jayo’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  quibbling

  Here are two quibbles. You write,
  

  Using the word "murder" to describe the act of a human killing a non-human does not sit well with me. It is a special word that shocks and should be reserved for when one human deliberately takes the life of another. The use of it by animal rights activists to describe the killing of a farm animal is demeaning people.

  
  I understand the connotation bothers you, but usually 'murder' is defined  as "an intentional killing". Given the customary definition, non-human animals can be murdered.

  Second, you write:

  I have always taught my daughters not to get too attached to their pets because these pets are going to die -- all of them. They don't have human life spans. I cried over my share of pet deaths as a child. I recall watching the late Steve Irwin cry inconsolably on camera over the death of an alligator he had grown up with, and another time over the death of his dog. In my opinion, strong attachments are best reserved for other people in your life.

  By your argument, if a child had a terminal illness and attachments should be determined by lifespan, then you should be no more attached to a pet than a terminally ill child. That seems strange at best.On Can you 'murder' a chicken? posted 3 years, 1 month ago 25 Responses