Following last week’s similar article encouraging people to stop selfishly having kids, the UK Guardian ran a mind-numbing piece Wednesday headlined, “The case against pets: is it time to give up our cats and dogs?”
Answer: no. Case closed.
But that’s not much fun, so let’s go ahead and see what the goofy wokesters are up to this time. I expected it to be related to climate change somehow, like because of all the carbon released making pet food or driving them to the dog park or something. But no.
Once again, their big objection is our human selfishness. Unvirtuous! Apparently, feeding them, walking them, snuggling with and petting them, de-lousing them, de-worming them, grooming them, and paying thousands of dollars for our pets’ medical care — is all TOTALLY self-centered, dummies.
Humans, explained an anti-pet “expert” cited for the article, unjustly “are extracting as much emotional support as we want from” our pets. In the expert’s view, it is definitely “a very selfish relationship.”
Another expert, presumably also a marxist, complained about the language we use to describe our relationship with our animals. She demands that people stop rudely saying they “own” animals, like by saying “I have a dog,” which violates animal human rights, or something, undermining their furry self-confidence. Instead, said the expert, we should only say that we “care for” our pets. Not “have” them.
Maybe she had a point. Admittedly, the animals can’t understand English and have no idea how we’re referring to the relationship, but maybe. You never know. Animals can be very intuitive.
Next, the article argued that pets “aren’t living their best lives.” Which is a crime against humanity to festival-loving, woke, hippie marxist anti-pet experts. According to another anti-pet expert, who used pet parrots as an example, “The boredom of animals is intense.” I am not making this up, but the Guardian then argued “fish are increasingly thought to be bored or stressed by tank life.”
Fish. Whose fishy brains are so small they can’t be seen with the naked eye.
The unstated alternative, to leave the animals to live their best lives in the wild, would certainly cure their boredom. Being chased by a hungry hawk or a predatory bigger fish is, admittedly, much more exciting than swimming laps around the fishbowl or repeatedly croaking “I love you” in exchange for birdie treats.
But … I’m just spitballing here … maybe we should check with the animals first, and see which lifestyle they prefer. Gilded cage? Or full-on Darwin, survival of the fastest?
For purposes of this story, I interviewed the Childers’ family housecat, ‘Kitty,’ about her preference. But she didn’t answer, and just languidly looked the other way, flicking her tail contemptuously, as if it were the stupidest question she ever heard.
I’m sorely tempted to treat this nonsense seriously, and point out things like how the law treats pets as property and does not recognize individual animal rights. If my dog bites someone, then I have to pay damages, not my dog. If I negligently run over someone’s cat, then I have to reimburse the crumpled cat’s owner for the veterinary expenses, not reimburse the cat.
But this nonsense is not serious, and these are not serious people. They are pitiable victims of mental illness. We just need to get them some treatment and stop pretending that anything they say is rational.
☕️ BEST LIFE ☙ Friday, September 15, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Meet the (allegedly) Mexican Alien Mummy; NASA hires UFO chief; the people's uprising of London; Republicans focus on shady Chinese bio lab in California; Hunter indicted; probing pet questions; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
