Their logic seems to be that the use of the words “pet” and “owner” leads to abuse because of some strange S & M allegory, but all that own animals are not abusers, and all abusers don’t own animals. I find this symbolism akin to the people here in America that calls our leaders unpatriotic when they don’t wear an American flag on their lapel.
A piece of tin doesn’t make one patriotic. If that were true, then Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, and Timothy McVeigh could be American Patriots by merely wearing one, and people like George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, all of whom I have never seen in a picture wearing an American flag on their lapel, could be labeled unpatriotic.
We all know this is not the case. Why? Because all of the men listed above are judged on their individual actions. Following that logic, the people who own pets should be judged similarly–by their actions. For every owner who abuses an animal, I can find hundreds who treat theirs like family–maybe loved even more than their own child. Banning words is pointless. A pet by any other name will still be a pet, and a monster still a monster, so how about we address individual actions for once and not common words.