Animal naming abuse
July 9, 2011
Common language on fauna betrays an anthropocentric bias. "Words such as 'pets,' 'wildlife,' and 'vermin' are derogatory," the director of the Oxford Center for Animal Ethics said.
I imagine there are people in England who take the director seriously.
But, as we watch this once-powerful nation disintegrate before our eyes, it may be observed that it has truly gone to the dogs.
Even using similes like "sly as a fox," "drunk as a skunk," or "perky as a porpoise" are considered animal abuse.
Actually, the word "animal" is not approved and the description "differentiated being" is preferred, the director said.
I pose the following question: How vacant must a person's brain be to think up this kind of stuff?
Then I realized, I do the same thing. Maybe I should offer my services to the Oxford Center for the nomenclaturally disadvantaged species, formerly known as the Center for (the A-word) Ethics.
The first thing I would do is change the name of the Oxford Center, which in itself shows an oxencentric bias, implying that the faculty is Ox-like in their thinking, a definite derogation of the bovine species.
I would eliminate the Chinese calendar — no more "year of the Rooster." And rewrite history — "King Richard The Free-Living Cardio Ruler." Change car names — the Dodge Ethanol Charger. Edit phrases — "It's raining salt and pepper," and "Well, I'll be the brother of a simian's mother."
How dare we humans call ourselves Buffalo Bill, Snoop Dog, Michael J. Fox or Aardvark Montoya? It's OK to slander humans — manic depressive, reprimand, or commando — but cruel to use abducted, dogmatic, hoarse, medicate, lampoon, irate or supplicant.
It's nice to know there are other people who think outside the box.
Civilization needs them to help us define the difference between normal and hallucinatory.
The director illustrates my point, and forgive my anthropomorphic bias, is crazy as a loon.