Americans, why do you let this continue?

thedope:

Why I'm asking what you would do.

When you struck it, was it still clutching the chook?

He understood enough to take food from me, realizing I wasn't going to hurt him. I wasn't indifferent to the occasion, I made sure he could no longer get into the bin.

They call it a cold down here.

 

thedope,

When you create a relationship between yourself and the chickens, you identify the chickens as part of yourself, thereby placing them under your protection. Is this accurate?

 

you and your internet slang, next thing you know they will be shortening peoples laughs.

 

We have gone over this already storch. Frankly I have tried to assure you that I do not see you as morally bankrupt in any way. My objection is not of your treatment of the dog, it is for the claim of a lack of empathy as being responsible for the condition of the dogs. You yourself claimed to have distributed straw to people who could not afford it. In that case we can obviously and in no long order determine that it was because they lacked empathy, that they had not enough money for straw?

Again it is not the aid to pets that is the attack, it is the perception that there is fault involved, that an insufficiency outside the obvious physical conditions is responsible for suffering. It is an attack not on the individuals in question, but on your own perception of wholeness and it makes mysterious the true intents of others when their purposes would quite plain, if you recognized they were the same as yours.

I am discussing with you two entirely different takes on the world, not a single event considering only the condition of dogs. On the hand you see the dog as innocent and you have compassion for it's suffering, rightly so. On the other hand you see the human owner as liable to accusation, in fact you assume a verdict. Why, because the dog owner has all the power and the dog can't help itself being confined by said owner, and just so, you apprehend the conditions you see.

I want you to know that I use extreme terms like, assume a verdict, to sharpen the appreciation of the effect of a less intense or more subtle statement that might make the effect on your own perceptions less noticeable. These hidden attitudes that effect the extent of our natural protections at any given place and time.

Life is like falling off a log they say. Your actions fall from you like gravity compels falling. Some call this human nature but it is not. It is human behavior, phenomena, not ephemeral spirit. And, that behavior is sponsored by conception. It is at the level of conception that fundamental change, which is the only meaningful change in a world-a-changing, occurs. This is change that effects behavior fundamentally.

Statutes created to contain wild horses after they have already left the barn
is like trying to contain an echo. Obviously our proprietary model, adherence to the rule of law, is misplaced as neither fortress nor prison, nor even thursday night spaghetti feed at the church, have kept us free from suffering.
Nor even have they ever mitigated suffering except in isolation. That is we ease our own minds about our very vital situation. Trying not to address suffering, but to mitigate fear.

The suffering we entertain waxes and wanes according to the extent that we resist it, because happiness is a state of agreement with conditions.

 

That is correct and it is this level of identification that is responsible for the reactive behavior we display toward anything we behold.

Now I have heard your point that if this is the case then I should have provided ample protections to the chickens to begin with, But in my mind that is like saying I got the girl pregnant because I didn't care enough to take proper precautions. Dude, I wore a condom, fucker had a pinprick hole in it I did not see.

 

I am done with this.

If three out of four of the ones who can't afford the straw are smoking cigarettes ($5.00 a day), and/or drinking beer, and have a satellite dish attached to their dwelling, is it ok if I tell you that the reason they cannot afford straw is that their priorities are based mainly on their own concerns and comforts?

 

Yeah, dope, I look at dogs somewhat in the same way you do your chickens. Perhaps my idea of extended family is different from yours.

 

Denial is an active attack on our ability to appreciate real things. I do not deny any experience. I do not deny any phenomena. I resist the temptation to say, no this is wrong and apply myself to apprehending what is so.

Life is like jazz. Sometimes a passage can seem so utterly discordant that you feel you might not be able to stand it any more. But if you withhold judgement, in a beat or two, the passage resolves itself in the most sublime and thrilling harmonic resonances.

Here we have chinook and chicken. As I said, do to the extended effort put in by that particular raccoon, the time spent trying to decipher the fortress, he was in no mood to release his prize.

One day I was fly fishing in a national scenic river in the cascade mountains.
A smallish trout hit the fly and as the fish flashed in the turquoise water a much larger char cousin grabbed the smaller fish and took it down to the bottom of heavy current, fly line still attached. I fought the fish for about ten minutes so I could reach to where I could undo the affair as I slid the fish clean out the water before he let go his grip.

Did you know that bins are a staple for urban raccoon? He understands food.
You not so much. And, was further unable to defeat whatever device you put into place to prevent him from his native choice, i.e. the food, albeit unwholesome in your eyes but all the same substantial to him, in the freakin bin.

Because why? Could it be to ease your mind of your friendly nature?

Go for it Elmyra!

And it is awash in poisonous reptiles down there. I was feverish on my back for 5 days.

 

Please be, because it is not about you but about us that I am speaking.

Obviously all things are lawful. A dollar today is not a dollar tomorrow. You see the echo, the residue of, concerns not coincidental to weather specific events.
So there is a satellite dish and they smoke and they paid for the dish last check when it was clement enough, and their stipend for cigarettes is not weather specific.

And is it okay if I tell you that you provided straw exclusively based on your own concerns and comforts and would you allow that it is true of me also?
Our protections extend naturally to that which we identify as our own. In your case it is obvious you identify with the experience of cold and anticipate that the dogs too regard it in the same way you do.

I know dog owners who are at a loss with how to care for their own relationship with the animal. The dog won't do what I tell it, or it won't stop messing in the house. They develop a certain fear to let themselves be taken in by really letting themselves appreciate the animal because they don't feel good about the logistical relationship.

And I have seen dogs, physically vigorous, who cringe at the sight of their owners.

 

I think you exactly do and
no, it isn't different storch. It is the same to the extent we conceive it. There something you might also take a look at. Our level of identification can be circumstantial and based on our considerations at the moment, which is what I explained to Dejavu.
For instance, if a dog were to attack your child, your sympathies toward the dog might be in question.

Vice versa with our relationship to other species on the planet.

One day I was on a river in early june at first light. As I stood there I heard a commotion off to my left fifty feet and above the river at about fifteen feet up from the surface of the water, emanating from a stout tree branch extending over the river. As I looked in the ever lightening sky I saw the picture in silhouette of a raccoon pursued by a pair of black bear cubs. The raccoon launched itself form the tree branch into the river to escape the pursuing cubs. The cubs, having been foiled in their game of pursuit, retreated back down the branch and down the tree trunk on the opposite side of the river. The river I am talking about is about 40 feet across at that point. As my eyes followed the cubs down it was much lighter and could see more than silhouette, there appearing directly before me with front legs standing in the water and looking directly at me from the opposite bank, was mommy. The bear was a leap and bound away from my person and I had not seen it being absorbed by the activity in the tree. I remained intact and the bear after some seconds sensing no aggression on my part, turned and walked back into the forest the cubs in tow.

What do you think would have been the result had I tried to interfere with the progress of the cubs in view of mom? For example standing on the back of one trying to bite it's head off.

 

Doh! God help me . . .

You would have been mauled--perhaps killed--by the mother bear.

And I don't understand your question concerning my feelings toward a dog that's attacking my child.

 

"A deer, a female deer."

It wasn't question so much as a statement. The same dog that you saw shivering in one instance could conceivably be the same dog that was attacking your child. The considerations of the moment affect how you might treat someone under different circumstances. Helpful is always a matter of time and space.

 

Ah ha ha ha . . .

Yes, the same dog I saw shivering in one instance could conceivably be the same dog that was attacking my child. However, my offerings have nothing to do with what a dog might conceivably do or has done. I'm really not that fickle, and I wouldn't want to project what a dog might do.

 

But your offering to the dog owner doesn't allow the same circumspection about what conceivably was done, could have been done, or might be done still. So we are that fickle with our seemingly deeper fundamental affections because of current perspectives about circumstance.

And again this whole discourse for me is about our sensations of outrage, which in there gentlest form appear as suspicion of error.

I do not detect error in the creative capacities of the mind, but instability in our degree of apprehension of motive.

 

pensfan13:

Titter.

thedope:

You denied a raccoon its continued existence. Unnecessarily. I pardon you on the grounds of uneven heating.

His mood? Was he still clutching the chook or not when you hit him?

It was my native choice to leave him what I would have otherwise thrown away, rather than have him take out the trash. Very little, really, I do not waste food. No need to reassure myself of my friendliness. Did you have a little cry after you bashed the creatures skull in? pms is a bitch.

Better than on your belly, sissy.

 

Nothing is necessary. Do you think raccoon immortal without the intervention of other creatures? And as to I told raccoon nothing, you forget there was another raccoon life present, and that life carried forward with thus far no known contact between my chickens and mr. raccoon.
Where you to be my judge and not merely your own I would accept your pardon. It is not warranted however. And yes I maintain close/special relationships because they are wanted and loved by those around me. Those around me have changed constantly throughout my life but my endemic affection has not. None that are now with me could have anticipated they would be so and none I recognize from my beginnings.

Chinook is a fish. Chicken is the culprit of raccoon's intense enthusiasm that seemed to be oblivious to the fact that it had been discovered, despite a great deal of commotion, including my close proximity to him.
Not the second time.

No, it was simply that I impulsively reflected on the encounter because it was markedly more overtly vital than everyday routine. Am I proud of the event? I don't think that way. I am clear browed. I am instructed by the event. I lay this instance open to public scrutiny knowing that there will be those who recoil from the apparent brutality of the incident, as instructive of elemental causes we all participate in.

I know, you haven't had occasion to beat raccoon. We usually don't face such dire encounters when we are vacationing?, in exotic climes.

Every one has their price and the uncle they would inform when they have reached it. Prude.

 

thedope:

Because everything isn't? Nothing need be necessary, it is true. But would you deny that life creates necessity? Its desire for more is that powerful. I may not believe in the "one" thing needful, but then I don't deny life, or love, its condition.

You have immortalized that particular raccoon with a stick. Life goes on.

Strangers in the night. Love has no condition for you, just everyone else. Your sickly solo.

I'll take you on your word.

It would not have been "dire" for me.

Thought you thought life invaluable, pity it's only because you're afraid of valuing it.

 

Again, this slipping into denial makes motive seem obscure to you.

And his influence in life still could prove to be instructive to us all. This is as I remember Dejavu.

You have determined yourself stranger to me because of your persistent denials. It is not dark out. If you took the witness of those around me, they would say their special, and relationships with life in general, have benefited from my lack of conditional requirements to access my whole regard. Unconditional regard is the phenomenal norm, or the sun shines on all alike.

You can only take me according to yours. By your words the world is justified in your eyes.

A raccoon cannot draw on your genteel graces as it's experience, especially in in lieu of the moment. My just word is that it more likely you will act at any given moment in accord with your considerations at the moment. Not, would have been.

Save your pity Eyore!
I am wiser than to evaluate it.
Invaluable means, very useful.

 

So if I deny life and love condition I am not in denial? Either way, to you, I am in denial, but it doesn't make my motive obscure to me.

Your just word? Bet you I'm better with a fishing rod too.

What's the use? Nothing to save it for. I love life.