4 ms·

Thanks for engaging with an open mind. I agree that there's an incentive for owners to keep racing pigeons healthy, that owners can be caring, and that it can

• lovemenot 5y ago
  I agree - the civil tone in these posts is refreshing. While I personally share your opinion, I wouldn't make our opinion a universal. 'theres no need..." is a bit stronger than I would say it because this wording sounds objective. Other people apparently do see the need. For several decades, I have seen no need to eat birds or other land animals. While others have continued see the need. It's a difference of perspective.
  • sweetheart 5y ago
    But surely there is a difference between some folks seeing a need to do it, and there actually being a need to, no? Someone might say they _need_ to race the birds, and they might feel that in their bones to be true, but does that actually make it true? I'd say no. There are lots of great hobbies that don't involve putting the animals in those stressful and potentially fatal situations, so someone making the claim that they need to do it just sounds like mental gymnastics to me, personally.
    • lovemenot 5y ago
      Yes, I think the term is the crux of it. By declaring that something that someone enjoys doing for whatever reason is not necessary, in situations like this, one appears to be implicitly attempting to erode their right to do it. Anyone can think of many things they do for fun which are not necessitated. Perhaps it would be better to be more explicit, if that's how you feel: "Everyone should refrain from ...'