to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language.

[OrmIrian]

Tis a thread about a thread - sort of - well a spin-off from the fox-poisoner thread. Sorry.

Human animals dominate the planet. I think that is a given. Other animals have to squeeze into the spaces that we leave. The truly 'wild' bits of the world are getting smaller and smaller. Tigers for example are getting increasingly rare as they have the temerity to attempt to carry on living in their natural habitat where humans are encroaching. I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears. Most of the land in the UK is built-up or farmed. What is left is seen as a playground for humans - mountain bikes, motocross, walkers, climbers etc. Not much space left for other species to thrive. And we pollute the water and the air - a problem for other species even more than for our own.

There isn't a single species that hasn't been affected, usually for the worse, by human activities. Apart from those opportunistic enough and 'clever' enough to benefit from us. To fit into the cracks we leave - pigeons, rats, foxes, squirrels for example. They live alongside us, eating our rubbish, finding homes in the little bits of waste ground that we don't want. But as punishment for that adaptability we give them a name, we call them vermin, and declare them fair game - find them disgusting and try to poison them, hunt them or shoot them. Is it really acceptable to only permit the survival of those creatures that we find appealing and that don't impinge on us.

I am not a beleiver in animal rights. I think that is errant nonsense. But a bit of self-knowledge and compassion when dealing with the creatures we share our space with is needed.

Orm, you are ascribing it meaning- as are we all. If we stop using the word 'vermin', another will take its place, as there is a need in the language (and indeed in the human existence) for such a word.

And I want to know if you call meat 'meat' or 'animal'

Oh I call it meat. Well lamb/beef/pork etc but through habit not squeamishness.

I would say that you'd use the word 'cattle' not livestock. And there was the use in the Wilfred Owen poem which I can't remember .

Fair game - OK I concede it, in fact I used it in my OP But I still maintain that they are not as callously dismissive as vermin.

Are you saying that because of the other uses of the word vermin, that it should stop being used in its original sense? That we should use another word in its place? Or are you saying that we should no longer control animals that negatively affect us? Or only some of them?

Cattle more fitting, agreed.

Would you propose removing the word completely? Or is it a case of judging those who use it? After all, you are right about the beef/lamb/pork 'habit'. Is vermin not (sometimes) used in the same way? The distinction needs to be made between animals and vermin in in the same way we need to differentiate between cow and beef. It makes us (as a society, not individuals) feel better about what we are doing.

You could take the word 'Jew'- in itself not a loaded word, not anti-semitic, purely a description of a follower of a particular religion. Add "You fucking" as a prefix, and you have an horrendous term of anti-semitic abuse.

The fact that the word 'vermin' can be used as a term of abuse does not mean that it is one every time it is used.

I don't think I am saying either of those two things madonna.As it happens I don't think it's original meaning is that far from it's current meaning. But we use it in other contexts now. And we aren't the same as we were when the word was first coined. We don't find certain attitudes acceptable that we would have 1000 yrs ago (assuming the word is Norman in origin)

There isn't a way in which vermin can be used other than negatively. I think that I would perhaps like it not to be used. Why not just say animal. Using vermin instead is like saying scum about people we don't like.

Why do we need to make that distinction though tether?

I thought we had done this? If you want to have brutal honesty in language, then there are hundreds of words which must be replaced- beef and vermin are just two of them.

Humans have compassion and need to be able to be dispassionate when killing other living creatures for whatever purpose. The animals being referred to as 'livestock', 'cattle', 'vermin' 'game' or 'meat' enables them to do this.

Or is it the killing itself you disagree with?

"Using vermin instead is like saying scum about people we don't like."

But you can't stop describing the soapy residue around the plughole as 'scum'...

It is partly the killing that I disagree with yes. I can't help thinking that once you are able to be dispassionate you don't have to think about what you are doing. And if you have managed that once won't it be easier to do it next time. Should not killing something always entail a small amount of horror?

You are right, the meaning of the word is the same. When we use it about people, we are deliberately referencing that meaning. But I don't understand what you mean by different attitudes now. If you had mice, or cockroaches, in your kitchen, you'd get rid of them, no? Because they have a negative effect on you. Surely if you raised chickens, you'd want to control anything which threatened your livestock? If you grew crops, you'd want to control the population of anmials which damaged them. If you were responsible for cleaning up a city that was covered in pigeon crap, you'd want to control them too.

Do you think farmers should feel that horror every time they send animals off for slaughter? Or just the slaughtermen?

I think that our attitude to animals has changed. We are both more sentimental towards (some of) them, and yet more successful and ruthless in destroying them and their habitats. Which makes it more important that we are honest about our treatment of them.

Both. Or at least some consciousness that they are taking a life.

Orm, do you not think it is slightly unethical to berate someone who works in a slaughterhouse for being insufficiently horrified by their job whilst you eat the products of their labour?

I think I see what Orm is getting at... not so much that she wouldn't get rid of any rats or cockroaches sitting in her kitchen, but that once you label something "vermin" you don't have to think about it any more. You've verbally put it in a box saying "must be killed, no further thought necessary".

Very Orwellian!

You have lots of interesting thoughts Orm (generally I just lurk, though, rather than having to put my hand up and shout me me I get it )

I'm a bit about saying that humans are compassionate and so need to be dispassionate when having to kill things.

We don't have to kill things and as a species we have shown ourselves to have a spectacular lack of compassion when taken as a whole.

I would say it would be more compassionate to name the animal correctly, be honest, and then do what needs to be done.

"This fox is getting in with my chickens and so I am going to kill it".

Applying words to lessen the act isn't about compassion, it's about avoidance.

And you, when you eat the meat presumably.

x-post madonna

We do have to kill things. We don;t have to kill everything we do kill certainly, but we do have to kill things.

I understand we have a hard-wired propensity to categorise, so naming each discrete animal that we kill (these headlice are making my DC's head itch, so I am going to kill them for example) is one way of goig about things, but we will group and categorise the things that we kill even so.

"We don't have to kill things"

"...be honest, and then do what needs to be done"

ImSo, this seems a little contradictory. Do you advocate that all killing of animals should cease? I'm a little confused by this

"as a species we have shown ourselves to have a spectacular lack of compassion when taken as a whole"

I disagree with this. Most human beings, when faced with the plight of another human- or indeed, an animal, will show compassion.

Suppose it depends what you mean by "things". Our bodies kill viruses etc not a lot to do about that.

If we're talking larger animals, we don't actually have to kill them. We do it because we want their meat, or because they are in our way, or for fun etc etc. We don't have to do it.

I would call a headlouse a headlouse, and always have a good look at them before sending them to their doom. They are a very successful parasite, and interesting wriggly little things. Itch like mad though. I would never just nuke 'em without giving it a thought.

Ditto being aware of where meat products in food come from, and fish. Giving a thought to the animal that provided it. People have a lot less time for fish, for some reason.

i was responding to fallenmadonna who stated that we have to kill things. I was disagreeing with that assertion - we don't have to do anything.

As our society stands I am a pragmatist, and enjoy eating meat. I don't have to do it, I want to. I just wish it wasn't all so dishonest.

This is moving away from vermin to livestock though isn't it. It is unusual here to eat vermin, so their killing is different to killing a cow for its meat.

Killing is killing, ImSo. What you do with the carcass is irrelevant.