Karen Winter lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as
> > something other than property is rapidly diminishing.
>
> It's a matter of perception to a degree,

No, it isn't.


> but the
> evidence is, you are incorrect.

The evidence is I am correct.


> Companion animals,

Pets. The nauseating politically correct term "companion animals" has
not caught on, and will not.


> certainly, are being seen less and less as property.

Not true. A few isolated bastions of PC weirdness, e.g. San Francisco
- it doesn't get weirder than Frisco - have made halting moves in this
direction, but it stopped there. The Dubuque, IA department of animal
control is not going to be referring to "companion animals" any time
soon, if ever, and people there will continue to *own* their pets, not
be referred to (nauseatingly) as their "guardians". I dare say, Karen,
that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not
refer to pets as "companion animals", and undoubtedly *does* recognize
that people own their pets, and may buy and sell them.


> I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's
> telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general,
> do not argue that companion animals

Pets. Speak plain English, Karen.

> are *merely*
> property, but that, although animals are legally property,
> their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way,
> and don't treat them like property.

Pet owners do see their pets as property. They don't treat them the
same way they would treat a stepladder, but that doesn't change the
fact that pet owners regard their pets as property.