Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pets should be renamed claim animal rights


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Animals should not be described as 'vermin', 'pests' or even 'pets', animal ethicists have decided.

Academics say that traditional words used to characterise animals like 'beasts' and 'critters' are derogatory and should be replaced.

They say words like 'pests' and 'vermin' should be dropped altogether, and 'pets' replaced by 'companion animals'.

'Wild animals' should be termed 'free living or free ranging animals' they argue, because 'wildness' is too close to 'uncivilised'.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mattshark

    14

  • aquatus1

    12

  • redhen

    9

  • H.H. Holmes

    8

I.. don't think the animals care what we call them. This is just to give them a warm fuzzy ... >.> Why don't they actually promote something more effective then this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't call my pet, pet. I call her Bella because that's her name :P

Thats a great name for a pet. Mine is Nooner. Too much preaching to the choir by ARA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very passionate about animal rights, and I think this is utterly stupid. As Silver C said, the animals don't care what we call them. All we can do is try to protect them when necessary, and try not to meddle too much with their lives (yeah, I know this is asking a lot, and yeah, too late for the latter, I know that too).

Honestly, if 'beast' is derogatory, 'animal' probably should be as well. What should be call them? "Non-humans"? Now, these people would find this equally as derogatory, but I'd find it a compliment. "Wildness is too close to uncivilized"? I guess that depends on your definition of civilization. Should we put them in suits and ties, and let them sue for malpractice? Deal with high crime rate and poverty? Civilization to some isn't civilization at all. Let the animals stay where they are, and as they are.

'For most, "wildness" is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence. There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.'

Are the animals making the prejudgement here? No. The people are. Instead of this rediculous stunt, perhaps they should work on educating the population on why they feel this behaviour is wrong, instead of steam-rolling over the actual issue here. Most people don't care what they're calling an animal unless they're calling it dinner. Maybe try to show people that another life is precious? But this is just stupid.

Yet again, the Animal Rights Community lets me down.

Edited by Kubla Funk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I.. don't think the animals care what we call them. This is just to give them a warm fuzzy ... >.> Why don't they actually promote something more effective then this?

I bet it is just the writing guidelines for the journal and is being total misreported. In fact I'd put money on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again, the Animal Rights Community lets me down.

You'd be better off with the animal welfare community instead :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't call my pet, pet. I call her Bella because that's her name :P

As long as you didn't name her after the main character in Stephanie Meyers abomination to language, that might be animal cruelty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you didn't name her after the main character in Stephanie Meyers abomination to language, that might be animal cruelty.

Hey! At some point I'm going to buy the ugliest looking rat I can find and call it Bella!

Only so I can go to Twishite fans "I named my pet after Bella from Twilight! She looks just like her" then show them a pic of this ugly rat.

Don't ruin my lifelong plan by saying it's cruelty to animals! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to an extent. I refer to my cat as a friend, I don't have a sense of ownership over him, however I refer to the chickens as dinner, so I guess it's subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pets are called my 'fur babies'

An extremely disturbing image just fashed through my head..... :unsure2:

You can call animals whatever you want really, but calling the nasty birds

that are destroying my roof "sky kittens" isn't going to stop my.... crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to me chickens are dinner and my dogs are my partners. Granted, canines aren't humans intellectual equals, but humans did indeed breed dogs to be their partners. We need to keep in mind our responsibility to the domestic animals we quite literally created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear heavens... gotta get all PC about animals too? Animals can be pests, vermin, pets, beasts.. bla bla bla.. Is some tree hugger union gonna pop up now and say that we can't call a tree a weed or plant because those terms might be offensive to the dignity of trees or their importance to some people?

And NSS wilderness implies something unruly and uncivilized. That's sort of the point of calling them wild animals- they are usually uncivilized compared to domestic animals, and should be treated warily because of that. A lot of wild animals DO live a barbaric existence. That's sort of the way nature intended it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come on people why do you want to hurt the little animals feelings by calling the pet or wild. poor little bitty things that dont understand anything unless you teach it to them. so why are these animal rights people teaching the animals what the words mean and that they are bad words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear heavens... gotta get all PC about animals too? Animals can be pests, vermin, pets, beasts.. bla bla bla.. Is some tree hugger union gonna pop up now and say that we can't call a tree a weed or plant because those terms might be offensive to the dignity of trees or their importance to some people?

And NSS wilderness implies something unruly and uncivilized. That's sort of the point of calling them wild animals- they are usually uncivilized compared to domestic animals, and should be treated warily because of that. A lot of wild animals DO live a barbaric existence. That's sort of the way nature intended it to be.

Read post #6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read post #6

Post 6 says "I bet it is just the writing guidelines for the journal and is being total misreported. In fact I'd put money on it. "

I wouldn't doubt it is in some way being mis-represented. Unfortunately, the electronic form of The Journal of Animal Ethics is not available yet from U of I press.. I will have to see just how misrepresented that Journal has been.

However, there is a description of that Journal out... Or at least I'm assuming it's the Animal Ethics Journal..

LAUNCH OF GROUND-BREAKING

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ETHICS

April 2, 2011

A ground-breaking new journal covering the issue of animal ethics has been launched by a US and UK academic partnership with the goal of widening international debate about the moral status of animals. This month, the University of Illinois Press will publish the pioneering new Journal of Animal Ethics (JAE), the result of years of collaboration between the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and the University Press.

The Journal of Animal Ethics, which is to be published bi-annually in the summer and winter, is jointly edited by the internationally known theologian the Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey, Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, and Professor Priscilla Cohn, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University and Associate Director of the Centre. The JAE is the first academic journal in the world to include the phrase “animal ethics” in its title.

“For far too long, academics have been slow to contribute to the burgeoning public debate about animal ethics. This is an opportunity for them to make their contribution to a multidisciplinary journal that aims to put animal ethics on the academic map” said Professor Andrew Linzey. “We want to ensure that animals receive the academic attention they deserve.”

The Journal comprises: full-length scholarly articles, “argument” pieces in which authors will advance a particular perspective (usually related to current affairs) or respond to a previous article, review or research report, as well as review articles and book reviews.

The JAE is devoted to the exploration of progressive thought about animals and is multidisciplinary in nature and international in scope. It covers theoretical and applied aspects of animal ethics that will be of interest to academics from both the humanities and the sciences, as well as professionals working in the field of animal protection. It aims to publish ground-breaking work written by new and established academics from a wide range of disciplines including anthropology, ethics, history, law, literature, linguistics, political theory, religion and science.

In the first issue of the JAE: David M. Lavigne and William S. Lynn address Canada’s commercial seal hunt; Joel Marks writes on how animal suffering is unrecognized in research; Andrew Fenton and Frederic Gilbert question the use of animals in spinal cord research; Judith Benz-Schwarzburg and Andrew Knight examine the cognitive abilities of animals and asks how long they can be denied similar rights to humans; Grace Clement asks whether animals can be classed as “pets or meat”? Barbro Froding, Martin Peterson, and Mark J. Rowlands debate whether animal ethics should be based on friendship, and Jan Deckers and Jay B. McDaniel debate whether Whiteheadians should be vegetarians.

Should be an interesting read :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love animals--but really---with all that's going on in the world, this is what these people worry about? Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 6 says "I bet it is just the writing guidelines for the journal and is being total misreported. In fact I'd put money on it. "

I wouldn't doubt it is in some way being mis-represented. Unfortunately, the electronic form of The Journal of Animal Ethics is not available yet from U of I press.. I will have to see just how misrepresented that Journal has been.

However, there is a description of that Journal out... Or at least I'm assuming it's the Animal Ethics Journal..

LAUNCH OF GROUND-BREAKING

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ETHICS

April 2, 2011

A ground-breaking new journal covering the issue of animal ethics has been launched by a US and UK academic partnership with the goal of widening international debate about the moral status of animals. This month, the University of Illinois Press will publish the pioneering new Journal of Animal Ethics (JAE), the result of years of collaboration between the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and the University Press.

The Journal of Animal Ethics, which is to be published bi-annually in the summer and winter, is jointly edited by the internationally known theologian the Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey, Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, and Professor Priscilla Cohn, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University and Associate Director of the Centre. The JAE is the first academic journal in the world to include the phrase "animal ethics" in its title.

"For far too long, academics have been slow to contribute to the burgeoning public debate about animal ethics. This is an opportunity for them to make their contribution to a multidisciplinary journal that aims to put animal ethics on the academic map" said Professor Andrew Linzey. "We want to ensure that animals receive the academic attention they deserve."

The Journal comprises: full-length scholarly articles, "argument" pieces in which authors will advance a particular perspective (usually related to current affairs) or respond to a previous article, review or research report, as well as review articles and book reviews.

The JAE is devoted to the exploration of progressive thought about animals and is multidisciplinary in nature and international in scope. It covers theoretical and applied aspects of animal ethics that will be of interest to academics from both the humanities and the sciences, as well as professionals working in the field of animal protection. It aims to publish ground-breaking work written by new and established academics from a wide range of disciplines including anthropology, ethics, history, law, literature, linguistics, political theory, religion and science.

In the first issue of the JAE: David M. Lavigne and William S. Lynn address Canada's commercial seal hunt; Joel Marks writes on how animal suffering is unrecognized in research; Andrew Fenton and Frederic Gilbert question the use of animals in spinal cord research; Judith Benz-Schwarzburg and Andrew Knight examine the cognitive abilities of animals and asks how long they can be denied similar rights to humans; Grace Clement asks whether animals can be classed as "pets or meat"? Barbro Froding, Martin Peterson, and Mark J. Rowlands debate whether animal ethics should be based on friendship, and Jan Deckers and Jay B. McDaniel debate whether Whiteheadians should be vegetarians.

Should be an interesting read :)

Thanks for your post, interesting indeed!

I hope they also address the the disgusting practice by pedigreed dog breeders and supported by the Westminster Kennel Club, of breeding dogs (or any animal) for characteristics detrimental to the health of the animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, it's things like this that keep Animal Rights and Animal Welfare from being taken seriously by the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait...there are animal rights academics?

In all cases, I don't think referring to a "wild" animal as "free-ranging" is going to do a whole lot of good. All it would do is move an animal from the off-the-menu portion of my brain to the meat-on-the-table portion of my brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, it's things like this that keep Animal Rights and Animal Welfare from being taken seriously by the mainstream.

Animal welfare is taken seriously by the mainstream, at least in science anyway, my MSc is in Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Animal rights is a more extremist position though.

I don't think this journal is about animal rights though, I think that has also been misrepresented by the article. But commonly people don't recognise the difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait...there are animal rights academics?

In all cases, I don't think referring to a "wild" animal as "free-ranging" is going to do a whole lot of good. All it would do is move an animal from the off-the-menu portion of my brain to the meat-on-the-table portion of my brain.

I think that is the author not understand the difference between rights and welfare.

Free ranging is already used in science to describe wild animals, which again why I think this is misrepresentation. Just something to make little Englanders cross in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free-range is also used by my butcher for the slightly more expensive, but more tender and tasty, cuts of meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free-range is also used by my butcher for the slightly more expensive, but more tender and tasty, cuts of meat.

:lol::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.