Is there anyone out there in Tweeters land who can't recognize an opinion
without a label? (See below for full context). When Jacki Bricker writes
that "any wildlife rehabilitator worth their salt does not display
preferential treatment of one species over another." it is pretty obvious
from the nature of the construction that she is expressing an opinion. Does
she really need to identify that this is an opinion by prefacing it with the
words "In my opinion.."? What else could it be? All of the point of views
that are being expressed on this topic are, of course, opinions. Opinions
by themselves are not very interesting. They become interesting when we
look at them in the light of the reasoning and evidence that are used to
support them. Indeed, it is the quality of the reasoning and the arguments
marshaled in support of a particular opinion that tend to sway us in favor
of it or against it. If we want to discuss this topic, this is where we
ought to direct our attention (in my opinion, of course!)

I don't see why Don thinks that Jacki has to label her opinions as such.
After all, he expresses his frequently without so labeling them, and I don't
think that any of us who read this list are likely to confuse them with Holy
Writ.


----- Original Message -----
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
To: <seaotter at eskimo.com>; <sdownes at u.washington.edu>; 'tweeters'
<tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Helping indigenous species debate


> At 07:58 AM 5/13/99 -0700, Jacki Bricker wrote:
>
> >2. That having been said, Scott, I do want to mention that any wildlife
> >rehabilitator worth their salt does not display preferential treatment of
> >one species over another.
>
> Thank you for pointing out that the Wildlife Care Center at Portland
> Audubon is run by people "not worth their salt".
>
> (the center has a native-species only policy except for squirrels,
> which it brokers out to individuals interested in doing squirrel
> rehab)
>
> It is your OPINION that "real rehabbers" don't display preferential
> treatment towards native species.
>
> While it may be your opinion, it is not fact that all rehabbers
> agree with your opinion.
>
> You're digging yourself in so deep I'm not even going to offer
> to lend you a shovel...
>
> > It's not our right to play God, and decide who is
> >"worth" saving and who isn't.
>
> Then we shouldn't rehab at all, should we? Because by rehabbing,
> we are deciding that the rehabbed animal should live, rather than
> die - i.e. rehabbing is playing God, by your definition.
>
> Walk the talk, if you believe the talk - stop rehabbing.
>
> [snip]
>
> >3. However, as a side note, I do want to add that people of western
European
> >decent have been introduced into this area; the same as scotch broom,
> >starlings, and house sparrows (and, I might add, are more damaging per
> >capita to the native environment). If you're advocating not assisting
> >introduced species, does that also mean that you wouldn't help an injured
> >Caucasian person?
>
> Native Americans are an introduced species as well.
>
> Animals aren't people, anyway.
>
> > In my opinion, it's the right and ethical thing to do.
>
> Thank you for finally inserting that all important word - "opinion".
>
> To state that your opinion is authoritative is yet another way to
> play God, and since you claim that playing God is bad, do take care
> when you insist on having special insight into what is right and
> what is wrong.
>
>
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net