Posted on 09/13/2024 10:31:19 AM PDT by DFG
An aggressive otter pulled a young child off a dock and dragged them underwater at a marina in Washington, officials said.
The attack happened at about 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 12 at the Bremerton Marina, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife said in a news release.
A family was walking down the dock when the animal appeared and pulled the child underwater for a few moments, officials said.
The mom reached into the water to rescue her child and was bitten on the arm by the attacking otter, officials said.
She was able to get her child to safety, but the otter followed after the family as they left the dock, official said.
Officials said the child was taken to a hospital for bites and scratches to their head, face and legs.
“We are grateful the victim only sustained minor injuries, due to the mother’s quick actions and child’s resiliency,” WDFW Sgt. Ken Balazs said in a statement.
Details regarding the child’s age and sex were not released by officials.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services was contacted to trap and kill river otters at the marina.
The animals will then be taken to the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab for testing, including rabies.
River otters can be unpredictable and territorial, officials said.
In the last 10 years, there have been six reports of “human-river otter incidents” in Washington, officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
ICWYDT. Twice, in fact.
Might be one of those Log Cabin Republicans. Not that there's anything right with that.
Then the reported should have just said "the child."
The article you referenced shows that the singular "they" was considered incorrect until recently, i.e. until pushed by members of the "gender neutral" LGBT crowd. If they can advocate for its use, those who do not accept their ideology can advocate for its incorrectness.
In standard English, as opposed to politicized woke English, the proper generic pronoun is “he.”
There is no such thing as “nonbinary.” These are confused people who refuse the accept there actual sex.
Although there are historical examples of its use, it was considered incorrect until the woke crowd started to force it down everyone’s throat. If they can advocate for its use, I can advocate for its incorrectness.
I do not care for what someone’s “self-identified pronoun” is. A person is either male or female according to his biology.
There isn’t necessarily a leftist bogeyman behind every tree we encounter.
Yes, there are interests involved in undermining our culture; but in this article the usage is common and not incorrect. I’m an old lady and have heard and employed this usage all of my life, especially in contexts where the sex of a subject is unknown.
I humbly suggest that if you're going to argue about proper English usage, you double-check your homonyms while doing so.
Typo noted but the point remains.
I humbly disagree. While in your experience the usage may have been common (I have never heard it until recent) it still remains incorrect. And yes, the present attempt to normalize its usage is an attempt to normalize the concept of non-binary.
As it happens I agree to some extent with both of you. Like Jamestown1630, I have heard, read, and used "they", "their", and "theirs" to indicate single individuals of unknown sex, for roughly seven decades (I'm 72, but I assume I didn't learn correct English for my first few years). But I also agree that as those are used these days for confused individuals, it rankles me no end.
I find that this happens often when we are conversing on an internet forum. Some people definitely seem not to know the correct spellings; but even when people do, these errors are common.
In the latter cases, it seems to me to happen because our communication here is an unusual amalgam of writing and speaking; in a way we are ‘hearing’ and ‘speaking’ what we write at the same time we are writing it; it seems to sometimes cause our brains to become confused...
She was attacked, looked horrible .
There are two prominent otter groups in Singapore and the otters have been used to promote the city, so I doubt if any harm will come to the otters.
The ‘present attempt’ is a misuse of it. It originally had no political/ideological point. It was just an effective usage in certain contexts.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.
.....The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing, and just the other day a teacher told me that he still corrects students who use everyone … their in their papers.....
Originally it may not have had a political/ideological point, but it does today. And while it may have been common with some, it has been considered incorrect for the last 300 years. Its general acceptance now is directly tied to the push to accept the premise of non-binary. Today that is the context.
Your ‘general acceptance’ notion seems as modern a construct as the gender-bending ideas are. I’m not familiar with this ‘acceptance’ at all, and I don’t think the author of the article meant to use the singular they in any but the centuries-old manner.
I’m finished.
(Someday, let’s argue about the ‘generic masculine’. I use it all the time, and ‘general acceptance’ today probably finds it offensive.)
Thanks for the conversation.
I knew it!!
I have to differ; your reference to its first apparent usage in English literature is no doubt correct; but the actual use of it has been employed ever since in common language.
I would go so far as to say otterwordly.
rThis is what happens when you cross the Otter-Man border.
"pulled a young child off a dock and dragged them underwater".
So, was it one child or more than one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.