People want to fuck stuffed teddy bears? Who knew?
Names mean something, words mean something. IMO, the analogy of the goldfish to the dog is a good one. Most likely a person would bond with the dog more than the fish, because the dog is a mammal. That may not be true across the board, but is the most likely scenario. Would you treat your goldfish the same as the dog? No-they have different requirements for survival. Would you call the dog a fish and vice versa? No, because they are two different things. So, why call a pet by the word used for children? They are NOT kids-neither the goat kind of the human kind. They are dogs/cats/birds/whatever. Why the need to retitle them.
I postulated some likely ones: companionship, loneliness, pet as extension of self. Certainly, no-one has suggested they start calling themselves bitch or stud for their dogs. I have no idea what a cat is called in that scenario. So, the pet can be a baby, but the owner didn’t whelp the dog etc. Someone upthread mentioned that they call themselves their pets’ mama. Maybe that counts. To point out the disconnect here is not to diminish the affection anyone feels for their pets. It has taken 5 pages to get that across, although it was stated on page one. Which brings me to the logical question: why the defensiveness about this practice?
Can you honestly NOT see the difference between your first post on this, which WAS very snarky and insulting, and your later attempts to make it “just a matter of opinion”?
To say, as you did in your first post, the one which got you such flak, (Paraphrased), but I’ll go back and find the actual post, as other posters already have if you wish) “…lonely and co-dependently needing the animal for attention and love…”, is to accuse and insult. Period.
It doesn’t matter how many follow-up posts you leave which change those original words into less insulting ones. You need to address your FIRST post on the subject and why you felt you had to be so insulting with it.
Defensiveness? Maybe because certain people have been implying that people who feel this way about their pets are somehow damaged, or have some kind of problem.
Not all people with pets. Just people who insist on humanizing them to the extreme. Are you saying there’s no differentiation there? And if you recognize the differentiation, why on earth would you get so pissed off and defensive on behalf of those people? I’ve already said; I love my cat and my son’s new puppy. But I don’t confuse them for human. Isn’t that the majority of pet owners? Yes. Okay, then. Why is it a problem that I think someone who projects the power of human speech onto Mr. Tiddles needs to step away from the catnip?
I have no idea if this was directed at me or not, but what I meant was that there is no need to get defensive for the sheer fact that such an uninformed and vicious opinion isn’t worth the time to reject it. Don’t give them any satisfaction. On either side of the fence.
If they have to result to petty name-calling, other attacks and condescension, they should be ignored.
How you feel about it is all that matters, and should be the only consideration.
Well, if this is a criteria for being a kid. Then far too many kids fall short of that title, because there are WAY too many parents out there that don’t see to this.
And neither do most pet owners who call their pets “kids.” I don’t know why you continue to insist otherwise, but it’s been pointed out again and again and again in this thread. So stop it already.
And I, too, fail to understand why the vitriol. If Joe Schmoe from Deluth wants to call his doberman “My Son Fritz”, what have you lost? Did it cost you money? Did it endanger your health? Did it devalue your fleshbaby? (Hint: No.) Then what’s your problem with it? Honestly, if someone insisting that their cats are their babies is the worst thing to happen to you today, then consider yourself lucky. If it sends you into such a tailspin that you need to start a Pit thread about it, consider therapy. Or write your congressman urging him to make pet-kid-talk illegal.
(That last paragraph was not directed at Maureen, but to everyone on that side of the fence.)
As far as taking Fido to see Santa, I did that once. With my (ex)girlfriend’s cat. While we may have anthropomorphized the hell out of the situation, we did so only in good fun. It was clear that we went for ourselves. And it was for a good cause. And we even got on the news! But I wouldn’t do it again. It was clearly stressful to the cat. Room full of dogs and a big fat red man? Too much.
It’s funny how the criteria are collapsing like a house of cards. Let’s see, it’s for biological kids only, unless they are unloved, in which case guilt gets them back in the game, but they have to learn, but if they can’t, we’re back to guilt, as long as they outlive their parents, 'cause who could love a dead kid, but at least a dead kid is a tax break, so…
Then let’s simplify things.
Would a fur-baby, after seeing its fleshparents murdered in front of its eyes, don a mask and dedicate its life to fighting crime? I think not.
Case closed.
So basically a pet owner has to qualify any statements about his pet that could be thought of by non-pet owners/lovers to be literal rather than the figurative way the pet owner really means?
It originally meant “baby goat”, if we’re gonna be all “KEEP THE PURITY OF THE LANGUAGE” here (and by the way, I am for correct english and not so fond of the “well it’s passed into common knowledge so now it IS correct, and language evolves you know” crowd), then we need to give “kid” back to the goats.
That goes for munchkin (that’s not OUR’s, that’s Oz’s), yard ape, curtain climber and so on as well. They’re just slang, not literal, so if we’re going to remain purists, we need to get rid of those too.
And once again, saying “my pets are my kids” for MOST pet owner’s (barring those with actual psychological problems and that’s a whole 'nother thread), they ARE being figurative and are NOT actually meaning “pet=child”.
This was back on page 2, but since its the only thing in this thread that remotely applies to me, I wanted to respond to it. See, my dog is on Prozac. I’m a little embarassed by it. I mean, there are millions of people in Africa dying because they can’t afford AIDS medication, but my dog is on anti-depressants. Put like that, it’s ridiculous. But the thing is, my dog actually needs the damned things. Starting when he was about four years old, he gradually transformed from a happy, friendly, energetic dog to a miserable neurotic mess. He wouldn’t go for walks, because he was terrified to leave the house, except (thank God) for the backyard. The slightest noise from outside would send him into a shivering panic. And by slightest, I mean things as faint as a car door slamming two blocks away. Often, none of the humans in the house could even hear what sent him off. He was clearly miserable, constantly. When it got to the point where he’d spend all day hiding in the shower, we finally took him to a vet, who proscribed Prozac. It’s got some sort of offcial brand name for dogs, and is in adjusted dosages for an animal, but chemically, it’s the same stuff people take. One pill a day, at one dollar a day, and inside of a month, he was almost completely back to his normal, happy, rompy self. Spending ~$400 a year for that for the next ten or more years (hopefully more) is a small price to pay for that, I think.
I would draw the line at kitty life-support, though.
I love my dog, but I am his pack leader. Whenever I hear of or witness this extraordinary coddling and pampering, I immediately think of Diane Whipple. There are rules. There are boundaries you don’t cross.
Dogs need these rules and boundaries in order to function as dogs. When/If they stop functioning as dogs, they can outsmart a human pretty quickly.
As for all the vitriol in this thread, I think maybe some of the people here, OP included, may not be terribly popular with domesticated animals.
I’m reminded of a Cherokee saying: A stranger’s dog always tells the truth.
You actually believe that those who use the phrase “my pets are my kids” do so because they are “insisting” upon it? Insisting upon it against the overwhelming world outcry of misappropriated words rightfully “belonging” to others? Oh brother.
Until the OP laid down the law (and probably long after as well), most people who used that phrase were using it in a very casual figure of speech way. Most people that I’ve seen using this phrase, and most on the recieving end laugh about it. Most normal people know and understand that it is JUST a figure of speech.
:rolleyes: Geez, it’s not as if some secret organization of pet owners banded together in and effort to usurp parenting, beginning with “misappropriating” parent’s very OWN titles.
Well, I believe that this subject is fundamental to and the crux of world peace.
…No, seriously.
Fundamentally, this is an argument about compassion for living beings, not just human beings, but all life and all living beings. Until people stop making judgements as to the amount of compassion that is healthy or otherwise sane to give to living beings, including animals, there is no chance for World Peace.
Until we realize fully the sacredness of all life and emote the compassion that is entirely natural when we see ourselves inseperable from all life, there will be war, and murder, and unnatural death.
I won’t quote Ghandi’s famous little diddy because it’s cliche, but there is Great Truth in this concept.
Ok, I understand that, as I’m not (at least, I don’t think I am, in the camp of the folks that the OP was particularly pissed off at) that kind of person. However, is bitching about it, especially in such a disgusted way, going to prevent them from doing that? Will it get them to change? Or even when was is even-handed in their opinion, I doubt seriously if they are ‘that far gone’, that they’ll give a flying fuck at what anyone else thinks?
And finally, if the animal isn’t being abused (nor set out in the wild – I mean, the recent episode with the whippet could be used to fine example here, IF its handlers didn’t anthromorphize or equate it with a human, I’m sure it was raised ‘by the rules’ and whatever else necessary for it to recognize its boundaries and pack leaders) or set loose to harm others, and no one can tell anyone on how to spend their money for a ‘worthwhile’ cause, then it still isn’t hurting anything.
Obnoxious? Perhaps. Silly? So, but I don’t care. There are much more ridiculous things in the world to twist your panties in a bunch about. Or perhaps it would just be better not to judge others when 1.) it ain’t nobody’s business but theirs and 2) you can’t possibly know all the factors involved.
I saw that as I got through more of the posts. That makes sense. I’ve always been more of a “nurture” rather than “nature” kind of girl. I do believe that the instinct is there (since when don’t we humans have instincts?, whoever it was that said that, I thought that was sort of a given as we are also animals).
Anyway, I believe that what instincts we may start out with are hugely affected by the lives we lead and our circumstances. So my humble opinion is, that by the time we reach adulthood, our psychogical/emotional/spiritual selves are pretty firmly in the driver’s seat on most issues.
IMHO, that is the answer to why it can be that we may all possess maternal instinct, but that our psyches determine how we view and feel about things like motherhood and pet ownership.
To point out the disconnect here is not to diminish the affection anyone feels for their pets. It has taken 5 pages to get that across, although it was stated on page one. Which brings me to the logical question: why the defensiveness about this practice?