Urgently required: one goose by Friday morning
I have hunted high and low for a goose, with no luck. The box of game and poultry flown from France, with the wherewithal for various dishes for a photo-shoot, was missing that damned goose. The boar arrived. So did the pheasant and venison. And the pigeons turned up too. But the goose? No. None of my usual sources and fantastic butchers can help. The geese will be flying in in the first week of December, which is too late for our purposes.
So as a last resort, I’m posting an appeal on this blog. Does anyone out there know of a goose? And please, don’t send in any amusing names or suggestions. Yes, I get the joke already. Ideally, it should be dead and plucked, but we can make arrangements.
73 Comments Comment
Reply to Steve Click here to cancel reply
Does it have to be Friday Morning? How about Sunday evening?
[Daphne – The photo-shoot is Friday, and we have to roast it first.]
Seems that you’re literally on a “wild goose chase”. :D
… if it’s going to be dead and plucked, why don’t you use a seagull?
[Daphne – Give a wild guess. They’re smaller. And there are no seagulls in Malta. Please don’t suggest using our friend Barney tal-unjin.]
Daphne,
Can’t help it. ‘Dead and plucked’? Try the little bearded wonder boy. Would he fit in your pan?
why not talk to your son’s girlfriend’s father. He seems to be an expert in game fowl.
[Daphne – No, in exotic ducks.]
I’m sure a roasted purple dinosaur will attract more attention :)
Zammeats at Arkadia had a notice about geese being available if I’m not mistaken. Not sure if they had to be ordered or not though…….
[Daphne – They brought in all the other stuff for us, but no geese before 1 December because that’s when they’re slaughtered, apparently. ]
Did you try e-Bay or Craigslist?
I don’t know if my last comment got through. Try:
The Ager Foundation in Gozo.
http://www.agerfoundation.com/
There’s also someone in Nadur who breeds ostriches, and apparently, other birds. If they don’t breed geese, they’re bound to know someone who does.
San Anton Gardens. I think they bred and kept geese there up to some years ago. Maybe they still do.
Poor goose. I thought you were all for the rights of our feathered friends.
[Daphne – Not the farmyard sort. If they weren’t bred for food, they wouldn’t exist at all, like domestic cattle.]
it seems that someone cooked your goose daphne. I have tried every avenue, but cant find you one. My usual supplier copped it two years ago.
[Daphne – How kind, thanks.]
Mario Debono – Kif iz-zikk taf kollox fuq kulhadd?
[Daphne – He knows Robert.]
Phone Ambassador Vicki Ann Cremona on +33 1 56 59 75 90 and tell her to send you a goose in the diplomatic bag. They’ve flown in Maltese pastizzi and sausage rolls in the past, so it should be possible to do it the other way.
[Daphne – My supplier says no French geese before 1 December. The rest of the poultry came from France, remember.]
go veggie
[Daphne – If nature had intended us to be vegetarian, we wouldn’t have canines, just large square teeth like cows and rabbits. My view of vegetarianism is the same as my view of religion; if you want to do it, then fine, but don’t try to preach to the rest of us that it’s the One True Way. You do it for yourself, not for the salvation of the world.]
I’ve just contacted my butcher Talaham.com in Balzan and he’s put one aside for you. Please let me know where to contact you to pass on his name and phone number. Looking forward to next Sunday’s issue…
[Daphne – Success! You’re amazing, thanks. My email address is dcg@proximuspr.com and my phone number is 21 411 040.)
Have you got the sauce for the goose that is also sauce for the gander?
[Daphne – Funny how nobody ever talks about cooking a gander. In chickens, you have a choice of hens, cocks and hussies, but a goose is just goose, like a duck.]
What is it with Maltese Intenet Celebrities and geese… Mona 2 weeks ago and DCG today… do you get more hits when the website mentions the bird?
[Daphne – No, I really need a goose. But now a nice lady has found me one in Balzan.]
@ Daphne
re your reply to ASP…
Yay!!!
Glad you got your goose!
“If they weren’t bred for food, they wouldn’t exist at all, like domestic cattle”.
Not a very good argument…applies equally in the case of human slavery. But I won’t press further with the issue. No one can force anyone to go vegetarian. If you’re interested at all, I can suggest a number of books at http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/blogbooks.html . If not, tough (for the goose).
[Daphne – Human slavery? No, people exist with or without slavery. Certain birds and animals, on the other hand, were developed purely for food. Nobody would have bothered otherwise. Even the domestic turkey is nothing like the wild turkey.It’s a choice between eating them and their not existing at all. And here let me point out that, even though I feel this way, when I visited a very clean, very ‘humane’ and very organised cattle slaughter-house that’s part of one of Italy’s leading beef-processing plants, I almost passed out and had to leave. All those cows with their beautiful big eyes lined up in the stalls and heading for the kill. Terrible.]
If you’ll excuse the pun, it’s a dog eat dog world out there. What about veal? Yummy, baby cows, meat so soft you can cut it with a fork. It’s good being on top of the food chain :)
My point (which perhaps I did not explain too well) is that the “creation” of anyone, in itself, does not give one the right to do what one wishes with one’s “creation” – otherwise we could use our children for child-labour or worse. Just because I choose to “breed” a child for the purpose of slavery would not give me the right to do so.
Also, not existing at all takes nothing away from anyone. If you don’t exist, you have nothing to lose.
As for nature not intending us to be vegetarian, nature does not intend anyone to be or do anything. That’s not how natural selection works. Evolution is the result of random mutations which happen to be better suited for the environment they find themselves in. Humans are omnivores, and so we may live healthily as meat-eaters, omnivores or vegetarians. We can choose.
I hope this does not sound like “preaching”. I only wish to make the logic behind vegetarianism clear (even though perhaps I cannot be expected to do so in a few words.
Again, if anyone is interested, see the link I have provided for a list of books on the topic (even for the sake of curiosity).
I won’t bother you further on this, unless you will ask me questions. It’s your blog, and I won’t use it for my personal agendas. Usually I only comment on the topics that interest me. You will surely understand that I couldn’t go without commenting on a topic I feel strongly about.
But like I said, I won’t drag the issue any longer. For that, I have my own blog, even though I have abandoned it for some time to devote myself more on human rights issues.
Apologies for the length of this post, and I hope you will believe me that my comments were not meant as personal criticism. After all, my family and most of my friends are not vegetarians.
Thanks for your time…looking forward to your next topic.
[Daphne – Kenneth, if you want to start a debate about vegetarianism, please go ahead. I have nothing against vegetarians. It the Holy Joe attitude that bothers me, whether it’s vegetarianism or the prayer group people, or the environmentalists – you know, that implied smirk that they know something we don’t and are superior beings because they Good and Doing What God/Nature Wants. Never mind. Unfortunately, the next topic will have to wait until tomorrow morning and my Thursday column. Things are a little hectic at this end, what with deliveries of cheeses and geese being hunted down, and having to be a Miss Whiplash with deadlines and four magazines coming out in as many weeks. But hell, it’s a lot more fun that being Jason Micallef.]
@ Daphne: Thanks for the offer (to discuss vegetarianism), but I won’t. It would only provoke silly comments such as “What about veal? Yummy, baby cows, meat so soft you can cut it with a fork”.
[Daphne – I agree, but if you change your mind, go right ahead.]
Why don`t you try Lino Farrugia of the F.K.N.K. were are the hunters when you need them !!
[Daphne – When was the last time you saw a goose flying over Malta?]
“When was the last time you saw a goose flying over Malta?”
Don’t know. But at the moment there’s a golden eagle doing just that.
http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=56110&newscategory=36
http://www.cinitalmija.com
Pity I only caught this now. I could have told you to have a gander at a place I know…Purely by coincidence we’re invited to a traditional Austrian roast goose dinner on Friday (no specific DEADlines for geese here).
[Daphne – Please get me the details on how it’s done traditionally. I mean it.]
@Fausto Majjistral
If I see this eagle, I won’t report it to those guys for sure…. let it free, man, let it free! Or have they clipped its wings or something?
@Daphne: Somehow ‘elfs’ and prank calls seem to go very well together. Aren’t you making it too easy for them by publishing your phone numbers?
As for the email address – you could get power-spammed. There are automated crawlers which lookup email addresses on the web solely for this purpose (selling ‘address-directories’ to spammers). In fact many websites generate images for any shown email addresses to make it a little bit harder for these spam-a-bots. Just a tip in case you weren’t aware! You don’t have to publish this comment…
[Daphne – My home and work telephone numbers have always been in the phone-book. My mobile number is available at Vodafone enquiries. I publish all my contact details on the first page of every one of the magazines I work on.]
You’re not looking for the Countess of Morcar’s blue carbuncle now, are you?
[Daphne – http://www.carbuncle.com/the-adventure-of-the-blue-carbuncle-sherlock-holmes/%5D
Darren Azzopardi – How amusing !! Yes baby cows with meat so soft you can cut it with a fork. It’s a baby cow for heavens’sake so what do you expect. Does it ever occur to you how the mother felt when her few days’ old baby was cruely dragged away from her. Do you honestly think that these mothers feel nothing? They do, believe me just like you and I if our babies were taken away from us to be slaughtered and served on a dinner plate.
[Daphne – Here we go.]
Oh come now Janine – a cow cannot possibly feel human emotions to the extent that we do. Don’t be melodramatic!
@Janine. Similarly rabbits are slaughtered at 2 – 3 months. One can argue they’re cute little bunnies. Believe me, I experience no regrets when enjoying my spaghetti with rabbit sauce, and don’t intend to think about the mother rabbit feelings next time I do.
@ Moggy: Many of the emotions humans feel are found in other animals, which is not surprising at all, seeing that we have evolved from common ancestors.
Amanda. I know Robert. Despite the circumstances of competition, and very fierce one at that, we manage to be friends. I call it a success story. Robert is a gentleman. Ask him to explain that, because even i dont know how it could possibly happen, but it does.
Glad you found your Wizz Daphne. I saw a flight of them passing by close to Malta last spring. What a sight. They also make a good meal.
“choice of hens, cocks and hussies”
Tsk! Tsk! The word is ‘capons’ – (english) ‘hussies’ are another thing altogether
I got an email flyer from Valhmor Borg Imp/Exp – AKA Miracle Foods last week. Their list of products included unusual items like Wild Boar, Venison, Pheasant, Kangaroo, and I think even crocodile meat!
Sorry I deleted the email but I am sure David can help you.
Goose is not that rare an item though only really popular with Germans or Austrians as it is very fatty!
[Daphne – Miracle is actually where I checked first. I got some pigeons there as we didn’t have enough at first. They told me that the geese arrive in around 10 days.]
Moggy, Ken, Janine
Enough of this already
I am an hobby gardener I love my plants and garden. Vegetarians eat my friends.
@ Kenneth Cassar – you can bet your bottom Euro coin that our more primitive “common ancestors” felt even less emotion. The ability to feel meaningful emotion does not come from our primitive common ancestors, but from the fact that we (humans) have a more developed brain than other animals. I am not saying that an animal whose young have been snatched away feels nothing, but how many times have we heard of a bitch, for instance, needing medication for depression after her litter has been taken away and sold? They forget all about it in a few hours, and life gets back to normal. They have no capacity for memory or true emotion, as their intelligence (including their emotional intelligence) is inferior to ours. Moreover they cannot really undertsand the reasons why their young have been taken away – whether it is for slaughter or for other reasons. Do you think a cow can really visualize a plate with her baby served out as Veau Braisè au Vin Blanc? Come on. Let’s not exaggerate.
@ Meerkat: Enough of what?
@ Moggy:
I am not quantifying or qualifying the emotions. All I said is that many of our emotions are found in other animals…nothing more and nothing less.
It is to be expected that the quantity and quality of emotions vary across species…they even vary between human and human.
Of course our primitive ancestors felt less kinds of emotions. The enlargement of the brain made it possible to understand better the world around us, which necessarily means that our emotions have been increased substantially.
However, primitive and basic emotions like anger, fear, affinity with close relations etc have probably remained unchanged qualitatively for millions of years.
Regarding bitches (female dogs) needing medication for depression, do we know enough about dog psychology to be so sure that dogs do not feel depression? I have read several stories where dogs died (presumably of grief) a few days after their owner died. The emotional ties between dogs and humans are well evidenced. Of course, this does not mean that human emotional ties are necessarily equal to dog-human or dog-dog emotional ties, just as some humans form stronger and more lasting emotional ties than others.
Regarding bitches forgetting about their young in a few hours, couldn’t it be just the result of a sense of resignation? Of course, this is all just speculation on my part. But it is a possibility.
As for dogs (and many other animals) having no capacity for memory or true emotion, you will find that you are grossly mistaken. Dogs even remember smells and recognize people by sensing their smell – which is how my brother’s dog knows its me before I even ring their doorbell. And before you say that dogs are an exception, pigs, for instance, have been found to be more intelligent than dogs.
Regarding non-human animals not undertsanding the reasons why their young have been taken away, I will give you that, provided the slaughterhouse kills the animals individually in closed sound-proof and smell-proof rooms, which rarely is the case.
So to conclude, yes, let’s not exaggerate, but let’s also admit facts.
@ Kenneth
enough of making us feel guilty for having our steak and loving it
Moggy – If you think being sensitive toward animals is melodrama, I and many others don’t. A cow cannot visualize her baby on a plate – very true. But she sure does feel pain when the baby is taken away from her. She may also forget about it after a while, but then some humans are capable of forgetting their offspring too.
Meerkart – Next time you sit down and devour your steak, just stop for a second and think where and how it really came to be there. I know it can be very tasty, but for me eating a cow is the same as eating a dog. Sorry, it’s the way I see it. Is this a crime?
Daphne – ” Here we go”- Why not?
[Daphne – No reason. It’s just that these kinds of discussions don’t go anywhere, like debates between atheists and priests.]
@ Janine
is it a crime for me to ‘devour’ a steak?
I rest my case.
I detest dogmatic ‘opinions’ wherever they come from.
Janine – You are not being simply sensitive here, but extremely over-sensitive. You are also trying to convert animal “emotions” into human emotions. There is no comparison. Humans will not forget their offspring unless they are (a) unspeakably selfish, (b) demented. Animals do not have the capacity for anything approaching the memory which humans are endowed with.
[Daphne – Dogs have emotions. This might be one of the reasons why people in the west have a taboo on eating dogs. Dogs suffer distress when parted from their owners, but not when parted from their offspring after these have been weaned. More interestingly still, they recognise their owners after a long time apart, but show no recognition of their off-spring.]
re ‘go veggie’
i’m not a vegetarian. i simply thought you could have resolved your dinner problem in another way.
however re vegetrianism…. i eat meat because i feel my body needs it. when i eat out in restaurants i try to avoid eating meat dishes as possible… prefer not to associate fun with meat.
@ Meerkat:
“enough of making us feel guilty for having our steak and loving it”.
I already said that I would probably not go on and on about animal rights and vegetarianism. However, I do feel the need to correct misconseptions about non-humans when they are made. In so doing, I am not actually campaigning for “animal rights”, but simply sharing what I learn through reading – and not just from animal rights books: Richard Dawkins for instance is not a vegetarian, but you will find most of what I wrote expressed in some of Dawkins’ books on zoology and evolutionary biology.
I know that your comment is just a friendly and jokingly remark, but I felt the need to make my intentions clear. I am not here to convert anyone, but whoever wishes to ask questions or clarifications about the animal rights philosophy, I would be glad to reply.
Regarding whether it is a crime to devour steak, of course it is not. Crimes imply the breaking of laws. However, without going into the merits of the morality (or immorality) of eating non-human animals, not all that is legal is necessarily moral.
_______________________________________
@ Moggy:
I already made it clear enough that emotions such as affinity towards siblings, hate, fear etc, are not unique to humans. To acknowledged what has already been proven scientifically does not entail “converting” anything to anyone else.
I also gave you an example where some animals actually have better memory than humans. Try remembering and recognising another person just from his smell. I could give you plenty of other examples where other animals’ senses are actually greater than humans’, but I won’t take any more space.
Other animals are neither inferior nor superior to humans. To make this claim, one would need to specify what is the determining factor for superiority. If it is brains you choose, fair enough, in that case most humans are superior to most non-humans. But should intelligence be a determining factor for the treatment of others?
Moggy – Both humans and animals have emotions. I don’t see a difference. Yes in the case of a human who abandons an offspring, may be extremely selfish, but still do it out of their own choice. With animals, these have no choice do they? They are forcibly impregnated over and over again only to have their babies snatched away from them a few days after birth.
[Daphne – The last cat I had (I don’t really like them) would scatter her newborn kittens all over the garden and go off leaving them wailing. I’d go round and gather them up, return them to the basket, and she’d wait until my back was turned and throw them round the garden again. When I locked her into the room with them, she refused to feed them. She just didn’t want to have anything to do with them.]
@ Kenneth
Let me say this upfront to you. I enjoy reading your posts enormously. Especially when you went up against some serious nut-jobs on the Times portal, of the holier-than-thou-chest-beating types. I am a Christian, and a practising one (DCG knows that I speak the truth…can’t elaborate more) and your posts challenging religion and tradition are the most refreshing in my view. Ok, so now you know that I am favourably disposed towards you as a very broad general rule.
So when it comes to your stance on meat-eaters, I can’t understand how you can take on this didactic, pontificating tone. Why can’t you use the same all-embracing tone you use in your other arguments? May I remind you that the ‘crime’ factor was brought up by janine. I merely answered her like with like to demonstrate the absurdity of her argument.
[Daphne – Because vegetarianism, like environmentalism, is a religion that fills the vacuum left by the absence of the more conventional sort of belief system, and so the same terms of discourse are used.]
@ Meerkat:
“So when it comes to your stance on meat-eaters, I can’t understand how you can take on this didactic, pontificating tone”.
Didactic stance – yes, you probably can say that. This is probably due to my 18 years of being a vegetarian and over 10 years of reading books on animal rights philosophy (written by philosophers, not just animal advocates). I do have this natural urge to “teach” what I know (and what I assume some others might not), but I certainly don’t have the “know-all” attitude and stand to be corrected when I am wrong.
Which brings me to “pontificating”. I certainly do not pontificate. Pontificate derives from the term “pontiff”, meaning Pope. Now, the Pope is believed to be infallible when speaking about church doctrine, so to pontificate means to speak with an attitude that one is speaking infallible truths that cannot be proven to be false or mistaken.
Now, when speaking of things such as animal behaviour or emotions, I might “pontificate”, since my claims are backed by scientific evidence and observation. On the otherhand, when debating philosophy, I certainly do not pontificate. I only give out my views, and everyone is free to dispute them with rational arguments. I would rather have people prove me wrong than label me “pontificating”.
Regarding being “all-embracing”, I am all embracing. In fact, I usually read my posts more than once before posting, to make sure they will not be perceived as offensive. For instance, when you asked Janine whether it is a crime to eat a steak, I replied that “of course it is not. Crimes imply the breaking of laws. However, without going into the merits of the morality (or immorality) of eating non-human animals, not all that is legal is necessarily moral”. As you see, I did not even state whether eating meat is moral, immoral or amoral. I left it for all readers to judge for themselves.
And by the way, I already mentioned that my family (apart from my wife and one brother) are not vegetarians. Neither are most of my friends. None of them think of me as a “pontificating” type, but then again, usually we do not debate animal rights. However, when the topic steers towards the animal rights issue (which was not my intention…initially I only commented on one sentence…then one thing led to another…), one has to give his opinion if one is to participate at all.
__________________________________
@ Daphne: Vegetarianism might be like a religion to some people, but it definitely isn’t to me and several others. By the same token, it could be said that anti-racism is like a religion to some people, but I certainly won’t say that its like a religion to you.
People usually become vegetarians for any of the following four reasons: Environment, health, religion (like Buddhism) or animal rights. I won’t go into the merits or demerits of each – I’ll only say that my reason is mainly animal rights.
When speaking of something as being like a religion, one would generally mean either that something involves the supernatural or that one believes in certain philosophical dogmas that either do not need proof (self-evident), or else cannot be disproved.
Regarding the spiritual aspect, this counts me out – I do not believe in souls and an afterlife. Regarding dogma, I am open to new truths and to my views being disproved. Until then, I have every right (like everyone else) to hold that my beliefs are true. To do otherwise, one would have to be a permanent agnostic, in the sense that one would not even be able to believe in the certainty that our planet is spherical.
Now that I got the above off my chest, and hope that I have cleared any misunderstanding regarding my attitude (I would only like to add that it is part of human nature for one to see others as “pontificating” when we disagree, and to see them as rational when we agree), I would like to add something to an interesting observation Daphne shared (not directly about animal rights, so don’t worry).
Daphne wrote: “Dogs suffer distress when parted from their owners, but not when parted from their offspring after these have been weaned”
Very true. In fact there is a scientific explanation for this.
Natural selection works in the following way: The gene/s whose effects produce individuals with the best chances of survival (at least until reproduction age), will have an obvious advantage over genes that don’t, and so the advantage genes spread.
This means that genes “for” altruistic behaviour towards one’s offspring will spread while any genes producing the opposite effect will “die out”. Of course, this happens only where there is an advantage for altruistic genes. For instance, when offspring reach a certain age, they can fend for themselves, so in the sense of “spreading genes”, after the offspring are weaned, genetically speaking, it is more beneficial for the adult animals to devote their time to conceiving and raising new offspring, as long as the previous ones have a good chance of survival (otherwise all the genes “die out”). So genetically, in nature, it makes sense to “forget about weaned offspring and devote more time to creating and raising new offspring.
Dogs, of course, have been domesticated, but some traits and genes (what we call instinct) usually take very long to mutate or die out).
In the case of humans, the situation changes a little. Since humans take longer to become independent and survive on their own, the “weaning” time is not limited to the time when the mother milks the offspring. It takes longer. Also, the introduction of civilisation, including money and human artifacts such as modern homes, has made it more advantageous for the offspring to stay longer with their parents – because genes that “make” parents keep a relationship with their offspring for longer has an obvious advantage over genes that don’t, and so these kinds of genes will be more spread. In the case of non-human animals, with no comparable civilisation benefits, after weaning there is little if any advantage from staying any longer with one’s parents.
I could go on and on about this – fascinating subject – but I think that’s enough for now.
One short comment regarding memory:
The brain compartmentalizes information, and selects memories to keep and memories to discard. The memories the brain discards are the ones it “thinks” will not be useful in the future.
The bigger the brain, the less information needs to be discarded – the smaller the brain, the more information needs to be discarded. Hence the possible reason why non-human animals might forget all about their offspring after some time (following the reasons supplied in my previous post). It’s not very different from computers: the larger the “memory”, the less programs or files we need to delete or uninstall.
And since I love books so much, why not, I recommend Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”.
Daphne wrote: “When I locked her (mother cat) into the room with them, she refused to feed them. She just didn’t want to have anything to do with them”.
Well, cats don’t have the option of abortion, do they?
[Daphne – Of course they do. Vets perform abortions all the time, on dogs and cats. It’s just that yes, it’s not they who make the choice.]
@Kenneth,
I may not agree completely with your views, but admire you very much on your determination and wish I were that good a Catholic (I know vegetarian is not a religion but you get my drift!)
A question though!
What’s your position as regards to milk & eggs for example? Adults may survive without them but kids definitely need them!
Also, a very minor point – I quote
“Now, the Pope is believed to be infallible when speaking about church doctrine”
That is a common misconception that many MANY people including fervent Catholics unfortunately believe! The Pope is only considered infallible when speaking ex-cathedra which has only happened twice in the history of the church!
Now whether you believe he is infallible even then is a different matter entirely that basically boils down to whether you are Catholic or not, and I have no intention of getting into it as it has been debated ad nauseum already in this blog!
“Of course they do. Vets perform abortions all the time, on dogs and cats. It’s just that yes, it’s not they who make the choice”.
That’s what I meant ;) I wonder…if they COULD make the choice themselves, would any cats form a “Gift of Life” organisation? Of course, I’m just kidding.
@ David:
“What’s your position as regards to milk & eggs for example? Adults may survive without them but kids definitely need them!”.
Actually they don’t. Beyond the weaning stage (where milk comes from their mother), no dairies are actually necessary (provided one is careful to get the necessary nutrients from various plant sources – which I admit is not too easy). However, even if it is true that we need dairies, animal rights is about avoiding “unnecessary exploitation” or killing, so if dairy is found to be necessary for a healthy life (or even meat, for that matter), then we would be “justified” in having dairies. If I were on a deserted island and had no plant sources for my nutrition, I would eat animals. Of course, regarding my hypothetical example, one could ask “if there are no vegetables, then what are the other animals eating?” But I’m sure you understand what I mean.
Please note the quotation marks, purposedly placed to show that I am explaining what the animal right view implies, and not “pontificating” on what is true.
Regarding the Pope and infallibility thing, I was oversimplifying for brevity’s sake. My intention was certainly not to dispute the infallibility of the Pope, whether ex-cathedra or not. I only wanted to raise the issue of infallibility (to show that I do not consider myself infallible), and the Pope was the first person to come to mind as an example (apart from the fact that “pontificate” derives from “Pontiff”…so I was following this lead.
@ Kenneth
You might not be the Pontiff but your posts sure look like encyclicals…because of their length of course :)
erm Kenneth
Did some sleuthing and the word ‘pontificate’ is not derived from Pontiff as you said
Etymology 1
From Latin pontificatus, from pontifex (“‘bridge builder’”), from pons (“‘bridge’”) + facere (“‘make’”)
Etymology 2
From the past participle stem of mediaeval Latin pontificare (“‘pontificate’”), from Latin pontifex (“‘bridge builder’”), from pons (“‘bridge’”) + facere (“‘make’”).
@ Meerkat:
And I said I’d be brief. Imagine if I wrote all I have to say. Regarding the etymology of “pontificate”, you are right, and I only assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that it derived from “pontiff”. However, the definition of “to pontificate” is “To act like a pontiff; to express one’s position or opinions dogmatically and pompously as if it is absolutely correct”. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pontificate
So I guess I was half right.
Ken
You just love to be right.
That makes you a little dogmatic… (hehe another word used mostly in religious discourse
[Daphne – Dogs have emotions. This might be one of the reasons why people in the west have a taboo on eating dogs. Dogs suffer distress when parted from their owners, but not when parted from their offspring after these have been weaned. More interestingly still, they recognise their owners after a long time apart, but show no recognition of their off-spring.]
If the offspring are removed prior to weaning, I put much of the reaction down to hormonal changes coming from the fact that lactation has been abruptly stopped. As you say, after weaning, animals don’t even seem to notice the loss when their offspring are removed. Dogs are unique in that they form a very strong bond with man – much stronger than that which they form with each other. But other animals are not the same. Cats, for example, won’t bat an eye-lid if they lose their owner.
[Moggy – Both humans and animals have emotions. I don’t see a difference.]
They do, but there is a big difference between the two regarding the range of emotions and their depth. When we don’t see this we are usually trying to give animals a human dimension which they do not possess. Animals only react with true human emotions when they make up part of the cast in a Walt Disney cartoon.
[Kenneth Cassar – If it is brains you choose, fair enough, in that case most humans are superior to most non-humans.]
What else? It is the brain which makes us all (animals included) what we are. However, I think you’re misunderstanding me, somewhat. Rest assured that I am not in favour of cruelty to animals. I abhor an action which inflicts pain on any animal. However I think that saying that a cow will pine away, and suffer untold emotional harm because her calf has been taken away, is taking things a bit too far.
[Kenneth Cassar – One short comment regarding memory:
The brain compartmentalizes information, and selects memories to keep and memories to discard. The memories the brain discards are the ones it “thinks” will not be useful in the future.
The bigger the brain, the less information needs to be discarded – the smaller the brain, the more information needs to be discarded. Hence the possible reason why non-human animals might forget all about their offspring after some time (following the reasons supplied in my previous post). It’s not very different from computers: the larger the “memory”, the less programs or files we need to delete or uninstall.]
Very well explained. It proves my point that removing the offspring from a non-human mother does not bring about the devastating emotional effects which it brings on a human mother. If you cannot remember something, you cannot be emotionally upset that it has gone missing. Demented people react in exactly the same way. They cannot remember, so they cannot mourn a loss properly, as we would expect humans to do.
@ Moggy:
I never said that the emotional effect of a mother cow is comparatively equal to that of a human mother.
A cow does remember, but not for as long as the human does. We shouldn’t exaggerate non-human animal emotions, but we shouldn’t dismiss them either.
@ Meerkat:
“You just love to be right” – true, who doesn’t…but I do admit when I’m wrong (or at least half wrong) ;)
@ Ken
There you go again…
@ Meerkat: I was only “teasing” you…hence the winking smiley.
[Daphne – I don’t approve of smilies. I wipe them out where I notice them….]
@Kenneth,
I am 4 square behind regarding cruelty to animals, for example I refuse to eat veal or lamb, and all eggs are free range. I have two dogs and both are adopted mutts as I also refuse to buy a dog when there are so many adorable strays on the loose and in sanctuaries. However I do eat meat, and am not sure I agree with you about kids needing it but anyway!
@ Daphne: Regarding smilies, I find them useful since on internet blogs one cannot see facial expressions which sometimes show a different meaning (or intent) to a sentence. But it’s your blog – your policy, and I’ll respect that.
I’ll try to remember not to use them anymore.
@ David:
I try not to be judgemental. I’m not perfect – I’m a smoking addict, for instance – so I shouldn’t expect anyone to be perfect. Nobody is. On vegetarianism we’ll have to agree to disagree. Am I right, or are you? We both think we are right, so let’s leave it at that. I’m glad that you make an effort to avoid products that involve cruelty, and that you care enough to adopt dogs from sanctuaries. We don’t have to agree on everything (although to be honest, I wish we could).
Hey Daph,
Should I remove the smiley next to my name then? I hate to think I am giving you indigestion.
[Daphne – No, it’s part of your name. I’m used to it.]