Comments on: Why not treat people more like animals?

By: mandarine

mandarine — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:18:24 +0000

Chris, probably your comments relates more to the other article, entitled ‘and vice-versa’ (i.e. why don’t we treat animals more like people). I do agree that a lot of animals are treated badly, but here I was referring to those animals that are treated kindly, and making a point about how we are sometimes more indulgent with what animals do than wit what people do.

By: Chris Miller

Chris Miller — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:50:27 +0000

An animal is an easy target most of the time. They can’t say stop, don’t hit me or please feed me before I starve to death.
I have worked with abused and abandoned animals…I have seen alot of abused animals. Not a one of them deserved that…no one does, animal or person. We seem to not have any respect for life anymore.

By: mandarine

mandarine — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:25:20 +0000

I am so glad you like the pencast concept. I am in the process of stabilizing the technological details, then I intend to publish a tutorial on pencasting in the near future.

I am deeply flattered by the Coetzee conjecture.

By: polaris

polaris — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:12:11 +0000

Wonderful, wonderful post. We do it all the time, but it was still an epiphany of sorts to read about the wickedness associated with acting irrationally and then rationalizing our actions. I am loving these pencasts.

J. M. Coetzee would agree with the central idea of this post.

By: Katie

Katie — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:56:44 +0000

I think it’s “no mind to receive their image.”

Mary Oliver is one of my favorite poets. But I think you’re right; I don’t think the quote is hers.

By: mandarine

mandarine — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:42:54 +0000

I have found a poem called Wild Geese by Mary Oliver, but it does not seem to be the same thing. Anyway, nice poem, and nice quote.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:58:08 +0000

I love this train of thought. Reminds me of a quote about wild geese, which I think was thought of by Mary Oliver and which I’ll doubtless mis-quote: “wild gees have no intent to travel; water, no {something} to receive their image.” Anyway, same thing.

I think we cast heavier responsibilities for actions on humans for two reasons: we think they have a choice, which goes back to your theory of rational acts, and for everything that happens, humans need a reason. Again with the rational/causal thing we seem to need. The concept of accidents seems to be beyond us. Believing in accidents, serendipity, the absence of cause, is akin to forgiveness; but not exactly the same. Or maybe they’re both part of that section in our brains which almost never lights up.

I know this: my big human brain is tired of trying to find a reason for everything…

By: mandarine

mandarine — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:47:59 +0000

Smithereens: I am flattered.

Ian: I can assure you I have met many people who say rude or offensive things just because it is their way of having their existence acknowledged. And many other people who do not have a clue that what they say might be perceived as injurious or hurtful. The probability that an offensive remark is really really intended to offend is maybe smaller than one in a hundred. Or I am a naive dreamer. Take your pick.

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:41:09 +0000

I like the idea of regarding negative rhetoric as “mere barks of presence.” To me contentment stems from the reception of events, good or bad. When someone says something that I percieve as injurious or hurtful I will remember your post. And in the meantime work on not “barking” so much myself.

By: Smithereens

Smithereens — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:30:19 +0000

It’s so strange, I recently started a short story on the exact same incident you mention in your post. Except that to me, destroying his mother’s flower was the sign of the child’s very evil intention… I think your post might really have an influence over this short story’ conclusion. Thanks!