| Exotic birds are not pets, really - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page |
| NaDeana |
This is true Louis, but if you are caught mistreating a human child in this
manner, the penalties are pretty stiff. If you are treating a feathered
child in an extreme manner (physical abuse, denying the child the
necessities of life) the laws will give you a slap on the wrist. Laws are
not made to protect the feathered and furred children of the world from
abusive parents. And in some cases they fail our human children as well, but
you can be certain that if it is known, something will be done about it for
a human child. Education is our strongest method of protecting our feathered
kids from a life of misery at the hands of an uneducated parent.
"Louis Boyd" <boyd@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:bfq2k3$nhf$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> Toucanldy wrote:
> > http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/...al2/6371555.htm
> > Exotic birds are not pets, really
> > They require care and accommodation many people are unprepared to give.
>
> There are a lot of people who aren't prepared to give dogs or cats or
> (especially) baby humans the care and accommodation they need either.
> The writer of that article is right that knowledge is needed and gives
> the example that incorrect feeding can kill a baby bird. Thats true but
> incorrect feeding can kill a baby human too. It's far better to explain
> how to do it right than to tell people they're too stupid to learn.
>
> Of course birds can be pets whether they're exotic parrots or domestic
> fowl.
>
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
> pet, n. Any person or animal especially cherished and indulged; a
> fondling; a darling; often, a favorite child.
>
> If that doesn't fit our feathered companions I don't know what does.
> I'm typing this with a BCC cuddled against my ear and a WFA perched on
> my wrist. Don't tell me they aren't animals which are cherished and
> indulged.
> --
> Lou Boyd
>
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
NaDeana wrote:
> This is true Louis, but if you are caught mistreating a human child
> in this manner, the penalties are pretty stiff. If you are treating a
> feathered child in an extreme manner (physical abuse, denying the
> child the necessities of life) the laws will give you a slap on the
> wrist. Laws are not made to protect the feathered and furred children
> of the world from abusive parents. And in some cases they fail our
> human children as well, but you can be certain that if it is known,
> something will be done about it for a human child. Education is our
> strongest method of protecting our feathered kids from a life of
> misery at the hands of an uneducated parent.
Sorry, but I don't buy the equivelancy nonsensense. While animal cruelty
needs to be dealt with, a human child is NOT the same as an animal, and has
far more value in terms of existence. It's one thing to affectionately refer
to animals as Fids or kids, or even to feel closely attached.... I certainly
am to my parrotlet, Tiki. But I reject any attempt to make animal and human
equal and equivalent. But if it were a choice between either my child's or
Tiki's survival or protection, my child wins without the need for a second
thought. I'll deal with the sadness over the loss or injury of my pet later.
--
Dave
|
|
|
| Louis Boyd |
Dave Bugg wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't buy the equivelancy nonsensense. While animal cruelty
> needs to be dealt with, a human child is NOT the same as an animal, and has
> far more value in terms of existence. It's one thing to affectionately refer
> to animals as Fids or kids, or even to feel closely attached.... I certainly
> am to my parrotlet, Tiki. But I reject any attempt to make animal and human
> equal and equivalent. But if it were a choice between either my child's or
> Tiki's survival or protection, my child wins without the need for a second
> thought. I'll deal with the sadness over the loss or injury of my pet later.
Who said anything about equivalency? You're responsible for the health
and safety of both your children and your pets. It would be an
exceedingly rare case where you would have to choose one against the
other.
--
Lou Boyd
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Louis Boyd wrote:
> Who said anything about equivalency? You're responsible for the
> health
> and safety of both your children and your pets. It would be an
> exceedingly rare case where you would have to choose one against the
> other.
You conveniently snipped the post I was replying to since that is where
equivalency was alluded to. And the issue wasn't about saving a pet or
child, that was simply an example to demonstrate my point.
--
Dave
|
|
|
| NaDeana |
Well that is your opinion. But I do not share the same views. You should
read Animal Liberations by Peter Singer. He discusses human's view of
superiority over all other, and I say other because we are, animals and how
we think that our lives are so much more valuable than theirs. Without the
birds, the bears, wolves ect.... there would be no humans. Moreover, people
who treat animals horribly damn well treat their children the same way. Put
an end to animal cruelty and child abuse may also take a drastic dip.
"Dave Bugg" <dbuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
news:vi1e03kkj5q33@corp.supernews.com...
> NaDeana wrote:
> > This is true Louis, but if you are caught mistreating a human child
> > in this manner, the penalties are pretty stiff. If you are treating a
> > feathered child in an extreme manner (physical abuse, denying the
> > child the necessities of life) the laws will give you a slap on the
> > wrist. Laws are not made to protect the feathered and furred children
> > of the world from abusive parents. And in some cases they fail our
> > human children as well, but you can be certain that if it is known,
> > something will be done about it for a human child. Education is our
> > strongest method of protecting our feathered kids from a life of
> > misery at the hands of an uneducated parent.
>
> Sorry, but I don't buy the equivelancy nonsensense. While animal cruelty
> needs to be dealt with, a human child is NOT the same as an animal, and
has
> far more value in terms of existence. It's one thing to affectionately
refer
> to animals as Fids or kids, or even to feel closely attached.... I
certainly
> am to my parrotlet, Tiki. But I reject any attempt to make animal and
human
> equal and equivalent. But if it were a choice between either my child's or
> Tiki's survival or protection, my child wins without the need for a second
> thought. I'll deal with the sadness over the loss or injury of my pet
later.
> --
> Dave
>
>
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
NaDeana wrote:
> Well that is your opinion. But I do not share the same views. You
> should read Animal Liberations by Peter Singer. He discusses human's
> view of superiority over all other, and I say other because we are,
> animals and how we think that our lives are so much more valuable
> than theirs. Without the birds, the bears, wolves ect.... there would
> be no humans. Moreover, people who treat animals horribly damn well
> treat their children the same way. Put an end to animal cruelty and
> child abuse may also take a drastic dip.
And there ya go, folks. The evidence speaks for itself.
--
Dave
|
|
|
| NaDeana |
What evidence? Your ignorance?
"Dave Bugg" <dbuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
news:vi2l1bhb7do09a@corp.supernews.com...
> NaDeana wrote:
> > Well that is your opinion. But I do not share the same views. You
> > should read Animal Liberations by Peter Singer. He discusses human's
> > view of superiority over all other, and I say other because we are,
> > animals and how we think that our lives are so much more valuable
> > than theirs. Without the birds, the bears, wolves ect.... there would
> > be no humans. Moreover, people who treat animals horribly damn well
> > treat their children the same way. Put an end to animal cruelty and
> > child abuse may also take a drastic dip.
>
> And there ya go, folks. The evidence speaks for itself.
> --
> Dave
>
>
|
|
|
| High Flight |
NaDeana <nadeana@gottatakethisoutshaw.ca> says...
> This is true Louis, but if you are caught mistreating a human child in this
> manner, the penalties are pretty stiff. If you are treating a feathered
> child in an extreme manner (physical abuse, denying the child the
> necessities of life) the laws will give you a slap on the wrist.
Human child? That's redundant.
A "feathered child" exists only in your imagination; not in the real
world.
Jack
--
aka Keet Visit my web page at http://junior.apk.net/~jac/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
NaDeana wrote:
> What evidence? Your ignorance?
No, the hyperbolic hypocrisy of a new-age wanna-be. Or do you share cage
time with your feathered equivalent of a human child?
--
Dave
|
|
|
| NaDeana |
My birds are not caged.
"Dave Bugg" <dbuggatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
news:vi3bhcea9d638@corp.supernews.com...
> NaDeana wrote:
> > What evidence? Your ignorance?
>
> No, the hyperbolic hypocrisy of a new-age wanna-be. Or do you share cage
> time with your feathered equivalent of a human child?
> --
> Dave
>
>
|
|
|
| NaDeana |
From Webster's New Dictonary:
child (i) n. infant; boy or girl; son or daughter.
No mention of HUMAN anywhere.
"High Flight" <jac@apk.net> wrote in message
news:bfs67a$ekr$1@plonk.apk.net...
> NaDeana <nadeana@gottatakethisoutshaw.ca> says...
> > This is true Louis, but if you are caught mistreating a human child in
this
> > manner, the penalties are pretty stiff. If you are treating a feathered
> > child in an extreme manner (physical abuse, denying the child the
> > necessities of life) the laws will give you a slap on the wrist.
>
> Human child? That's redundant.
>
> A "feathered child" exists only in your imagination; not in the real
> world.
>
> Jack
>
> --
> aka Keet Visit my web page at http://junior.apk.net/~jac/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
NaDeana wrote:
> My birds are not caged.
Your birds? Don't they belong to themselves, as is the case with humans?
--
Dave
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
NaDeana wrote:
> From Webster's New Dictonary:
>
> child (i) n. infant; boy or girl; son or daughter.
>
> No mention of HUMAN anywhere.
As silly as this is, and as devoid of logic as NaDeana appears to be:
You're looking at it all wrong, sweetie; There's no mention of ANIMALS
included anywhere -- it is a given that the definition refers to humans.
Besides that, you are even wrong with your pitiful point..
Merriam-Webster, from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT
--
Dave
begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R
