draggonlaady: (Default)
draggonlaady ([personal profile] draggonlaady) wrote2011-04-28 12:56 pm

Your daily dose of ridiculous

The editors of Journal of Animal Ethics would like you to know that “despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers.”

The highlight of the article, as far as I'm concerned: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’. For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence. There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”

Prejudgment? I suppose so, but it's an accurate judgment. Anybody who thinks that wild animals (yeah, I said it!) are civilized, restrained, courteous, and kind (or whatever the opposite of barbarous is) has obviously never seen a wild animal. How much kindness does the squirrel expect from the owl? How restrained do you think a moose typically is? For frack's sake, why don't these people go do something useful, like volunteer at a wildlife rescue and SEE some of the damn things, and maybe help them in a real, tangible way instead of hiding out in an ivory tower telling us to re-arrange our vocabulary?

[identity profile] myuphrid.livejournal.com 2011-04-28 08:03 pm (UTC)(link)
As if the animal in question even cares. I can't imagine any pet would care what we called them as long as we were prompt with treats and stroking.

[identity profile] draggonlaady.livejournal.com 2011-04-28 10:21 pm (UTC)(link)
You mean you're not buying it that the coyote feels insulted when I refer to him as "wild"? heheh

[identity profile] myuphrid.livejournal.com 2011-04-29 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
Not for a moment. Coyotes only speak Coyote, anyway.