• Ethicists Peeved at Use of Term Pet
    122 replies, posted
[quote]PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- Are you the "owner" of a dog or cat? Maybe you should consider yourself a "human caregiver" instead. And Fido and Fluffy? Perhaps they should be "companion animals," not just "pets." Such vocabulary shifts will help elevate the discourse about other species and, in turn, improve our treatment of them, according to the new Journal on Animal Ethics. The foreword in the peer-reviewed academic publication, which was first published last month, even suggests getting rid of terms like "critters," "beasts" and "wild animals," along with phrases such as "drunk as a skunk" and "eat like a pig." "We do need to examine our language about animals because a lot of it is derogatory in the sense that it belittles them and our relations with them," journal co-editor Andrew Linzey said. Linzey, a theologian, heads the Centre for Animal Ethics at the University of Oxford in England. The journal, to be published twice yearly, is the first scholarly periodical to have the words "animal ethics" in the title, according to its publisher, the University of Illinois Press. It's not surprising that researchers are re-examining their language as animal treatment becomes more of a social issue, said James Serpell, a professor of animal welfare at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine. But Serpell doesn't necessarily agree with the recommended terminology, which he said could be taken to "absurd" extremes. "Relabeling pets 'companion animals' could be misleading as well," Serpell said. "The fish in the ornamental fish tank aren't really anyone's companion." More important for respecting animals is how they are perceived and treated in the legal system, said Susan Cosby, CEO of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "Currently animals are considered property regardless of what term we use to describe them," Cosby said in a statement Wednesday. Linzey declined further comment because of previous media coverage that he said inaccurately caricatured the issue as political correctness run amok. He stressed the preferred language does not stem from a desire to avoid "insulting" pets. "Obviously, animals cannot be insulted in the way in which people can be," he wrote in an email to The Associated Press. Journal co-editor Priscilla Cohn, a philosophy professor emerita at Penn State-Abington near Philadelphia, noted in an email that the discussion has implications for humans as well. Cruelty to animals has been linked with anti-social and abusive behavior in people, she wrote, while overcrowding animals on factory farms has repercussions for both human health and the environment. Cohn also said researchers continue to uncover fascinating insights into the animal kingdom, including communication among elephants and the social structure of wolves, which "are not the blood-thirsty wild beasts that many people imagine." "In other words, there has been an explosion of knowledge about animals that should make us consider them in a new light and perhaps change the manner in which we treat them," wrote Cohn, who has six cats and a dog. In California, The Humane Society of the United States is backing legislation to update language in old state animal-control laws. The bill would replace "pound" with "shelter" and "destroy" with "euthanize," changes that better reflect current views on animal welfare. "Those words matter," said Jennifer Fearing, the society's senior state director. The linguistic debate, which Serpell said has been covered previously in various academic journals, stems from animals being in a gray area: they are sentient creatures - more than objects or property - but less than fully human. Yet he acknowledged that inherently derogatory or disparaging language "perhaps makes it easier for us to justify exploiting them." Still, Serpell sees nothing wrong with the word "pet," which the fourth edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary defines as "an animal that is tamed or domesticated and kept as a companion or treated with fondness." Serpell's family has a veritable menagerie at home: a dog, a cat, three aquaria of fish, a pair of degus - like small chinchillas - and a bearded dragon. "We call them all 'pets' and don't consider the term denigrating," he said.[/quote] Are they being fucking serious? [url]http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/article/203626/82/New-Ethicists-Peeved-at-Use-of-Term-Pet?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p[/url]
[quote]Linzey, a theologian, heads the Centre for Animal Ethics at the University of Oxford in England.[/quote] Ha ha what a worthless fucking person for that job.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736139]Ha ha what a worthless fucking person.[/QUOTE] Ha ha what a fucking worthless post. Seriously Judging people based on their career choice?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736214]Ha ha what a fucking worthless post. Seriously Judging people based on their career choice?[/QUOTE] No as in literally useless. A theologian heading a center for Animal Ethics? Not a biologist? An ethicist? A philosopher? Maybe someone with actual in depth knowledge of the physiology and mental order of animals? No, a theologian. e: Shit, literally anyone with actual knowledge of something relating to animals or rational ethics/morals. What possible use does that kind of person have in that role? ee: It's like putting an Literature major with a minor in History in that position.
Those silly animal extremists.
[quote] Maybe you should consider yourself a "human caregiver" instead...Perhaps they should be "companion animals," not just "pets."[/quote] I find "owner" and "pet" much easier to say
But my kitten is a smug bastard, you can't change that Miss Animal Theologist. :colbert:
It's really the way the term pet is used, so essentially they're bitching about a similar thing to calling a gay man a faggot. Either way, he's a faggot.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736229]No as in literally useless. A theologian heading a center for Animal Ethics? Not a biologist? An ethicist? A philosopher? Maybe someone with actual in depth knowledge of the physiology and mental order of animals? No, a theologian. e: Shit, literally anyone with actual knowledge of something relating to animals or rational ethics/morals. What possible use does that kind of person have in that role? ee: It's like putting an Literature major with a minor in History in that position.[/QUOTE] A theologian has spent years studying ethics
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736317]A theologian has spent years studying ethics[/QUOTE] Yes in addition to studying ancient literature, his primary focus is not in ethics and it is also often colored by the religious part of his job. Not saying all theologians are religious, but there's a bit of a correlation there. Why not an actual dedicated ethicist then?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736317]A theologian has spent years studying ethics[/QUOTE] More like a theologian has spent years on studying why religion is retarded.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736333]Yes in addition to studying ancient literature, his primary focus is not in ethics and it is also often colored by the religious part of his job. Not saying all theologians are religious, but there's a bit of a correlation there. Why not an actual dedicated ethicist then?[/QUOTE] Since studies have shown that atheists are more educated on religion I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them are drawn to theology from a purely anthropological perspective
How about the fact they are sub-human animals with no other purpose then to please our boredom and old ladies loneliness. Stop making them something they are not. They are animals we have bred so far into worthlessness to make them safe and 'cute" to preform a worthless task. They are not people. They are not the same as a person. We should not treat them as such.
[QUOTE=nikomo;29736339]More like a theologian has spent years on studying why religion is retarded.[/QUOTE] Like it or not religion has shaped modern society and it's interesting to learn about
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736333]Yes in addition to studying ancient literature, his primary focus is not in ethics and it is also often colored by the religious part of his job. Not saying all theologians are religious, but there's a bit of a correlation there. Why not an actual dedicated ethicist then?[/QUOTE] The Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, PhD, DD, is a member of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Oxford, and Honorary Research Fellow of St Stephen’s House, Oxford. He is also Honorary Professor at the University of Winchester, and Special Professor at Saint Xavier University, Chicago. In addition, he is the first Professor of Animal Ethics at the Graduate Theological Foundation, Indiana. Professor Linzey previously held the world’s first academic post in Theology and Animal Welfare — at Mansfield College, Oxford (1992-2000), and subsequently at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford (2000-2006). From 1987 to 1992, he was Director of Studies of the Centre for the Study of Theology in the University of Essex, and from 1992 to 1996, he was Special Professor in Theology at the University of Nottingham. In 1998, he was Visiting Professor at the Koret School of Veterinary Medicine at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1996 to 2007, he was also Honorary Professor at the University of Birmingham. [url]http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/[/url] [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] go tell them he's not qualified
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736370]Like it or not religion has shaped modern society and it's interesting to learn about[/QUOTE] It might have formed modern society, but right now it's slowing down society and this is off-topic. It's stupid that such a job even exists, we're above animals in the food chain and I'll eat a dog if I want to.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736362]Since studies have shown that atheists are more educated on religion I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them are drawn to theology from a purely anthropological perspective[/QUOTE] I would say that there probably aren't very many dedicated/career theologians that are attracted to the field purely out of anthropological interests. There are some, i'm sure, but someone in that situation could much more usefully get a degree in anthropology or literature or history or some other field in which they could specialize in religious text and religion while still having the rest of the field to work in. This is all irrelevant though, I stand by my claim that the choice of a dedicated theologian for this role was useless. [QUOTE=ThePuska;29736387]The Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, PhD, DD, is a member of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Oxford, and Honorary Research Fellow of St Stephen’s House, Oxford. He is also Honorary Professor at the University of Winchester, and Special Professor at Saint Xavier University, Chicago. In addition, he is the first Professor of Animal Ethics at the Graduate Theological Foundation, Indiana. Professor Linzey previously held the world’s first academic post in Theology and Animal Welfare — at Mansfield College, Oxford (1992-2000), and subsequently at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford (2000-2006). From 1987 to 1992, he was Director of Studies of the Centre for the Study of Theology in the University of Essex, and from 1992 to 1996, he was Special Professor in Theology at the University of Nottingham. In 1998, he was Visiting Professor at the Koret School of Veterinary Medicine at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1996 to 2007, he was also Honorary Professor at the University of Birmingham. [url]http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/who-we-are/director/[/url] [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] go tell them he's not qualified[/QUOTE] Ok? He's not. He's held multiple theologian posts, and has worked a bit in the field of ethics and has had one visiting professorship with a vet school. Someone that has worked as a vet for years while being heavy on the biological and neurological side would count as a qualified person. e: You seriously just pointed out that he's a very qualified theologian and... not much else. That's my entire point.
[QUOTE=nikomo;29736394]It might have formed modern society, but right now it's slowing down society and this is off-topic. It's stupid that such a job even exists, we're above animals in the food chain and I'll eat a dog if I want to.[/QUOTE] Dog is actually interestingly tasty. You can buy dog meat in Tijuana Mexico for cheaper then beef.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736395]I would say that there probably aren't very many dedicated/career theologians that are attracted to the field purely out of anthropological interests. There are some, i'm sure, but someone in that situation could much more usefully get a degree in anthropology or literature or history or some other field in which they could specialize in religious text and religion while still having the rest of the field to work in. This is all irrelevant though, I stand by my claim that the choice of a dedicated theologian for this role was useless.[/QUOTE] You'd likely consider this role to be useless no matter who was doing it or what their qualifications were [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=nikomo;29736394] It's stupid that such a job even exists, we're above animals in the food chain and I'll eat a dog if I want to.[/QUOTE] nobody is saying otherwise, good god I want to become vegetarian just to spite people like you
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736421]You'd likely consider this role to be useless no matter who was doing it or what their qualifications were [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] nobody is saying otherwise, good god I want to become vegetarian just to spite people like you[/QUOTE] Now that's just a completely unfounded presumption. I consider questions of how we should treat animals and how capable they are of pain, feelings, thought, and other base qualities that make abuse of them more heinous very important. I just don't think someone like this is qualified to answer those questions. It might show a bias to say I would much rather have a neurologist/biologist that specialized in animals than someone like an ethicist in this role, but that would just seem more useful to me.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;29736301]It's really the way the term pet is used, so essentially they're bitching about a similar thing to calling a gay man a faggot. Either way, he's a faggot.[/QUOTE] More like "Don't call them gay, you should call them a same-sex relationship partner"
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736451]Now that's just a completely unfounded presumption. I consider questions of how we should treat animals and how capable they are of pain, feelings, thought, and other base qualities that make abuse of them more heinous very important. I just don't think someone like this is qualified to answer those questions. It might show a bias to say I would much much rather have a neurologist/biologist that specialized in animals than someone like an ethicist in this role, but that would just seem more useful to me.[/QUOTE] I confused you with a different poster my apologies
what the hell?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29736466]I confused you with a different poster my apologies[/QUOTE] No prob bro. My post seems too strong now, but oh well.
I don't think my cat feels belittled when I call her a pet any more than she feels belittled when I tell her to shut the fuck up when she's meowing non-stop. They don't speak English. If they did, I guess I'd be more polite, but that's so far beyond the point. I think what they're getting at is that we should respect the fact that it's another life, and not just an object. I do that.
[QUOTE=NPerez;29736510]I don't think my cat feels belittled when I call her a pet any more than she feels belittled when I tell her to shut the fuck up when she's meowing non-stop. They don't speak English. If they did, I guess I'd be more polite, but that's so far beyond the point.[/QUOTE] uh the point isn't to not offend animals, the point is to make people think about animals differently. it's still silly but at least try to understand the point they're making [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DireAvenger;29736301]It's really the way the term pet is used, so essentially they're bitching about a similar thing to calling a gay man a faggot. Either way, he's a faggot.[/QUOTE] you shouldn't say that word either way i will beat you up i have to
Wow OP, what a dog move, I bet alot of people think this guy is a pig.
[QUOTE=NPerez;29736510]I don't think my cat feels belittled when I call her a pet any more than she feels belittled when I tell her to shut the fuck up when she's meowing non-stop. They don't speak English. If they did, I guess I'd be more polite, but that's so far beyond the point. I think what they're getting at is that we should respect the fact that it's another life, and not just an object. I do that.[/QUOTE] Objections aside, i'd like to clear this up because multiple people have said it: They don't want you to stop using such terms for the pet's sake, they want you to because they think it reinforces a mindset towards the pet as being a lower form of life unworthy of equal respect. Whether they're right about that or not, I can't say, but you're wrong in thinking they mean the pet is offended.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736395]Ok? He's not. He's held multiple theologian posts, and has worked a bit in the field of ethics and has had one visiting professorship with a vet school. Someone that has worked as a vet for years while being heavy on the biological and neurological side would count as a qualified person. e: You seriously just pointed out that he's a very qualified theologian and... not much else. That's my entire point.[/QUOTE] How would a vet with knowledge about animal brains be qualified to run a centre for animal ethics? Holding that many professorates related to ethics should qualify him.
'Companion Animal' would imply that I use it to complete physics based tests.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.