It’s time to change your ways human carers; you are insulting your companion animals and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you use terms like pets, wild- life, critters, beasts, or pests, the Journal of Animal Ethics has a (non-animal) bone to pick with you and your lack of sensitivity.
A (wackier than normal) group of leading animal ethicists is calling for a new “animal language” because the common animal terms we use “send out the wrong message.” To whom, exactly? The Rat would call these people “loons,” but that would be an affront to loons. Anyway, check out a few of their “academic” observations:
“Pets” is a derogatory term to both the animals and their “human carers” alike. The word “owners” is insulting, of course, because it harkens back to a previous age when animals were regarded as property or things. And the point is what?
“Wildlife” is insulting because “wildness” is synonymous with an uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence. Apparently these guys missed the Great Migrations episode where the “uncivilized” crocodiles behave in a rather “unrestrained” manner when the water buffalo attempt to cross the river.
“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.” The ethicists’ preferred terminology? “Free-living,” “free-ranging” or “free-roaming.” Really? Something tells the Rat that if one of these brainiacs were being mauled by a “free-living” grizzly, he’d wish he had done a bit of “prejudgement” himself.
As if this isn’t crazy enough, there’s more. Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals too. (without explaining, of course, just exactly how foxes, pigs and skunks have figured out all of this “unfairness” in the first place.)
“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them,” concluded the Journal. “Thinking clearly” are ya? Seriously?
*
Speaking of “not thinking clearly,” is it insulting for the Rat to refer to himself as the Rat?
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
The biggest danger with being very open minded is having your brain fall out of your head. My dog will get respect when it goes to college and gets a job. As long as it is free loading off me, I get to call it what I want.
Well said Zazu. True too.
My dogs get respect so long as they respect me. It’s a mutual exchange.
Good lord. This is just as nonsensical as the movement to endow the earth with human rights.
These people are so bass-ackwards worshiping the creation, not the Creator.
Check out the It’s not your mother bumper sticker shown here.
That’s exactly the problem…worshipping the creation (and, all too often, worshipping THEMSELVES) rather than the Creator.
One definition of an atheist is one who puts no God before himself.
Good one, 1389! I like the others at your blog, too. Looking to sell my sportscar before we move out west, and once I get a “sensible” vehicle again, I will definitely be getting one or two of those. (Currently, I’m limiting myself to these small stickers and still surprised I haven’t been keyed or egged yet.)
Well, um, animals are regarded as property and ‘things’. I’ve bought and sold many different kinds on many different occasions ranging from fish to frogs to tropical insects and birds to dogs. What a bunch of twits who apparently have nothing better to do. I guess when you see yourself as little more than a shaved ape, then suddenly hamsters have rights to.
Stop, Dave…STOP!!!
Aww. The one on the right reminds me of our “Guinevere”. Mr. Mo and I started out low on the food chain with our *gasp* “pets”. Had hamsters and Guinea pigs in our apt. and condo before we adopted our doggies. Mr. Mo was still finding cedar chips in some of his books years later, lol.
I find your argument to be very speciest and homocentric Dave, your worldview presupposes a sapien supremacist power structure that I reject.
Guilty as charged.
The 7% DNA makes the different and give the edges to homo sapien supremacy. Evolution just goofed on this.
Well, PETA started out a ways back claiming animals needed to wear pants and owners were responsible for providing them…that got them into the news too.
Doesn’t the Bible specifically grant man “dominion” over all the critters? So now these folks need to get rid of that, somehow.
Fairly shortly, it won’t matter anyway; cities and counties are eliminating “pet” ownership by making the creatures too expensive and by forbidding their sale. Maybe they’ll remain available as food, though.
Crossposted to FR
It’s hard to remain loving and kind when a 1,000 lb horse is pushing you into a fence while you try to feed it. Those are times I throw elbows, kick and hit it with my fist while yelling obscenities the neighbors can hear. It doesn’t hurt the horse. You know what you can do is nothing after you have received your first horse kick that slams you back about twenty feet. Horses kick each other all the time.