Calling Pets “Pets” Is a Thought Crime
It’s time for a new edition of the Newspeak dictionary. According to the pointy-headed circus clowns who pass down surrealist moral judgments from atop their ivory towers, our current vocabulary oppresses animals:
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.
Other forbidden terms include “critters” and “beasts.” Pet owners are not to be referred to as “owners,” because this “harks back to a previous age” when animals were considered to be animals.
The term “wildlife” is not to be used because “For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence.” In actuality, academics have discovered that tigers and hyenas sit around tea tables in the jungle, sipping Earl Grey with their pinkies raised.
Certain idiomatic expressions also have to go:
Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.
With all this verbal abuse hurled at their sensitive feelings, you can see why Obama’s Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to be provided with lawyers so they can sue us.
On a tip from Byron. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
FacebookTwitterEmail Sigh. That was the question posed in yesterday’s popular Ethicist column, in the New York Times. Here’s the question
FacebookTwitterEmail If the members of the California State Legislature had to get real jobs, most of them would have been
FacebookTwitterEmail I knew there was a reason I never liked Morrissey: “I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia