Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Writer's Block: Pet central
[Misc] Flowers
Some animal rights activists are fighting to replace the term 'owner' with 'guardian' to convey a more balanced relationship between a person and her or his pet. Do you agree or disagree with the importance of this mission?

As a general rule of thumb (and as anyone who knows me knows), if a sentence starts with "Some animal rights activists are..." I always complete it mentally with "Idiots." I don't think that this is going to make anymore difference.

Animal rights activists are either crazy or misinformed. People who actively support PETA and other AR groups and understand what they're supporting not only believe that it's perfectly acceptable to kill humans to "protect" animals (after all, in the words of Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”), they also support ending anything that remotely resembles animal exploitation by humans by any means. We're talking about a group who not only thinks its acceptable to set a barn full of horses on fire because they're better off burning to death than serving humans, but also a group that is so against companion animals that their animal shelter has an insanely high kill rate. One source states that their adoption rate last year at 1 in 300 animals. That's eight homes for over two thousand animals.

Of course, I'm willing to accept that vast majority of people who belief in "animal rights" don't understand what the movement is about. Most people don't support PETA as a terrorist organization, they support it because they believe it helps animals.

It needs to stop. PETA and other AR groups get a tremendous amount of money (mainly because they have no scruples in raising it), while actual animal welfare organizations quietly do their work in the background, finding homes and treating animals with what funds they can raise, often out of their own volunteer's pockets.

And as for the renaming of owner, I don't think it's a balanced relationship between a dog and a person. My dog and I certainly don't have one and I think she benefits significantly more than I do. She doesn't mind if I'm referred to as her owner as long as I make sure she gets adequate exercise, food, playtime, and trips outside to the bathroom.

I am for reclassifying animals somewhat legally. I'm not at all comfortable with giving animals "rights" (especially since other groups of people are fighting desperately for rights that are denied), but neither am I completely comfortable with the classification as plain property. I would prefer to see a new system that recognizes that animals do feel pain and are living things that are very valuable to their owners (even if the animal itself has real objective value), but granting them "rights" and referring to their owners are "guardians" is blurring the line a little too much.

  • 1

Can you tell it's one of my hot button issues?

I love you for this. <3 (By the by, can I pick your brain just a little about dogs? LJ or RT, it doesn't particularly matter to me.)

I'll be happy to help with whatever you need. Either is fine and I'll be around more on both.

I watched this "tear-apart" documentary about PETA, and yeah... that's crazy. Even Warcraft had their fun at parodying the mess...

But yeah.

I think Alley is a-okay with her walks, foods, and love. Those 3 mainly.:D

Also, despite the guardian thing being silly in the more legal term of the word, I wanna be Alley's guardian! Like a paladin guardian. That would be cool!

I could not agree more with you on this issue, especially here:

if a sentence starts with "Some animal rights activists are..." I always complete it mentally with "Idiots."

I really hate it when people say, "My pets are like my kids," and think it will gain them some ground in arguments about parenting. There was a recent post on LJ from a new mother who wanted to get rid of her suddenly-aggressive dog, and that was the argument that over half of the respondents had for keeping the dog--that she should treat the dog like her own child (the way they all supposedly did) and also acknowledge that the dog was part of the family first. IDIOTS.

Yeah, I'm torn on that. I really get annoyed when people just get rid of a perfectly-behaved dog they've had for years just because they're too busy with the new baby. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle a dog and an infant, I hope you're planning on having only one child. A toddler and an infant are going to be much worse.

That said, I think you have to approach the situation with common sense. The baby was there to stay. You can't just put a kid up for adoption because your dog isn't happy. And if the dog was suddenly having issues, then there was a probably an underlying cause and I can see where a new parent would have a hard time dealing with that properly. The safety of the child has to come first. Period. Plus, if they handled the rehoming properly and made sure the dog was placed in a good situation, it's likely the dog would be happier in the long run anyway. Some dogs just aren't happy around kids.

People who put animals over people must have a defective genetic imperative, at least that's what I think.


Don't get me wrong, I really love my dog and, as cold as it sounds, losing her would hurt me a lot more than losing the majority of people I know. But saying "Her loss would affect me more" does NOT translate to "Her life is more valuable." People just really need to reexamine their priorities.

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account