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.
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.
I ended up reading this article about animal suffering by this Christian apologist called William Craig. Forgive the source, please.
He continues the argument here.
How decent do you think this argument is? I don't know where to look to evaluate the core claim, as I know very little neuroscience myself. I'm quite concerned about animal suffering, and choose to be vegetarian largely on the basis of that concern. How much should my decision on that be affected by this argument?
EDIT: David_Gerard wins by doing the basic Google search that I neglected. It seems that the argument is flawed. Particularly, animals apart from primates have pre-frontal cortexes.