Posted on 04/28/2011 11:07:30 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
'Pet' an insult to animals, academics say Fiona MacRae From: Herald Sun April 29, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these? Academics say that rather than being a term of endearment, "pets" is an insult to the animals concerned and their owners, who should be known as "human carers". Source: Herald Sun IN a statement that gives a whole new meaning to animal rights, leading academics have called for pets to be renamed "companion animals". They say that rather than being a term of endearment, "pets" is an insult to the animals concerned and their owners, who should be known as "human carers".
Editors of a new journal devoted to animal ethics, including an Oxford University theologian, also want the terms "pests" and "vermin" to be dropped. Wild animals, meanwhile, would be referred to as "free-living" or "free-ranging".
Even innocuous phrases such as "sly as a fox" and "drunk as a skunk" are seen as an affront to animals.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...
If “pet” is an insult, then what will Harry Reid call his sycophants in the future?
As once there was a functioning group known as “academia”, which consisted of educators and researchers, perhaps it would be best if such as Fiona were to be dubbed the “academented”?
Just a suggestion, you know.
;-)
Something else, “congresscritter" would be an insult. To critters.
Congressslime works for me, but I don't know how slime feels about it.
I like that so much, I’m going to co-opt it!
Someone will form a lobbying group and bring a lawsuit in the name of all slime everywhere.
hey I called my Chihuahua a pet this morning and guess what? He didn’t give a crap.
Slime Enfranchising International Union?
Yeah, except they already have a union... ;)
I referred to my wife as my pet only once. She promptly crapped in my chair and threw up on the keyboard...
Morons.
You can’t insult an animal because they are ego less.
Thanks!
Let’s see, the wikipedia article on the word “pet” begins, “A pet is an animal kept for companionship and enjoyment or a household animal, as opposed to wild animals or to livestock, laboratory animals, working animals or sport animals, which are kept for economic or productive reasons.”
The site www.thefreedictionary.com provides the definition
pet 1 (pt)
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.
3. A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher’s pet.
adj.
1. Kept as a pet: a pet cat.
2.
a. Particularly cherished or indulged: a pet grandchild.
b. Expressing or showing affection: a pet name.
3. Being a favorite: a pet topic.
v. pet·ted, pet·ting, pets
v.tr.
To stroke or caress gently; pat. See Synonyms at caress.
v.intr. Informal
To make love by fondling and caressing.
[Scottish Gaelic peata, tame animal, pet, from Old Irish.]
I think the “learned” folk who came up with this claptrap have problems with being called “pets” themselves, thinking it demeaning (which applied to a human being, I suppose it might be by virtue of reducing the person to the status of a tame animal — I mean the phrase “teacher’s pet” always has a sneer about it.), so they fancy the word in its proper meaning is demeaning to that which it properly describes. (One wonders, though, in what context they get called “pet”. As I understand it, some folks afflicted by exotic carnal temptations like being demeaned . . . but I digress.)
How much better off the world would be if “academics” actually had to work for a living, rather than get paid to sit around and dream up things to “improve”.
How much better would the world be if these activist loons were banned from teaching impressionable children and young adults?
Can couples still use “my pet” to describe each other? Can a dominatrix still use the term (if one ever has) to describe her pathetic male subjects?
The stupidity of most academics is directly proportional to the length of their career.
Not getting the bowl filled up fast enough is an insult too apparently.
Actually, what this is really about is the agenda of the animal rights movement to completely take animals out of interaction with humans. They desire to elevate all of the animal kingdom to the same level as people (or visa versa) and eventually you would not be able to keep pets (or eat animals—how can you eat something that has essentially the same level of legal protection as you?). This is serious business. They have already made inroads in laws regarding pet ownership and breeding. It’s coming.
My friend says we’re like the dinosaurs
Only we are doing ourselves in
Much faster than they
Ever did
We’ll make great pets!
We’ll make great pets!
“Pets” — Porno for Pyros
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.