Dienstag, November 15, 2005

Dr. Loolittle

For someone who barks a lot from her blog, we now know that Wendy isn't too fond of animals (unless, according to her, they're "cute").

While the rest of blogsphere is busy clobbering Dawn Yeo/Yang, Wendy's little comment on animal rights has gone somewhat unnoticed. Maybe because the entry was supposed to be about her trip to Thailand.

Can't she blog about any trip without throwing in a bit of controversy? Granted this isn't as serious as her last one to KL, but if you're an animal lover (or proud pet owner), you might not like her following comments:

"The Thai animal vendors at Chatuchak has taught me one thing: Animals do not need to be pampered like how stupid Singaporeans pamper them.

It irks me when I see people mollycoddling their pets, getting angry at you if you dare to as much as scold/insult the pet, which is ridiculous coz obviously the pet doesn't understand what you are saying. Yes loud voices might startle them, but they aren't hurt, just are just having a biological reaction (1).

As Kelvin will explain in exasperation, it is ludicrous to throw a human being in jail for torturing animals because animals are not capable for self-conscious thoughts. They do not possess the ability to be self-aware, and therefore are not bestowed with the knowledge of their very existance.

It is fairly certain that they cannot feel jealousy (2), they cannot understand claustrophobia, nor will they get the magnitude of depression (3) a normal human being might get, being in jail.
Well before I digressed, I was saying that animals do not need to be pampered. I do not proclaim to be a frantic animal lover (only like them if they are cute; animal lovers, do you love cockroaches? (4) Don't gimme bullshit, if you are an "animal lover" then you love all animals, else you are just a CUTE-LOVER), and nor do I have anything against people who are infatuated with animals...


Oh wait I do.

I hate it when people treat animals better than they treat humans! Of course, some high-moral soul will now say that animals are better coz won't backstab you, they will never betray your love, etc etc, let's not eat them.

Yeah right kiddo, he only loves you coz he knows you will give him food. Why not test his love by sending him to your neighbour, who gives him tastier food from now on, and see if he returns? If he does, it is possibly coz your neighbour doesn't masturbate him and you do (out of love, you proclaim). Conditioned responses, all conditioned responses. (5)

And number 2, a tasty jellyfish dish is also incapable of backstabbing you, that kind benign plate of delicacy! So why not you treat the jellyfish dish better than you treat your mom? How about a rusty doorknob? Also will never sleep with your best friend!
Humans are so weird.


As our society progresses and we don't have to bother about our own survival, we start to bother ourselves with other people's survival, like they want it in the first place. Like whales. Or or foie gras. (6).

Anyway, once again, before I digressed, I was saying that the Thais have made me realise that there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO PAMPER ANIMALS. "

I'm beginning to wonder if she deliberately acts dumb, or is it a primal instinct of hers to enjoy getting verbally flogged in cyberspace:

(1) Pets like dogs can be trained to understand sound patterns, or should we say, commands. Yes, it's conditioning, but you may as well as say the same about the way we teach kids to speak. They are also capable of picking up nuances and various signals from us (like our tone and expressions) to understand our emotions.

(2) A cousin of mine has a pet dog which she treats as family (she and her husband raised the little pup). Whenever her niece drops by and she dotes on the little girl, the dog will go up to her and compete for attention as well. For your info, Wendy, it's a known fact that pets like dogs are very much capable of showing jealousy, whether towards a human or a new dog in the house (canine rivalry).

(3) Animals do suffer from depression too. A zoo in Toledo even administered Prozac to its depressed gorilla. And as for animals not understanding claustrophobia, maybe you should read up on this article [nb: PDF Acrobat document] from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). It's aptly titled, "Claustrophobia: what happens, why, and what you can do about it".

(4) In this case, I'd rather call a cockroach an insect. We're talking about animal lovers, not writing in a science journal. Besides, technically that makes Wendy an "animal" (and primate) too, doesn't it? =)

(5) It depends on what animal you're referring to. Some animals (like dogs and even war horses) have been know to risk (or even giving up) their lives to save their masters. Maybe they're just not as "self-aware" as humans who think only about themselves? =)

(6) I didn't know whales are people. Not sure if they'd want us to save them, but they certainly won't want us to slaughter them. Anyway, there are many reasons why people call for the protection of various animals as well as other living species. It is about maintaining the balance in our ecosystem as it is about animal rights. Of course, based on Wendy's opinions, I really doubt she has any inkling what all these things are.


Of course, Wendy can kick the next (ugly-looking) cat she sees on the road, that's up to her. I'm just curious that she's written the following only just recently:

"Everything has a tipping point, and you make your decisions everyday: Your love for eating meat, AGAINST the pain animals feel when you bloody kill them.
Let's say you choose to save the pain: Maddox (Read the article, it is seriously good) now explains that if you buy vegetables, you are knowingly assisting the accidental killing of many innocent farm animals."


In any case, I'll end this post with something from an article by Clive Wynne, "Do Animals Think", that appeared in the Nov/Dec 1999 issue of Psychology Today:

The fact is that we lack adequate methods to identify conclusively what behavior is "conscious." But scientific study of consciousness is undergoing a renaissance as reflected in recent books, conferences and journals. And these investigations have begun to include nonhuman consciousness. In particular, Alan Cowey of Oxford University and Petra Stoerig of the Institute of Medical Psychology at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Germany have developed procedures by which a monkey can signal whether or not it is consciously aware of a particular visual stimulus.

This and other recent developments provide empirical and objective support for the conclusion reached by Stephen Walker at the University of London in his !983 book Animal Thought (Routledge): "Our organ of thought may be superior, and we may play it better, but is surely vain to believe that other possessors of similar instruments leave them quite untouched."

Which thus makes Wendy's following observations totally sick:

"It is obvious the animals were kept in bad conditions, very bad conditions. The snakes were in mineral water bottles, the squirrels swung around via a string tied to their necks, and the puppies pushed around and allowed to lick every tourists' filthy hand.

The mere sight of the place will kill your average, superficial animal lover. Even Maddox might cringe a little. Or maybe not.

And yes, it is cruel, and I didn't like it too.

But curiously enough, you will realise something.

The animals propogate.


And we all know that animals only give birth in captive breeding when they are comfortable in their environment. We have all forgotten that animals have survial instincts too, and they don't need us to wipe their anus for them after they shit."


So Wendy spends a few days touring Thailand (and less at the animal market) and she can confidently conclude that these animals are propogating, and are comfortable in the horrid conditions they're kept in? Animals that are constantly under stress are more susceptible to diseases, and even if they do "adapt" to these conditions, it's still inhumane.

For your own sake, hope you don't believe in karma.


* For those still wondering if a cockroach is an animal, scientifically-speaking, it is. The class Insecta (or insects) belong to a animal phylum known as Arthropoda (or arthropods); of course, arthropods also include Crustacea (hope I spelt that correctly) like lobsters, prawns, crabs etc. Arachnida (spiders, scorpions), and dozens other class which I can't remember off-hand. Yes, insects are a subgroup of animals, but this (and Wendy's entry) is hardly a science journal. =)

30 Comments:

  • At Dienstag, November 15, 2005 10:49:00 nachm., Anonymous supporter said…

    sandrapowderpuff, i believe her recent entry has not gone unnoticed. I would think some animal supporters would have written in to SPCA. It is almost a blatant disregard of animal welfare. Since you feel so strongly about this entry, permit me to suggest that you also do a part and write in to the relevant authorities. The purpose is not to throw her in jail or to shut down her blog, but to educate her and her multitudes of young worshippers about animal welfare.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 1:42:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    Simplesandra, I'm here after following one of your post at xlx's.

    I don't understand... isn't it happier for you that the attention is not on Wendy now? Why are you throwing the attention back to her again?

    Few bothers about her and what she wrote but is people like you who keeps reminding others about their existence.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 1:48:00 vorm., Anonymous Torres said…

    Well said, sandra, totally agreed with your point. So I thought, xx likes to kick up a fuss, thinks her arguments are very relevant when they have no real basis at all. Regarding this animal issue, you know, she's always trying to be different just for the sake for it, and that kelvin's another screw up, rich spoilt brat.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 2:20:00 vorm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    anon wrote: "I don't understand... isn't it happier for you that the attention is not on Wendy now?"

    That's because everyone's busy with Dawn right now. I'm into blog watching--I'm interested in what people write on their blogs (and in the case of Wendy, she still has the reach to make herself heard).

    I'm just not too interested in what others do to their own faces in real life, even if they have to lie about it. It's a moral issue that goes beyond blogging, and I'm no moral police. =)

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:09:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    You are not "moral police"? LOL!

    What drives you to set yourself against Wendy then?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:10:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    With all this you are doing, you have to admit you are her biggest loyal reader.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:12:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    Cockatoos have a vocabulary of up to 50 words.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:14:00 vorm., Anonymous BIGGEST XX FAN said…

    No no, she's not. I am!

    I have an IQ of 60, therefore, I am the BIGGEST XX FAN! I have ill-developed opinions or no opinions at all, just like XX and I like to mouth them off in public loudly!

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:20:00 vorm., Blogger Candyfeehily said…

    if i must really talk... i can say that its a win-win situation for them. if she deny it, they have one publicity push which we have seen. when and if she comes clean to it, we have another "oprah section" publicity push to come. all and all its double stunts potential.

    so i dont see why the company would not offer the contract.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 10:34:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    hey candy. It's about Xiaxue in this post. Forget about Dawn already.

    On another note, I agree with the first poster, should send a letter to SPCA. I'd send a letter, together with your latest entry, if you permit me to do so.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 11:04:00 vorm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    anon wrote: "I'd send a letter, together with your latest entry, if you permit me to do so."

    By all means. It's public domain. =)

    another anon wrote: "What drives you to set yourself against Wendy then? "

    I wouldn't even be blogging about her if she doesn't moderate/delete her comments. I rebut what she writes with my opinions; at least I don't try to define moral standards.

    Oh yes, one moment you're "crusading" against Wendy and her sponsors, next moment you criticise others for dwelling on her because whacking Dawn has suddenly become the new craze.

    Really, never mind vanity bloggers--says a lot about some of their critics too.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 11:04:00 vorm., Blogger bsjj said…

    She does not condone animal abuse, but she states that she doesn't like those who proclaim to be "animal lovers" who love all animals and treat them in a higher "rank" then humans.

    Don't you understand?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 11:25:00 vorm., Blogger Kimson said…

    Sandra, I agree with you totally!

    I have written about the 'loo' episode in my blog and have commented that Wendy shoots off her mouth before engaging her brain.

    I don't know if she is deliberately trying to be controversial to garner higher readership, but I reckon that it's either that or she is extremely ignorant and insensitive to the feelings of the handicapped or animal lovers in general.

    I will not be surprised if it is the former. Controversy is probably the next bigger attention grabber, second only to sex. So unless, she is prepared to go naked on her blog, controversy would be the next best alternative! :-P

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 11:28:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    She also states u can treat them like dirt and they won't mind. I pity her dog, bcos it has to stay cute for XX to keep her.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 1:15:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    Oh yes, one moment you're "crusading" against Wendy and her sponsors, next moment you criticise others for dwelling on her because whacking Dawn has suddenly become the new craze.


    Two separate points ...

    1. When did I ever criticise others for dwelling on her?

    2. And you see that as "whacking Dawn", "criticise others" but you are "rebut what she writes with my opinions"?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 4:05:00 nachm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    anon wrote: "2. And you see that as "whacking Dawn", "criticise others" but you are "rebut what she writes with my opinions"? "

    You don't see me making extra effort to dig up stuff on Wendy's private life, do you? I counter what she writes, that's all. The sort of "investigative" reporting going on wrt Dawn is getting ridiculous.

    Dawn's personal integrity may be questionable, but so are most vanity bloggers out there--don't see them getting this sort of stick, do you? It's Tinsel Management that offered her the contract, take it up with the talent agency. And if they choose to ignore you, what can you do? Nothing. It's between them and her.

    I'm sorry, I don't like it too, but make your case and get over with it. It's silly when I have people telling me I should "go with the times" because I didn't hop on the bandwagon and hit out at Dawn.

    If you ask me, she has offended less people with her blogging than Wendy--so what makes you think she deserves to be attacked so viciously?

    Oh, when I say "you" I'm refering to those "critics" in general who are enjoying having a go at Dawn right now. So nothing personal. =)

    And in case anyone thinks I'm a Dawn supporter, no I'm not. I don't like her lifestyle, and don't even have a high opinion of girls who need makeup just to feel good about themselves.

    I just think this current furore over a so-called upcoming "star" has made blog-watchers look like a bunch of self-righteous moralists.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 4:41:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    "I pity her dog, bcos it has to stay cute for XX to keep her."

    What if her dog, for whatever reason, suddenly turned ugly one day? Really makes one wonder.. :|

    But if there's one thing I agree with her though, is that some people treat pets far better than they would treat a human. Some pets even get *clothed* while there are people dying of hunger out there.

    But that doesn't mean that it's okay to be cruel to animals like that. She loved Bangkok that much?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 5:00:00 nachm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    Yup, agree with that. Not just that, but dressing dogs up in clothes and dyeing them itself is a form of animal abuse. Kelly Osbourne got slammed by animal rights activists for dyeing her dog's fur pink. =)

    Oh, and if anyone's wondering, yes, I'm very free today. Sick leave. *cough* =P

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 5:01:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 5:15:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    Xiaxue said...
    "I don't even mind buying a few to put in the hotel room and cuddling [the bunnies] to sleep for 3 nights, and letting them go free when I go back to Singapore man."

    From http://www.spca.org.sg/help_us/dump.asp

    DON'T' DUMP ANIMALS AND HELP SPCA REDUCE THE HOMELESS PETS AND STRAYS

    There is a growing trend to abandon animals be they unwanted litters, outgrown pets, mongrels or purebreds - thousands are discarded each year when the novelty wears off - victims of a throw-away society.

    In April 2004 for example: Animals brought in to the SPCA numbered 241 dogs, 495 cats, small animals 192 (including 77 rabbits, 63 hamsters, 19 gerbils, 17 guinea pigs.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 5:18:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    XiaXue didn't abuse anything, she didn't break the law, so what can SPCA do?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 5:21:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    Educate.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 6:42:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    I agree with you. The XLX site has lost all credibility by being just a celebrity slamming site. Almost all the comments there are no longer sensible but people who just, in their own words, "want to see Dawn fall".

    On the other hand, I think that this time round, XX is deliberately trying to attract attention by making that statement about animals. She purposely drew attention to the particular offending sentences and dares people to challenge it. And how about the statement "No, Tim and I are not together?" Will anybody even make that allegation? Why must she bring it up herself? I think that the slam-animal-rights parts are purposely inflammatory and controversial. Pathetic

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 16, 2005 9:14:00 nachm., Anonymous AnnoyingPDF said…

    Sandra, could you give a warning that the article from the ASPCA is a PDF? Thanks.

     
  • At Freitag, November 18, 2005 12:58:00 vorm., Anonymous Ben said…

    Persnally, I am only upset with XX over the handicapped toilet issue.
    Somehow, I am beginning to see all these anti-XX blog getting too... superficial. I can sense anti-XX people like SS is trying to pick on every little thing XX says.
    I am no supporter of XX, but most of the things she said in her blog like the recent animal ones can be easily made by anyone on the streets and just becuase it is XX, you are trying to make it big.
    I am beginning to feel you guys are really just JEALOUS of XX and not the rightoues crusaders I used to know, who fought for the rights of the handicaps.

     
  • At Freitag, November 18, 2005 7:06:00 vorm., Anonymous Fucking Rebel said…

    This clearly shows that this bitch XX is too much of a city bitch. Her next holiday trip should not be anywhere else, but a trip to Africa's jungle or Amazon, may be even the deep ocean to see how intelligence dolphins can be.

    Wait! I think dolphins are more intelligence than XX!!

    She should start watching more documentaries from 'Animal Planet', 'National Geographic channel' and 'Discovery Channel', instead of keep reviewing all the videos of herself appearing on TV.

    What she claimed of her IQ again? Duh!!!

     
  • At Freitag, November 18, 2005 6:17:00 nachm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    ben wrote: " I can sense anti-XX people like SS is trying to pick on every little thing XX says."

    Wait till you see me slam her for panning the latest Harry Porter movie...just kidding. =)

    Anyone else could've said these things. But because it's Wendy, and her blog can influence a big enough audience, that's why I "pick on what she says". And it'd be wrong if I cry foul when she insults the disabled, but keep mum on other issues.

    Sure, it's not as serious as ridiculing the disabled but it's still socially unacceptable behaviour. She makes her point; I counter with mine. If I feel she got her facts/moral obligations wrong, I point them out. That's all I do. Pretty civilised, if you ask me.

    Besides, I'd be posting all these things up on her blog instead, if she weren't modertaing and deleting comments.

    And please, not another "your jealous" accusation. I'm tired of hearing those.

     
  • At Montag, November 21, 2005 9:34:00 nachm., Anonymous ben said…

    Wha hahaaha.

    Ok. I get your point. Anyway, still interesting to see the battle between anti-XX and XX. So long as you explain yourself that you're not just trying to be jealous or what.

    Call me a war-monger if you want. but I kinda like the way you counter her compare to other anti-XX blogger out there.

     
  • At Donnerstag, November 24, 2005 6:02:00 nachm., Blogger DirtyDancer said…

    well said sandra. i read her post and was utterly disgusted. it showed a compelte lack of maturity. i'm glad your post addresses this issue, rather eloquently i must say.

     
  • At Freitag, März 09, 2007 8:01:00 nachm., Anonymous Monsu said…

    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
    by the way its animals are treated" ~ Mahatma Gandhi. I dun think Wendi could ever understand this. And what a pea brain she has!

     

Kommentar veröffentlichen

<< Home