# A mere ”hobby”?



## Voni (Dec 14, 2011)

Hello,
I am new to keeping invertebrates.  I had 1 millipede when I was younger; none prior and none since.  I liked it a lot.  While watching Meerkat Manor weeks ago, millipedes came back to mind.  Being a both interesting and cheap-to-care-for animal, I immediately decided it was the pet for me.  I am usually a dog person (and frogs/toads) but I like nearly anything that wont bite or sting me (and doesn't have the appearance of such).  It was hard to find millipedes because the pet stores didn't sell them and I only gradually found websites that did.  While searching, I noticed that it was often referred to as a ”hobby”.  That felt inaccurate and bothered me a bit.  To me, a hobby indicates something that one has an interest in but not their heart put into and is not a priority but something on the side...if someone were to tell me that they had a hobby of keeping bugs, I would think that they had more of a collector's approach versus a caregiver's.  I felt the millipedes would be pets, beings that I would nurture, let/have crawl on me (I know about the chemical...I did lots of millipede research before ordering), and that hopefully the millipede would come to be unafraid of me (recognize me).  Don't get me wrong, I'm not like one guy I used to know who went off the handle about how his kitten is his best friend and understands him more than any human.  But I like exploring, learning, and helping.  I have never heard people who have dogs referred to as hobbyists.  Just seems odd to me.  But maybe (as is often the case) I just care more than others tend to.
Initially, I was only going to get one, but they are so slow moving/easy to deal with, and cute, that I decided to get a few (from bugsincyberspace.com).  Perhaps I will post pictures after they arrive and get set up in their new home. 

Maybe my definition of a hobbyist is too pale and simplified...but it's what comes to mind.  I'm more so making a statement or an inquiry about society, than posing a question to you as a individual...but you are welcome to say whether or not you care about the animals and see them as more than just ”things”.

Thank you.


----------



## Camden (Dec 14, 2011)

It's a mixed thing for sure. Of course, there are a lot of people who collect these creatures, and have lots of them, and collect them for the soul purpose of having a collection, but they aren't heartless. They still care for their animals like the pets that they are, this is more than just keeping a pet, this is a true hobby, with all the observing of what it does, 
the diet, and then there's obviously field collecting. Good luck with your millipedes, they're a lot of fun, I love mine


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 14, 2011)

I understand what you're saying, when it's referred to as a hobby it can kind of have a very casual sound to it.  I've posted a few times that, imo, words aren't perfect.  For instance I don't consider arachnids as being pets, but more of an interest, something to watch, a kind of fascination.  So I think that's why it's considered a hobby.  So in that light, I think it's proper to call it a hobby.  Wouldn't describing something being more than a hobby be "a career"?  Some take their hobby very seriously.  Hmm, yeah it doesn't seem cut and dry but, imo it's no big deal either what people call it.  A lot of people call it "weird" lol.


----------



## Gnat (Dec 14, 2011)

I  keep many animals as a "hobby". This includes all manor of invertebrates and reptiles. I dont handle or hold all of my 'pets' on a regular basis as I dont think they would like it much. (fish are pets but you dont 'pet' them). I DO check on each of my animals everyday to see if everything is ok. For me its more Knowing that I have these animals than wanting to physically interact with them on a regular basis. Some tarantulas that I have I handle once in a while (say to show off to a visiting friend) but for the most part they live at my house and I feed and care for them. I dont expect them to share my feelings like a dog who will come to get scratched or will sit by you when you feel sick. The invertebrates I keep are solely for my enjoyment of knowing I have them. I do try and recreate as best I can their natural environment so they are stressed as little as possible. That being said I would say my animals are a hobby, just as building models of cars or planes, as in that hobby you try to recreate the real thing as best as possible. With my spiders, scorpions, centipedes and others I try to recreate their natural living conditions as best as I can so they can live comfortably in my house.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Dec 14, 2011)

Often someone who has cats or dogs is called a cat lover or dog lover, never a cat or dog hobbyist. Someone who has reptiles, aquarium fish, or inverts is called a reptile, fish, or invert hobbyist. It doesn't really convey a different meaning but it sounds a little off to be called a millipede lover as lover has multiple meanings and tones that aren't considered when the common terms cat lover or dog lover are used.


----------



## Ultum4Spiderz (Dec 14, 2011)

could be considered a hobby because so few people can make a living off inverts... dono what Rick West does for cash... but id like to have his job hunting down Inverts & Ts
I wanted to do a career involving animals but the cash.. is typically in the reptile / dog & cat side of it... you cant really make  a living off millipedes.. possibly Tarantulas if you got a reallly big collection of females to breed
veterinarian make all the cash $$ & dogs can actually care about the owner back... hence dog lover... millipedes they cannot.. 
I own 3 though Ivory millipedes are so cool!!!!

It would take an Elaborate Marketing idea or some sorta massive demand to make it into more then just a hobby... which probably wont happen anytime soon
I mean come on some dude got rich off   pet rocks / snuggys


----------



## Voni (Dec 14, 2011)

Special thanks to Camden and Gala who came closest to understanding me.

Thanks for the replies but I don't think most of you are getting my point.  Many of you have referenced what I figured you would..the fact that essentials are being provided and they are being kept and shown to people.  To me that is not the same thing as caring about the being in your heart.  I am not saying it is ”heartless”/bad treatment, just not full of heart if you will.  Sticking with and defending status quo seems odd to me...millipede lover would sound more odd than cat/dog lover??  Why?  Simply because you aren't used to it and millipedes aren't licking a face they must be utterly void of feeling or decision making whatsoever? More than a hobby would be a career?  But keeping dogs are more than a hobby but not said to be a career, so I think that person is thinking along the lines of a collector mentality when what I am referring to is a shift FROM that.  To the person who said they try to keep the environment as like-nature as possible to reduce stress..on one hand I feel that is ideal, but on the other hand..what if cave men were kept in their natural habitat..could they not be safer and eventually feel at home in a cleaner current-day-man-made environment?  I just think that ”circumstance” is too often mistaken for ”identity” and that hinders opportunity, exploration, and appreciation.  Oh and regarding Gnat the genius from GA, oddly enough, I do know that fish are pets that are not ”pet”/handled.  But I am talking about ones that CAN be handled.

My point is not necessarily about how much one handles their pet.  I am taking about genuine concern for the safety, health, and satisfaction of the millipede...if it is injured, do you care..do you consider that they may have likes, dislikes, fears, curiosity, etc (I think it hasn't been proven or disproven)?  I guess I should just say it this way: do you feel any sort of connection...bond with/TO it?  A sincere appreciation for its existence and company?


----------



## EMWhite (Dec 14, 2011)

I think the question boils down, at least in part, to the idea of reciprocity. That is, with cats or dogs (even other vertebrate animals, like birds) there is an exchange, an interaction. Millipedes (etc) don't really have that, in my opinion. It's not that they are any more or less valuable as living things, of course not, it's that there's a complexity of interaction with something like a dog or cat that is impossible with a millipede. 

I believe millipedes and centipedes and on down the list all have preferences for this and that, they like this food more than that one, but I feel it is more of a primal sense. It's not the result of personality in my eyes, but rather of adaptation and necessity. A dog say, or bird, something more intelligent, can have discerning likes and dislikes that are unique to the individual. I suppose inverts can too, but I find it hard to imagine it being as complex a series of "opinions." 

I'd say that things like inverts, even things like reptiles and amphibians have a smaller range of sentiment than a dog or a cat. They exhibit some of the same qualities of awareness etc, but their reactions are limited to a sort of evolutionary framework. That is, domestication for a dog or cat means something entirely different than it does for a reptile/invert (etc). 

I feel, for me, the difference between "hobby" and, perhaps, "pet owner/lover" (if that is the distinction being considered) lies not in one's perception of the terms themselves, but in the overlap between what we all "get" from it. Compassion for living things, interest in other creatures, the desire to "have" these animals. What one "gets back" from a millipede is, in my mind, entirely perceived by one's self. The millipede never sets out to please us, to reciprocate our love. A dog, or cat, has every appearance of doing so, to me. They have a willful desire to express attachment, inverts do not, for me. 

In that, a "pet lover" to me describes one with whom there is a relationship between themselves and the animal in their care that is both a give and take. "Hobbyist" to me is one that describes a person who is more than willing to accept a one-sided relationship with their charges, and who is pleased by the simple presence of the animals in their care. 

I can't help but think that when people express the sentiment that their invert "loves" them back (in waterer way that is said) it is a projection of themselves onto the creature. They love the animal, and want to think the love is returned, so everything is perceived through that lens. Which, in my mind, there is nothing wrong with. It's not a sentiment that I think is accurate, or really means the millipede (for ex) *actually* loves them back, but if that's what comes from owning an animal –the perception of love in whatever way– it's certainly not a bad thing. 


-Evan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Voni (Dec 15, 2011)

Hi!  Great reply...thank you for your efforts!  I do see what you mean but as far as dogs and such, who is to say that they are not playing a role in order to keep getting food, etc vs. actually feeling love (or something like it) toward the owner?  Just a thought.  But as far as I know they are much more capable mentally than millipedes.  I wouldn't however assign every tiny thing about a millipede to instinct.  It could have all sorts of inner thoughts that we have no idea about...or maybe its just ”hungry...eek, I roll up...sleep”  lol  Actually I saw a couple of videos where after rolling up didnt work, the millipede hauled a$$...to me it seemed to be a decision made/thought process born of fear or annoyance, not just something ”done instinctively”...but I could be over thinking it.
Lastly...I don't feel the millipede needs to ”give” or ”show” me anything for me to be tickled and appreciative of it and care about it as a fellow being.  I guess reciprocity would make things more fair and predictable, but I enjoy the animals themselves, its not that I am thinking that it ”loves me” (LOL) or is interested in me in return.  In the case of a dog however, I would think about that more because they give me more to go on (tail wagging vs. growling)...but still, nothing but a lack of aggression would be needed for me to like the dog.  Any cute stuff enhances my feelings but doesn't initiate them. Hmm...maybe I'm a paradigm of an enigma.


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 15, 2011)

I was about to respond but then read what EMWhite said, probably would not have done it as well though.  btw, a "fish" a pet?  Only a few fish and some reptiles border on being pets to me, and barely so.  There seems to be at least some awareness with some fish, some more than others, that food shows up when that thing starts walking around their aquarium.  Other pets; cats, dogs, are neither a hobby nor a career.  I see a "pet" as being able to have some kind of relationship, an awareness on it's part, with man, those are pets in my mind.  But the aspect of breeding the pets could be considered a hobby, do enough of it and it could turn into a career.


----------



## Voni (Dec 15, 2011)

I feel something is a pet on the basis of YOUR feelings more than anything else and the fact that it is being taken care of.  I don't see why a fish can't be a pet (just a different kind of pet, a lesser bond)...you only like things that blatantly perform a service/trick for you? Lol  Id bet that fish know a little more than you give them credit for (why do people take an approach of ”everything to discover has been discovered”??).  Would you assume that a human who is mute and crippled isn't ever happy because they aren't laughing or jumping in the air?  Anyway, my question was not does one like having an animal around pet or not, it was do they care deeply about its life.  For example, I don't have to have experiences with a particular animal to worry about one that I see trying to cross a street.  I don't think I can explain things any more than I already have.  It's been interesting though...thanks.

Oh and I'm pretty sure that even the simplest of pets have an awareness and feel that you are not a threat after they are with you for a long time.  I do see what you mean but as I said before, for me, an animal doesn't have to focus on me for me to be pleased.  Your ”that food shows up when that thing starts walking around their aquarium.” comment made me chuckle.  Thinking back to your previous post...what I feel is certainly fascination but not just that.  The mutual-bond element may be less than with a dog, but the fascination element is MUCH higher.  Perhaps it evens them out.


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 15, 2011)

Well that's the shortcoming of language imo, some things come down to a matter of opinion.  Why don't "most" people say, "I have a pet plant."  They take care of it, water it, feed it with new soil, sun.  Or what about pet bacteria.  No fine line I guess.  And the meanings of words change over time.  No not a trick, but an interaction with some awareness between the animal and man.   I wouldn't assume that a human who is mute and crippled isn't ever happy because they aren't laughing or jumping in the air, because I know they are human.  By the science we know so far, studying nervous systems, scientists at least claim what they think an animal is capable of experiencing.  But I realize, who really knows.


----------



## Voni (Dec 15, 2011)

Okay, I should have touched on this, but I thought I wouldn't need to: yes, you know it is a human and you know about humans because you are one (uhh..i guess ;]) and have interactions with others, but I said it to have you shift that ”non-speaking/uncommon” presence to millipedes.  Just because we aren't millipedes and they aren't speaking a language or following us around doesn't mean they are 100% oblivious and numb.

Oh and I don't feel the lack of ”pet plant” is a reflection of how a person feels as much as what the verbal status quo/lingo is and how they may be viewed if they called it a pet.  That's my guess at least.  But I probably like millipedes a lot more than people tend to like their their plants.

Also, for me a pet is not merely in my company and taken care of, I care about it and feel a bond to it (hard to explain/find words for)...i don't know how many people care about plants or bacteria.


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 15, 2011)

No you didn't need to, it's why I brought up the science that would point to a millipede "probably" not being capable of human interaction, they are oblivious to our presence, but it's also why I said, who really knows.  True that they could have something going on in their smaller environment, then it feels more like playing a god though, looking in at the world I created for them, without them knowing me, not something I consider pets though, but some do, OK.  They obviously would rather be left alone, don't want that big thing touching them, some try to chew on your finger.  It just goes back to your opinion of what a pet is that is different than what mine is.  It doesn't matter to me if people see their plants as pets, but I am curious if you see plants as being pets?  Does it fit your definition of a pet?  It does need taking care of, food, water, sun, maybe some trimming.  I think my bond is with my interest in the millipede, not necessarily the millipede.  But I like taking care of it also, knowing it's healthy, kind of a human instinct I think to be a "caretaker".  If it's not healthy, it won't entertain me, no tricks haha.


----------



## Voni (Dec 15, 2011)

To answer your question, no I don't see a plant as a pet, because a pet means more than just something being taken care of and present in the home...id have to have a bond factor.  But if someone else called their plant a pet and it was clear that they felt intensely about nurturing it, I wouldn't be surprised or find it ”crazy”.   Hmm...if I was ever into a plant enough, I guess I could call it a pet...and be shunned.

I think I get what you are saying about liking the millipede as an animal but not on an individual basis...but for me it is the same thing...i think.  I've never analyzed it before.  I don't feel they are oblivious to us being around (mine didn't used to curl up or nibble at my hand..at all) but I dont like them based on them liking me...that's just not how I feel...i don't expect that capacity in a millipede.   But I don't assume to know everything about its mind.  So, we're pretty far off topic.  

I'm not a biology expert yet, but I am not one to label all processes as limited to the human or Earth experience.  I don't feel that something needs to have our wiring components in order to feel/think things.  Even though I love bio, it seems all education can be a bit closed...you are only being educated on what is currently known and some subjects outside of bio generalize way too much...actually hindering the students, especially those without an intelligent, open mind.  It can give a window into worlds but with stained glass.  I am open to new discoveries.


----------



## EMWhite (Dec 15, 2011)

I suppose there’s probably a component of "you give me the food" to the interactions people have with dogs, but I find it a stretch to imagine that people who have been around dogs, especially those who have owned them, would say their pet doesn’t love them, insomuch as an animal can. For me, that'd be more of an argument for their nature in regard to their perception of a “pack,” which happens to lend itself ideally to domestication. Even so, I think there is a emotional capacity (and I use “emotional” hesitantly) in vertebrate animals like dogs that there is nothing similar to in the invertebrate world. It is hard for me to believe that something like a millipede could ever reciprocate the attachment a person might feel towards it. Now, is that because in nature they do not enjoy a “pack” attitude in the same way as dogs do, (which translates, to people, as devotion/attachment desire to please) or because they are innately unequipped for such sentiment? I’d argue it’s the second one, but I could see how one might argue both.

I think millipedes (for instance, centipedes too, etc) are highly instinctual, basic creatures. Instinct, for me, doesn’t allow great room for emotion or, what’s more, lots of “thought.” Meaning not that evolution quashes the thoughtful (clearly not, after all, here we are), but that in animals that have evolved to fulfill a basic, fundamental ecological niche (like degrading plant matter, cue millipedes) there is little “wiggle room.” It would be surprising to see a millipede suddenly stumble across the creation of fire or somehow develop a wheel, because those are things that require a sort of intelligence that transcends evolutionary dictation. People didn’t “evolve” to make cities and buildings, necessarily; our intellect allowed us space to maneuver inside of different circumstances, ultimately able to choose for ourselves what to do. Millipedes have free will too, but in a very different sense: “eat this leaf, or that leaf = big decision of the day.”

I agree completely with Galap's idea that centipedes and millipedes give very little in return. It’s that their presence, the “idea of having them” satisfies me. That’s the trick, for me. 

In regard to someone liking a dog with or without having been paid attention by the animal: some people are animal people, and some aren’t. SOme people are going to like the animals without needing the animals to meet them in the middle. (For ex, centipedes: most people hate them, it takes a certain willingness to accept "this animal will never give back to me in any other way than living its life.) 

*I just saw a video of a burly, tattooed biker-type fellow who was scared sh*tless of puppies. It was one of those Animal Planet animal phobia kinds of shows. The puppy was wagging its tail, and would’ve seemed happy to you or me, (or anyone else who hadn’t done quite so much crystal meth) but it took the puppy actively engaging with the man (licking his face I think) for the guy to “get” it. My point being, a guaranteed “I like you anyway” stance towards dogs doesn’t suggest anything about the dogs themselves. But rather, about the individual who may not even need the dog to meet them in the middle. (And then, of course, there are guys like the one in the video who have to be forced to meet the dog at all.)

Personally, I think the issue here is not what can be called a pet, but what the word "pet" means for all of us. Which, to me, is subjective. For me, a pet is a dog/cat/horse/bird etc etc etc, something a person can have a relationship with. A millipede is not a pet in that sense. I’m speaking form personal opinion here, of course, but I don’t think of my centipedes as “pets.” They’re “projects” a “collection” a “hobby,” any one of a number of words that define a sense of unity in a group of things owned by someone who enjoys the simple, unreciprocated pleasure of living alongside such animals. My scorpions couldn’t care less about me, and would be happy if I never so much as looked at them. However, despite that, I am thrilled and delighted to own them, to have them around, to live with them. 

For me comparing a human to a fish (or the like) is a suggestion of similarity between two things that, in the way meant, share little if anything at all. I understand the idea of the comparison, but I don’t think it’s an especially apt one. Perhaps a human in a coma/vegetative state might be a better answer, as psychological awareness is restricted in such a state where, for the blind or deaf, it is not at all. (There is no less brain activity in them as there is in any other person.) Of course, the issue with my example is one more of quality of life, and suggests that a comatose individual is equivalent to a fish, etc. Which I don’t think it a fair/accurate comparison. My point being, comparing a human in any state to an animal is a near-impossible thing, (which probably goes without saying).

In regard to caring about the animal crossing the street without ever having seen it before: we’re sentient, passionate beings that are often empathetic and sensitive to the experiences of others. I think it shows compassion in an individual more than it implies some deep-seated connection to anything other than the individual him/herself. 

"Oh and I'm pretty sure that even the simplest of pets have an awareness and feel that you are not a threat after they are with you for a long time."

^ I have to disagree with that in part. Not because I think you are wholly wrong, but because with things like centipedes, their attitudes may differ from one species to the next, and sometimes even within species, but they never really change. They might get slightly less aggressive or flighty, but it’s never anything to make me think “wow, I remember the times when you’d have bitten the shit out of me, now look at you, so sweet” because, really, that’s never going to change (referring, of course, to the idea of evolutionary instinct/basic brain function).

Can a living thing ever be oblivious? Numb, sure (if ill etc) but oblivious? Even if they don’t notice/pay attention to the things we do, they’ve still got their own focuses and agendas. I don’t think anyone suggested that, intentionally or otherwise. I think the suggestion goes back to comparing them to people, which is, to me anyway, a flawed stance. Or, at least, one that doesn't really lend itself to a defendable, sustainable analogy.

"Also, for me a pet is not merely in my company and taken care of, I care about it and feel a bond to it (hard to explain/find words for)...i don't know how many people care about plants or bacteria."

^ It’s called compassion, usually. Perhaps something else as well, of course, but it’s mostly compassion/love, which is a human trait before it’s a trait anywhere else. I think it shows that you are human, again, not that there’s a two-way connection between you and a millipede. (For what it's worth, I assumed you were a human as soon as you started typing on this thread...)

Owning animals like millipedes is not about “getting back” in the traditional, but instead about satisfying some type of inner desire we all share to enjoy the presence of these fascinating, unique and incredible animals. Whether you and I perceive it the same way, or whether I get the same thing from it as someone else doesn't really seem like a big deal, to me. It's that we all come together places like this, through whatever motivation, and have a coming together of ideas and information and discussion based around a central theme of what sounds, to me, like love of our animals. Which, in my mind, negates any differences – when love, or something like it, is the guiding force, I'd say we've all done pretty well. 


-Evan


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 15, 2011)

woooooweeeee!, I think you covered all Evan, I feel like I just got out of a movie theater after reading that, let's see if I can think of something else  ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oep4mRpmrkQ  lol


----------



## Voni (Dec 16, 2011)

Okay...EMW your efforts are admirable but you guys are misinterpreting what im saying...and this is wearing me out.  You kept mentioning that a millipede cant be compared to a human.  Well, we can compare anything to anything, but I wasnt.  Just because I mentioned humans doesnt mean I was saying that a millipede is LIKE a human or has a parallel capacity but in a "millipede way".  I merely wanted Gala to see that just because something is not "showing" a feeling or thought in the way that we are used to interpreting them, doesnt mean that it is void of anything outside of eating, sleeping, and crapping.  If you all want to make judgements about ones capacity without being the animal themselves..thats your decision.  Sure, compassion may be an element here, but I think it is simply a by-product of something deeper.  I dont know if compassion is an innate, uniquely human feature as you suggest.  I know of lots of people who lack compassion to a stunning degree and in fact seek out causing pain to others who are doing no harm.  I guess it depends on your personal experiences in life.  Sure, as long as we are coming together due to a love of the animals, it's a good scenario...but the term hobby isnt something that I link to the word love (being-to-being).  How you can say that you love that your centipedes are there yet you dont care whether or not you see them...confuses me.  But, I dont have to understand...everyone is different.  For me, if I like or love something, I want to be around it, care for it, touch it, etc.
It feels like some of you dont call them pets because they cant give you a high-5 or something. Pet-snobbery??  lol They are not worthless just because they arent humans or dogs or birds that you think have a relationship with you.  You know we dont have pet trees but without plants we wouldnt even have oxygen.  So who is really our best friend?  Everything has value on some level and I think if someone is not appreciating their pet or animals in their "hobby", they shouldnt have them (in other words...so that im not once again misunderstood...an inattentive puppy-mill type of hobbyist/collector doesnt sit well with me).  Having them without feeling/care toward them seems one sided and like the person is just flexing their human power or something.  I think im done here.  I just got my baby millpedes (my "pets") and I'd like to spend some time with them.

Gala, whats with the video?  Nevermind.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Dec 16, 2011)

You're simply ignoring biology and applying projected attributes on to an animal that doesn't have the capacity that you think it does.  I don't have to be the animal to know that it really is a simple organism and if it were necessary to be the creature to understand how it lives we'd be in a world of hurt in terms of "getting" animal behavior.    

You're arguing semantics in order to understand how other folks connect with their animals without necessarily understanding the connection is one-sided.  If you try to "love" your centipede by touching it you'll see what I mean.  These creatures rely on very well evolved senses to interact with their environment, not complex thought or even emotion.      

Love does not equal appreciation and it is not necessary to rub up against a tree in order to show appreciation for it...although I'm sure there's a website for that  We care for these creatures in the sense that we want them to thrive in their captive environments but we do so by providing their basic needs and ensuring health.  Otherwise, it absolutely is a selfish venture.

If not 'hobby', what better encapsulates what this really is?

Please understand, Voni, I appreciate that you're putting thought into this and certainly not trying to pick at you but only to help in your understanding of what it is we are up to here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EMWhite (Dec 16, 2011)

I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone. It sounds like you have a highly personal, unique view of not only your millipedes, but of what the task of keeping them entails, perhaps on an emotional level. (Which we all do.) 

For me, after trying hard to understand what you mean, and now to have you seem annoyed (which was certainly not my intent, apologies for that) makes me think you want us to say exactly what is in the innermost sanctum of your psyche. I've never yet been able to do that for anyone other than myself, and, even then, it's not always a sure thing. In fact, I think this entire discussion is testament to the idea that, in fact, trying to identify abstractions within ourselves in an effort to define "feelings" is all but possible sometimes. 

Whether or not anyone's efforts are admirable, I find that when several different people are misinterpreting what you are saying, chances are it's not the fault of those other people, but rather in the speaker's articulation of their argument. This is, I think, simple logic. Which again brings me to the suggestion that, perhaps, your interest is in hearing us say what you think, when, as of now, I'm not sure even you can say it. Which is not a bad thing, not at all. Forums like this one are designed for those of us who have answers to help those of us with questions. The deal being that all of us are constantly in each role, no one is superior (etc etc).

"I merely wanted Gala to see that just because something is not "showing" a feeling or thought in the way that we are used to interpreting them, doesnt mean that it is void of anything outside of eating, sleeping, and crapping."

^ Did anyone actually say this? With certainty? I don't think anyone would make a ballsy claim like that. I certainly wouldn't, and I'd bet Galap wouldn't either. 

"the term hobby isnt something that I link to the word love (being-to-being). How you can say that you love that your centipedes are there yet you dont care whether or not you see them...confuses me. But, I dont have to understand...everyone is different. For me, if I like or love something, I want to be around it, care for it, touch it, etc."

^ Nowhere did I say that. I wouldn't live with the risk of *dangerous* animals if I didn't love them in some capacity. Whether it's the individual animals, or the idea of them, who cares? I don't see them often anyway, but that is their nature, which I am happy to accept as, again, that is my entire point regarding them: them, living their lives in their own way is what I enjoy (or "love" if it helps), nothing more or less.

"It feels like some of you dont call them pets because they cant give you a high-5 or something. Pet-snobbery??" 

^ Who cares what we call them? You call them pets, I call them a collection, John Doe calls them fu*king disgusting, who cares?

"They are not worthless just because they arent humans or dogs or birds that you think have a relationship with you."

^ No one anywhere on these boards would ever say that, *ever.* If they would, why would they be here?

"I think if someone is not appreciating their pet or animals in their "hobby", they shouldnt have them (in other words...so that im not once again misunderstood...an inattentive puppy-mill type of hobbyist/collector doesnt sit well with me)."

^ I do not think this was your judgement on those of us who are involved in this thread, which is a courtesy assumption I am giving you. It would be ballsy indeed to come on here and say, to people with far more experience than you (Galap) that they are not deserving of their animals. Like I said, I'll give you the assumption that you weren't referring to others here. I know you made extra effort not to "be misunderstood again" but it comes across as though you are speaking to us.  

Everything said and done, and wherever the differences between all of us fall, it sounds like your millipedes will have a wonderful home. 


Best,
-Evan

---------- Post added 12-16-2011 at 04:43 PM ----------




zonbonzovi said:


> You're simply ignoring biology and applying projected attributes on to an animal that doesn't have the capacity that you think it does.  I don't have to be the animal to know that it really is a simple organism and if it were necessary to be the creature to understand how it lives we'd be in a world of hurt in terms of "getting" animal behavior.
> 
> You're arguing semantics in order to understand how other folks connect with their animals without necessarily understanding the connection is one-sided.  If you try to "love" your centipede by touching it you'll see what I mean.  These creatures rely on very well evolved senses to interact with their environment, not complex thought or even emotion.
> 
> ...


Beat me to it... I agree with all of the above. Well said.


----------



## Galapoheros (Dec 16, 2011)

I feel you are not giving people, in general, enough credit.  It may only be that they don't relate to your passion or that they don't agree, not that they don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## Voni (Dec 16, 2011)

*What a cold welcome.*

You all still aren't understanding the things I say, and I feel have explained pretty well.  It must be the speaker's fault if they aren't understood?  That's ridiculous...interpretation depends on intellect, biases, sensitivities, etc.  I have projected attributes to a millipede?  Actually you all have done that more than I.  I simply said that I don't feel their limits are fully known and that I keep an open mind, not that they are MUCH MORE than they seem.  As far as the insinuation that I am trying to get you all to say a specific thing...what would that thing be exactly? I don't need strangers on the internet to stroke an ”ego” or whatever you are thinking. I have been asked questions and I have responded, THAT'S ALL.  Now who is the one assigning attributes? Regarding another assumption: If I had been referring to Gala I would have said so.  I would certainly HOPE that no one here is doing a puppy mill-esque thing.  I only used that as a generic example of something I would definitely be against.  Also, saying that criticism against people more experienced would be out of line is ridiculous.  Anyone can be in the wrong at any stage in life...and more experienced doesn't always mean better.  But...that wasnt what was saying.  You guys make a lot of assumptions over the tiniest of things.  How about just taking my words for what they are?  Posting my quotes then saying someone didn't say such and such is once again, ridiculous.  If I said Gala seems to feel a certain way about millipedes, read his past comments before claiming that I'm incorrect or delusional.  My integrity and knowledge of science shouldn't be shot down just because I am discussing ”millipedes”.  Thanks if you haven't meant harm, but I am not here in search of additional life stress.  I was simply surprised that it was referred to as a hobby and I thought many of you would be against the term but you aren't..fine...as long as the welfare of the animals is not in question, I really don't care.  I guess I should have said in the first post: I am referring to the emotionally-restrictive sounding term (compared to ”pet”), I am not against one having them as a hobby but I don't feel it should have to only be characterized as a hobby for me per se/individuals.  I never said that I was against non-pet care but I guess some of you assumed that (?) and that is where all of these attacks are coming from.  I feel doing things with love/heart (which doesn't have to mean touching...but thanks for the ridiculing exaggerations) is best, but not the only decent way.

I initially admired the insight on this website.  I thought that I would meet compassionate, open-minded people (seeing as how you are caring for bugs and such, not the more common pets), but sifting through my comments for the purposes of analysis and ridicule is all some of you care to do.  Disappointing. Disgusting.  I shouldnt be ganged up on just because you don't see what is in my mind.  And saying that you don't mean harm at the end doesn't magically change the fact that clearly you didn't care much.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Dec 16, 2011)

You apparently have much to learn about assumptions, millipedes, self-delusion, reading comprehension, clarity and playing well with others, among other things.

You're all over the place with "what you're trying to say" and I'm not even sure that you understand.  Nobody attacked you Mr. Temperamental so if you want anybody around here to take you seriously try dialing back the vitriol a bit.


----------



## Voni (Dec 16, 2011)

Christ, I was never saying that we can't know the basics about how something lives based on observation/studies.  I was talking about whatever version of internal thought process it has such as *possibly* being able to realize/recognize after a while that its owner's hand doesn't mean ”danger”...to be clear: not it analyzing works from Poe or falling in love.  And I never said love must entail touching.  I also never said one must love.


----------



## Voni (Dec 16, 2011)

Playing well with others means not clarifying what I mean/putting it in other terms (as you call it ”all over the place”) when someone isn't grasping, and taking rude exaggerations with a smile?  We are not 5 and life is not a game.  You don't know me to say what I ”have to learn” and I'm not worried about people on some bug website ”taking me seriously”.  I can safely say that I have dealt with bigger, more traumatic things than most people here...and made it through with poise and decency.  Its people like you who have something to learn: respect, ”among other things”.  I tend to treat people in a very decent manner and I don't like when it isn't returned.  News flash, that's not psycho. You claim to have not attacked me in SAME post in which you do attack me.  Yet I am the one who has lots to learn.  A kind heart is more important than any little ”much to learn” crap you can come up with.  Just keep your trash talking to yourself.


----------



## EMWhite (Dec 17, 2011)

It seems like a benign question, started by Voni, has really spiraled out of where it ought to have run. I think, personally, everything that needs to be said has been, and is in all of the above posts for people interested enough to read closely (at this point I can't imagine why anyone would be following this, truthfully). Hopefully one small disagreement/miscommunication/whatever this has become, will not be enough to keep you, Voni, from using these boards. They are a fantastic source of information and, perhaps for less personal issues (or at least less so than this one has become), can be a great way to interact with keepers/hobbyists/people with valuable experience. 


-Evan


----------

