|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 23:57:46 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Dude posted:
Minus the "abuse" part, and yes. Just don't act as if it is unexpected or somehow shocking when a predator practices predation on you or when a large animal injures/kills somebody. (hell, even large grazing animals are dangerous, ask a farmer...or a bullfighter...)
|
Dude, I certainly hope you are not directing this paragraph to me! Perhaps you missed........BPS posted, sarcastically:
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? |
bngbuck posted:
(Answer, they are big, strong, smart, predatory, basically wild animals. Duh!) |
|
Dude posted:
As for your abuse clause, you will have to specifically define what constitutes abuse for captive animals. |
My personal view amounts to substantial agreement with PETA. In my opinion, captivity itself is abuse for most captive wild animals. There are many obvious exceptions - wounded animals, abandoned infants, those incapable of return to natural conditions, etc.
More than anything else, I feel there needs to be considerably more controlled study of the relationship between the "lesser" animals and human beings, rather than merely strongly expressed opinion on the part of laymen like you and me.
When the concept is considered with respect to domesticated animals, it gets vastly more complicated, as centuries of specialized breeding has produced animals that are totally unsuited for survival in the wild. However, if you are asking about animals like Orcas, my personal, largely uneducated opinion is that whales are seriously stressed by captivity. I am willing to become educated by expert opinion backed by adequate studies and experimentation, and if you can offer that, I am certainly open to listen and learn and even be called names for not knowing what you know!
I am a dedicated dog lover. I would be hard pressed to argue that this animal - the most domesticated animal in the world - would be better off in the wild with its ancient ancestors. Even the largest and most powerful dog breed is no match for a wolf (pack) in the wild! I must add, that I would be very hard pressed to rationally defend my love of dogs. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in a world of evidential mandate like SFN!
Dude, I can no more prove that wild animals are unhappy in captivity than you can demonstrate that they are content. There is little doubt that they live longer. But as to quality of life, I don't believe technology has advanced sufficiently to be capable of demonstrating happiness or unhappiness in animals. Actually, it's still pretty "subjective" (whatever that means) when it comes to the human animal.
Those who work extensively with various animals, both domesticated and the fauna of natural habitat, frequently make statements about animal happiness, but I have been unable to find much controlled study on the subject. So, unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will consider both your and my view on this subject, uninformed opinion. |
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2010 : 01:14:39 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| My personal view amounts to substantial agreement with PETA. |
My opinion is that PETA is a giant sack of fucking imbeciles.
| Dude, I certainly hope you are not directing this paragraph to me! |
Not directed specifically to you, I did read your whole post. Just me complaining about the stupid people out there acting as if being killed by a 7ton animal is totally unexpexted.
| Dude, I can no more prove that wild animals are unhappy in captivity than you can demonstrate that they are content. |
First, a disclaimer: Emotions are a poorly defined and often subjective topic, I'm aware. I'm also aware there is a danger of anthropomorphizing when animals other than humans are the topic. So.
This isn't a discussion about contentment, which I agree is probably impossible to detect in an animal. Other less complex emotions, however, do seem to be apparent. You come home and your dog greets you with a wagging tail and excitement, that is apparent happiness. Maybe they are just excited that a meal is soon heading their way, or maybe they are genuinely happy to see you... I couldn't say. I can definitely say that animals are sensitive to your emotional states and often act in ways that another human would in response.
Lets simplify this and drop the subjective stuff. Specific behaviors can be detected to determine the relative safety of handling some animals. If a dog bares it's teeth, probably not a good idea to try and touch it. I believe marine animals have some behavioral clues to their intent as well.
| However, if you are asking about animals like Orcas, my personal, largely uneducated opinion is that whales are seriously stressed by captivity. I am willing to become educated by expert opinion backed by adequate studies and experimentation, and if you can offer that, I am certainly open to listen and learn and even be called names for not knowing what you know! |
With Orcas, specifically, I couldn't say. With regard to animal husbandry in general, the term "stress" is associated with hostile environmental conditions. This could, indeed, include captivity. I'm guessing that the team of zoologists at Sea World have ways to gauge the stress a particular animal is under and also have steps to alleviate it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how a stressed animal could be made to learn and perform on command.
| So, unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will consider both your and my view on this subject, uninformed opinion. |
Probably a safe position to hold.
Halfmooner said:
| All these animals must be either near or fully stir-crazy. |
That is anthropomorphism. So is the idea that it's cruel to hold them in captivity. We have no way to judge that level of complex emotion in animals, and it is an error to provide them with human motivations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 01:15:28 [Permalink]
|
Mooner.....
I don't think there's any significant intentional cruelty to trained killer whales. But that hardly removes the actual cruelty to huge, fast-moving, almost globe-straddling cetaceans that find themselves confined in tiny pools of water.
All these animals must be either near or fully stir-crazy. |
| all killer whales (and probably dolphins) which are kept captive almost purely for the entertainment of humans should be released. |
I totally agree with both of these opinions. I personally would favor extending the principle of release back to the wild to all captive animals used for human entertainment - zoos, circuses, all the dog and pony shows (that use wild dogs and horses!)- recognizing that the actual difference between homo sapiens and all of the rest of the animal kingdom is purely quantitatively incremental - primarily in the complexity of the neural wiring of the animal in question.
However, I want to stress that I cannot substantiate this mushy, slightly woo-woo opinion with firm statistical study backed by rigid application of the Scientific Method! This is my opinion based solely on a lifetime of observation and emotional (oh my God, the horror!) affect resulting from what I have perceived as animal abuse.
If Dude or Humbert can come forward at this point and present substantial evidential data or conclusions derived from credible scientific study clearly demonstrating that my position is untenable, please do so! I promise that I will convert to the Bible-thumping position that Man should have dominion over the animals!
My view is opinion alone, and pretty damn emotional opinion at that! What is yours based on, Dude, Humbert? Anything more substantial than my flimsy feel-good fuzzypuppy defense of creatures somewhat less capable of cognition than our species?
It kills me to see any animals abused. But I cannot offer a single rigidly controlled investigation of these matters that bears out my opinion any more than if I was talking about the abuse of rocks!
Dude, Humbert, .....please demonstrate, with evidence, that I am wrong in defending "animal rights"!
Not merely your personal opinions on the subject, but evidence that Humans are one thing and all the rest of the creatures on the earth are something qualitatively different - that Humans have the moral, ethical, and practical right and perhaps even the obligation to use "lesser" animals in the same manner that they use dirt, rock, elements, plant life and other natural resources to enhance human existence (happiness?) in one way or another!
Is it ethical for a human being to OWN a chimpanzee or bonobo, exactly in the same manner that it was both ethical and legal a fairly short time ago to own a black human being?
If so, why is that so? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 02:02:12 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
You use anthropomorphism as if it was self explanatory as to being an erroneous or false concept. Using the primates as examples, demonstrate the error in anthropomorphizing the behavior of a chimpanzee, bonobo or even a gorilla.
(The next step, obviously, is to compare monkeys to apes, prosimians to monkeys, etc., perhaps all the way down the mammal trail of some 5400-odd species.) Presumably, somewhere, we will find a truly qualitative difference between a less primitive and more primitive species that defines the justification of one species' power or dominance over other, "lesser" species.
But why not start at the top? I simply want to know why some kind of dominance line is drawn between the great apes and man, at least one that justifies gorillas and chimps being in cages in zoos, whilst it is unthinkable that a human should be in such a cage! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 02:23:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
So it's a Serial Killer Whale.
|
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 09:02:31 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| If Dude or Humbert can come forward at this point and present substantial evidential data or conclusions derived from credible scientific study clearly demonstrating that my position is untenable, please do so! I promise that I will convert to the Bible-thumping position that Man should have dominion over the animals! |
Ohhh, the old creationist reverse! Nice one, except it isn't going to fly here.
YOU are the one making the positive claim, that animal captivity is cruel, stressful, and all those other things you have called it. The burden of evidence lies with, as you well know, you.
Me, I'm sticking with the thousands of zoologists and vets who are in charge of animal husbandry at our zoos and parks. I am fairly confident that the vast majority of these people would not partake in any form of cruel treatment of the animals in their care, nor would they allow an animal to remain stressed for any period of time without taking steps to correct it.
| Not merely your personal opinions on the subject, but evidence that Humans are one thing and all the rest of the creatures on the earth are something qualitatively different - that Humans have the moral, ethical, and practical right and perhaps even the obligation to use "lesser" animals in the same manner that they use dirt, rock, elements, plant life and other natural resources to enhance human existence (happiness?) in one way or another! |
Bill.... morals, ethics, and "rights" are all entirely subjective concepts. We have whatever "rights" we collectively decide to award ourselves. So I'm not sure how anyone could provide you with anything other than a personal opinion on that subject.
As for humans being different, I'd agree that it is just a matter of degree.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 10:02:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Halfmooner said:
| All these animals must be either near or fully stir-crazy. |
That is anthropomorphism. So is the idea that it's cruel to hold them in captivity. We have no way to judge that level of complex emotion in animals, and it is an error to provide them with human motivations. |
"Anthropomophism" has been an overused curse word for most of my lifetime, but the term thankfully is used more moderately these days. The Behaviorist school of psychology was probably the most guilty of the overuse of the term, but this usage has for decades been a part of our language.
A balanced view, IMO, is that we should not over-anthropomorphize other animals. But until we can communicate well with, or otherwise see into the putative consciousness of, other animals, anthropomorphism is a natural default starting point for trying to understand their motivations and behavior -- at least until we know more.
We all use anthropomorphism. Someone getting his or her first dog companion may begin with pure anthropomorphism as a means to understand the pooch, and gradually substitute elements they discover of purely canine behavior as they learn about them.
A killer whale in nature roams a vast oceanic territory. I frankly think that the burden of proof needs to be upon anyone who doubts that confinement to a tank is psychologically damaging to such a beast. "Anthropomorphically" thinking that a whale tank is equivalent to a jail cell seems a good default starting point -- until further evidence is found. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 11:37:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
My opinion is that PETA is a giant sack of fucking imbeciles.
|
+10
I'd have to side with H.H. & Dude on this topic.
There is also the argument that NOT capturing animals and displaying them in zoo's would be detrimental to the survival of many species.
People go to zoo's and see these amazing (often endangered) animals and they raise their voices in support of protecting them. Without zoo's most people probably would not give a shit. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 11:54:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Dude
My opinion is that PETA is a giant sack of fucking imbeciles.
|
+10
I'd have to side with H.H. & Dude on this topic.
There is also the argument that NOT capturing animals and displaying them in zoo's would be detrimental to the survival of many species.
People go to zoo's and see these amazing (often endangered) animals and they raise their voices in support of protecting them. Without zoo's most people probably would not give a shit.
|
I agree with Dude about PeTA.
I personally am not against all, or even most, zoo captivity. But I think appropriate room for each critter is only a humane -- and practical -- consideration. I much prefer places like San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park to the many zoos that keep large animals in small cages or enclosure. Also, the preservation of species argument works better for endangered species than for killer whales.
I'm just saying we should carefully look at captivity on a case-by-case basis and make decisions that, if they must err, err on the side on humane treatment. Holding orcas captive in tanks for profit and entertainment simply seems wrong. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/26/2010 11:56:20 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 13:21:34 [Permalink]
|
Captivity is always stressful to the animal. The degree of stress is entirely dependent upon the keeper. Properly and carefully maintained, the animal will acclimate, often becoming all but a pet. And these are the most dangerous of all in terms of keepers getting into trouble. I remind: Siegfried and Roy were and probably still are, the best big cat handlers of their generation. Roy was nearly killed by a tiger named Manticore, that he trusted and failed to read the signs. Manticore was not having a good evening.
We all have lapses; Roy got mauled, the orca lady got killed and I've had multiple snake bites. Every bit of it is simply keeper inattention; inexcusable carelessness. The animal is never at fault in these situations.
Zoos and aquariums (same thing, really), are very important in that they provide a platform for research and conservation, and even the tawdry porpoise shows help out by giving the public some information that they would find nowhere else, most likely due to not caring to look for it. So over all, the shows are of benefit, even though I loath most of them.
Of course, it is the keepers responsibility to keep and display the animal(s) under appropriate conditions. They shirk that responsibility at their peril.
And I agree; PETA is a pain in the ass.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 16:23:04 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Well, I glad to see that you are at least alive and weakly moving!
If you awake sufficiently to be alive and kicking, give Humbert a boot in the ass and see if he notices!
OK, let's take it by the numbers. First:| Ohhh, the old creationist reverse! Nice one, except it isn't going to fly here. |
Well, being a neophyte with little experience in thought processing, it appears to me that your reply totally sidesteps the issue implicit in my comment.
What you have stated is that because all concepts such as morality, ethics, and "rights" are subjective concepts, the merits of one ethical position over another cannot be demonstrated rationally. So if you want to advocate the torture of puppies that position is as acceptable ethically as is one that defends animal rights.
Applying that precise ethical paradigm to human affairs, Hitler's assassination of millions of Jews would appear to be as ethically acceptable as was the philanthropy of Albert Schweitzer to Africans. After all, ethics is subjective, one opinion is as good as another, and you can't prove these subjective things! Ethics is pretty much what you want it to be!
Ah, you say, but we're talking about Human Beings here, not animals. However you have already conceded:| As for humans being different, I'd agree that it is just a matter of degree. |
...for which concession I thank you, you are beginning to see the light!| YOU are the one making the positive claim, that animal captivity is cruel, stressful, and all those other things you have called it. The burden of evidence lies with, as you well know, you. |
I make no claim of any sort. I carefully stated that all of the above was my opinion, not a claim of fact. So don't throw that badly worn-out Skeptic's playbook dodge at me, I made no claim! I stated a controversial opinion.
If you have to play that game, you have stated:| So is the idea that it's cruel to hold them in captivity. We have no way to judge that level of complex emotion in animals, and it is an error to provide them with human motivations. That is anthropomorphism. |
Sounds like a claim to me. You have so far completely ignored my request to clearly explain how anthropomorphism is errononeous and the factual, documented foundation for that position. So the burden of proof is on you and all that crap.
"It is an error to provide them with human motivations" - Evidence for that claim, please. Burden of proof, you know!
Or are these statements of yours opinions, rather than statements of fact? If so, fine. Please define them as such so that we can avoid this silly gotcha/dodgem game that shows up all too often here. It's one thing when a 123 Troll endlessly repeats his stray thoughts on nonsense that he sees as "facts", and quite another when informed people are discussing subjective, yet substantive, material that merits discussion irrespective of whether it can be "proved" or not. Some ethical issues are, IMO, of that nature, and my position is one of asking you and Humbert to demonstrate the logical superiority of your opinion that animals - particularly highly intelligent animals - do not deserve the same ethical standards that we extend to other human beings.| We have whatever "rights" we collectively decide to award ourselves. |
Of course, because our somewhat more complex neurological networks permit us the ability to capture, confine, torture, experiment with, exploit or kill any other living creature, we do so frequently with little respect for ethics. If white people collectively decided that black people, for example, were inferior to white, they could even "collectively decide" that they had the right to capture some of the apparently more primitive people in Africa and enslave them for their profit and enjoyment. Because they had the intention and the ability, they could award themselves the "right".
Or a egomaniac dictator of a powerful nation could decide that his "Aryan", master race heritage had the right to totally destroy an inferior "race" - the Jews. Hitler and his Nazi followers collectively awarded themselves the right to genocide.
But these examples are of man's inhumanity to man, not animals!
"As for humans being different, I'd agree that it is just a matter of degree."
You would probably agree with Kant's categorical imperative:
| Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. |
Except, to be consistent, you would have to add a proviso to it.| "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law applying only to your own species" |
or "Do unto others of your own species as you would have them do unto you" Other species need not apply.| I'm also aware there is a danger of anthropomorphizing when animals other than humans are the topic. |
What is the "danger"?| This isn't a discussion about contentment, which I agree is probably impossible to detect in an animal. |
IMO it is certainly a discussion about varying opinions of animal sentience which, to date, we have not been able to confirm or deny in animals. There certainly is at least enormous anecdotal evidence that animals display some of the sentient traits of humans. You have accurately described several of them. But I certainly see no evidence or proof right now that sentience does not appear in animals other than humans. Jeremy Bentham wrote:| But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but, "Can they suffer?" |
IMO the first is not yet determined. There is some evidence to support the second. Few, even you, would deny the third.| I would say that as long as the animal is well fed, has an appropriate living environment, and is not physically injured then all is well. |
My opinion is that an appropriate living environment for an Orca is not a large tank at Sea World; any more than a jail cell is an appropriate living environment for a humam being!| Lets simplify this and drop the subjective stuff. |
If you are saying that you don't wish to debate issues of ethics with respect to animals, OKAY! Sorry to intrude on your intellectual world. How about the somewhat less subjective matter of awarding basic human rights to ALL of the Homididae? What are your ideas and opinions on that concept?
Believe me, Dude I do not wish to get involved in whether a comment is a statement of fact or an opinion As you have correctly stated, there ia a great deal of subjectivity here which is incapable of extensive documentation. "Show me yours before I show you mine" demands can be a waste of time unless some innocent is confusing his self-conferred omniscience with documented science. I don't do that, you don't do that, few regulars here do that - let's forget about it.
| You know when your dog is happy and when it isn't. I suspect that the same holds true for handlers of other intelligent animals. I also doubt that most animal trainers who detected stress or anxiety in one of the animals they work with would be willing to force it to do something it didn't want to do. (I don't doubt there are some out there who would be cruel to an animal, but not at a large commercial enterprise like sea world) In the specific case of an Orca, I fail to see how you could force it.... if it felt stressed or threatened it is just going to consume you. |
Regarding dogs, cats, and some other domesticated animals, they are pretty well born domesticated. The harm, if any, was done eons ago and is irreversible now. But most zoo (wild) animals, and certainly Orcas, are forced into an alien living environment that is probably contrary to much of their instinct. Again, I am not stating this as a fact, it is my opinion!
You state "you know when your dog is happy". Yeah, I agree. The owners, planners, scientists, and even some of the handlers know when the Orca is unhappy - I would guess, yes, most of the time; but it's the money, man! They really don't care enough to give up their business, their jobs, etc. Too much vested interest in Orca's career!
Please don't ask for documented evidence! It's like Republicans, They're assholes, period. But I'm not a proctologist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 21:15:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I make no claim of any sort. I carefully stated that all of the above was my opinion, not a claim of fact. |
Oh, forcryingoutloud, haven't we stamped out this stupefyingly evasive tactic yet?!
Nobody holds an opinion that they think to be false. "In my opinion..." and "I think it is true that..." are synonymous phrasings. And "I think it is true that..." is nothing less than the statement of an alleged fact (a "claim").
The certainty with which one holds an opinion is irrelevant to the fact that opinions are assertions of facts. Nobody forms an opinion in a vacuum of evidence, so opinions may be held strongly (when there's lots of evidence) or weakly (when there's little), but there's evidence of some sort that went into the formation of any opinion. And so challenges to support one's opinions as claims of facts are nothing more than requests for the evidence that one has used to arrive at the opinion in question.
Therefore, refusals along the lines of "I didn't make a claim, I just stated my opinion" are nothing more than displays of intellectual cowardice and transparent evasion. It's a wonder that this strategy doesn't get high marks in the Crackpot Index. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 21:52:40 [Permalink]
|
Boy, do I not want to go here.
I don't think it's always an evasive tactic to state that you are opining because you don't have have the knowledge or the evidence that would make whatever it is you are saying, a statement of fact. I think it can be evasive. But sometimes, it's nothing more than an admission that what you have to say is only a hunch, and is only as good as a hunch.
Sometimes, it's being honest to qualify what you are saying so it isn't being taken as a statement of fact. Frankly, none of us has the time to know enough about everything to not have opinions.
Of course, all opinions are subject to challenge. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 23:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner said:
| A balanced view, IMO, is that we should not over-anthropomorphize other animals. But until we can communicate well with, or otherwise see into the putative consciousness of, other animals, anthropomorphism is a natural default starting point for trying to understand their motivations and behavior -- at least until we know more. |
There is a reason why anthropomorphism is generally seen as a bad thing, that is because you can't ascribe human motivations to animals, there is plenty of evidence to suggest animals do not even remotely experience the world the same way we do. Tragedy, harm, and unintentional cruelty are often the result of anthropomorphizing. If you have ever had a cat as a pet, you'd know that these highly domesticated animals are viscious tormenting killers at heart. They hunt and kill to pass the time. Yet most pet owners would never say their cat is a relentless killer of smaller animals. In Australia, where our domestic cats are an import, they have driven some native species to the brink of extinction. Wildlife officials kill cats on sight, set traps for them, and generally carry out a campaign of genocide to try and keep their numbers down in the wild.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 23:24:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Boy, do I not want to go here.
I don't think it's always an evasive tactic to state that you are opining because you don't have have the knowledge or the evidence that would make whatever it is you are saying, a statement of fact. I think it can be evasive. But sometimes, it's nothing more than an admission that what you have to say is only a hunch, and is only as good as a hunch.
Sometimes, it's being honest to qualify what you are saying so it isn't being taken as a statement of fact. Frankly, none of us has the time to know enough about everything to not have opinions.
Of course, all opinions are subject to challenge. |
But to deny that an opinion is a claim is to evade the challenge. It's not a capitulation, it's both a refusal to provide the evidence requested and a refusal to admit that such evidence does not exist.
When people admit to just stating a hunch, they're rather more humble than what we've seen here whenever this subject comes up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How could this happen!
