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.