here but...* Speedy!:) I really like what you are saying, since a) it makes so much sense to me and b) you say it so clearly.:))) *pop* | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 11:48:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27909 |
| I think l have clearly stated that l don’t encourage anthropomorphising in relation to wildlife, l make a big attempt to limit myself from doing so. Your assumptions on how well l do this are just that assumptions. I am not perfect however l feel pretty secure in my own ability. However for some people, this is how they prefer to relate to wildlife and for some people like ‘woman:-)’ question whether we can do anything but. My question “Now put yourself in 'bruce's' place....what would you want done.......?” was asked for the benefit of these people. I was attempting to discuss the situation with people who do not share my beliefs. By caging the question in this way, it may be heard better……? don’t know? If people feel that is was right of David to speculate on the Galahs fate based on what he would have preferred if he was in the same situation, l was wondering whether people also agreed with the level of treatment the animal received and the injuries it lives with based on the same speculation. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 03/10/2002 12:52:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27911 |
If I was in the birds place I would have wanted to fight it out, pain relief or not... it really is as simple as that. Who wouldn't? | |
| From: Jezery ® | 03/10/2002 12:56:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27913 |
| G-wiz : This is probably one of the most important threads at Scribbly imo. Very thought provoking. 100% agree. Woman:) : What else can one do - as a human - but anthropomorphise Again, 100% agree. DtA : And who really was and is that anger directed at. It was not me; it was an internal reprimand for not preventing the “death” when a chance was given to do so..... And just a parting word: Don’t be angry that you were upset - be proud that you were…….. I am absolutely flabbergasted that you can take the responses in relation to Bruce's supposed death as some sort of affirmation that you were right all along! There was no right and wrong in situations like this. Different people do things in different ways at different times and for different reasons. As Woman:) said, it's all anthropomorphising. You did what you thought was right in your particular circumstances, and Chrisy does what she thinks is right in her particular circumstances. There is no such thing as an 'objective' judgement. | |
| From: sue ® | 03/10/2002 12:57:10 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27914 |
| ohhhhh the thoughts I have thought over the last 20 hrs or so :) I, as I read DAT's account of Bruce's death I thought, this is very emotive, very descriptive, very moving, and it did move me greatly. I cryed at the uselessness of the whole situation, for the lack of my ability to help in any form & for a lot of other emotions. The fact the Bruce is still alive restores my "what ever' not sure what :) but I feel better. OK I may have a simplistic view of things, I believe that all animals where possible should be allowed to live. To kill a bird, "cos its a Galah" is as bad to me as a lot of other ideas. I'm not really constructing this post well, there are lots of things that I have thought about since first reading DAT's first post and lots of things I havent resolved. I still feel that an "adjusted life" is better than death. Though some of the "more complex" animals are not suitable in many cases. Animals DO feel happiness, love, have memories, & recognition, I see it every day looking at my own animals. Now Chrisy, you say how would I feel, knowing *now* that Bruce had no pain relief, that I'm not happy with, *but * the initial information we were given was that Bruce had been to a vet so assumptions were made that pain had been taken into account. I stand by my statements, there, but still believe that in my, maybe simple way of looking at the world, Life is (with the information I have to hand :)) better than death; where any animal is so badly hurt or suffering so badly that any form of life is severely compromised euthanasia must be the answer or where an animal is injured, can have a alternate lifestlye with someone who is willing to spend time energy love and money on the animal or bird, then that is also a viable alternative. sue | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 03/10/2002 14:37:47 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27945 |
| Still stand by my position. If this bird had have been rescued by me it would have been euthanased on the spot. I still believe that David’s anthropomorphising over ‘bruce’ has biased his judgement on what is and was the best thing for the birds long term welfare. And in addition: Aha! there it is......you belive that wild animals share our range of emotions. That is an assumption you have made and you are basing your actions on this. I don't belive wild animals share our range of emotions. But you are making the assumption that they DON’T share our emotions ect. Why should you be able to try and convince someone of your ideas or beliefs without respecting theirs? If DtA wanted to belive this then he and others have every right to be able to belive that and be able to base their actions on these beliefs. If David had of killed the bird, l would have no guilt. I didn’t advocate the killing of this animal. I never said to David once ‘you shalt kill it’. If the bird were to have been euthanased it should have been done so first thing. The decision by David to keep the bird had already been made. By telling him otherwise that it should be put down you were trying to convince him of a different senario. It was 1 ½ months since DTA’s first post to the “update”. I bring you attention to my previous post “I agree with Chrisy that not every animal can be saved and for a number of reasons it is not viable to continue treatment. However .. this is a case/story about ONE bird ..” and you said previously “…I have strong doubts on whether or not this is in the best interest of the animal though and every animal is going to be different.” Since you had no further hands-on information about the birds situation, and the decision to keep the bird had already been made, would it not have been more constructive to offer advice on the best care and treatment for the bird, which may benefit the bird’s well being, while making a statement what course of action should happen if people find birds in this condition? I tried to illustrate how anthropomorphising can alter people’s actions and how l believed that his decision was wrong. The point that you thought his decision was wrong had been made … why keep trying to enforce it if you were only illustrating a point? I take offence to certain peoples statements “I hope you are happy with yourselves now .. you win. The bird is dead.” It was not my intention to win . David is a grown man. David is someone who speaks his mind strongly and debates issues with passion. If David had of decided to kill ‘bruce’ it would have been his decision alone. I too find it hard to believe that David would be coerced into anything, hence my first reaction to his post. “certain people” .. you can call me by my name Chrisy. This was my initial reaction to reading David’s post. The manner in which your argument was made that the bird should(have) been euthanased appeared to me that you still wanted it put down .. hence my comment “you win”. This appeared to be the outcome you and others wanted and were pushing for. This attitude and “Well, I only hope the people involved realised that what they have contributed to an internet chatroom has resulted in the loss of an animal's life.”…..very simplistic. We all contribute to animals death daily. Well, what if it had been a topic of abortion or suicide (& I don’t want to know about your views on this - I’m using it as an example) that had the same outcome? Would you say that we all contribute to the death of people everyday? Yes, our everyday actions/activities have repercussions elsewhere along the line, however not in such a direct manner as someone ingesting information that may influence their actions. The point of my statement is that just as in a verbal converstation, what we say online still has an effect on whoever the audience is. Because l held a view point different to others, because l held a view point that upset and startled people, it doesn’t give these people the right to take the high moral ground and try to diminish me or try to make me feel guilty. Oh but it’s ok for you to do it, then? In conclusion … I am not disagreeing with your personnal opinions about euthanasia of native animals (in fact there are some points I agree with) or whether animals have emotions, or if DtA should or should not keep the bird. I was, and I still am, upset at your behaviour in regards to how it seemed to me that you were enforcing your opinions on others without respecting theirs and then at the end of it all, saying that you hold no responsibility for the actions of those same people. I have outlined this above. - Quarrion | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 15:43:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27952 |
| Quarrion, firstly this is/was a healthy discussion of a particular situation. Your most recent post is really quite loaded. Words and phrases such as ‘convince someone’, ‘without respecting theirs’ ‘enforce’ ‘were pushing for’’ etc etc etc ………….suggests that what has occurred in this thread was anything but…. David and l discussed the issue passionately yes! Why not? However l think you will find that both David and l enjoyed the thread, as did many others. Neither of us felt that the other was bending our arms behind our backs with loaded guns pointed trying to make each other change their minds. It was in my mind a robust discussion on a sensitive issue where neither of us got personal, we discussed the issue. Where all of us stand on the issue, and what each of us would have done in David’s situation aside, it seems only you have a problem with the way the discussion was handled. You have made a lot of references on how you would have participated in the discussion. I discussed and reply to posts as l saw fit. If you felt there was a better way of participating in the discussion, perhaps you should have. Basically, Quarrion, it was a healthy robust discussion, which both parties enjoyed..... | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 15:43:39 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27953 |
Chrisy, Bruce was given pain relief. I try and not advertise this as it is a specialised knowledge and should only be done by a vet or someone with expertise. No doubt you do this yourself. I was disappointed by your absence when it was important to see your reaction??? As it was with others! If David had of killed the bird, l would have no guilt. I didn’t advocate the killing of this animal.New colour with due regard to the eyes of G-wiz :o)) Then what were you on about for the great length of time we were discussing this subject????? Let me remind you of some of the things you did say in a number of posts. IMO, the kindest thing to do would be to have your vet euthanse the animal. Ok then why is euthanasing 'bruce' a bad thing? I belive that what you have done with 'bruce' is not in the animals best interest and that your emotions may have clouded your judgement still stand by my position. If this bird had have been rescued by me it would have been euthanased on the spot. All un-releasable animals l have are euthanased. are you caring for this bird, because it is the best thing for the bird, or because you cannot bear to euthanase it.... . What do you mean by all this if not that I should euthanase Bruce? Then you mention the furphy of resources, and you with two cats????? They may strays adopted even, but why not have them euthanased? ****sigh*** DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 15:50:07 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27954 |
| David, firstly....l am sorry l wasn't here to be your guinea pig with your post suggesting you had killed 'bruce'....... unfortunatly l had a real death to deal with ...... >>>>What do you mean by all this if not that I should euthanase Bruce? That you should have euthanased 'bruce'.... past tense. A lack of rescources is not a furphy David. Answer me where we would house all of the unreleasable animals ? It is a real consideration as l have said before. What pets l have at my house is really none of your business. Stick to the issue. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 15:52:18 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27955 |
Chrisy, Pardon?? It was in my mind a robust discussion on a sensitive issue where neither of us got personal, we discussed the issue. never thought l would agree with Gaspode but you are a hypocrite aren't you? How personal can you get? DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 15:54:19 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27956 |
| David, l was as personal and as sensitive as you were. We both enjoyed the discussion. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 15:55:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27957 |
Chrisy, Past tense - present tense...Mmmmmm, looking for the difference? What is the issue then? DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 15:56:28 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27958 |
Chrisy, Evade that you called me a hypocrite if you wish. That's your problem. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 15:58:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27959 |
Leave you all to your own devices. At least some were induced to think a little deeper on the subject. That was a very good response. DTA Bye bye | |
| From: chrisy ® | 03/10/2002 15:59:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27960 |
| Ok, that is it. Good discussion. Raised lots of good points, got to see how others discuss issues.............. Made me think, made others think... Thanks | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 16:02:01 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27961 |
Made some others a tad sanctimonious. To be expected. DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 16:04:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27962 |
| }:( go to your room! jj | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 16:07:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27963 |
| besides .. the expression was "a tad hypersensitive." (and don't stick your tongue out at me from behnd that door either.) jj (with eyes in the back of her head) | |
| From: Mum ® | 03/10/2002 16:08:17 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27964 |
| Yes, and dont come out until you have learnt some manners. I am VERY disappointed in you David. | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 16:12:45 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27965 |
| oh phew mum's here at last ... thank god I'm only a teacher! Holidays umpteen weeks a year .. Finishing work at 3:15 every day ... trala trala! jj | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 03/10/2002 16:53:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27968 |
| Chrisy, >>>Quarrion, firstly this is/was a healthy discussion of a particular situation. Your most recent post is really quite loaded. Words and phrases such as ‘convince someone’, ‘without respecting theirs’ ‘enforce’ ‘were pushing for’’ etc etc etc ………….suggests that what has occurred in this thread was anything but…. I said this is how it “seemed” and “appeared” to ME (only). This is how I personnally interpretted the tone of the thread .. perhaps, just another example of how things can be misinterpretted using this kind of communication tool. >>>Where all of us stand on the issue, and what each of us would have done in David’s situation aside, it seems only you have a problem with the way the discussion was handled. I never said anyone else had a problem with it … so yep .. only me again. >>>You have made a lot of references on how you would have participated in the discussion. I discussed and reply to posts as l saw fit. If you felt there was a better way of participating in the discussion, perhaps you should have. Lots? Ummm I counted ONE .. here: “would it not have been more constructive to offer advice on the best care and treatment for the bird, which may benefit the bird’s well being, while making a statement what course of action should happen if people find birds in this condition?” I would have loved to participate in the discussion but like yourself, other things I had to attend to ment that I couldn’t, and by the time I got back to the thread is when I read DtA’s post about killing the bird and then I got all angry and upset. Next time I’ll sit here with my bill shut and stick to my own business. I admit I probably should have done that in the first place, but whether the thread caught me on a bad day or I let my personnal feelings get in the way of the arguement, what was said has been said and I can’t, and won’t, retract it. I don’t know what else to say other than that. - Q | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 16:57:51 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27969 |
JJ & Mum, I’m really, really sorry. (Tee hee hee) Can I come out when contrition overwhelms me? :o)) DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 16:59:06 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27970 |
| Fat chance ... grumble grumble ... contrition isn't sufficient .. we want reparation .. and that does NOT come cheap kiddo. | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 17:00:23 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27971 |
| oh oh ... royal wee-ing here ... _I_ want ... jj | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 17:00:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27972 |
jj, Name the price? (Gulp) DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 17:00:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27973 |
| hUGE thunder and lightning .. gottago. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 03/10/2002 17:01:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27974 |
Gotta go also. Thy will be done. Don't go outside tonight.... :o)) DTA | |
| From: Mum ® | 03/10/2002 17:02:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 27975 |
| oh oh ... royal wee-ing here None of that here!!! use the potty. | |
| From: boxhead ® | 03/10/2002 20:14:34 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28020 |
Chrisy, ... it seems only [Quarrion has] a problem with the way the discussion was handled... If I come out on the side of DtA (which I did here) then it can be taken as read that I'm not happy with the way the discussion is progressing. Quarrion was not the only one. | |
| From: jj ® | 03/10/2002 20:23:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28023 |
| Hi sheepman, what do you think though, in the end? ... by the end of the day _I_ think people had reached a level of acceptance of things even while there was agreeing to disagree ... it was pretty much a credit to everyone I thought ... no-one was denying hurt feelings and anger ... certainly I wouldn't ... i think it has been a VERY powerful exercise. I am NOT saying it was worth it ... but I surely am glad of what i learned along the way ... which i understand chrisy to be saying too. I sense a real generosity in much of the attempting to bring it to some sort of understanding. People who are hurting need to be able to say that too I reckon. Perhpas one of the most interesting things for me was the way that the usual line-ups were crossed ... and at the seemed to me to be the oddest times. What happens now? Sadder and wiser? I know I am, but that will do me good ... I never did _like_ being confronted or confronting ... oh well. We could be in somalia I guess. jj | |
| From: boxhead ® | 03/10/2002 20:30:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28026 |
Hi j, Yes I do think it is worth disagreements to work through these issues (at times), it's even necessary (IMO), but I'm not going to say that this thread is a perfect example... we won't get one of those... But I'll even say it was all worth it >:) | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 03/10/2002 21:01:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28031 |
| "I'm not happy with the way the discussion is progressing." Yes it has moved on to finger pointing a bit. I think that was inevitable under the circumstances though. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 03/10/2002 21:03:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28032 |
| "Not sure what you mean about the vet thing though?" I meant that an experienced vet may have been able to set the wing correctly to enable an eventual return to the wild. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 03/10/2002 21:10:00 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28034 |
| " by not killing the bird DTA gave the bird the choice." I'm a proponent of the fact that animals can have emotions but I don't think I'd go so far as to say they understand death and in particular choosing to live or not. ie. suicide. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 03/10/2002 21:41:32 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28038 |
| Hi Sue "the initial information we were given was that Bruce had been to a vet" If you read the initial post again you'll see that DtA wanted to give the impression that a Vet had seen the bird but if you read more carefully you'll see that wasn't the reality. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 03/10/2002 21:52:18 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28042 |
| "Next time I’ll sit here with my bill shut and stick to my own business" Oh no Quarrion. The thread wouldn't have been half what it is without everyones input. I'm sorry you and others were hurt but please don't stay out of the hard issues because of this one. | |
| From: Regnans ® | 03/10/2002 21:55:23 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28044 |
| Lemme see if I've got this right. Invent a plausible yarn about killing a bird, pull a few peoples chains.....I'm a hero? | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 03/10/2002 21:59:58 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28045 |
| Not a hero, a git! I do not like dishonesty or mind games. And Q, please dont keep your beak shut!! | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 03/10/2002 22:01:27 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28046 |
| Invent a plausible yarn about killing a bird, pull a few peoples chains.....I'm a hero? Not to me. To me he's a jerk, and he plays sicko games. You can choose to play his game, or you can be a grown-up. | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 03/10/2002 22:05:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28047 |
| >Lemme see if I've got this right. Invent a plausible yarn about killing a bird, pull a few peoples chains.....I'm a hero? thats how i see it. nothing gentlemanly about it. cause a little pain to the humans? why not. DTA..if you have kids, please don't play this game with them. | |
| From: Hurdy Gurdy Man ® | 03/10/2002 22:40:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28053 |
 | |
| From: The Natural Philosopher ® | 04/10/2002 00:19:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28059 |
But, perhaps unfortunately, my "wiring" seems more aligned with Nietzsche who just HATED Socrates for his "rationality at any price" philosophy. Yes, as with many things, he was something of a 'prophet.' One can see many instances where rational calculation done in the absence of consideration for humanity has led to dreadful catastrophes, such as Stalin's purges, the Holocaust and the 'MAD' scenarios of nuclear war planners. Rationality must not be done in an ethical vacuum, I agree. But the trouble with basing everything on our emotional sentiments instead of rational calculation is that it can also lead to disasterous consequences; because of someone's 'love' for a violent partner they will keep remaining in a relationship where they are abused, because of people's 'faith' in miracles they will refuse to give their kids medical treatment, because of someone's 'hatred' towards the Jew they will destroy his shop and beat him to within an inch of his life for no rational reason; because of someone's feeling of 'revenge' they will happily see someone accused executed, even if their guilt is not proven, and so on. Our feelings and emotions are not useless, but the invention of reason by a certain small civilisation 2,500 years ago is not to be sniffed at either, since in my view, it stands in the way of the barbarism, superstition and cruelty that runaway emotional sentiment can lead to. | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 04/10/2002 00:34:30 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28060 |
| ...Our feelings and emotions are not useless, but the invention of reason by a certain small civilisation 2,500 years ago is not to be sniffed at either, since in my view, it stands in the way of the barbarism, superstition and cruelty that runaway emotional sentiment can lead to... And Nietzsche, of course, tells us that we can have our Dionysus and our Apollo too:))) | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 04/10/2002 00:49:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28062 |
| Hi Jezery :)) ...What else can one do - as a human - but anthropomorphise Again, 100% agree. HALLELUJA !!! (sp)... Thank You Jezery. I really really started to think that I was the only one to see it like that! :) Hi Quarrion:) Please dont go "quiet" I like to hear you and I'm not alone I bet!:) | |
| From: The Phantom Menace ® | 04/10/2002 01:15:50 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28063 |
I'm sure all animals anthropomorphise. ;) Spock: Captain, we both know that I am not human. Kirk: Spock, wanna know something? Everybody's human! Spock: I find that remark... insulting. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country | |
| From: Seed ® | 04/10/2002 08:17:36 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28064 |
| The monks of the eastern and western halls were quarreling about a cat. Nan-ch’uan came by. He stepped right into the middle of the quarrel, picked up the cat and said, “OK, now! You monks, if you can say the right word, I’ll spare the cat. If not, I’ll kill it. Quick now, say it?” Nobody spoke. Nan-ch’uan killed the cat. Later, Chao-chou returned to the monastery. He entered Nan-ch’uan’s room. Nan-ch’uan told him what happened. Without a word, Chao-chou took off his sandals, put them on his head, turned around and walked out of the room. As he was leaving Nan-ch’uan said, “If only you had been here, I would not have killed the cat.” | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 04/10/2002 08:51:15 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28067 |
| I'm not quite sure that hilarity is welcome in this thread, but I just can't resist it: *lol* @ The Phantom Menace ! I'm sure all animals anthropomorphise. ;) hehehe ...Spock: Captain, we both know that I am not human. Kirk: Spock, wanna know something? Everybody's human! Spock: I find that remark... insulting. Perhaps I'll become a Star Trek fan yet! *skips into the day with a giggle* have a nice one everyone! :D | |
| From: jj ® | 04/10/2002 08:58:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28068 |
| You too. :) gorgeous day here ... and i am going swamping ... jj | |
| From: Woman:) ® | 04/10/2002 09:20:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28069 |
| :)hi jj:) "swamping"... now *there* is an activity that conjures up some lovely pictures for me, where anthropomorphising used to go feral: The story of the Frog turning into a prince when kissed by a human gal etc. etc. etc. *Kiss a Frog* !!! have a nice one. bybyby *gone* | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 09:53:57 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28071 |
Scribblers, Bruce the Galah is not dead. Surely that is a case for supreme happiness by those that thought he may be or was. For 10 hours or so they thought differently. For 10 hours or so they had to confront their real feelings about the whole affair. It is an abnormal circumstance that can focus the mind in such a fashion. Now that the dust has settled and everyone, including Bruce, has survived, shouldn’t there be a little bit of pleasure in an unusual mind experience with no real casualties. To continue with a precious attitude may be a sign of getting at past grievances, imagined or even real. For 10 hours or so, those that thought that Bruce should have been killed, were under the impression that he was. Is the unhappiness expressed by them now, because Bruce is still alive????? Some may continue to “demonise” me but I think Shakespeare covered this point very succinctly: “Thou doth protesteth too much.” (Or something along those lines.) Let me add some thoughts on deception: On a continuing basis, there are those that post on Scribbly whose intention is to deceive. Some know this goes on and say nothing about it and all of a sudden, when its suits their “other” purposes, they do. The deceptions are never owned up to. In my case, yes, I did deceive for a purpose, but I rectified that in a very short time. In normal posting I NEVER attempt to deceive. If this is the worst thing that has ever happened to you, then think how very fortunate you are. Regnans, Being a hero, as you put it, had nothing to do with this thread. G-wiz, Bruce had an injury to the joint that holds the flight feathers. The bone was broken at the joint and calcification had already set in. This is common with car accidents and all rescuers are aware of it. Taking Bruce to the vet would have only confirmed this. This type of injury is not repairable. (If only it was??) The thread was a good one. How about appreciating that you were a part of it. I do. DTA | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 04/10/2002 10:09:14 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28072 |
| Just drop it David, I think this thread has progressed as far as it can. Let’s all move on. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 10:11:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28073 |
Hottentot, Are you speaking for everyone? DTA | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 04/10/2002 10:11:58 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28074 |
| >In my case, yes, I did deceive for a purpose, but I rectified that in a very short time. and does that make it better? how many chances do you want? >In normal posting I NEVER attempt to deceive. how do i know this? (your sounding like my mother. i'm hurting you but i am doing for your own good.) | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 10:13:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28075 |
Sarahs mum, I think I covered your good self. DTA | |
| From: Hottentot ® | 04/10/2002 10:18:38 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28076 |
| Of course I am only speaking for myself. I am appalled at your behaviour. I am not going to bother with this thread again, or probably any other of your threads. You sprout a lot of moral clap trap - yet you go and deceive people on purpose. Yes you are a hypocrite. And that is my final word on this subject. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 10:21:22 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28077 |
Hottentot, Thank you for that. However, I do not feel the same. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 10:29:23 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28078 |
Scribblers, I gotta go. I am head speaker at the annual convention of the Hypocrites Club and they are relying on me to be there on time. Of course, as much as they need me to orchestrate the event, I really am off to the pub for the day. :o)) Bye for now, DTA | |
| From: Ian B. ® | 04/10/2002 13:11:46 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28099 |
| DtA...."Being a hero, as you put it, had nothing to do with this thread." You're right.....and self righteous. | |
| From: Toni D ® | 04/10/2002 13:24:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28104 |
| I've been thinking a lot about this thread. Firstly, what's so wrong with anthromorphising? Secondly, if I have a pet that needs attention I fix it. Thirdly, I help all creatures, human and non-human, to the best of my ability. I picked up a junkie in the street last week. I didn't know if she was dead or alive. Her beahviour was not normal for our species, she was not behaving in a manner conducive to survival. Should I have helped her? I have no doubts in my mind that I did the right thing (though I do worry that one day I'm going to get a smack in the mouth for my troubles). I also have no doubts that I did the right thing in helping the wattlebird babies. Bruce with his broken wing would've been most welcome in my home, in fact I very nearly tried to catch a crow with 2 broken wings yesterday (Parramatta Park) but he was a bloody fast hopper and took off. If it meant that he had to live here, hopping around the house till the end of his days I would have kept him. We don't euthanase humans who behave in a non human manner (ie driving in cars, buying frozen food). I probably have a lot more to say but my particular humans need me right now. My avain friends are on the verandah in their cage and they've just had an artificial rain (courtesy of the spray bottle). They're very happy and chirpy. | |
| From: Dr Paul {:~)} ® | 04/10/2002 17:29:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28118 |
| Hi all, I have read all this thread at a single sitting. it is an amazing piece of work, of discussion, of testing thoughts, of testing emotions and beleifs. As a research scientist, I have endeavoured to train my mind away from an emotional lean. However, I am also a human, a father and a son. So I must deal with emotion on a daily level. It keeps me human. i can sort of see both sides of the Wildlife rescue arguments presented here, one being that if the animal can not be repaired to a state that it can be released freely back to the wild it should be euthanised, and the other, if the animal can be healed to a level of compfort and survivability, it should be given a chance. Chrissy, what if you are dealing with an endangered animal, and the animal could survive well if healed but not to the level of wild life free existance. Do you not try to keep the genetic stock and then heal the animal so that a zoo or other wild life breeding program could use the 'Brucian' genes? David has stated again and again thet he did not want to keep the bird. I think that he has outgrown these thoughts. He seems to be more than capable and seems to be holding an emotional bond to the work. Should he not now find other galahs for interaction with Bruce? Is this cruel to Bruce? This is a very very complex thread, I disregard the posts where David lied about killing the bird, but frown at him for passing me through such emotion. However, I must also think about your posts on euthanasing any animal that will not be healed sufficiently to go back to the wild. This places you as the God figure to a lot of wildlife, and your thumb seems always to be pointing down. As with everything, resources may play a part (and seems to dominate the Wires protocol if I glean enough from your argument). However, If David can heal one animal that is injured to a level of quite comfortable survivability, even to the level where the animal could reproduce, then should we not think that this is a reasonable course for 'some' of the injured wildlife? You can always train the offspring to go back to the wild. Very interesting, emotion wrenching and thought provoking thread Many thanks for a say Paul PS I read the whole damned thing before I opened the fingers to comment. Im off for a beer, I need it. P | |
| From: Podzol ® | 04/10/2002 17:31:59 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28119 |
| Hi Dave, I just got through this mammoth thread and loved it. You certainly took the issue to it's natural conclusion, as challenged. It would make a great skit at the next WIRES/Scribbly function......(love, death, pain etc it's got the lot). BTW, last time I spoke to Bruce he told me you did him a favour after that bastard ran into him on the road. He reckons your not a bad bloke and to keep up the supply of smoked almonds and peanuts in the shell! Podzol. | |
| From: G-wiz ® | 04/10/2002 18:21:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28135 |
| Good input Dr Paul {:~)} | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 18:35:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28143 |
Dr Paul, Pretty good evaluation. Not quite happy with the tem “lied” though, when deception seems adequate. Should he not now find other galahs for interaction with Bruce? Is this cruel to Bruce? My emotional bond with Bruce is no more or less strong than with any other creature, human or otherwise that I personally interact with. The aim is, in the long-run, to find Bruce a home with a female Galah partner. This will not be an easy task and if not successful, Bruce will remain with me. I repeat, I am not an animal up close and personal type of person but if there is no other choice I will have to be. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 18:36:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28144 |
Podzol, Bruce prefers pistachios……and our furniture. :o)) DTA | |
| From: sarahs mum ® | 04/10/2002 18:40:08 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28146 |
| >Not quite happy with the tem “lied” though "your mother doesn't lie.sometimes she exagerrates to the point where its hard for you to find the truth in what she is saying" | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 18:52:25 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28148 |
Sarahs mum, “Lied” indicates a permanent state of not being found out. That was not the intention. DTA | |
| From: chrisy ® | 04/10/2002 18:53:01 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28149 |
| To reply to Dr Paul's direct questions >>>Chrissy, what if you are dealing with an endangered animal, and the animal could survive well if healed but not to the level of wild life free existance. Do you not try to keep the genetic stock and then heal the animal so that a zoo or other wild life breeding program could use the 'Brucian' genes? Yep, of course. Totally different situation if it is a threatened species. In fact if any of us rescue a threatened species we are required to notify NPWS asap. If the animal cannot be returned to the wild, every attempt is made to find an outcome like what you have described. >>>>This places you as the God figure to a lot of wildlife, and your thumb seems always to be pointing down. It sure does put us in that position, not one that l enjoy either. It would seem that my thumb is always pointing down, but what you aren’t seeing or hearing about are the hundreds of animals l have given the thumbs up to. If there is a slightest chance, believe me, l don’t take that away from the animal. | |
| From: jj ® | 04/10/2002 19:05:27 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28151 |
| "I am not an animal up close and personal type of person but if there is no other choice I will have to be." I was never mother material either really. :( | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 04/10/2002 19:09:54 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28152 |
| All of us are little tin gods, all the time. Sometimes knowingly, as when, say, farmers such as BH and I consign our stock to the killing fields. More often, less honestly, in every thing we choose to do, from driving a car, to watching TV. Responsible animal carers are prepared to take the hard road, as are people who trap cats, shoot foxes, knock an injured roadkill on the head instead of driving past. These same arguments float endlessly through the corridors of non-native animal caring too...animal shelters are frequently torn apart by arguments from the "everything has a right to live" brigade. Maybe, in a perfect world, but the world of an animal, is the third world. [just like it is for most people]. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 04/10/2002 19:11:43 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28153 |
Scribblers, Somehow or other this has turned into a very remarkable post. I would wish that it be allowed to progress even further. How about a little survey: A big point is being made of the “deception”. Fair enough! Who would be willing to answer the following survey without either deceiving themselves or the other viewers? Please remember that the “deception” is a big point, understandably. (1) Did the deception of Bruce’s alleged death make you think more deeply about euthanasing other animals? Yes or no and your reasons. (2) Are you sorry that it did make you think more deeply about euthanasing other animals? Yes or no and your reasons. (3) It did not make you think more deeply about euthanasing other animals. Yes or no and your reasons. (4) Other than this and your reasons? In good faith, DTA PS Computer is booked by my ever-suffering partner, but will look in tomorrow. | |
| From: mizmolly ® | 04/10/2002 19:18:37 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28154 |
| I'm going to answer this, because otherwise the findings are not inclusive. After that, I'm finished with this thread, the self-satisfaction is making me feel ill.: 1) Did the deception of Bruce’s alleged death make you think more deeply about euthanasing other animals? Yes or no and your reasons. NO. Because I'm a b***** realist, not a garden fairy. >:-I | |
| From: jj ® | 04/10/2002 19:25:16 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28155 |
| I am halfway through dismembering a rabbit ... for tea ... I think I'll think on it another time. jj | |
| From: fraenata ® | 04/10/2002 19:59:57 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28175 |
| 1) Did the deception of Bruce’s alleged death make you think more deeply about euthanasing other animals? Of course not David, what gives you the impression that people can't think about things thoroughly until they are shocked into doing so. | |
| From: fraenata ® | 04/10/2002 20:20:35 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28193 |
| A proper reply, kind of… What else can one do - as a human - but anthropomorphise. I don’t think we can do anything else. We don’t fully understand the way animals tick, it’s a fact. So if we have to interact with them, we have to take our best bet as to what they are feeling. By default we will project our own ways of thinking onto them, but this can be decreased by getting to know as much as possible about the type of animal you’re dealing with. The stress signals for kangaroos are very different to horses, and the more time you spend with either species the more you will learn to recognise these signals. You’ve also got to look at the individual animal. There’s a particular bilby at Kanyana who, although he hasn’t been raised any different to the rest, comes looking to people for company. So you’ve got to know that although he might jump on your lap and doesn’t mind being picked up, if you do that to one of the other bilbies it’s likely to drop dead from stress. Did that make any sense? Many people will tell you that animals don’t think, and don’t feel emotion, they just act on instinct. Everything they do is what evolution has taught them to keep them alive. Sure, but most of the way humans operate is the same. We are genetically programmed to adore babies (well some of us are) so we will propogate the species. The fact that we call these actions emotions doesn’t make us a separate order of life to any other animal. Someone was saying, I think Chrisy, that a euthanased animal is better off than one that has a compromised, but happy, life after an injury. If an animals life means nothing at all, if the animal would be just as well off dead, then what are we trying to save? Let the native ecosystems go to s***, and just keep the animals we want for food. I’m sure ‘modern technology’ could figure out a way to do it. ….but I don't think I'd go so far as to say they understand death and in particular choosing to live or not. ie. suicide. Agreed, but the animal doesn’t often have that choice. If the injury or new situation is too bad, then stress will kick in and dispose of them, just like shock does to people sometimes. | |
| From: Tapperboy (fasto) ® | 04/10/2002 20:27:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28198 |
| Our dog delivered the newspaper to the backdoor without prompting of her own accord early this morning. We were asleep and found her and it there when we opened the back door to greet and feed her :) What does that mean? | |
| From: Shell ® | 04/10/2002 20:28:40 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28201 |
| It means the neighbours are going to come and ask you to return their newspaper. | |
| From: Tapperboy (fasto) ® | 04/10/2002 20:30:04 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28203 |
| The neighbours get her to get theirs for them too, lazy buggers ;) Maybe I should charge them a fee? | |
| From: chrisy ® | 04/10/2002 21:58:24 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28221 |
| >>>> Someone was saying, I think Chrisy, that a euthanased animal is better off than one that has a compromised, but happy, life after an injury. No, what l was trying to suggest was the difficulty in determining or judging what a *happy* life is for an animal taken from the wild into capativity and how our own emotions or feelings may cloud that judgement. What we feel is a *happy* life, may be anything but for such a wild animals. | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 05/10/2002 07:30:59 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28249 |
fraenata, what gives you the impression that people can't think about things thoroughly until they are shocked into doing so. Those who are burglarised are often shocked into the realisation of the possibility it can happen to them. Those that lose their jobs generally have a different view of a jobless status than when employed. Those that have a motor vehicle accident appreciate the dangers of that actively a little more. Those that are shocked by having to be in a bushfire situation, appreciate the reality better than those that haven’t. It’s not a matter that we can’t think things through thoroughly without being shocked, it is more along the lines of we often are. DTA | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 05/10/2002 07:32:48 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28250 |
.....we often | |
| From: David the Atheist ® | 05/10/2002 08:09:33 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28251 |
jj, I am halfway through dismembering a rabbit What, rabbit do something against the club rules or something? :o)) DTA | |
| From: jj ® | 05/10/2002 08:44:52 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28256 |
yep. showed up. :P | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 05/10/2002 17:01:05 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28335 |
| Here is the Bruce Thread :) That will keep you busy for awhile ;) | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 05/10/2002 17:37:49 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28348 |
| Would you consider the movements/displays of the crest and cheek patches on cockatoos an 'expression'? My tiel's give me some mean-arse looking stares when I take away the budgie mix! They flatten their crest (a known threat display) and puff up their cheek patches while holding their head down and looking at you upwards - sort of looks like a child with a furrowed brow - very 'poutish' like this .... ~>:> - Q | |
| From: Quarrion ® | 05/10/2002 17:38:41 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28351 |
| ?? Ignore the above post .. wrong thread! | |
| From: Tapperboy ® | 05/10/2002 17:39:20 |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 28352 |
| LOL Q, wrong thread? | |
| From: lucifer ® | 28/04/2003 10:57:51 PM |
| Subject: re: Bruce | post id: 54285 |
| tee hee hee you could have called wires giggle they would have helped snigger im sure ahhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaha would have saved a heap of trouble he he he he he | |
The views and opinions expressed on this forum are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages. ABC conditions of use statement.
| Scribbly Gum Forum |
| Scribbly Gum FAQ |