draggonlaady: (Default)
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?

Profile

draggonlaady: (Default)
draggonlaady

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
1617181920 2122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 08:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios