EG, since you were confused, this is what PC is....

[Art]

Caught the tail end of O'Reilly tonight and it turns out a group in Los Angeles is lobbying the City Council to remove owner from all pet ordinances and replace it with guardian. Any questions?

[Henry]

:doh:

[Funkyalligator]

You have got to be kidding me.....What is this world coming to, those damn PC idiots. Let me tell you a story....my friend was in Northern China on vacation and decided to hit a local restaurant. He was seated at a large table with tons of people and he ordered some dishes(he speaks Mandarin but not as well as he thought) and ended up getting dog which he said was very good. But at the very end of the table was a family who decided to get monkey. So they brought a live monkey out, strapped it to the table and sawed its head open and scooped out its brains to serve still warm to the family. He said it was pretty nasty especially because the monkey was screeching the whole time until its brains were ladeled out of its head. Now imagine what one of those animal rights activists would have done in that situation.

[dchogs]

:puke:

now that is disgusting

:puke:

[The Evil Genius]

Oh yeah Art...

Well I heard my brother's sister's other brother tell me that this was a true picture...

Although it looks a little faked to me. (okay I just needed to get that pic in somehow.) Here is another!

In all seriousness though...what suprises you about this? That a group of people in LA want to challenge so called animal rights? Did O'Reilly give a name to this group? Did he constitute if this group was 2 people or was it a movement? Is this all hearsay? You betcha.

But that's okay - Hearsay is the given when it comes to Pundits on TV and Radio.

You are right though - thats a PC cause. A crazy one to boot, imho.

[The Evil Genius]

This is also an un PC thing to do (well an un PC thing in the 80's sense).

But I cannot resist because these pics make me laugh. And it is good to laugh at ourselves once and awhile.

This is the Castro district (in SF) campaign poster in 1996.

And I am sure that this pic will be censored

[Art]

EG,

Yes, the group was identified. This is not a "hearsay" story chief. It's a real one. And, here you go, since you seem to lack belief.

Out with 'owner', in with pet 'guardian'

Proclaiming that animals are not property, activists want the term 'owner' struck off LA's codes

LOS ANGELES - Thousands of pets across Los Angeles might soon find themselves no longer straining under the yoke of 'owners'.

Denouncing the word as demeaning to pets, animal-rights activists are urging the City Council to strike the term from local codes and replace it with 'guardian'.

Prodded by In Defence of Animals, a rights group based in Mill Valley, California, the Los Angeles Animal Services Commission last month unanimously voted to replace the term in its documents and conversations.

On July 22, the three members of the commission will consider whether to urge the City Council to make the policy citywide.

'It's not a tidal wave of cataclysmic change that people are going to be thinking of pets as human children or anything like that,' said commission president Paul Jolly.

'It subtly moves the thought process so that animals are treated as sentient beings that deserve our respect.'

If the council goes along with the change, the city will join in the 'pet guardian' camp of the state of Rhode Island and the cities of Berkeley, West Hollywood, Boulder in Colorado, Amherst in Massachusetts, Sherwood in Arkansas and Menomonee Falls in Wisconsin.

San Francisco and Marin County officials are expected to consider similar proposals soon.

Mr Elliot Katz, a veterinarian and founder of In Defence of Animals, said he has seen people abandon a cat because it clawed furniture or because they were moving, or put a dog with a broken leg to sleep rather than pay for its medical care. The name switch should make people think of pets as more than disposable property, he said.

'The word 'owner' is outdated and doesn't reflect the human-animal bond that exists in our culture today,' he said.

'This is part of a change of conscience, just as there was a change of conscience in terms of how society should treat minorities, how they should treat the handicapped, how they should treat children and how they should treat women. There's always been a gradual change as society becomes more enlightened and progressive.'

But some critics are worried that this gradual change could ultimately lead to fundamental changes for veterinarians, farmers, ranchers and society as a whole.

Some veterinarians and the American Kennel Club are concerned that the proposal would afford animals rights that are now only associated with humans.

Mr Duane Flemming, president of the American Veterinary Medical Law Association, said that although the group has not taken a position, he fears it sets a 'dangerous precedent'.

He contends that animal-rights groups ultimately hope to use the change to gain legal standing as guardians for animals in court, where they could argue that certain activities are not in the best interest of the 'ward'. He cited performing in rodeos and circuses, being milked at dairy farms and killed at slaughterhouses.

The change will mean that residents who apply for pet licences will be referred to as guardians rather than owners. --Los Angeles Times

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks, that is all I asked for.

Anyways I already said that, yes, it was a PC movement.

So is most types of censorship nowadays.

[The Evil Genius]

BTW, if this does change - I wonder how a "guardians" responsibility would change legally if his or her canine mauls a human. Like the lunatics in the SF area whose doggies were killers.

[Art]

EG,

There was never any doubt about the validity of the statements made. You just selected not to believe them. And for a guy who can find Desmond Tutu's thoughts on Israel and Palestine, it would seem you could have typed, "Los Angeles pet guardian owner" into Google and gotten all the belief you needed.

I presume I don't have to hand hold you every time we talk since you don't seem to need it when you have information you need to validate, you can go validate, under the assumption that I know what the hell I'm talking about -- some of the time. That's all I ask .

[The Evil Genius]

There was never any doubt about the validity of the statements made.

Was that because it was on TV? Or because it came from your mouth? Or what?

All I asked for was the proof in writing since the burden is on the poster who says that they heard some bizarre story on the last few minutes of a show that they just happened to catch.

How is that hand holding? Blade and others ask everyday for people to back up their comments. It pisses me off to think that you expect to play by different rules than what you expect of others.

Hand holding my ***.

[Art]

EG,

Again, you seem to require hand holding, and that's fine, and I'll remember it. For the record, if I write something you may freely consider it 100 percent accurate. If I write something I state as my opinion, you may view it as 100 percent my opinion. When I write something, you can always rest assured, it has a basis for being spoken. And that same 100 percent comes in when discussing how frequently that's the case.

I no longer have to validate myself on this board or any other I'm a regular on, because, simply put, I've already done that. The assumption with my statements needs to lean toward the accuracy of them, not the disbelief of them. I would even grant you a somewhat similar status.

Some don't quite qualify as the same. And, if for whatever foolishness that would cause you to disbelieve something I've stated as a factual statement, the burden is on you to invalidate me, not for me to comfort you by holding your hand through a conversation, especially on something as amazing innocuous as this here.