You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on An argument that animals don't really suffer - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Solvent 07 January 2012 09:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (86)

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 January 2012 12:54:18PM -1 points [-]

In the bit that's a response to, you were talking about coyotes and raccoons, not sparrows.

Not actually true.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 January 2012 04:09:02AM -1 points [-]

Someone said:

If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.

You said:

They'll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don't know or think about what'll end up happening.

I said:

I take it you're not a wildlife rehabilitator and don't know anyone who is? Because that's not the standard response to injured animals...

So yes, actually true.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 January 2012 05:23:56AM 0 points [-]

So yes, actually true.

No it isn't. The context is ambiguous. Not that it matters either way since I do maintain a substantial disagreement regarding the most common outcome for larger-than-sparrow-but-still-not-important creatures that token do-gooders try to intervene to rescue.

It would not seem controversial to suggest that neither of us are likely to learn anything from this conversation so I'm going to leave it at that.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit