Webster's Word Games: The PETA Circus Is In Town

Of course, it's a tragedy that some people might still actually - Gasp! - take their children to see the horrors on display in a traditional circus. Fortunately, now, so as to set the record straight, PETA intends to make certain we all come to discover the ugly horrors of the Circus, whether we ever attend, or not.

“People who use your dictionary deserve an accurate description of this cruel business, and we hope that you’ll consider our suggestion,” the PETA letter states.

Yes, it seems while half the Left thinks it's just fine for little Jane or Johnnie to read about everyone's completely normal gay, lesbian, or trans-gendered, polygamous, sado-masochism practicing Mom and Mom, or Dad and Dad ... the other half is intent on making Merriam-Websters change the definition of the word Circus - away from the delightful childhood picture we might mostly have.

PETA’s proposal defines a circus as a “spectacle that relies on captive animals” who are “forced to perform tricks under the constant threat of punishment.” It also wants the definition to say that “modern circuses include only willing human performers.”

Heavens, next NOW will want the same definition for traditional marriage. Story here.

Comments

[rwilymz]

You need a heading called Stupid PETA Tricks.

Here's another recent entry:

http://imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-06-20/
Phoenix Fights for New Dog Law

Actor Joaquin Phoenix is spearheading a new campaign to ban the chaining of dogs in California. The Walk The Line star has teamed up with animal rights group People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) and penned letters to every top California politician, asking them to support a new bill, which would make attaching chains to dogs a state offense. In his heartfelt letter, Phoenix points out, not only does chaining lead to lonely suffering for dogs, it also presents a very real danger to people, especially children who wander into the area where dogs are kept chained. He writes, "Life at the end of a chain is miserable. Senate Bill 1578 would give animal control officers a much-needed tool to help protect our canine companions from long-term neglect and our communities from dog attacks, a problem that has engendered increasing public concern in recent years." In a recent report, America's Centers For Disease Control And Prevention has found that chained dogs are nearly three times more likely to attack people than dogs who are not kept chained. A PETA spokeswoman says, "In 2002, chained dogs killed more children between the ages of one and nine than did falls from playground equipment or trees and fireworks accidents combined, and they killed as many kids as did gun accidents."

[Jack]

I'm a Christian and Conservative, and while I don't agree with PETA's tactics or the spirituality (or lack thereof) of their individual members, I DO agree with their message.

What's wrong or non-Christian with protesting the cruel treatment of animals? A dog is a living, sentient, God-created being, and a social one at that. Chaining it and leaving it in solitude to endure the rain, the hot sunshine, or the cold against its will is definitely not something Christians should endorse.

Likewise, while I will not criticize a circus without knowing of the specific practices being questioned, I think that we should NOT patronize events or economic activities that exploit and make to suffer these sentient creatures that are loved by God.

Sen. Santorum, actually, has been very active in sponsoring anti- animal cruelty legislation. He is as Christian as they come in the Senate. Did you guys know that?

Your cyncism is depressing.

[annie]

Some animals love to be around human beings and make very good pets, and would hate to be put in the wild.

However, I don't like the idea of zoos and circus' (unless they are the ones that have the humans doing all the tricks).

But I am not sentimental about the animals that kill humans, and those people who want to save the big cats, crocodiles, and sharks under any circumstances, leave me cold.

Bet they would not still be saying that if they were being half eaten by one of these things!!

[rwilymz]

Um ... Jack, you may not know this, but many communities require dogs to be chained or on leashes or penned in some way. Something about dogs being territorial animals who, in this modern world with fluid boundaries that aren't comprehensible to a dog's fairly primitive sensibilities, will defend his territory by methods natural to that breed of dog. Some snarl, some growl, some chase and some thereupon hamstring, some bite, some outright attack.

Dogs and man evolved together, are social and pack animals both, but man simply has greater capacity to think. Let's try it together, here.

If you love dogs but have the misfortune to both
1] work for a living, and
2] live in a community which requires that you chain or confine your animal...
what do you do?

Here are a few options.

* - chain your dog as the law requires while you are at work or otherwise away from home

* - kill your dog each morning before you go to work so you won't have to suffer him the indignity and torture of chaining him

* - outlaw dogs because the superficial twits with their one-size-fits-all solutions have made every reasonable option available to anyone but the independently wealthy a violation of the law.

You with me so far?

Do you seriously think requiring dogs to be loose is a viable solution?

Dogs are social, pack animals, and they will form -- like unsupervised teenagers -- the canine equivalent of street gangs. Dog packs, no matter the type of family they come from, will terrorize cats, kill wildlife, vandalize neighborhoods, spontaneously create their own "turf" and defend it in ways I described above. If they had opposable thumbs and cash they'd also buy spray paint and do graffiti: "Fluffy must die!!"; "Fido's bitch rules!!"

Now while I would -- cynically -- love to watch the self-righteous Californians doing this to themselves, it would be an embarrassment to me as an American to watch my country-mates advertising that they have allowed themselves to be lobotomized by space aliens. There are neo-lithic cargo-cultists on Sumatra laughing at us for lunacy like this. Doesn't that bother you?

[expat]

Jack,

There are a great many people Christian or not who oppose inhumane treatment of animals and support reasonable legisation for animal protection. The problem is that PETA should not be allowed to become the good guys on this issue. They are radical and they are out of control. They start off with issues that most people would support, but when they become a recognized voice on this issue, they will continue to move the goalposts. If this is a field you want to work in, then find or start an organization that doesn't have hidden agendas.

[Charles]

"Dogs and man evolved together,"

Care to elaborate? I'm not disputing your contention, necessarily. I'm just someone who reads a lot about evolutionary biology. There is a small, but growing minority of evolutionary biologists who do think that there is evidence to support this. But many do not think this. I'm just wondering if you happen to know the arguments on both sides, or if you are someone who walks around thinking that dogs and humans co-evolved without really thinking more deeply on the issue.

I don't really know whether the question of co-evolution is really relevant to the cruelty issue, by the way. In terms of evolutionary time, the period in history in which humans have lived in permanent enclosed residences in which dogs can be kept and isolated is tiny indeed.

[Dan]

What's wrong or non-Christian with protesting the cruel treatment of animals?

I think you're missing the point. I didnt say circuses shouldn't be regulated, or that animals shouldnt be cared for. And if we, as a soceity, are going to prevent that - and we can, then why on earth define a circus in a dictionary as a cruel place?

That isnt doing anything about the action, it is slimming any decent circus owner with a fascist brush. I am against applying labels, or fooling with language - not against humane treatment of animals.

[Rick]

Joaquin Phoenix might be of better service by
supporting drug prevention/rehabilitation rather than worrying if Red Rover can come over.

[raindrops]

I love animals and would never harm them. Neither would my husband. But he's a real joker sometimes and made the mistake of verbally "yanking the chain" of a PETA protestor when we were taking our kids, their cousins, and friends to the circus one day.

The protestors had a boundary they were not to cross. One attempted to "school" us on animal cruelty. My husband, Mr. Funny, says,"I love animals ...(pause) They're so tasty." It was like something out of the original Exorcist movie!! I thought her head was going to start spinning as she screamed and spit was flying from her mouth. I was hustling the kids to the arena as they asked what was wrong with the lady. My husband was chuckling as the police were closing in on the protestor who had, by that time, crossed the boundary line.

Apparently PETA members don't have a sense of humor.

[rwilymz]

"Care to elaborate?"

Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I meant to say: dogs and man evolved together.

Dogs are humans' first domestication project. Before humans, there were no 'dogs'. There were wolves.

http://www.rxpgnews.com/specialtopics/evolution/article_2980.shtml
"Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves as long as 100,000 years ago, ..."

Learn more:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wolves/wolfdog.html

"I don't really know whether the question of co-evolution is really relevant to the cruelty issue, by the way."

Then you perhaps ought to have read the idiotic Supid PETA Trick article I posted, the beyond-silly response, and my response to *that* in full. Dogs and man evolved together, man domesticated dogs, and now an attempt is being made to define, under the law, some of the accoutriment of domestication as "cruel". ...as if allowing feral animals to develop in our suburbs and subdivisions is a wise, appropriate or sensible thing.