[jasode]

>also they don't adopt them, they fund their caretaking. this title is pretty poor.

We don't have to be mega pedantic about words not being used for its literal meaning. The Dian Fossey Fund uses the word "adopt" in a symbolic way like many other charities do:

https://fosseyfund.salsalabs.org/adopthomepage/index.html

[dmos62]

It's not being pedantic, but accurate. It took me a confusing 30 seconds to understand that the gorrilas won't be coming home with the owners of Reddit.

[tokai]

You not knowing the common usage of the word adopt in charity work doesn't make you accurate.

[dmos62]

Ok, if we're getting pedantic about it, adopting as a synonym for supporting is a misnomer or more specifically an attempt to conceal the conflict of wanting to support something, but being unwilling to become intimately involved with it. It takes away from the genuine act of adoption. So I'll stand behind not using the term.

[jowsie]

That just feels pedantic and gatekeeping. Adoption in this context has been used this way for as long as I can remember (20+ years) with every animal charity in the UK at least.

[dmos62]

That's a fair point, as regards animal support. I was a bit hot under the collar when I wrote that. The scenario I was thinking of was adopting vs supporting people, and the regretable reluctance to adopt children in general.