Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-11-2013, 12:17 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColorsWolf View Post
No Human can ever speak for a non-Human for Humans truly do not know the point of view of a non-Human due to inadequate communication.
And yet you opened this thread presuming to do exactly that.

I would never take your pets away from you, but if I find out you're raising them to adulthood and then turning them loose, unequipped to fend for their selves, you bet your ass I'll contact your local SPCA and make sure you never have the chance to abandon another animal again.

The truth is, my cats absolutely choose to live with me. I open the door and let them go free whenever they indicate their desire to go outside. The choose to return. Sometimes they choose to stay out all night, but they always come home.

If anyone is a slave, it's me. "Feed me. NOW. My box is icky. Clean it, monkey. Your lap is too full of papers. Move them. I'm bored. Make the red dot so I can chase it. It's morning. I'm going to poke my toes into your boob until you get up and make me breakfast. I lost my toy under the dishwasher. Get it back for me. Whoops! Did it again! Let's pay fetch. Throw my elastic, I'll run after it, then you follow me and throw it the other way. Run monkey, run!"
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2013, 01:44 AM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,049
Default

As someone who works in veterinary medicine I find your theories extremely disturbing CE.

Please do not bring animals into your life.
__________________
40 yo straight female
Married in the eyes of the government to Butch since 2001...
Murf my monogamous second husband has been with me since May of 2012.
In a V relationship with an average 60/40 split of time. Only due to Murf's and Butch's crappy work schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-11-2013, 01:58 AM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,049
Default

Oh btw....the life expectancy of a feral cat is less than 6 years. I have met several cats who are in their late teens early20s.. Heck we had one in today who was 24.

Outside dogs live to 8 to 10 if you are lucky. Most senior dogs who are indoor family pets live past 15 easily.
__________________
40 yo straight female
Married in the eyes of the government to Butch since 2001...
Murf my monogamous second husband has been with me since May of 2012.
In a V relationship with an average 60/40 split of time. Only due to Murf's and Butch's crappy work schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-11-2013, 07:06 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagferi View Post
Oh btw....the life expectancy of a feral cat is less than 6 years. I have met several cats who are in their late teens early20s.. Heck we had one in today who was 24.

Outside dogs live to 8 to 10 if you are lucky. Most senior dogs who are indoor family pets live past 15 easily.
What is the average life expectancy for house cats, anyway? How about if they go outside? My parents had a cat who lived to 17, but I get the impression that's longer than average. My dad just lost a cat who was 14, and I think the last cat I lost was about 16.

I'm not one of those people who needs a waiting period to mourn between pets. I've always had a healthy understanding that their lifespans are limited and eventually they will die. I'm always sad of course, but a house without a cat just never feels like a home to me. Mine are about 7 now, and I'm starting to realize they're about halfway there. I hate to see them suffer and do not plan any heroic extensions of life, especially if they're in pain. That's just selfish.

I also always like to get them in pairs. I can't be home all the time, and they keep each other company. It always amuses me how they can be trying to rip each other's faces off one minute, and snuggled up together the next. They're not litter mates, but the first was still very young when I got the other as a kitten. Whenever one has to go to the vet for a couple days, they always need time to adjust afterwards, but they always come back to being friends...mostly...
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-11-2013, 07:09 AM
InfinitePossibility InfinitePossibility is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagferi View Post
Please do not bring animals into your life.
Very much agree with this.

I have said this to you before, Colorwolf. Your communication on this board indicates a person who is still working through their tendency towards anger and aggression. You also - as I have noted - seem to have a habit of lumping all non-humans and children together in a mass and then speaking for them. The assumptions that you make also seem to me to be not rooted in the reality of the life you live.

I see all of these traits in this thread too.

I'd say that until you are able to deal with those issues you will remain wholly unsuited to relationships with non-humans.

I hope that you are able to work through your issues and also to develop strong, positive relationships with some other adult humans.

IP
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-11-2013, 08:29 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,369
Default Part 1 of 2

Re (from ColorsWolf):
Quote:
"If you bring any of your colonial attitudes with intent to practice these ideals of yours towards my 'family,' it won't be pretty for *any* of you."
Ummm, it's not like we have a secret plan to sneak up on your place of abode and ... practice our ideals "toward" your family. (Not sure what "toward" means in this context?)

Won't be pretty for *any* us? Surely you don't mean that if *some* of us come and violate your family with our sick colonial attitudes, you'll come after *all* of us? At least confine your Rambo-like vendetta to those who actually "harm" you (and/or your family).

And sneaking around the thread topic briefly: Your whole quote that I quoted up there? has, to my mind, a strongly physical-threat-type air to it. Polyamory.com has pretty forgiving guidelines, but I'm uncertain about whether the mods would take kindly to the use of physical threats on these boards. I guess if you want to argue, "Hey, if you kill my family, why, then, I'll turn around and kill yours," you could and while it would be a conceptually fair statement, it would still constitute a member using physical intimidation (and implying that some other member started it).

In my experience, one of the (at least unofficial) objectives of just about any internet forum is that *all* of the members will refrain from threats of physical violence. So if anyone's physically threatening you (or your family), then they're way out of line and in my opinion should be severely censured by the mods. If you retaliate with similarly threatening language, then you're only making the situation worse by breaking down the tacit physically peaceful agreements that make civil discussions possible. You might get talked to by the mods and asked not to verbally retaliate to physical threats, even if you aren't censured.

But if you're threatening physical violence as punishment for some sort of hypothetical actions on our part that wouldn't even physically touch you or your family, that kind of makes you the primary aggressor. Such a state of affairs might not be covered by Polyamory.com's guidelines, but I still think there's a chance the mods would take profound issue with your verbal behavior, send you a reprimand, and possibly delete your threat, delete the whole post it's in, lock the thread, ban you, and/or otherwise try to undo the damage you've done to the civility of the forum by making it about real bloodletting.

I presume your defense in this case is that you didn't *technically* threaten anyone -- let alone physically. But I'm telling you, your tone and wording suggest otherwise and I for one would caution you about how that affects the whole site. If you come in peace, mind your writing style so that people can plainly tell you're serious about keeping the peace. Otherwise we're all getting pulled into a cheap barroom brawl.

It's all so sad and unnecessary. We're only connected via satellite, none of us knows (beyond which city) where anyone else lives, there's simply no way any of us can physically approach each other without agreeing with each other to do so and giving each other road directions. Unless some really good hacker or private eye is at work on tracking down someone's physical address for some Polyamory.com member (and I'm sorry but I seeeriously doubt that's happening -- to *any* of us here).

In short: Your warning here really tested the definition of inappropriate. With regret for any offense or contempt I may inspire, I suggest you express more peaceful pursuasion and less aggressive intimidation in the future. I believe it will get you better results.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-11-2013, 08:30 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,369
Default Part 2 of 2

Other than than that, I'll just add that we can all agree that we can't read non-human people's minds, nor communicate with them sufficient to know what they're "thinking," so *none* of us are qualified to speak for them. You should apply that principle to yourself (or risk hypocrisy). That being the case, you might want to retract much of your original post. The edit window is expired, but you could still issue a new post acknowledging your own lack of expertise when it comes to knowing non-human people's thoughts, feelings, experiences, wants, and needs from their point of view.

Be cautious, also, that you don't inadvertently give off the impression that you consider yourself superior to other humans. (Unless you do consider yourself superior, in which case why not come right out and say it. It would be honest.)

Justification of behavior is virtually always subjective and uncertain, whether it be human people's behavior, or non-human people's behavior. And note: It's kind of easy to argue that humans are about the *least* moral/ethical animals on the planet. Any "bad" thing that any non-human person does, you can just about bet your last nickel that human people do that bad thing even more. So -- who's really thinking about the ethical significance of things -- human people or non-human people?

My point of view (and I'm gonna get flak for this -- from darn near everyone on this thread/site) is that wild animals don't have too hot of a life either, let alone domestic animals that have been set "free" into the wilds. Look, the wilderness is like space (with all its glorious planets, stars, and galaxies): very beautiful, and very deadly.

Yes, wild animals have evolved to survive in the wilderness. And I suppose they're pleased or at least contented with their unfettered life (though wilderness survival surely imposes "rules" of its own). But how do we know that they don't see their life as a good life only because wilderness life is the only life they've ever known? Well, we don't know.

Yes, zookeeping is a dubious practice, since it imposes captivity on naturally wild animals. But if it's a truly decent/humane zoo, then those would-be wild animals are enjoying considerable benefits for the loss of their freedom. Reliable supplies of food and water. Medical attention. Shelter. Comfy/handy places to play, relax, and sleep. Even affectionate attention from humans, in case that's worth anything. And how do we know what that's worth to the animals? We don't. How do we know whether freedom is what they *really* wish they had? We don't.

Thus we're doomed to argue all day about whether would-be wild animals hate, love, or feel indifferent about living in a zoo. Some of us will say, "Look at the sadness in that elephant's eyes. It doesn't want to be here." Others will say, "Check out those monkeys, it looks like they're having a regular frat party." Still others will say, "Look at that tiger lightly dozing, as tigers and other cats are wont to do having evolved to conserve their strength while keeping one eye peeped open to watch for the arrival of their prey." These various human perceptions paint pictures of everything from joy to longing to contented lounging. Since we can't prove which human perceptions line up the best with reality, we'll never be able to come to an agreement about it. We have to live with that irksome state of affairs. Might as well do so with some kind of grudging respect for each other as long as we have in common a sincere concern for the non-human people's well-being.

It's not that animals are so very different from us, nor that their wants and needs are so very different from ours. It's that *every* animal is different from *every* other animal, and the needs of every species are unique (and largely unknowable by humans). Heck, even within a single species, each individual is unique and different and has its own peculiar wants and needs. It's true of human people; it's true of non-human people.

Do note that human children (Western human children at least) generally grow up with training to live (and make a living) in the infrastructure of artificial habitations. They're *not* usually raised to live out in the wild (beyond the occasional camping trip). It's generally assumed that Western humans will be raised to get their high school diplomas, attend college, drive to work every day, make a goodly amount of money, and support/raise families of their own within the bounds, rules, technology, and luxuries of Western society. So to say "I want to raise this kitten to go out on its own and be independent," almost sounds like saying, "Soon this kitten will be old enough to attend college." Obviously that's not what would really happen, but my point is, training a kitten to live in the wild is a fair sight different from training a human to live in a human environment.

And as the others have said, a domestic animal's natural habitat no longer exists in nature. It now exists within the infrastructure of human society. You could argue that it's a sick, tragic thing humans have done, intentionally breeding once-wild animals to become reliant on human surroundings. But what's done is done, and what's more, I (in case you hadn't guessed) don't even think it's all that tragic. In fact, the whole sordid tale springs from the collective workings of evolution. That is, humans evolved to be like they are; in a word, to be "fashioners" of domestic animals (as well as builders of cities and users, changers, and/or preservers of the look and make-up of Earth and its atmosphere). It's neither good nor bad, it's simply the way that evolution has played out.

Are we "justified" in keeping domestic animals? It seems to me that we're neither justified nor unjustified. It just is what it is. Each human person will have to decide for themselves what to do about the problem, and God knows we won't all agree on what should be done, but again, why not cope with the irksome state of affairs with grudging respect for each other as long as we have in common a sincere concern for the non-human people's well-being? We can't do much better as a collective species right now.

Now animal abuse such as beating, maiming, neglecting, or torturously killing an animal: that's heinous, inexcusable, and unconscionable. Surely no one has any problem agreeing with me about that ...
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 11-11-2013 at 08:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-11-2013, 09:28 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Zoos do masses in the conservation of animals though. International breeding programmes, releasing animals bred in captivity to the wild. You have places like Monkey World here who go around the world rescued primates who have been illegally sold into the tourist and pet industries. It's very naive to believe all zoos in this day and age are bad.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-11-2013, 02:04 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 868
Default

Today I learned there is a place called "Monkey World."
I must go visit this majestic land.


I do wish to watch the movie Blackfish at some point. I'm taking the girls to Florida next April vacation, and am reconsidering going to Seaworld. I've been told that the Miami Sea Aquarium treats their animals much better, and actually DOES rehabilitate them into the wild.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids (DanceGirl, 13; and PokéGirl, 10), two cats, one house, many projects.
Chops: My partner. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

Blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
Slightly more polished blog with a mono/poly focus: From Baltic to Boardwalk

Last edited by YouAreHere; 11-11-2013 at 02:05 PM. Reason: Florida doesn't have a 'y' in it...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-12-2013, 03:01 AM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 868
Default From the "Body Parts" thread... I cross-pollinated when I shouldn't have.

Plopped in here from the "Body Parts" thread, since I managed to toss this thread into my reply to that one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere
How capable of adapting to the wilderness would a modern-day, first-world human be without considerable training? Many homeless people depend on the kindness of others, as do many stray animals (my ex feeds three stray cats and apparently, a couple foxes and a possum ).

I doubt that a domesticated animal is any less adaptable. Rather, I think in this society, we've domesticated ourselves out of our own survival instincts as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColorsWolf View Post
There comes a point though where Human or not, many creatures let go of their 'civilized' mindset holding them back and tap into their 'instincts', sure it may not be a 'pretty' way to live and there may be no coming back from it, but it is by no means impossible.~

That's the definition of the word 'feral'
Sure - animals do it. And many don't do so well. I'm not stating animals *can't* tap into their instincts and survive without human involvement, but it's also no secret that their life expectancies decrease dramatically, especially with motor vehicles and diseases like FeLV and FIV added to the mix.

The point was that stating that it's cruel to turn an animal out into the wild doesn't presume that humans are *better* at surviving in the wild. Indeed, we're probably not. Centuries of domestication, however, has made companion animals *worse* at it (regardless of whether or not they *can*), with no comparison to humans needed.

Not sure how my daughter's two tarantulas and P's two scorpions fit into the mix here, but I don't plan on turning them out, either.

(Nothing funnier than seeing your mom and grandparents ogling the tarantula and getting all inquisitive about it - after the requisite "EW!" of course)
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids (DanceGirl, 13; and PokéGirl, 10), two cats, one house, many projects.
Chops: My partner. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

Blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
Slightly more polished blog with a mono/poly focus: From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adults, animals, children, humans, pets

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 PM.