There seems to be a question about whether it is OK to talk intuitively with an animal without permission from the animal’s person. Some say it would be unethical to do this. However, wouldn’t animals, like humans, have free will and the ability to refrain from talking to someone if they so chose?  I wouldn’t go to the husband to ask if I could talk to the wife, I would just talk to her if she wanted to talk to me. I don’t consider that he owns her. Is the assumption here that animals are not on a par with adults humans, but rather more like very young human children? Hmmmm. I don’t think that is the way most communicators experience the animals they talk with.

If the point of this proscription is to keep people from doing something negative to an animal, saying something upsetting etc.,  then the advice should be something like, ‘Always strive to do your best, and work toward the highest good of all concerned.’ And maybe you could add in, ‘And it’s probably best to talk with an animal with the person’s knowledge, but if there is a need to go directly to the animal, then OK.’

When might that be the case? What if an animal is being abused or is obviously really confused by the person. Wouldn’t it be OK then to talk to the animal to try to help in some way? What about wild animals, whose permission are you supposed to ask for there?

I’d say this whole issue needs a bit more examination. I for one have talked to many abused animals without getting permission from the people who were abusing the animals. I hope I helped them. In some cases I know it helped and we were able to rescue the animals. Your thoughts? 

Clever Seagull

This is an oldie but maybe some of you haven’t seen it….

 

New Words

Words that should be in the dictionary but aren’t. (OK, now I am just making them up…)

Polydogamous – adj. Possessing of more than one dog.

 By extension:  polycatamous, polyhorseamous, polychickenamous.