Picked up a baby Marmoset monkey.

[Chris LXXIX]

I won't judge ChrisNCT choice, but I don't understand something like:

- "People have a soft spot for monkeys I guess because we are closely related and people can empathize".

I do empathize and empathized with all the people that, on my noise-proof cellar, were strictly tied to an iron chair, during years, just a moment before the drill and tools party... pure Chris LXXIX piercing made with Fischer SB 12

 

[Mila]

Willingly choosing to torture an animal... I'll judge

 

[Tleilaxu]

Man the salt is real, way all to draw all the self righteous, holier than thou people out of the wood work.

It amuses me to see all the "monkey experts" being fueled off emotion.

 

[G. pulchra]

Thats exactly what I was questioning: The OP is NOT dedicated to do what's right for the animal. How about you address the lack of social contact and the very well proven problems occurring due to hand rearing? (Just Google, the pages are plenty)



I said the baby belongs in a marmoset group, not in the wild. Your argument against that?



Right. Because some people can't even provide for cats and dogs they should rather have marmosets. Or is your argument: If some animals get neclected and treated the wrong way I shouldn't be upset if other animals get treated badly either? Either way it's absurd.



No, I won't because I'm not giving you my real name. But you are absolutely right, I shouldn't have used that as an argument.

So, how about we talk about the real issues with the OPs hand rearing of a single marmoset baby instead of ideological stuff?

If this was the first time you've used the "I'm a biologist so I'm right" argument I'd give you a pass, but as we both know that isn't true.

 

[schmiggle]

If this was the first time you've used the "I'm a biologist so I'm right" argument I'd give you a pass, but as we both know that isn't true.

Honestly, that's irrelevant. Multiple people have posted links to websites that have relevant information, and the degree or lack thereof has no bearing on those sites' accuracy.

 

[Mila]

Nobody is going to counter the points we've made instead just say we are essentially the morality police? If someone was abusing a tarantula you'd all be triggered beyond belief but a primate being abused and you don't care

 

[G. pulchra]

Honestly, that's irrelevant. Multiple people have posted links to websites that have relevant information, and the degree or lack thereof has no bearing on those sites' accuracy.

As you obviously didn't bother to to open up the quote and see what I highlighted, I'll take the time to explain it for you. I made no mention as to the accuracy of any statement in this thread. My point is that people who feel the need to reference some "special" qualification to add extra weight/emphasis on to their opinion or argument need to step and prove that they have said "special" qualification. The "I'm a Biologist" has been used one too many times and the poster got called out, and I guarantee that it's not just one or two people here who have noticed that. If your going to brag about something, you had better be able to prove it.

 

[Mila]

As you obviously didn't bother to to open up the quote and see what I highlighted, I'll take the time to explain it for you. I made no mention as to the accuracy of any statement in this thread. My point is that people who feel the need to reference some "special" qualification to add extra weight/emphasis on to their opinion or argument need to step and prove that they have said "special" qualification. The "I'm a Biologist" has been used one too many times and the poster got called out, and I guarantee that it's not just one or two people here who have noticed that. If your going to brag about something, you had better be able to prove it.

I just think to spend your time in a thread where an animal is being tortured arguing about wether someone does or doesn't have X when they're already correct seems like a massive waste of time

 

[Ghost56]

I just think to spend your time in a thread where an animal is being tortured arguing about wether someone does or doesn't have X when they're already correct seems like a massive waste of time

The same could be said for spending your time in this thread going on about how cruel this is. I don't agree with it either, but at the end of the day, you're wasting your time just as much. Cause I can assure you, the OP can care less.

And honestly, it's probably best this guy ended up with him. If you read the earlier posts, you'll see it came from an expo. So the poor monkey was doomed to begin with. At least he ended up with someone that seems to have past experience with exotics. I'm sure he'll have a better chance with Chris than with some random, impulse buying kid.

 

[Mila]

Best thing to do is to not buy them. The cruel trade won't end until it no longer becomes a cash cow

 

[schmiggle]

As you obviously didn't bother to to open up the quote and see what I highlighted, I'll take the time to explain it for you. I made no mention as to the accuracy of any statement in this thread. My point is that people who feel the need to reference some "special" qualification to add extra weight/emphasis on to their opinion or argument need to step and prove that they have said "special" qualification. The "I'm a Biologist" has been used one too many times and the poster got called out, and I guarantee that it's not just one or two people here who have noticed that. If your going to brag about something, you had better be able to prove it.

1. Stop being condescending. I can see how my post could have been read as condescending; if it was taken that way, I apologize. But when you suggest that you have to explain something to me because I'm too lazy to read, that crosses a line.

2. I absolutely opened the quote and read the whole thing; what do you take me for? I assumed that you were making a larger point.

3. Why did you bother attacking the poster if it had no relevance to the thread? You accomplish nothing. Ad hominem attacks are bad enough when you try to use them to prove a point; when it's ad hominem for the sake of ad hominem, that is a real low.

I 100% agree with you on the basic principle. This person may or may not have an actual degree; they should not go around claiming that they have one without backing it up, especially if they've done it multiple times (which I believe you that they have). That kind of behavior annoys me as well. But that criticism would make a lot more sense if it was the only evidence they had brought to bear on the topic. Given that the "I'm a biologist" was essentially a side thing, the context made me (and it seems at least two other people) think that the point you were making had broader implications than "stop behaving in this irritating way."

That is all. I'm reading over this and part of me is concerned by how aggressive it is, but I really can't stand when people suggest that I didn't read something completely that I in fact did, especially when the evidence to suggest that I didn't read it is minimal. It feels especially patronizing in a way that few other things do.

By the way, may I add that I think the reverse is also true: just because someone has the qualification doesn't necessarily make their opinion more accurate. If the biologist is a primatologist, well and good; but a plant pathologist studying rusts doesn't really have extra qualifications to talk about marmosets. So the only real way to determine if someone is qualified would be to get their name, find papers they co-authored, and see what the topic was. That sounds like a lot of work to me; I'd rather people just give me the source material directly. So I would go even farther and say that you should never say you're a biologist unless you give me the papers you co-authored yourself, ideally on the topic at hand. I'm only half kidding.

 

[Xafron]

I can't comment on monkey care. I don't have monkeys, I don't research monkey care. Pretty much all I do is look at pictures of mandrill butts. However, I can comment on just how useless it is to scream into a forum.

More often than not, these angry knee-jerk reactions simply push people away. You are accomplishing nothing by pushing the person you want to advise away. Passion is not an excuse for blind anger and inflammatory word-choice. I've found far too many "passionate" people simply worsen the situation with their words and actions. Kindly give your advice on how to better the marmosets life, offer some websites/videos that back you up with useful information, and then move on.

It does nobody any good, including the marmoset, to react this poorly. When you do, people just dig into their ways of doing things even further. Who benefits there?

 

[boina]

If this was the first time you've used the "I'm a biologist so I'm right" argument I'd give you a pass, but as we both know that isn't true.

What are you actually questioning? That being a biologist makes me right? You are absolutely right, it doesn't. That's why I provided references as to the point I was making.

Or that I have a degree in biology? How did you come to the conclusion that I haven't? But you won. I'll scan my Diploma later in the day and post it.

Edit: But then of course you can say it's fake... Why do I even bother.

Edit 2: You know, after some thinking, I won't be baited. If you get some personal satisfaction out of calling me a show off and/or a fraud, well, knock yourself out. Whatever you believe me to be is really irrelevant for the topic.

Relevant for the topic however: Why was I wrong when I said marmosets need to grow up with it's mom and in a group? And cite your sources, please, as I cited mine.

 

[boina]

By the way, may I add that I think the reverse is also true: just because someone has the qualification doesn't necessarily make their opinion more accurate. If the biologist is a primatologist, well and good; but a plant pathologist studying rusts doesn't really have extra qualifications to talk about marmosets. So the only real way to determine if someone is qualified would be to get their name, find papers they co-authored, and see what the topic was. That sounds like a lot of work to me; I'd rather people just give me the source material directly. So I would go even farther and say that you should never say you're a biologist unless you give me the papers you co-authored yourself, ideally on the topic at hand. I'm only half kidding.

Interesting point. Would you also say someone should never state: "I've so many years of experience, therefore I know what I'm talking about" without providing evidence of the years of experience? Or: "I've kept this species before, therefore I know how to take care of it" without providing evidence? If not, than how is this different from saying "I'm a biologist with a degree in animal behaviour, therefore I know a thing about animal behaviour"? BTW, why do you want publications? I've been citing some basic biology textbook knowledge in my posts. I don't think those textbooks need to be verified again, so I wouldn't work on the topic.

Actually I don't even complete disagree with you here. The only question is, where does it stop? At some point you will have to believe other peoples experience/knowledge without proof, otherwise a forum like that were people ask for advice is meaningless.

Nevertheless, it was certainly stupid of me to mention the biologist thing. In my defence I did cite a few other sources to back up my opinion.

 

[Mila]

Who'd of thought you'd have to prove you have a diploma in biology to know that primates require social interaction. Even if he doesn't have a diploma you can literally google "marmoset captivity cruelty" and get a list of 100 reasons why you're torturing that animal

 

[Mila]

Personally I'm shocked that the most intelligent animal group on earth would require social interaction.

 

[Ghost56]

Who'd of thought you'd have to prove you have a diploma in biology to know that primates require social interaction. Even if he doesn't have a diploma you can literally google "marmoset captivity cruelty" and get a list of 100 reasons why you're torturing that animal

I don't think it had anything to do with that. More so just to do with people on here that like to flaunt their "degrees". Nothing wrong with being proud and showing them off though. But at the same time, I'm sure there's plenty on here that just spout that off for the added ego boost without even having a high school diploma. I don't exactly think boina is one of those people, but it was a pointless mention. Which she even admitted to, above.

 

[MrTwister]

Thread reminds me of a quote about arguing on the internet and the special Olympics.

 

[Mila]

I can not be bothered anymore arguing wether torturing an animal is wrong anymore.

I'll leave you to slowly torture that monkey until it's death and hope you sleep well at night. Peace

 

[GingerC]

I can not be bothered anymore arguing wether torturing an animal is wrong anymore.

I'll leave you to slowly torture that monkey until it's death and hope you sleep well at night. Peace

I don't mean to argue with anyone (especially given that I don't like monkeys and have 0 knowledge on their care) but how can you say for sure that OP is torturing the animal?

The difference between a bad pet owner and a good pet owner is that a bad one neither acknowledges that they did wrong on their pet nor does anything to fix it. A good pet owner realizes their mistake, does the right thing, and takes better care of the animal. Given that you can't exactly hop into PetSmart and come back with a marmoset, this may be a bit difficult, but five message saying "you're torturing a monkey you terrible person" without any constructive information whatsoever helps nothing.

Giving angered responses instead of useful advice is more likely to cause anyone to just nope this thread instead of take it seriously.