plax
08-15-2014, 06:06 PM
The following webpage contains a message exchange that ensued after someone posted media content depicting a Cockatoo and a cat engaged in physical interaction:
[Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]
I think the dialog therein demonstrates how a great many folks tend to place their own gratifications above affording reasonable and necessary protection for pets from potentially lethal situations. If you read through the exchange, you should notice just how many of the responders proceed to rationalize and/or ignore the genuinely harmful potentials involved. They make general statements of rebuttal, suggesting that all risks are equal. The difference in probability among various forms of mishap goes unacknowledged within said statements. In many cases they even lash out at those offering the courteous warnings. And therein lies the problem with the friendly warning-then-drop-it philosophy. Typically, the rationalizers will jump in after such a warning has been posted and smother its validity with personal criticisms and shallow reasoning. When this occurs, what's often left is a barrage of comments that trivialize any well-intentioned warnings, which may thus encourage readers toward unsafe pet practices.
Most of the folks who posted the valid warnings are right on point with reality. I commend their efforts in that regard. But unfortunately, these one-time comments usually become buried with remarks of opposition. That's why I have been a firm believer in challenging such opposition with facts and supporting evidence.
[Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]
I think the dialog therein demonstrates how a great many folks tend to place their own gratifications above affording reasonable and necessary protection for pets from potentially lethal situations. If you read through the exchange, you should notice just how many of the responders proceed to rationalize and/or ignore the genuinely harmful potentials involved. They make general statements of rebuttal, suggesting that all risks are equal. The difference in probability among various forms of mishap goes unacknowledged within said statements. In many cases they even lash out at those offering the courteous warnings. And therein lies the problem with the friendly warning-then-drop-it philosophy. Typically, the rationalizers will jump in after such a warning has been posted and smother its validity with personal criticisms and shallow reasoning. When this occurs, what's often left is a barrage of comments that trivialize any well-intentioned warnings, which may thus encourage readers toward unsafe pet practices.
Most of the folks who posted the valid warnings are right on point with reality. I commend their efforts in that regard. But unfortunately, these one-time comments usually become buried with remarks of opposition. That's why I have been a firm believer in challenging such opposition with facts and supporting evidence.