Did you hear that the Journal of Animal Ethics wants you to abandon the use of the word “pet” in favor of “companion animal?” Here’s how one news site reports it:
“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them,” the journal argued.
Veterinarian Jane Corkum said that the politically correct terms might be a little overboard. But she said the idea of identifying an “animal-companion” as more than just a critter is important to most owners.
“I don’t find it an offense to calling them a pet because I think of my pet as a friend or as a companion, so I think it is just a word,” said Corkum. “But I can certainly see why some people do want to get rid of it and just call them a companion or a friend or family member even.”
Why, those silly animal people! Thank goodness we have veterinarian(!) Jane Corkum to acknowledge that they’re going overboard, even though you have to admit that they kinda have a point. Of course, Ms. Corkum knows what she’s talking about. She’s a veterinarian. So she knows animals.
No, the vet wasn’t included for that reason. The vet was included because the reporter agreed with her that the Journal had a point. The vet serves the same purpose as the second salesperson on the Home Shopping Network. The vet represents you, the reasonable person. This is what you, the reasonable person, should think.
This isn’t just an article about a group who wants to convince society to replace one word with another. This is a case study in how a reporter sells a point of view. “Ya, they’re a little over the top, but they do have a point, right? Right?” All presented by a person identified as an authority on the subject as the reasonable middle road.