My dear linguist friends...

Son of an owl! You are the daughter of an owl!

In South Central Asia (Pakistan/India/Bangladesh) the above examples are considered to be derogatory in Urdu/Hindhi/Sindhi/Bengali and (I suspect) Pashtun. An owl? Anyone here have a clue why this is so?

My thoughts would be that perhaps it implies one was 'born at night' as the owl is largely a nocturnal hunter.

Rather ties in with another expression I am familiar with, "I was born at night, but not last night." :D

Just a guess on my part. I am interested to see what others have to suggest.

In German and in some Slavic languages, an owl when used in reference to a person, means an ugly, unkind woman.
It's common in several European languages to use words for animals to talk about humans, usually in a derogatory sense - "You/he/she are /is a pig, goat, cow, owl, hen, dog."
Sometimes, in a comparative: to work as a horse (ie. to work very hard), to be as poor as a church mouse (to be very poor), to work as a bee (ie. to work very diligently).

The spirit of Aesop's fables is very much alive in European languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables


From Wiki:

Africa

Among the Kikuyu of Kenya it was believed that owls were harbingers of death. If one saw an owl or heard its hoot, someone was going to die. In general, owls are viewed as harbingers of bad luck, ill health, or death. The belief is widespread even today.[31]


The Americas

In the culture of the Uto-Aztec tribe, the Hopi, taboos surround owls, which are associated with sorcery and other evils. The Aztecs and Maya, along with other Natives of Mesoamerica, considered the owl a symbol of death and destruction. In fact, the Aztec god of death, Mictlantecuhtli, was often depicted with owls. There is an old saying in Mexico that is still in use[32]: Cuando el tecolote canta, el indio muere ("When the owl cries/sings, the Indian dies"). The Popol Vuh, a Mayan religious text, describes owls as messengers of Xibalba (the Mayan "Place of Fright").[33] The belief that owls are messengers and harbingers of the dark powers is also found among the Hočągara (Winnebago) of Wisconsin.[34] When in earlier days the Hočągara committed the sin of killing enemies while they were within the sanctuary of the chief's lodge, an owl appeared and spoke to them in the voice of a human, saying, "From now on the Hočągara will have no luck." This marked the beginning of the decline of their tribe.[35] An owl appeared to Glory of the Morning, the only female chief of the Hočąk nation, and uttered her name. Soon afterwards she died.[36] People often allude to the reputation of owls as bearers of supernatural danger when they tell misbehaving children, "the owls will get you." [37] Also, in the native Cherokee culture, as well as many other Native American cultures, owls are a very bad omen. It is said that if you are outside in the broad day light and owl flies over your head a family member or loved one would die within the coming week.


Middle East

In Arab mythology, owls are seen as bad omens.[38]


Hinduism

In Hinduism, an owl is the vahana, mount, of Goddess Lakshmi.


Western culture

The modern West generally associates owls with wisdom. This link goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece, where Athens, noted for art and scholarship, and Athena, Athens' patron goddess and the goddess of wisdom, had the owl as a symbol.[39] Marija Gimbutas traces veneration of the owl as a goddess, among other birds, to the culture of Old Europe, long pre-dating Indo-European cultures.[40]

T. F. Thiselton-Dyer in his Folk-lore of Shakespeare says that "from the earliest period it has been considered a bird of ill-omen, and Pliny tells us how, on one occasion, even Rome itself underwent a lustration, because one of them strayed into the Capitol. He represents it also as a funereal bird, a monster of the night, the very abomination of human kind. Virgil describes its death-howl from the top of the temple by night, a circumstance introduced as a precursor of Dido's death. Ovid, too, constantly speaks of this bird's presence as an evil omen; and indeed the same notions respecting it may be found among the writings of most of the ancient poets." [41]

In France, where owls are divided into eared owls (hiboux) and earless owls (chouettes), the former are seen as symbols of wisdom while the latter are assigned the grimmer meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owl

It's fascinating how different culture's can view the exact same thing very differently.

This reminds me that customs can also be very different in regards to the same thing. For example, in the West people pre-sweeten their tea with a spoonful of sugar. In many parts of the Middle East however the process is a bit different (and quite a bit trickier). You place a sugar cube between the front teeth and then slowly sip the tea.

Owls come out at night and sleep during the day usually. They aren't sociable and also don't live to long. Perhaps that is why some might see them as a way to insult someone.

Most of the people I work with are from India. I'll ask them tomorrow. (Yes, I'm in I.T.)

I'm thinking that the insult concerns the owl's general resemblance to humans: their big forward-looking eyes (which give them binocular vision for depth perception), their human-shaped head that pivots about the vertical, and their general upright stature with their two legs and feet underneath. Yet they are nothing more than an animal.

Thus an animal that only seems human.

A brown fish owl in India.
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x4305793/brown_fish_owl_madhya_pradesh_india_600-02082165.jpg

[Owls] also don't live to long.
The Eagle Owl can live for 20 years in the wild although like many other bird species in captivity they can live much longer, perhaps up to 60 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Eagle-Owl

:D

Picture:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljidz4Sytr1qe77fco1_500.jpg

I'm thinking that the insult concerns the owl's general resemblance to humans: their big forward-looking eyes (which give them binocular vision for depth perception), their human-shaped head that pivots about the vertical, and their general upright stature with their two legs and feet underneath. Yet they are nothing more than an animal.

Thus an animal that only seems human.

Owls can be rather spooky -

If you've ever seen an owl in flight- and noticed that you didn't hear much, or anything at all - you know first-hand what that owlish spookiness is like.
Similar with bats.

Not to mention the skills with which they master to fly through the forest and past other obstacles - in what for humans is almost complete darkness.
That kind of skill can easily fill people with an unease awe.

Yet they are nothing more than an animal.
Neither are humans.


Owls can be rather spooky
Owls are not spooky.


Similar with bats.
And neither are bats.

To many people, owls and bats are spooky.

My dear linguist friends...

Son of an owl! You are the daughter of an owl!

In South Central Asia (Pakistan/India/Bangladesh) the above examples are considered to be derogatory in Urdu/Hindhi/Sindhi/Bengali and (I suspect) Pashtun. An owl? Anyone here have a clue why this is so?

Owl is translated as ullu [I think] in those languages. Ullu is a slang, means idiot or asshole [something along those lines].

Son of an owl is not used like son of a bitch, more like 'redneck' - An insult aimed at the intellectual capacity of a person or his close ones, the insult being a slang, not a metaphor. eg - bastard, not dickhead.

To many people, owls and bats are spooky.

Well, that's their problem. It doesn't mean that they are.

Most Pagans believed Owl imparted the ability to see through deception and bestowed psychic awareness. Others believed she was an omen of misfortune and death.

Owl has been thought of as mysterious mainly because she’s nocturnal, flies silently, has sharp eyesight and hearing and attacks her prey swiftly. Those who fear her have thoughts of her presaging doom. People who admire her think of insight and knowledge.

Owls, with the exception of the great grey owl, are nocturnal predators. Because their thick feathers have soft edges, flight is silent, allowing them to pounce on their prey without warning. These birds have the sharpest night vision of all animals. Their hearing is extremely keen.

These carnivores, closely related to hawks, are found on every continent except Antarctica. They have two styles of hunting. One is to perch on a branch of a tree, waiting for prey and, when spotted, suddenly striking. The other is flying near the ground to hunt for quarry.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8hfyP3kULww/TCDyu6tVTYI/AAAAAAAAAA4/7w-uT7924O8/S1600-R/1081465065_AnimalsOwl-1.jpg

Most of the people I work with are from India. I'll ask them tomorrow. (Yes, I'm in I.T.)They said that the reason it's an insult is that owls are sneaky. Nocturnal predators are all regarded as sneaky in most cultures. However, in Anglo-American culture the owl is a symbol of wisdom: "The wise old owl." The fact that owls are nocturnal predators isn't very important to us, since they're too small to be a threat to our children, or even to our dogs and cats. They eat rats and other vermin, so in fact they perform a valuable service for us!
I'm thinking that the insult concerns the owl's general resemblance to humans: their big forward-looking eyes (which give them binocular vision for depth perception), their human-shaped head that pivots about the vertical, and their general upright stature with their two legs and feet underneath.This gives them a scholarly appearance as though they are wearing glasses. This may be one of the reasons we regard them as wise.
Yet they are nothing more than an animal.There are only six kingdoms of living things on this planet: Animals, Plants, Fungi, Algae, Bacteria, and Archaea.

You are obviously not a weed, a mushroom, a lichen, a germ, or a nanoarchaeum. So you must be an animal: just like all other mammals, as well as all birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, spiders, cephalopods, starfish, worms, etc.
If you've ever seen an owl in flight- and noticed that you didn't hear much, or anything at all - you know first-hand what that owlish spookiness is like.Many predatory birds have special kinds of small feathers on the edges of their wings that damp the sound waves they produce when flapping. Owls have the best of these and are the most silent of fliers.
Similar with bats.Bats have no feathers and are not as silent in flight as owls. However, they can glide pretty well, which is a very quiet way to move around in the dark.
Not to mention the skills with which they master to fly through the forest and past other obstacles - in what for humans is almost complete darkness.Unlike most birds, the photoreceptors in owls' eyes are mostly rods rather than cones. Rods are more sensitive to light, providing better nocturnal vision, but they are not sensitive to differences in color. Like most nocturnal animals, owls see almost completely in black and white rather than color. (A few owl species are diurnal, so this doesn't apply to them.)

Most other birds are practically blind at night, but they have more different kinds of daylight photoreceptors than we do (four or more instead of three) so they can see up into the ultraviolet spectrum. This is how they can tell the males from the females when they all look alike to us: their plumage has ultraviolet pigmentation.
Owl is translated as ullu in those languages. Ullu is a slang, means idiot or asshole [something along those lines].My Indian friends tell me a better translation would be "scoundrel" or "sneaky bastard."

Son of an owl is not used like son of a bitch, more like 'redneck' - An insult aimed at the intellectual capacity of a person or his close ones, the insult being a slang, not a metaphor."Redneck" was originally a regional insult, referring to poor farmers in Appalachia. There are several hypotheses regarding its etyomology. One of the most persuasive relates to the fact that originally many of the people there were Presbyterian immigrants from Scotland, who had worn red kerchiefs in the old country to identify themselves. The Scottish ruling class called these rebels "rednecks." It may also be simply a reference to necks sunburned by long hours working in the fields. After Civil War, when the Appalachian community aligned politically and culturally with the South, Northerners began using the word for all people from the former Confederacy. Today Southerners may use it with pride, e.g., Gretchen Wilson's hit song "Redneck Woman." In the rest of America, "Redneck" has become a derogatory term for anyone (especially people of modest means) with the stererotyped Southern cultural values of racism, sexism, evangelical Christianity and political conservatism, and often carries with it the implication of poor education and drunken brawls.
Well, that's their problem. It doesn't mean that they [I][bats and owls] are [spooky].Spookiness is entirely subjective. Something that's spooky to Person A may not be spooky to Person B, and vice versa. I have no problem walking through East Los Angeles at 3am, but I'm scared to be in Mississippi in broad daylight.

Most other birds are practically blind at night, but they have more different kinds of daylight photoreceptors than we do (four or more instead of three) so they can see up into the ultraviolet spectrum. This is how they can tell the males from the females when they all look alike to us: their plumage has ultraviolet pigmentation.
Speaking of birds, I'll tell you all a little story.

At many busy intersections in Karachi, Pakistan, you will see men walking up and down the traffic lanes carrying rigid nets. Inside these nets are small birds. So I ask my fixer/interpreter what the deal here is. He tells me that if you make a small donation, you will get a bird in return. And then? And then you get to set the bird free. He says that it makes people feel better. So I slide out of the car and a bird-man ambles over. I hand him a 50 rupee note and he holds up three fingers. One by one he extracts three birds and places them directly in my hand. And one by one, I slowly raise my hand and watch them fly off into unfettered freedom.

I have to say, it does indeed brighten the day and make you feel better :D

Speaking of birds, I'll tell you all a little story.

At many busy intersections in Karachi, Pakistan, you will see men walking up and down the traffic lanes carrying rigid nets. Inside these nets are small birds. So I ask my fixer/interpreter what the deal here is. He tells me that if you make a small donation, you will get a bird in return. And then? And then you get to set the bird free. He says that it makes people feel better. So I slide out of the car and a bird-man ambles over. I hand him a 50 rupee note and he holds up three fingers. One by one he extracts three birds and places them directly in my hand. And one by one, I slowly raise my hand and watch them fly off into unfettered freedom.

I have to say, it does indeed brighten the day and make you feel better :D

That's very interesting, Xotica.

I wonder how the birds are obtained in the first place?

My mind wanders to the habit of homing pigeons that will return to their home and chickens which return to their roosts at night.

I wonder if the released birds have been conditioned to return to a feeding location where they can be recaptured?

Just curious.

Any viable business requires a 'supply line.'

Many animals are easy to train to return to a reward situation.

I'm in I.T.

A casual reference to the workplace, with a dash of humor, bringing chuckles from the gallery.



"Redneck" was originally a regional insult, referring to poor farmers in Appalachia. ...In the rest of America, "Redneck" has become a derogatory term for anyone (especially people of modest means) with the stererotyped Southern cultural values of racism, sexism, evangelical Christianity and political conservatism, and often carries with it the implication of poor education and drunken brawls.

The latter evokes a steel guitar, an amp with a hum, stale beer, dirty ashtrays and Jerry Jeff Walker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBOcwgb4OA)'s immortal lampoon (http://www.lyrics007.com/Walker%20Jerry%20Jeff%20Lyrics/Up%20Against%20The%20Wall%20Redneck%20Mother%20Lyr ics.html):


M is for the mudflaps you give me for my pickup truck
O is for the Oil I put on my hair
T is for T-bird
H is for Haggard
E is for eggs, and
R is for REDNECK.

Couldn't resist. Now imagine having to weave that idea around the owl!

OK, I'll give it a shot:

M is fer the mice I eat fer brekfuhst
O is fer the okie barns I adore
T is fer talons
H is fer hoot
E is fer eggs, and
R is fer Raptor!

So it's up against the wall Barn Owl Mother...(etc)

That's very interesting, Xotica.

I wonder how the birds are obtained in the first place?

My mind wanders to the habit of homing pigeons that will return to their home and chickens which return to their roosts at night.

I wonder if the released birds have been conditioned to return to a feeding location where they can be recaptured?

Just curious.

Any viable business requires a 'supply line.'

Many animals are easy to train to return to a reward situation.
I did briefly consider the supply-side part of the process, but came to the conclusion that it really didn't matter as long as the birds are not harmed and are willing accomplices.

Two things occur with this process. It provides an easy avenue for Muslims to partake of Zakat, which is the Islamic requirement to donate to the poor. In tandem with this facet, it simply makes one feel good to release a creature from "captivity". The beauty here is in the simplicity.

. . . . it really didn't matter as long as the birds are not harmed and are willing accomplices.A few species of birds have spent centuries adapting to urban life, like pigeons who will cluster around your feet waiting for you to toss popcorn at them. Bald eagles have quickly come to understand what it means to be a "protected species": they flock into parks at lunchtime and bully people out of their Big Macs. Jays seem to understand that we appreciate them cleaning up after us. But most birds are terrified of humans, and it's not easy to trap them. I'm sure many are injured or even killed in the process.
. . . . it simply makes one feel good to release a creature from "captivity". The beauty here is in the simplicity.Sort of like hitting yourself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop? :)

Sort of like hitting yourself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop?

Wow. Just wow.

Sort of like hitting yourself over the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop? :)
Not really. More akin to taking a moment to smell the roses... a brief yet treasured escape from complexity.

Wow. Just wow.
Not really. More akin to taking a moment to smell the roses... a brief yet treasured escape from complexity.Capturing a creature just so you can enjoy the good karma of letting it go (and perhaps capture it again next month for another round of the game) just doesn't seem to me like really top-end karma.

It really does seem to me analogous to causing yourself unnecessary pain so you can have the joy of feeling it stop. Only instead of doing it to yourself--the most willing of all accomplices--you're doing it to a bird that has unwillingly undergone a traumatic experience.

Most animals equate being captured with being eaten shortly thereafter, because in their world that's how it works.

How would you feel if some race of gigantic scary-looking creatures, with technology so advanced you can't even understand it, captured you, to use in a self-indulgent ceremony that concludes with them praising themselves highly for turning you loose? Perhaps on another planet so you can't even find your way back home!

It really does seem to me analogous to causing yourself unnecessary pain so you can have the joy of feeling it stop. Only instead of doing it to yourself--the most willing of all accomplices--you're doing it to a bird that has unwillingly undergone a traumatic experience.
Please. Spare us the highbrow indignation here and perhaps consider the chicken farm industry the next time you wolf down those buffalo wings

Capturing a creature just so you can enjoy the good karma of letting it go (and perhaps capture it again next month for another round of the game) just doesn't seem to me like really top-end karma.

It really does seem to me analogous to causing yourself unnecessary pain so you can have the joy of feeling it stop. Only instead of doing it to yourself--the most willing of all accomplices--you're doing it to a bird that has unwillingly undergone a traumatic experience.

Most animals equate being captured with being eaten shortly thereafter, because in their world that's how it works.

How would you feel if some race of gigantic scary-looking creatures, with technology so advanced you can't even understand it, captured you, to use in a self-indulgent ceremony that concludes with them praising themselves highly for turning you loose? Perhaps on another planet so you can't even find your way back home!

The person who captures the birds and the person who pays for their release are not one and the same.
Which you are denying.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The person who captures the birds and the person who pays for their release are not one and the same. Which you are denying.
Many birds such as pigeons and falcons have historically been trained to perform tasks/tricks with no harm befalling the creature.

I just consider it disingenuous (and cheeky) to assume/impute an unethical methodology in regards to the Karachi birds without an iota of empirical corroboration. Such an indictment simply entertains unsubstantiated allegation.

Fraggle is a lovely daisy. Not.

My dear linguist friends...

Son of an owl! You are the daughter of an owl!

In South Central Asia (Pakistan/India/Bangladesh) the above examples are considered to be derogatory in Urdu/Hindhi/Sindhi/Bengali and (I suspect) Pashtun. An owl? Anyone here have a clue why this is so?



It seems that owls were considered to be derogatory in many cultures. But owls were regarded as good is other cultures. E.g.: In Ancient Greece the owl was the sacred animal of the goddess Athena, symbol of the city of Athens.
What's more, Greek coins have an image of an owl.


http://i64.servimg.com/u/f64/13/94/51/80/lechuz10.png

A recent 'Greek' coin:

http://www.sfakia-crete.com/sfakia-crete/100grtr.gif

Speaking of birds, I'll tell you all a little story.

At many busy intersections in Karachi, Pakistan, you will see men walking up and down the traffic lanes carrying rigid nets. Inside these nets are small birds. So I ask my fixer/interpreter what the deal here is. He tells me that if you make a small donation, you will get a bird in return. And then? And then you get to set the bird free. He says that it makes people feel better. So I slide out of the car and a bird-man ambles over. I hand him a 50 rupee note and he holds up three fingers. One by one he extracts three birds and places them directly in my hand. And one by one, I slowly raise my hand and watch them fly off into unfettered freedom.

I have to say, it does indeed brighten the day and make you feel better :D

I am certainly pleased that you liberated three of the little birds, Xotica, and I hope they remain free, life being rather tenuous and brief for many of the songbird species.

Apparently, this practice is under some scrutiny by P.A.W.S.

http://pawspakistan.org/2010/05/07/caged-and-killed/

Please. Spare us the highbrow indignation here and perhaps consider the chicken farm industry the next time you wolf down those buffalo wingsI see the logic in raising and killing animals in order to eat their flesh. Whether it is a noble endeavor or a debased one is a topic for another discussion, but at least it accomplishes a goal. I don't see the goal in capturing an animal for the purpose of setting it free. Wouldn't it improve the karma in the universe to simply leave it free in the first place? I fail to grasp the logic by which this can earn someone extra points when the universe is deciding in what form to reincarnate him next time.
The person who captures the birds and the person who pays for their release are not one and the same. Which you are denying.I kinda figured that out, dude. I think anyone who has the training, energy, patience and equipment to go out and trap birds probably doesn't need a bogus ass-backwards way to imagine that he's improving the karma in the universe in order to look his children in the eye.
Many birds such as pigeons and falcons have historically been trained to perform tasks/tricks with no harm befalling the creature.Yes indeed. My wife and I are aviculturists. This is usually accomplished by imprinting--hand-feeding the bird from the moment its eyes open so that it identifies humans as its parents and therefore does not instinctively fear us. Hand-fed birds as adults will often perform courtship rituals for their humans, which generally means regurgitating their food for you to show what a good parent they would be--an event you have to experience to appreciate it. ;)

On the other hand, some species of birds have been raised in captivity for so many hundreds of generations that the instinct to distrust humans (and other domesticated animals such as dogs) has been bred out of them. This is the same thing we've done with most other domesticated species, starting with the wolves whose descendants are now called dogs and not only tolerate us but accept us as their pack leaders.

We've never worked with breeders of pigeons and falcons, so I don't know if they have undergone this transition. Within the order of psittacines it seems to be true of cockatiels and perhaps budgies, but all other parrots require imprinting or else they have to be laboriously "tamed" as adults, which involves a lot of bitten fingers.
I just consider it disingenuous (and cheeky) to assume/impute an unethical methodology in regards to the Karachi birds without an iota of empirical corroboration. Such an indictment simply entertains unsubstantiated allegation.Hey, I'm talking about karma, not ethics. And I'm not even using the word correctly! This is just commerce. Person A provides a service that Person B is willing to pay for because he derives something valuable from it, in this case the feeling that he's set a bird free. As Xotica so unnecessarily pointed out, this is a whole lot less morally ambiguous than trapping animals in order to eat them--particularly in the "factory farms" that Americans have just begun to object to. (In California we used the intiative process to require farmers to give their livestock more space; it's a small step but in the right direction. Just because you're going to eat an animal doesn't mean he has to suffer while he's alive.)

I see the logic in raising and killing animals in order to eat their flesh. Whether it is a noble endeavor or a debased one is a topic for another discussion, but at least it accomplishes a goal. I don't see the goal in capturing an animal for the purpose of setting it free. Wouldn't it improve the karma in the universe to simply leave it free in the first place? I fail to grasp the logic by which this can earn someone extra points when the universe is deciding in what form to reincarnate him next time.

That's like saying it's pointless to make your bed if later you're going to mess it up again anyway.



Hey, I'm talking about karma, not ethics. And I'm not even using the word correctly!

Indeed, you're not using the word "karma" correctly, and as a linguist, that ought to give you cause for alarm.

That's like saying it's pointless to make your bed if later you're going to mess it up again anyway.Actually that was recently discovered to be true. When it's mussed up the linens are full of air pockets, which allows it all to dry out nicely. This makes it a much more hostile environment for bedbugs and other parasites.

Nonetheless, many people derive a sense of satisfaction from having the fixtures in their house neatly arranged. Since making the bed does not terrify any small creatures or separate them from their friends and family, it seems like a fairly harmless eccentricity.

I do it myself, just for the fun of seeing how far the dogs can undo it while I'm at work.
Indeed, you're not using the word "karma" correctly, and as a linguist, that ought to give you cause for alarm.Actually definition #4 in Dictionary.com is: "the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something: Lets get out of here. This place has bad karma." I think the word they're looking for is "vibes." ;)

That's like saying it's pointless to make your bed if later you're going to mess it up again anyway.

Capturing animals in order to set them free is like messing up your bed just so you can make it again :rolleyes:

My dear linguist friends...

Son of an owl! You are the daughter of an owl!

In South Central Asia (Pakistan/India/Bangladesh) the above examples are considered to be derogatory in Urdu/Hindhi/Sindhi/Bengali and (I suspect) Pashtun. An owl? Anyone here have a clue why this is so?
i have no idea.
one of my mothers favorite phrases is "that's crazier than owl shit".
what's so crazy about owl shit?
maybe the 2 are related somehow.

Capturing animals in order to set them free is like messing up your bed just so you can make it again

No, it's not, because in the scenario mentioned earlier, the capturer sets them free only against payment.

In fact, three entities directly benefit in such a commercial transaction:
1. the capturer - for earning some money,
2. the customer - for feeling good about giving a bird a chance to flee (and whatever metaphysical satisfaction the customer might derive from it),
3. the bird - for getting a chance to flee.

People have the right to earn money.

And people have been paying freely for entertainment and a sense of spiritual elevation for millenia anyway.

Actually definition #4 in Dictionary.com is: "the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something: Lets get out of here. This place has bad karma." I think the word they're looking for is "vibes."

In that case, your objection to the practice of catching birds and releasing them upon payment, is even more unbased.

This gives them a scholarly appearance as though they are wearing glasses.

I always assumed it stemmed from their association with Athena/Minerva. In any event some aspect of the association predates eyeglasses.

In fact, three entities directly benefit in such a commercial transaction:
1. the capturer - for earning some money,
2. the customer - for feeling good about giving a bird a chance to flee (and whatever metaphysical satisfaction the customer might derive from it),
3. the bird - for getting a chance to flee.But a good economic analysis must follow the chain of transactions from beginning to end, or else you end up with suboptimization. As far as the bird is concerned, the transaction begins when he is captured. Therefore the net benefit of the transaction to him is negative. He would be better off if he had never been captured and had not needed to be released.

Of course somewhere in the back of the room a psychologist is muttering something about the value of a "growth experience." ;) I know when I was a dumb kid and we used to chase jackrabbits (actually not rabbits but a large species of American hare) across the desert on our dirt bikes we always justfied it by saying it made them stronger, faster and more nimble so they could get away from the coyotes. (Hares nest aboveground so they have no warrens to escape into.)
People have the right to earn money.Yes yes, and civilization has already made the decision that we have the right to earn that money at the expense of the comfort and even the survival of other species of animals. I'm a carnivore so I don't even argue with that, although I would like to see livestock treated more humanely even if that makes their meat more expensive. But the issue of karma has been raised--however you define it. I think from a cosmic perspective there's something a just a teeny bit wacky about claiming that causing animals nearly unbearable stress (some animals can die from shock just as humans can), in order to enjoy the sweet sensation of setting them free from a prison that they didn't even need to be in, is a net improvement in the universe.

As I have noted already, this is a cavalier dismissal of the feelings of the bird. In economics that's just fine because economics is dismissively anthropocentric. But in the philosophy of the country where this transaction takes place, they claim that all species are part of the Grand Scheme of Things and if you're not careful you may come back as one of them, at the mercy of both nature and your (formerly) fellow man! Do they really want to wake up as a bird, with some guy trying to stuff them in a cage while their family flies away on their winter migration, so that another guy can pay the first guy to let them out?
And people have been paying freely for entertainment and a sense of spiritual elevation for millenia anyway.Yes, I understand. I do have a degree in accounting after all. This discussion has two levels: microeconomics and philosophy. Let's not mix them up.
In that case, your objection to the practice of catching birds and releasing them upon payment, is even more unbased.I'm attempting to merely observe and comment, so forgive me if it comes across as objection. I'm hardly in a position to object to the morality of others except in its most extreme aspects such as war, racism, child abuse, etc.

Nonetheless I do get to wrinkle my forehead, ask questions, and make observations. ;)

But in the philosophy of the country where this transaction takes place, they claim that all species are part of the Grand Scheme of Things and if you're not careful you may come back as one of them, at the mercy of both nature and your (formerly) fellow man!

Pakistan (Listeni/ˈpækɨstæn/ or Listeni/pɑːkiˈstɑːn/; Urdu: پاکستان) (Urdu pronunciation: [paːkɪˈst̪aːn] ( listen)), officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Urdu: اسلامی جمہوریۂ پاکستان) is a sovereign country in South Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

Islam has no notion of karma and interspecies serial reincarnation.

In the rest of America, "Redneck" has become a derogatory term for anyone (especially people of modest means) with the stererotyped Southern cultural values of racism, sexism, evangelical Christianity and political conservatism, and often carries with it the implication of poor education and drunken brawls.

Indeed. Painted exactly the picture I had in my head - hey look at that I can rhyme! LOl.


Spookiness is entirely subjective. Something that's spooky to Person A may not be spooky to Person B, and vice versa. I have no problem walking through East Los Angeles at 3am, but I'm scared to be in Mississippi in broad daylight.

But stuff like fear - of heights and predators is instinctive, which is what I wonder about - how are instincts and behaviours genetically determined?

Indeed. Painted exactly the picture I had in my head - hey look at that I can rhyme!Rhyme? Where? If you mean "indeed" and "head," those are two different vowels. "Indeed" rhymes with "seed" and "feed." "Head" rhymes with "said" and "fed."
But stuff like fear - of heights and predators is instinctive, which is what I wonder about - how are instincts and behaviours genetically determined?We're wandering off into material more appropriate for the Biology or Psychology subforums... But instincts are programmed into our brain cells by evolution. Any animal that doesn't have the instinct to flee from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face--without stopping to think about it--won't live long enough to reach sexual maturity and reproduce. A newborn giraffe will clumsily scamper away from a hyena, but will calmly stand and graze next to a much larger rhinoceros.

The same is true of any animal that will nonchalantly walk off a cliff.

All animal behavior is complicated, but for vertebrates, insects, molluscs and other phyla of animals with a centralized brain, it has taken hundreds of millions of years for the programming to evolve to its current level of complexity. Each new neuron configuration was the result of natural selection--or in the case of recently domesticated animals like dogs, very unnatural selection. (We have bred dogs to be much more gregarious than wolves, to prefer scavenging to hunting, to have smaller brains which can survive on the lower-protein diet of a scavenger, and to accept a human as the alpha in the pack.)

Configurations which induce behavior that enhances survivability were passed down to the next generation; those which induce behavior that makes survival difficult or impossible were an evolutionary dead-end.

The psychology of our own species is much more complex because our forebrain is about ten times as large as that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, and vastly larger than those of other animals. There's just so much more room for thinking in our brains.

We can identify many instincts in our own species that are not clearly related to survival. These are not all behaviors, just ideas and beliefs that occur in nearly all societies in nearly all eras. Legends, rituals, visual images in our art, Carl Jung calls these archetypes. Perhaps they were once survival traits in an era whose dangers we can't imagine. Or they could be random mutations passed down through a genetic bottleneck.

No, it's not, because in the scenario mentioned earlier, the capturer sets them free only against payment.

In fact, three entities directly benefit in such a commercial transaction:
1. the capturer - for earning some money,
2. the customer - for feeling good about giving a bird a chance to flee (and whatever metaphysical satisfaction the customer might derive from it),
3. the bird - for getting a chance to flee.


Without paying customers, these people would have no business, and ALL the birds would be free. In short, REFUSING to pay or participate would allow you to enjoy a more meaningful type of karma.


People have the right to earn money.

Not when it involves capturing and possibly maiming or killing alive things.

* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

Me-Ki-Gal has been banned for 3 days for two posts which violated so many forum rules that I had to simply delete them: Trolling, posting meaningless content ("incoherent" might be a more accurate description), insulting another member, responding to a previous ban in inappropriate and inflammatory language, insulting the Head Moderator who performed the ban.

Technically, he qualifies for a longer ban period and this one may be extended.

This may be the very first time I've had to ban anyone in the Linguistics subforum. Normally this place has all the excitement of the drawing room in a 19th century London gentlemen's club--without the liquor.

I wish it hadn't happened and I hope it doesn't happen again. I'm pretty loose with the rules here but some simply must be enforced.

Note from Administrator: Me-Ki-Gal has been banned permanently from sciforums.

Without paying customers, these people would have no business, and ALL the birds would be free. In short, REFUSING to pay or participate would allow you to enjoy a more meaningful type of karma.

Are birds more important than people?



Not when it involves capturing and possibly maiming or killing alive things.

Do you eat meat?

Are birds more important than people?


You didn't, or possibly, just couldn't, address my main point directly: that you get the same desirable result (setting birds free) by not participating. That actually you get a more meaningful result, by not participating.

Until you become able to answer the point directly, there's no point in going further with the discussion.

* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

This discussion has gone too far from the original topic. That in itself is not something I usually care about. But now you're getting snarky with each other, and I have no patience with that.

This thread is closed.