This is not a joke.....
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
=93pets=94 because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
=93companion animals=94 while owners should be known as =93human carers=94,
they insist.
Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals
concerned =96 who should instead be known as =93free-living=94, the
academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a
new academic publication devoted to the issue.
It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and
director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an
honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work
promoting the rights of =93God=92s sentient creatures=94.
In its first editorial, the journal =96 jointly published by Prof
Linzey=92s centre and the University of Illinois in the US =96 condemns
the use of terms such as =94critters=94 and =93beasts=94.
It argues that =93derogatory=94 language about animals can affect the way
that they are treated.
=93Despite its prevalence, =91pets=92 is surely a derogatory term both of
the animals concerned and their human carers,=94 the editorial claims.
=93Again the word =91owners=92, whilst technically correct in law, harks
back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that:
property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.=94
It goes on: =93We invite authors to use the words =91free-living=92, =91fre=
e-
ranging=92 or =91free-roaming=92 rather than =91wild animals=92
=93For most, =91wildness=92 is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained,
barbarous existence.
=93There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.=94
Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State
University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful
terms in the English language stamped out.
Phrases such as =93sly as a fox, =93eat like a pig=94 or =93drunk as a skun=
k=94
are all unfair to animals, they claim.
=93We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves
to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and
our moral relations with them," they say.
On 4/28/2011 4:11 PM, willshak wrote:
> Robatoy wrote the following:
>> This is not a joke.....
>>
>> ==========
>>
>>
>> Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>>
>> Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
>> pets because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
>> Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
>> companion animals while owners should be known as human carers,
>> they insist.
>
> Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
>
Save the whales; collect the entire set.
On 4/28/2011 3:52 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> This is not a joke.....
>
> ==========
>
>
> Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>
> Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
> pets because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
> Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
> companion animals while owners should be known as human carers,
> they insist.
Animals have rights. The have the right to be tasty.
"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 4/28/2011 6:12 PM, WW wrote:
> Linzey and Cohn have too much free time to think . They need a day job.
> ww
My cute little bitch doesn't seem to mind .. neither does her dog.
:-O
On Apr 28, 7:06=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "willshak" wrote:
> > Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
>
> ------------------------
> Actually, cats are for target practice.
>
> At least they were where I spent my childhood.
>
> Any cat more than 1/4 mile away from the barn was shot on site, no
> questions asked.
>
> Lew
Waste of good pushsticks.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:52:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>This is not a joke.....
>
>==========
>
>
>Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>
>Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
>pets because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
>Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
>companion animals while owners should be known as human carers,
>they insist.
I love animals. They're delicious.
-Zz
On Apr 28, 8:10=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 6:12 PM, WW wrote:
>
> > Linzey and Cohn have too much free time to think . =A0They need a day j=
ob. =A0ww
>
> My cute little bitch doesn't seem to mind .. neither does her dog.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 4/15/2010
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
*snarf, snortle*
On Apr 28, 7:59=A0pm, Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:52:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >This is not a joke.....
>
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> >Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>
> >Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
> >=93pets=94 because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
> >Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
> >=93companion animals=94 while owners should be known as =93human carers=
=94,
> >they insist.
>
> I love animals. =A0They're delicious.
Not all. Have you ever had baby seal meat? When I ate flipper pie in
Newfoundland it tasted halfway between rotten chicken and rotten fish.
No thanks.
If not cooked properly, other critters can also can taste bad. I'm not
sure I'd want to eat skunk.
Luigi
Robatoy wrote the following:
> This is not a joke.....
>
> ==========
>
>
> Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>
> Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
> pets because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
> Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
> companion animals while owners should be known as human carers,
> they insist.
>
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.
> Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals
> concerned who should instead be known as free-living, the
> academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
> The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a
> new academic publication devoted to the issue.
> It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and
> director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an
> honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work
> promoting the rights of Gods sentient creatures.
> In its first editorial, the journal jointly published by Prof
> Linzeys centre and the University of Illinois in the US condemns
> the use of terms such as critters and beasts.
> It argues that derogatory language about animals can affect the way
> that they are treated.
> Despite its prevalence, pets is surely a derogatory term both of
> the animals concerned and their human carers, the editorial claims.
> Again the word owners, whilst technically correct in law, harks
> back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that:
> property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.
> It goes on: 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.
> Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State
> University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful
> terms in the English language stamped out.
> Phrases such as sly as a fox, eat like a pig or drunk as a skunk
> are all unfair to animals, they claim.
> We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves
> to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and
> our moral relations with them," they say.
>
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
On 4/28/2011 5:52 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> This is not a joke.....
>
> ==========
>
>
> Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
>
> Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
> âpetsâ because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
> Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
> âcompanion animalsâ while owners should be known as âhuman carersâ,
> they insist.
> Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals
> concerned â who should instead be known as âfree-livingâ, the
> academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
> The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a
> new academic publication devoted to the issue.
> It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and
> director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an
> honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work
> promoting the rights of âGodâs sentient creaturesâ.
> In its first editorial, the journal â jointly published by Prof
> Linzeyâs centre and the University of Illinois in the US â condemns
> the use of terms such as âcrittersâ and âbeastsâ.
> It argues that âderogatoryâ language about animals can affect the way
> that they are treated.
> âDespite its prevalence, âpetsâ is surely a derogatory term both of
> the animals concerned and their human carers,â the editorial claims.
> âAgain the word âownersâ, whilst technically correct in law, harks
> back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that:
> property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.â
> It goes on: âWe invite authors to use the words âfree-livingâ, âfree-
> rangingâ or âfree-roamingâ rather than âwild animalsâ
> âFor most, âwildnessâ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained,
> barbarous existence.
> âThere is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.â
> Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State
> University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful
> terms in the English language stamped out.
> Phrases such as âsly as a fox, âeat like a pigâ or âdrunk as a skunkâ
> are all unfair to animals, they claim.
> âWe shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves
> to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and
> our moral relations with them," they say.
For as long as there have been humans and before, all animals are and
have been a basic source of protein, including dogs and cats if the need
comes up.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:52:12 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
> This is not a joke.....
>
> ==========
>
>
> Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
Calling humans 'intelligent' would be insulting if there were any species
to be insulted :-).
But you're right - that was funny - and pathetic.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9eb20a9f-c2fa-47da-8c59-c48b0d989515@x18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
This is not a joke.....
==========
Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim.
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends
pets because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as
companion animals while owners should be known as human carers,
they insist.
Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals
concerned who should instead be known as free-living, the
academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a
new academic publication devoted to the issue.
It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and
director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an
honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work
promoting the rights of Gods sentient creatures.
In its first editorial, the journal jointly published by Prof
Linzeys centre and the University of Illinois in the US condemns
the use of terms such as critters and beasts.
It argues that derogatory language about animals can affect the way
that they are treated.
Despite its prevalence, pets is surely a derogatory term both of
the animals concerned and their human carers, the editorial claims.
Again the word owners, whilst technically correct in law, harks
back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that:
property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.
It goes on: 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.
Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State
University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful
terms in the English language stamped out.
Phrases such as sly as a fox, eat like a pig or drunk as a skunk
are all unfair to animals, they claim.
We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves
to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and
our moral relations with them," they say.
Linzey and Cohn have too much free time to think . They need a day job. ww