ithika: (Default)
[personal profile] ithika
[Error: unknown template qotd]

Why are animal rights activists always picking the stupid fight when I hear about them on the internet? This is nearly as dumb as Sea Kittens. They are fucking fish.

Legally, you own your dog/cat/whatever. You aren't their guardian, you're their owner.
As far as I know, 'Guardian' is a term you'd use for a child, or an elderly or disabled person that you care for. There are probably other terms that I'm not aware of. To me, it implies all sorts of things about the relationship which I suppose you could say exist in your relationship with your dog - you provide food and shelter for them, protect them from harm, you might bathe them, but I think that 'guardian' suggests a human level of interaction.

Wouldn't it be offensive for someone who is under guardianship to be put into the same category as a dog? I'm trying to think of another example here, but I'm sure it's pretty offensive.

If this is because people used to own slaves and people have gone 'well, it's not ok to own people so it's not ok to own an animal,' they need to think seriously about where they're taking their fight. Regardless as to whether people actually are better than animals or if we just have a bias towards our own kind, owning a dog is not the same as owning a man.

If you're concerned about how your pet feels about the owner/pet relationship, maybe you shouldn't own a pet, because changing the term you use from 'owner' to 'guardian' isn't going to change a damn thing. At the end of the day, you choose the food your pet is going to eat, when it gets to go outside, when it comes inside, where it lives, where it goes, what toys it has to play with, what friends it has. It's entirely dependent on your care for the things it needs to live. Unless you are going to change the term to 'guardian' and with that make the dog go and do things a human under guardianship might do? Like go to school?

Please. There are so many more important issues than what you say you are to your pet. I have loved all of my pets, and I am quite confident that me being their owner rather than their guardian has made one speck of difference in their lives.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-03 02:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I hadn't heard about this, but I agree with you.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-09 05:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It's a silly thing.
Also what is your icon? It is amusing!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-03 05:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Some people have real issues interacting with other people - they prefer animals because it is a less complex relationship. Then they give animals human qualities. For an objective viewer, this seems odd, but to them, it seems quite normal.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-09 05:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I'm not trying to belittle the relationships that people have with their pets. I would say that I considered Bonnie to be more than a dog to me. My point is that changing the term that people use to refer to their pet isn't going to change anything. People that love their pets will still love them, and people who are cruel to their pets as an 'owner' will still be cruel to them as a 'guardian.' I just don't see how it's a fight worth fighting (for animal rights activists.) If individuals want to say they are the guardian of their dog rather than its owner, because they feel it better represents their relationship, then I don't have a problem with it. But there are so many more pressing issues in the world than for this to be tackled on a large scale!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-04 11:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Wouldn't it be offensive for someone who is under guardianship to be put into the same category as a dog? I'm trying to think of another example here, but I'm sure it's pretty offensive.

I don't think so. It's just a word. You're not putting them in the same category, you're just using the same word. It says nothing and isn't attempting to say anything about children under guardianship and you'd basically have to be trying to be offended to actually get offended by that. Other than that though I agree with you. Though I don't care about this issue at all :P

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-09 05:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
:P I suppose, that is true. Some people do look for ways to be offended though. Probably this kind of animal rights activist, actually.
It's a thing I thought was dumb and I decided to use it to procrastinate. :) I don't overly care about it either.

January 2012

1234 567

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags