"bewtifulfreak" wrote in message ...
Craig Petersen wrote:
I would like to know "who" this woman is so I can file animal abuse
charges against her. People this idotic do not deserve to have pets
period! Furthermore, I would like to see more people refer to the term
"guardian" rather than "owner". "Ownership" implies that your pet is
an inanimate object like your DVD player or television.

No it doesn't. From the OED:

'Owner: One who owns or holds something as his own; a proprietor; one
who has the rightful claim or title to a thing (though he may not be
in possession); spec. one who owns a race-horse (...)'

And 'ownership' is defined as 'The fact or state of being an owner;
legal right of possession; property, proprietorship, dominion.'

One may simultaneously be an 'owner' and a 'guardian'; the two are not
mutually exclusive.


happens
we are going to have pile of **** people who do these things to
defenseless animals because they think of them as property.

Any such thoughts are (IMHO) entirely unrelated to the use of the term
'owner'. A '****' person will be just as ****ty if you force them to
somehow avoid using the term 'owner'.



That's a very good point; we are indeed "guardians" not "owners" of our
pets;

Well I am a guardian and an owner; also a companion, fellow traveller
and more besides.


we have chosen to look after them,

And they had no choice in the matter. It is correct to say that you
'own' a cat, at least in part because it cannot (at least for indoor
cats) exercise its right to not be 'owned'. It cannot leave without
the owner's say so.

Steve.