Journal: Don’t Call Animals ‘Pets’

26 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  fishinjay on May 10 at 3:14 p.m.

  Some people have too much time on their hands….
  My dog is my property, and he has never expressed anything but joy at that fact.

• 

  hhuseland on May 10 at 3:24 p.m.

  Just another unelected entity trying to coerce us to change the rules to fit their personal standards.

• 

  JeanC on May 10 at 3:27 p.m.

  I sometimes refer to my cats as pets, but most times I refer to them as my “Lords and Masters” :D

• 

  Ender on May 10 at 3:34 p.m.

  This position seems not be far from the beliefs held by Glenn Beck’s favorite target in times past, Cass Sunstein.

  Sunstein, at one point up for a czar position within the Obama administration, advocated the animals - or whatever we should call them - should be able to sue for their rights. Not kidding.

  http://www.stopsunstein.com/media/pdf/Sunstein%20quote%20file.pdf

  and here:

  http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/3807-exposed-the-secret-animal-rights-agenda-of-americas-next-regulatory-czar

  This is truly the talk of nut jobs.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on May 10 at 3:38 p.m.

  Hoo boy - right along there with Peta mentality. My pets are exactly that - my pets. Meaning I pet them. They pet me. We are companions and buddies. Now, if I had a cow that I was raising for meat - it would NOT be a pet because I couldn’t come up with enough reasons why I should kill and eat my pet. I’m not a vegetarian, but then again, I don’t really want to be on a personal affectionate relationship with my dinner.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 10 at 3:38 p.m.

  I refer to them as fodder and threaten to put them in a blender. But that’s how I roll.

  By their logic I’m thinking that such a notion would include the avoidance of using the possessive when referring to “animal companions”. I view this nonsense as a ridiculous extension of the anthropomorphizing of animals. I advocate for humane treatment of animals. I see little reason to establish rules to treat them as humans.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 10 at 3:41 p.m.

  Ick. I had to shower after clicking on Ender’s links. Do you have another source because that ain’t a reliable one?

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 3:46 p.m.

  No. Ender has no reliable links.

  Those of us with a bit of rationality between our ears learn that when something sounds that insane, it is insane. And nobody who refers to “czars” is reliable to begin with.

• 

  Ender on May 10 at 3:46 p.m.

  @Sis Merry Christmas:

  http://www.examiner.com/hunting-and-fishing-in-baltimore/cass-sunstein-animal-rights-views-should-activists-stop-him-from-joining-obama-administration

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 3:51 p.m.

  Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished. (source)

  Clearly, Sunstein is saying that third parties should be able to sue for an animal’s benefit. NOT that animals can sue.

  You simply cannot believe extremist right-wingers.

• 

  Ender on May 10 at 3:52 p.m.

  @IdahoGie

  Watch this … I can do something you can’t …. I can blast people on both sides of the fence. - Obama has czars. Bush had czars. Clinton has czars. Bush 41 has czars. I bet Reagan had czars.

  Like that?

  Why don’t you just pony up and claim this guy? I mean, he is firmly in your camp, isn’t he? He’s a lefty whack job who wants to put humans last. We conservatives will claim the far-right fringes of our movement if you accept responsibility for this idiot.

• 

  Cindy_H on May 10 at 3:58 p.m.

  I have a pet husband, four pet sons and a pet cat. None of them mind being called my pets, and none of them come when they’re called.

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 3:59 p.m.

  Ender,

  How about you own up to spreading nonsense? Then I’ll take a turn.

• 

  Sisyphus on May 10 at 4:23 p.m.

  Ender, while that new link you provided is from a somewhat better source, its still an opinion piece in regional newspaper from a guy with an axe to grind who is likely all hopped up on the same misinformation you’ve been huffing. The concept of extending legal standing to animals has been around for decades and was the subject of more than a few SCOTUS opinions, usually in the context of environmental legislation. It is not “whacked out” by any stretch. And I don’t think that a guy who supported Chief Justice Roberts is a political ideologue. But this is another very fine example of how the right wing gets all wound up by frequenting misinformation sites which cherry pick information and place it out of context for the purpose of inflaming. The trouble is, you never seem to learn from your mistakes.

• 

  Kootenai_Conservative on May 10 at 4:25 p.m.

  “We conservatives will claim the far-right fringes of our movement if you accept responsibility for this idiot.

  O RLY? I do not claim responsibility for you.

• 

  DFO on May 10 at 4:36 p.m.

  Does every thread have to degenerate into some sort of back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives here? Have you guys ever heard of fun? Seriously, take your elbow throwing back to your own blogs, Facebook & Twitter. You’re driving off people who want to comment here without worrying about being attack by some humorless ideologues. And I’m tired of it.

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 5:31 p.m.

  Some of us are being responsible by clearing up misinformation. Sorry it happened on a “fun” thread, DFO. But that is the fault of one person — not all the others who are being reasonable.

  To return to the topic, I think it’s a reasonable position to take for an animal rights organization to highlight the fact that thinking about animals as “property” causes problems. Not that I agree with them. But it’s not an “insane” position to have.

• 

  DFO on May 10 at 5:38 p.m.

  @ Idahogie re: “But that is the fault of one person — not all the others who are being reasonable.”

  I think you’re adult enough to clean up what you consider to be misinformation without throwing elbows. And I expect the same on un-fun posts.

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 6:28 p.m.

  Civility is over-rated. It’s what allowed the teabaggers to be treated as if they were reasonable, rational people.

• 

  Cis on May 10 at 7:00 p.m.

  JESUS….Sorry, just asking for help from higher above…
  Why does everything have to be definite in such a matter.
  My dog and cat are my pets and my husband and I are the staff that takes care of them.. That is our thoughts, and we don’t push that on any one else…
  Why do we even listen to these clowns? off to better things to do.

• 

  idahogie on May 10 at 7:11 p.m.

  Nobody’s forcing anything on you, Cis. Just think about it, that’s all.

  Do you react that way when someone says “God bless you?” Religious people are pushing their beliefs the same way all the time. There’s no reason for anyone to have such a negative reaction to an animal rights organization bringing up a valid point.

  This reminds me very much of the thread a couple days ago when some Native Americans objected to the use of “Geronimo” as a code name for bin Laden. Several people jumped all over them, calling them “overly sensitive.”

  Civility in this forum seems to be limited to not saying anything directly to another commenter. But anybody suggesting that a minority viewpoint should be considered gets insulted.

  If you’re part of a privileged group — white, christian, wealthy, etc. — there’s no reason to whine when a minority group complains or simply presses their issue.

• 

  Escapee on May 10 at 9:05 p.m.

  So is the argument something along the lines of, “If kept animals could understand languages, they would be offended by the term ‘Pets’?” This is great. Just when you think people have gone too far in Political Correctness, I hear about something like this. Now we’re trying to invade the thought processes of animals. And the people who come out with stuff like this have Too Much Time On Their Hands. Animals Have No Ethics. They are Animals, for cryin’ out loud. They all operate on Instinct.

• 

  Norther on May 10 at 9:31 p.m.

  I have two cats and a very good dog. They are pets but I have a sneaking suspicion they think more along the lines of me being theirs.

• 

  idahogie on May 11 at 6:56 a.m.

  So is the argument something along the lines of, “If kept animals could understand languages, they would be offended by the term ‘Pets’?”

  No, that’s not at all the argument. That’s a silly caricature, better known as a straw man.

  The argument is that people would treat their animals better if they stopped thinking of them as property. It really isn’t worth talking about the issue if it’s too much to represent the argument honestly.

• 

  scootermom on May 11 at 7:12 a.m.

  We call our dogs our “idiot children.”

  That pretty much describes them, and our relationship with them.

• 

  WHS on May 11 at 7:35 a.m.

  Hmm, I have three cats and one dog. They are all my pets .

  My pet cats are named:
  G*d Dam, Piece of Sh*t & Get Out!
  My pet dog is named: Sir Raleigh the Hunter or as I affectionately call him… HERE! COME HERE GDAMMIT!

  And yet, every night when I come home, all of them come to the gate together to greet me and get some petting, they are all happy when it’s feeding time and each night they fight for prime space on my lap…

  I don’t think they care what they are called. As long as I feed them and give them love and attention, they could care less.

  WHS

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic