daviddogma

For the person who compared ear cropping and tail docking: http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4660.html If I were a betting person (and I am) I would wager similar bills introduced regarding wing clipping in the future. Maybe it will never get passed, but I could see it introduced....

Makena wrote: There are other threads for all these things. I am learning a lot. I hadn't even considered blind birds or unclipped birds who can't fly. IMO this is just getting interesting

My argument was never about voting it was in reply to the person who said "most of the people". Voting or not, most means most....

If someone wins an election by majority of voters that is one thing. If the majority of people don't vote that is another. If most of the people don't vote then the election is still won, but does not reflect most of the people. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

And, I know your bird is flighted based on a previous post, I meant "you" in the universal sense of the word "you".

I'm really not grasping at straws or trying to win a debate. I am looking for answers to wing clipping that do not involve a matter of bird owner convenience. And, yes the fact that you choose to clip the wings of your grey over remodeling your entire apartment to make it a safer place makes it a matter of convenience. Perhaps this seems absurd to you, and you don't want to admit it is a matter of convenience, but this is what it is. It would be highly inconvenient and costly for you to remodel your apartment when it would be much easier and more convenient to clip the wings of your bird. I am no going to try and logically claim I know your thoughts regarding this issue. Or how you justify it, just that it is overall a matter of convenience. This is all I am saying.

This is why I have been arguing wing clipping is really about convenience. Is it is more convenient to clip the wings of the bird than it is to make the home safer? Or does the wing clipping pose less of a problem than actually making the home safer? It still seems to revolve around convenience to me. If I actually believed clipping Otis' wings would make him safer I would do it, I just haven't seen any evidence to this being the case. If it depended on the individual bird I wonder how many would choose to have their wings clipped. I don't know for sure, but wing clipping doesn't equal safety, at least not in the examples listed above. Perhaps I am just dimwitted.

loviechick wrote: Both regarded clipped wings due to convenience. Makena has a condo that presents potential problems, and you well, you claim all birds should be fledged then clipped due to you being paranoid. I guess I am blind to prove my point, because I don't feel like I have my question answered.

loviechick wrote: close-minded - not ready to receive to new ideas I am open to another possibility regarding wing clipping. I just need an explanation. If convenience is the only reason to wing clip then I guess I am close-minded to it.....

loviechick wrote: I am not convinced I am right about wing clipping. I just haven't read, heard, or seen evidence which would move me to that school of thought. I apologize if I have upset you in anyway, it was never my intention. I really want to know why people clip wings on birds. Everything I have read has led me to believe it is a convenience issue. Again, sorry if I upset you. Sorry if I upset others with my egotistical snide remarks. I am beginning to think this forum isn't a good fit for my brand of reason.

Oh, and to the lady from Canada who knows 3 greys no one wants, I am still waiting for my phone call :ohmy:

danmcq wrote: We aren't talking about an election we are talking about "most". The only way to know what most are thinking is to ask them. And even then that data could be flawed since we would have to determine the education, etc. at the time of the asking. If we could somehow determine that not posting equals not caring then we could say the majority of the members don't care about a subject, but that would probably be faulty logic, unless everyone agreed to it up front. The only premise I established was one of numbers, and I am using base 10. If there are 300 members and only 100 have read the post, we cannot determine how most of the forum feels regarding a subject. Perhaps I am missing something, but these "most" certainly seems to hold up.

CursingLlama wrote: Ah, the informal fallacy. The one you speak of is ad hominem. There are many other fallacies regarding debate. O is n X and O is a Q therefore, All X's are Q's. I see this one all the time. But, I won't get into all of this right now. I simply would like to read how one came to the conclusion of wing clipping using a logical premise other than just convenience or the "I have the right to make my own decisions" routine. Is this really such a hard thing to ask?

loviechick wrote: 1. Docked tails and crocked ears, eh? I reject the analogy to clipped wings. You can draw out another metaphor and maybe I will accept it into this argument. 2. You rest your case calling my argument "weak sauce" after claiming rescue and finding an abuse situation "funny". If I were to rescue a child from being raped daily and now occasionally smack him or her around that would be okay? 3. Are you referring to me as close minded? Resorting to name calling is considered "Ad hominem" and considered an informal fallacy in an argument. The latin for is argumentum ad hominem and means argument against the man. Please try to attack the premise and not the person going forward. It will make things much less "awful" around here :kiss:

danmcq wrote: You are certainly welcome to explore these ideas in other threads. I would be interested in tackling each of these topics in a logical fashion. But, the topic of this thread, and I know you know this, is about wing clipping. And, I didn't start the thread either. So, until an admin closes this thread I will continue to pose thse questions

Makena wrote: How is that the bottom line? I keep reading this kind of logic over and over in this forum and what premise are you using to make this conclusion? Is it the "everyone knows" premise? To simply conclude everyone has the right to make their own decision is faulty logic. This is a forum, right? This is the place for debate, right? How can there be information and exchanging of ideas without debate?

Everything I have ever read on this subject has been anecdotal. Someone needs to get a hundred or so of each species and record the data. Who is up for the challenge?

Still no argument on this subject? So...let me get this straight...one gets the wings to his or her bird clipped, and isn't sure if the clipping isn't critical to a bird being a bird? Say it ain't so....

BMustee wrote: There are a lot more members of this forum that have NOT posted on this topic than those that have. For you to claim MOST would at the very least mean that MOST of the members of the forums were to at least post on this topic. I haven; counted, but I am pretty certain that less than 10% of the membership to this forum has even read this post. Sadly, your premise does not hold up.

BMustee wrote: I don't agree with you...I think Ruby is hilarious!

There is a man with a parrot, and the parrot swears like a sailor. The parrot can swear for five minutes straight without repeating himself. Trouble is, the man who owns him is a quiet, polite, conservative type, and the bird's foul mouth is driving him crazy. One day, it gets to be too much, so the man grabs the parrot by the throat, shakes him really hard, and yells, "Quit it!" This just makes the bird mad and he swears more than ever. Then the man gets mad and says "OK for you," and locks the bird in the kitchen cabinet. This really aggravates the bird and he claws and scratches. When the man finally lets him out, the bird cuts loose with a stream of vulgarities that would make a veteran sailor blush. At this point, the man is so mad that he throws the bird into the freezer. For the first few seconds there is a terrible din. The bird kicks and claws and thrashes and uses more vulgar words, then suddenly, it gets very quiet. At first the man just waits, but then he starts to think that the bird may be hurt or deeply chilled. After a couple of minutes of silence, he is so worried that he opens the freezer door. The bird calmly climbs onto the man's outstretched arm and says, "Awfully sorry about the trouble I gave you. I'll do my best to improve my vocabulary from now on." The man is astonished. He can't understand the transformation that has taken place. Then the parrot says, "By the way, what did the chicken do?"

805-264-6432 302 W. Matilija Ojai, CA 93023

Notice I only attacked the premise not any argument. I am not claiming one should or shouldn't have a right to an opinion, just what happens when one accepts "the right to an opinion" premise. I have noticed many arguments moving from the premise that each environment is different therefore different measures are needed in each of these settings. None of this takes away from the premise that flight is essential to the makeup of a bird. If someone who has a clipped bird would like to attack that premise I would be interested. I would love to hear an argument resulting from a premise that wings and feathers and the ability to fly are not critical to a bird. Please, let's keep these arguments logical, pretty please?

loviechick wrote: As of now yes, it is still legal to abuse your pet bird by clipping the wings although it may one day not be. But, I would still have the right to my opinion. It wasn't that long ago when I could fight my pet rooster until it dies...wait, I can in New Mexico and Lousiana if I want to. But then again, even if I couldn't I would still have the right to think I could. Hell, I have the right to think I can molest my child. The right to be a racist. As one can see, this logic leads down some interesting roads....

Please send me all african greys no one wants because they mindlessly say "swear" words. I will personally find homes for everyone of them. I will personally make this my mission. So, please this premise to establish taste (disguised as an argument) can not be made as I, David Dogma propose to take all of these "unwanted" birds. Now that we have established that this practice of teaching Greys to swear is currently not irresponsible we can go back to establishing more poor premises resulting in more poor arguments :laugh: