How probably? Sure it wasn’t a fox, a dog or another predator? I certainly would hesitate to accuse immigrants.Given the area of town is a poorer section with lots of immigrants. The roosters probably got eaten and the hens sold or kept for eggs.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How probably? Sure it wasn’t a fox, a dog or another predator? I certainly would hesitate to accuse immigrants.Given the area of town is a poorer section with lots of immigrants. The roosters probably got eaten and the hens sold or kept for eggs.
I really hoped for a different ending. She was beautiful, sweet, young, and you did so much to care for her.And I'm still sad about Lorna the Dorking pullet.
View attachment 3607537
They're a very endearing species.
I think I may be done with chickens when all 19s are gone. But hopefully that won't be before a long time, since the last six are not even three months old.My convictions would lead me to suggest to every chicken keeper I addressed on just about any issue would be don't keep chickens
I hope you’ll get there ! I started working part time before quitting completely and it made a huge difference.I can't wait to be promoted to "Bucket Boy". (right now I need to be in academia to feed my chooks ...)
I do find chickens most often a thousand time more peaceful than managing colleagues and professional projects. However, when there is chicken stress, it is a lot more emotionally taxing, at least for me. But you already deal with that on top of having a job so yes, you will probably find it very peaceful.I trust obsessing over this or that hen's latest wobbly step or sneeze or weird poop will be far more pleasant than keeping 100s of students and dozens teaching staff all heading in the same direction. But I've been known to misplace my trust before now
@GregnLety already explained it on the FBA thread. While the migrant is indeed an hypothesis, sadly the human specie of the theft is certain.How probably? Sure it wasn’t a fox, a dog or another predator? I certainly would hesitate to accuse immigrants.
No, she is fluffed up from going (half heartedly) broody! We thought it would never happen, since Merle and Léa have been broody countless times, but never her. We can't let her set obviously.Piou-Piou surely is going through a lot, now that she is having worm issues :-( In one of the pictures she looks like she has more feathers on her?
I think it can, as long as things stay civil, which is usually easier if there's a moderator or chairperson to make sure everyone gets their say and is not shouted down or deliberately humiliated. Cooling off periods / intermissions are helpful too.Do you feel like having debates, even overheated ones, can actually be helpful to convince people ?
Postpone for another occasion, when calm has been restored - and suggest doing this before things get heated. Of course all this is easier said than doneIs there a better way to deal with this than just cutting off further discussion?
You have written an interesting article about the Ukraine war discussion with friends.A long rambling post about debating ideas, especially politics.
Putting it in spoiler so you can feel free to skip if not interested !
I’ve said before I can appreciate, if not enjoy, listening to people I disagree with explaining why they think this way. It's more the case when their opinion has been thought about and is at least a bit knowledgeable. I also said we disagree politically with most of our local friends, including those who came over for the weekend. We’ve known them for a very long time and usually we manage to stop discussions before they become arguments. I’m interested in phase 1 of the debate : explain why you think like this, give information, sources, facts, ask questions. What I truly hate is phase 2 : when it gets to i’m right and you are wrong and why can't you just see it since I said this and this and that.
So in this case, we disagreed over the war in Ukraine. I’ll explain briefly both sides point of view, but it's not what I want to get at. They strongly disapprove of France’s support to Ukraine while we approve with reservations.
What we agreed on : The support of NATO and our country France to Ukraine is not driven by humanistic considerations but economic and geostrategic.
Putin is a ruthless leader who doesn't tolerate dissent but he has built the Russian country back economically from the disaster it was in after the fall of communism, and especially due to Eltsin's terrible mandate. Until the war he had a massive support of the Russian population and he is still very much approved of.
It is understandable that under the circumstances Ukraine decided to go fully into war.
What we disagree on :
We find Putin is the aggressor in this story and his motives is driven by nostalgia for the old big CCCR. We think Ukraine has the right to remain an independent country and to enter NATO if it wishes. We think NATO is there to support imperialist economics, but has no interest in war.
They think NATO is the aggressor, as any country on the Russian frontier adhering to them is a direct military threat to Russia. They believe Putin is acting as a real statesman, with a vision for his country, and putting the Russian population's interest before his own. While they don't agree with the way he deals with political opponents, they think it's a sort of collateral damage to a strong leadership.
After a lot of moderate discussion, checking historical facts, and explaining positions, the discussion degenerated into the type of heated argument I hate. When we got deeper, it turns out we disagree on things that I would call core personal values, and those things don't depends on facts. Do you believe economical welfare is so important for a population, that it can justify the sacrifice of some freedom of thought and action, or not ? Or to come back to chickens, like @Perris stated it, are you ready to let one of your individual chicken die because you want to preserve collective health / environment, or not ? I think the answer each of us has to that type of questions, will not change or move through heated arguments. These values are built for each of us through a whole life and while they may evolve, this will happen through life experiences and specific events. They make us who we are.
So I hated how our discussion turned out and I think I'm less and less able to debate controversial points, as it is very rare that the discussion remains on the simple exchange of information and ideas without trying to convince the other party, and when it switches to trying to convince, it's just one step to "how can you be so stupid to not think like I do". It's why I was very glad @Perris made an article on DIY feed instead of just replying to opponents. And it's why I prefer reading medias to TV or radio.
I know some of you believe it's important to stand strongly for your opinions. Do you feel like having debates, even overheated ones, can actually be helpful to convince people ?
Is there a better way to deal with this than just cutting off further discussion?
I think our friendship will survive but honestly I believe we won't be seeing each other for quite a while .
We are certain they were stolen. Multiple chickens gone. No blood, no piles of feathers. Just gone. Nothing personal against immigrants, I'm married to one. Thieves are thieves no matter where they're from.How probably? Sure it wasn’t a fox, a dog or another predator? I certainly would hesitate to accuse immigrants.
They weren't locked up.What a shame they weren't locked up. Or did the thieves break through the chickens' locks?
It is such a shame when that happens. I too find myself in general avoiding deep discussions because I hate the fight - but that is sad in itself - and as we have seen in the US results in dangerous polarization.A long rambling post about debating ideas, especially politics.
Putting it in spoiler so you can feel free to skip if not interested !
I’ve said before I can appreciate, if not enjoy, listening to people I disagree with explaining why they think this way. It's more the case when their opinion has been thought about and is at least a bit knowledgeable. I also said we disagree politically with most of our local friends, including those who came over for the weekend. We’ve known them for a very long time and usually we manage to stop discussions before they become arguments. I’m interested in phase 1 of the debate : explain why you think like this, give information, sources, facts, ask questions. What I truly hate is phase 2 : when it gets to i’m right and you are wrong and why can't you just see it since I said this and this and that.
So in this case, we disagreed over the war in Ukraine. I’ll explain briefly both sides point of view, but it's not what I want to get at. They strongly disapprove of France’s support to Ukraine while we approve with reservations.
What we agreed on : The support of NATO and our country France to Ukraine is not driven by humanistic considerations but economic and geostrategic.
Putin is a ruthless leader who doesn't tolerate dissent but he has built the Russian country back economically from the disaster it was in after the fall of communism, and especially due to Eltsin's terrible mandate. Until the war he had a massive support of the Russian population and he is still very much approved of.
It is understandable that under the circumstances Ukraine decided to go fully into war.
What we disagree on :
We find Putin is the aggressor in this story and his motives is driven by nostalgia for the old big CCCR. We think Ukraine has the right to remain an independent country and to enter NATO if it wishes. We think NATO is there to support imperialist economics, but has no interest in war.
They think NATO is the aggressor, as any country on the Russian frontier adhering to them is a direct military threat to Russia. They believe Putin is acting as a real statesman, with a vision for his country, and putting the Russian population's interest before his own. While they don't agree with the way he deals with political opponents, they think it's a sort of collateral damage to a strong leadership.
After a lot of moderate discussion, checking historical facts, and explaining positions, the discussion degenerated into the type of heated argument I hate. When we got deeper, it turns out we disagree on things that I would call core personal values, and those things don't depends on facts. Do you believe economical welfare is so important for a population, that it can justify the sacrifice of some freedom of thought and action, or not ? Or to come back to chickens, like @Perris stated it, are you ready to let one of your individual chicken die because you want to preserve collective health / environment, or not ? I think the answer each of us has to that type of questions, will not change or move through heated arguments. These values are built for each of us through a whole life and while they may evolve, this will happen through life experiences and specific events. They make us who we are.
So I hated how our discussion turned out and I think I'm less and less able to debate controversial points, as it is very rare that the discussion remains on the simple exchange of information and ideas without trying to convince the other party, and when it switches to trying to convince, it's just one step to "how can you be so stupid to not think like I do". It's why I was very glad @Perris made an article on DIY feed instead of just replying to opponents. And it's why I prefer reading medias to TV or radio.
I know some of you believe it's important to stand strongly for your opinions. Do you feel like having debates, even overheated ones, can actually be helpful to convince people ?
Is there a better way to deal with this than just cutting off further discussion?
I think our friendship will survive but honestly I believe we won't be seeing each other for quite a while .
Manue explained . I was unaware you explained in another thread about the missing chickens and why you were certain humans caused the disappearance.We are certain they were stolen. Multiple chickens gone. No blood, no piles of feathers. Just gone. Nothing personal against immigrants, I'm married to one. Thieves are thieves no matter where they're from.