Jump to content

Wounded Fox on Bassano St 11.30pm tonight

shoshntosh

By shoshntosh
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Greengramaphone

Greengramaphone

Posted
Posted

pommie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> should ring wildlife aid or fox project rather

> than the RSPCA


Pommie, you'll see in my posts above that I did actually think of calling the fox project first but found that they can only help between 9am-9pm and that outside of these hours they advise to ring the RSPCA. As it was 1am, that's what I did!


I have to say, from what I'd heard on here about other people's experiences calling the RSPCA, I didn't really anticipate that they'd be willing to do anything and so was brilliantly surprised and found it so assuring that they answered the phone right away, took the situation very seriously, offered phone advice and said that they would come out right away, at any time of day or night.


Would you not recommend them? I didn't know about Wildlife Aid but I see that, like the RSPCA, they do have a phone line you can call 24 hours a day.

DuncanW

DuncanW

Posted
Posted

Or www.misanthropy.com




JimH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy I agree with you 100%

>

> Seriously Blah Blah this is a post about an

> injured fox in Dulwich so you might want to put

> your point across in a different forum

>

> Try:

>

> http://vegtalk.org/animal-rights/

> http://www.animalconcerns.org/

EDLove

EDLove

Posted
Posted

JimH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy I agree with you 100%

>

> Seriously Blah Blah this is a post about an

> injured fox in Dulwich so you might want to put

> your point across in a different forum

>

> Try:

>

> http://vegtalk.org/animal-rights/

> http://www.animalconcerns.org/


Yes, threads must always stay exactly on topic, at all times...


Blah Blah didn't start this particular discussion; she responded to a statement from MissMadMoo who, like many other members of the human race, feel justified in killing a creature because they don't like it. Cue boring statement about it being an over-sized/flying/fluffy rat. Whatever that means.


There is no measurement for importance of life but, if there were, we're not really making the best case for ourselves.


http://elitedaily.com/news/world/this-incredible-animation-perfectly-breaks-down-mans-relationship-with-nature-video/

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted

Thanks EDLove. I'm a bloke by btw lol.


I'm learning fast that there are some voices on this forum that don't like being challenged. Being told to go on another forum just makes me want to yawn!


And Jeremey, it is not natural to value members of your own species at all, as many species do no such thing. And it's because people DO reccognise the importance of species to the eco system that we still have fish and the EU banned a chemical thought to be decimating the bee population. You can only spend your life not thinking about any of it because others do.


As EDLove has correctly summarised, it is right to challenge any view that an animal should die because someone doesn't like it. And my main point remains true. Urban Foxes do virtually no harm compared to us humans who seem to hate them so much.

pipsky2008

pipsky2008

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks EDLove. I'm a bloke by btw lol.

>

> I'm learning fast that there are some voices on

> this forum that don't like being challenged. Being

> told to go on another forum just makes me want to

> yawn!

>

> And Jeremey, it is not natural to value members of

> your own species at all, as many species do no

> such thing. And it's because people DO reccognise

> the importance of species to the eco system that

> we still have fish and the EU banned a chemical

> thought to be decimating the bee population. You

> can only spend your life not thinking about any of

> it because others do.

>

> As EDLove has correctly summarised, it is right to

> challenge any view that an animal should die

> because someone doesn't like it. And my main point

> remains true. Urban Foxes do virtually no harm

> compared to us humans who seem to hate them so

> much.



I applaud you, bravo

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
Your comments regarding preservation of the ecosystem/environment are not really related to my point. It is possible to care about such things while also recognising the painfully obvious point that the life of a human and a fox cannot be considered equal.
Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
But by what measure are they unequal? A life is a life. And the most basic instruction of all cellular DNA is replication. Just because we surround ourselves with things doesn't make us more worthy in terms of the basic science of life. All of our constructs are geared towards self preservation and replication. The same is true of the fox. You live, you reproduce, you die. That's all that life is for most people. And in several millions of years all trace of it will disappear as the sun expands and begins to swallow us up (our atmosphere having been burned away long before then of course).
numbers

numbers

Posted
Posted

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't get all the sentimental stuff over

> human

> > beings either MissMad. Especially the ones that

> > value their species over other species of

> animals.

>

> Anyone who doesn't understand why we value humans

> over animals has totally lost the plot.


Oh no Jeremy I have lost the plot then... and I usually agree with all your posts! poor old fox...


Even the wonderful Professor Steve Jones (FRS, geneticist) thinks that humans have reached their evolutionary peak. There is no geographical distance between us anymore, we simply cannot evolve. Humans schumans. The Singularity is upon us etc

Er... shouldn't this be in the Lounge now? ;-)

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
But it's just your view Jeremy and one I (and many others) disagree with, because I prefer cellular science over your definition of worth. Who says that relationships and empathy are the measure of worth? Some mammals are also capable of that btw (whilst some humans aren't). I find it equally absurd that you place so much importance on something that isn't essential for life at all. It really doesn't matter to the planet and life if humans exist. We really are that insignificant, whatever delusions we like to fill our minds with.
numbers

numbers

Posted
Posted

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not talking about intrinsic objective worth as

> a species, I'm talking about relationships and

> empathy with fellow members of your own species.

> Can barely believe this needs explaining...

> absurd..


Jeremy they're not mutually exclusive, you can still have empathy with humans. I guess.


spelling!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By malumbu · Posted

      Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • DulwichParker
      Local plumber and gas engineer - Jafar - Portrait Plumbing

      By DulwichParker · Posted

      Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • Sue Klein
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Sue Klein · Posted

      I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...