[deleted] comments on An argument that animals don’t really suffer

[deleted] 19 Jan 2012 6:51 UTC
−4 points

At times she even has to bite her tongue and not tell them that if they had left the poor creature alone it probably would have lived but now that they caught it it is going to die!

Sure. And she’s a veterinarian, not a wildlife rehabilitator (person whose job it is to, oddly enough, rehabilitate injured wildlife for re-release).

Injured animals like sparrows?

In the bit that’s a response to, you were talking about coyotes and raccoons, not sparrows.
- wedrifid 19 Jan 2012 12:54 UTC
  −1 points
  Parent
  
  In the bit that’s a response to, you were talking about coyotes and raccoons, not sparrows.
  
  Not actually true.
  - [deleted] 20 Jan 2012 4:09 UTC
    −2 points
    Parent
    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.
    - wedrifid 20 Jan 2012 5:23 UTC
      0 points
      Parent
      
      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.