Flawed logic - Used against Wing Clipping

[danmcq]

The Topic of Wing clipping has resulted in some seriously flawed reasoning and logic against Wing Clipping.

 

A small list of this flawed logic:

 

Statement: We take away their natural environment—the sun, the rain, the trees, the sky, the airways. We take from them the companionship of their own kind: the natural understanding of their own kind, the comfort and sense of safety in the flock, the mate they select for a lifetime, the young they would raise and protect, love and care for, til grown.

 

Flaw: Based upon this reasoning, no one should own a Grey at all and it should be outlawed for them to be held in Human captivity completely. Wing clipping seems to be the least offensive thing any owner of a Grey has committed!!

 

Statement: To intentionally keep any wild creature (bird, mammal, amphibian, etc) as a "pet" is grotesque and simply unconscionable, since they deserve to live their lives as nature intended; and to deprive a bird of flight by clipping its wings is cruel and unnecessary, unless the health and well being of the bird dictate otherwise."

 

Flaw: Based upon this reasoning, we should not only stop clipping, we should free all Animals, Birds and Fish we have!!

 

I could post literally hundreds of flawed logic examples of reasons given by people against you clpping your Birds wings, but will stop.

 

As in all Topics and Reasoning of this World, there are cases of extremism, as above, that defies logic and common sense.

 

In these cases, there is no sense in trying to "Reason" it out with them. They are extremists against wing clipping and do not have any desire to reason at all.<br><br>Post edited by: danmcq, at: 2007/09/15 17:03

[Tari]

I clip. I do this for my pets safety. If I had a huge outdoor avary that was safe I would not clip but I don't.

My birds live in my house with many things that can hurt them no matter how much bird proofing we do they can still get hurt. So yes I clip.

[nevjoe]

Dan, to have a bird or any other pet is a decision made from a person with a selfish motive. We want to have them to enjoy, fill a space in our lives, entertain us, and be a companion and so on. The pet is a commitment we have made. NOT ALL pets have a wonderful life, and then there are many with wonderful lives. Lets not even talk about the ones that suffer abuse.

 

My main point about this subject is you have to do what is best for your needs. I love being out with my birds so flight feathers are not option for me. My birds go where I go, they might not fly, but they are not caged until bedtime, unless I can’t take them because they are not allowed there, mostly food stores. This is why I can’t have more the two parrots. I only have two shoulders.

 

This subject is causing some harsh words between some members, so just respect each other’s beliefs.

 

 

Joe

[danmcq]

I agree with you both, based upon Your choosing the safest path for your Parrots based upon their living environment.

 

The reason I started this topic, was to delineate between extremism versus sound reasoning and logic, based upon individuals circumstances.

 

Please note that I edited the Topic Header and a couple of sentences.

 

I did this because I felt the Topic and statements may have been unclear, as to the intent and purpose of this Topic.

[daviddogma]

The natural way a bird exists is with its wings. What I am saying is that people who are against clipping do not have to prove it reasonable not to clip, flawed logic or not, the people who clip need to prove it reasonable. Either way, as long as the premise is sound I have no problem with the conclusion. I just wish people who clip the wings of their birds would just admit it is a matter of convenience....

[daviddogma]

Now, to debate whether or not any animals should ever be removed from the wild is a whole other debate. Perhaps that is what we really should be discussing? I admit it, I have just recently discovered the numerous groups out there focusing on eventually making it illegal to even have pets. I'm not a member nor to I agree with what they claim. I just find it all pretty interesting. Maybe the whole thing comes down to the idea of a pet. It's all pretty emotional stuff. Should animals have the same rights as human beings?

[daviddogma]

danmcq wrote:

 

Statement: To intentionally keep any wild creature (bird, mammal, amphibian, etc) as a "pet" is grotesque and simply unconscionable, since they deserve to live their lives as nature intended; and to deprive a bird of flight by clipping its wings is cruel and unnecessary, unless the health and well being of the bird dictate otherwise."

 

Flaw: Based upon this reasoning, we should not only stop clipping, we should free all Animals, Birds and Fish we have!!

 

 

 

That would be correct, and what is wrong with reaching that conclusion if that is the premise of argument? 2 exclamation marks?!!?

[Tari]

I just wish people who clip the wings of their birds would just admit it is a matter of convenience....

Because that is NOT why I clip my birds wings.

[daviddogma]

Tari,

 

 

I mean no disrespect, I just haven't read a reason why anyone has clipped the wings of their bird that hasn't been for convenience. I know this is an emotional issue, but if it is for safety, isn't that really for convenience sake? I am sure there would be an alternative, but it could be a more costlier endeavor than you or anyone else would want to endure. It is more convenient to stay in the home you currently have than move, for example. Please educate me on why you clip and it isn't just for convenience....

 

 

 

Dave

[daviddogma]

nevjoe wrote:

Dan, to have a bird or any other pet is a decision made from a person with a selfish motive.

 

My main point about this subject is you have to do what is best for your needs.

 

Joe

 

It certainly does seem this way.

[daviddogma]

Tari wrote:

I clip. I do this for my pets safety. If I had a huge outdoor avary that was safe I would not clip but I don't.

My birds live in my house with many things that can hurt them no matter how much bird proofing we do they can still get hurt. So yes I clip.

 

 

It is more convenient for you to keep these things and clip than it is to get rid of them and let your bird fly.

[CursingLlama]

Okay, as I don't have a grey yet I can't really debate this from experience but I do plan atm to have a unclipped grey and to purchase a harness for taking the bird outside. However, as I continue to research and find more and more potential problems in a living space that could cause harm to a bird I am unsure that not clipping the bird is even a responsible thing for me to do. The thing of convenience you keep referring to, there is a level of convenience and comfort in EVERY aspect of your life no matter how necessary it may seem, that said many people do not choose to clip thier birds wings for convenience despite that an element of it is in play.

 

Your argument is the same as if I were to claim that a person takes their bird to the vet just as a matter of convenience, as you could learn to take care of the bird yourself. The fact that it would take you years to learn the required medicine to perform this act is inconvenient to them. Because lets face it, it's better for the pets mental health if someone it trusts works with it rather than a stranger. So why don't you prove to use why it's reasonable to take a bird to a vet and you'll have your answers!

[daviddogma]

Well, there you go...but I don't believe in vets or doctors really either. My son was born at home, delivered by me with a mid-wife watching, home schooled, never had shots, and hasn't guess what? He hasn't been cut either

[danmcq]

David,

 

You know as well as I, that you are creating Paradoxes around each persons answer that defies logic.

 

The demand for anyone to admit their choice was of "Convenience", is illogical in most their cases and would be a lie for them to acquiesce into such a statement.

 

Convenience does not equal Safety.

 

Safety equals a Grey living with the least amount of threat to it's health or very life. The number one reason given by the majority of Wing Clippers was safety for their Parrot.

 

The Topic is regarding the Flaws in the statements and Logic used by extremists. It is not about why a person chose to Clip their Parrot.

 

Lets stay on Topic and stop answering answers with questions, which I KNOW you hate. :-)

[daviddogma]

1. When people talk about safety regarding the clipping issue they are actually saying it more convenient to clip wings than it is to make the environment a safe place for a flighted bird. At least these are the only answers I have read on this forum and others.

 

2. I was only trying to point out that a reasonable person would never have to justify not clipping the wings of a bird. Reason would point toward the people clipping to justify why.

 

3. I thought I was on topic with my posts.

 

4. I will stay on topic going forward.

 

5. Nicely done. LOL.

[danmcq]

David - Thank You :-)

[nevjoe]

Is David ever been wrong about anything? You seem to want everyone to explain his or her reasons to you. Are you the wing police?

 

Relax! There is no 100% right.

 

Joe

[CeasarsDad]

daviddogma wrote:

The natural way a bird exists is with its wings. What I am saying is that people who are against clipping do not have to prove it reasonable not to clip, flawed logic or not, the people who clip need to prove it reasonable. Either way, as long as the premise is sound I have no problem with the conclusion. I just wish people who clip the wings of their birds would just admit it is a matter of convenience....

 

David.. Do you live in a Black and White world? From reading all your posts I get the feeling that you are very much a victim of Black and White thinking.. Certainly you realize we live in a color world.. with many variables.. In fact, you make statements about the Grey and his wings when you have no idea what the Grey is thinking when he finds out he can't fly.. That's an interesting point isn't it.. So if you are gonna use your "logic" on how the bird feels I would love to see just how you know EXACTLY how the bird feels.. Clearly you or anyone can't know this..

[CeasarsDad]

One more thing David.. I personally LOVE your debates and would never want to see it stop.. People like you make forums like this active, interesting and informative.. Thank you..

 

Those of us that don't agree with you will discount what you say.. Those of us that agree with cheer for you.... Those of us that are undecided I imagine will remain... well.. .undecided.. <br><br>Post edited by: CeasarsDad, at: 2007/09/16 05:59

[daviddogma]

CeasarsDad wrote:

 

David.. Do you live in a Black and White world? From reading all your posts I get the feeling that you are very much a victim of Black and White thinking.. Certainly you realize we live in a color world.. with many variables.. In fact, you make statements about the Grey and his wings when you have no idea what the Grey is thinking when he finds out he can't fly.. That's an interesting point isn't it.. So if you are gonna use your "logic" on how the bird feels I would love to see just how you know EXACTLY how the bird feels.. Clearly you or anyone can't know this..

 

1. All I was ever trying to say about this subject is that the burden of proof is on people clipping wings to prove it a better alternative to them being unclipped as the natural state of a bird (birds are not born with clipped wings) is unclipped wings. People who don't clip need not prove it is better than clipping via flawed logic or not as this is the natural state of the bird.

 

2. As for how the bird feels or what it thinks, well....you are correct I cannot speak to that nor did I ever claim to. I only stated what was the natural state for a bird to be born in. There are exceptions, but the majority of birds are born with the ability to fly.

 

3. I am unclear to what you mean about black and white thinking. If you mean "all or nothing" or "extreme" thinking well I guess that all depends on the premise put before me. I tend to take a premise and go with it "all the way" or to the furthest extremes to see where it takes me. I do change my mind when presented with new information. I do believe there are exceptions to every rule ;-) If you mean it be closed to any new ideas that is not the case. I try to never attack and argument or a person presenting an argument. I do, however, love to attack the premise of the argument as this is the basis of reason.

 

4. Sorry this isn't on topic, but I was answering a question ;-)

[daviddogma]

CeasarsDad wrote:

One more thing David.. I personally LOVE your debates and would never want to see it stop.. People like you make forums like this active, interesting and informative.. Thank you..

 

Those of us that don't agree with you will discount what you say.. Those of us that agree with cheer for you.... Those of us that are undecided I imagine will remain... well.. .undecided.. <br><br>Post edited by: CeasarsDad, at: 2007/09/16 05:59

 

I often don't agree (nor disagree) with what I say either, I just go with a premise and run with it to see where the brainstorming takes me, and conclusions take me. I know it probably a selfish way of learning, but it often at the point where people all around me say a conversation is going nowhere do I really start learning. Thank You for the encouragement, the last think I ever want to do is just piss people off without any conversation ;-)

[imran]

i wouldnt clip my grey<br><br>Post edited by: imran, at: 2007/09/16 11:52

[danmcq]

I agree with DD and CD on the value of debates.

 

They make us move out of our comfort zone, analyze what we believe as "Fact" (A fact is nothing more than something two or more people agree upon), search our soul, ulterior motives, prejudices, assumptions and many other things.

 

Debates are how we learn and grow. Remember the debates of childhood? :-)

[CursingLlama]

I definatly a fan of debating myself if you didn't notice. But that said on with the debate

 

I feel your saying that those who clip need to prove why its better but those who don't clip do not is entirely 1-sided. That is the only place I believe your logic is all that "flawed". Saying that in reference to any subject shows me that a person is unwilling to really look at it from the other side becuase there position on that topic is innately "right". Proof is required on both sides of an arguement or else it isn't an arguement (debate)... it's preaching. And in a situation like this one there isn't any "proof" which is better, only each persons own personal opinion.

[daviddogma]

CursingLlama wrote:

I definatly a fan of debating myself if you didn't notice. But that said on with the debate

 

I feel your saying that those who clip need to prove why its better but those who don't clip do not is entirely 1-sided. That is the only place I believe your logic is all that "flawed". Saying that in reference to any subject shows me that a person is unwilling to really look at it from the other side becuase there position on that topic is innately "right". Proof is required on both sides of an arguement or else it isn't an arguement (debate)... it's preaching. And in a situation like this one there isn't any "proof" which is better, only each persons own personal opinion.

 

That is not true. Unless you disagree that the natural state for a bird is to fly. Since it is natural for a bird to fly and you are altering this natural state, you must prove the "reasoning" behind it. I am willing to look at all sides, I am simply saying that the burden of proof is on the wing clippers in this situation. I have stated my "proof" my claiming it is natural for a bird to fly. That is my side. I have been waiting around for someone to use any argument besides one of human convenience for wing clipping and so far I have yet to read one. All the "safety" issues that I have read about have really been about convenience (it was more convenient to clip the bird than to turn the ceiling fan off).