You literally just contradicted yourself in two sentences.
You claim you don’t support inhumane practices, but then you call it “unnecessary drivel” when someone speaks out against them? And then you try to normalize those inhumane practices as simply “perfectly well accepted terms”?
They’re not just words, those words have meanings, and the meaning of this one is atrocious.
Ok, but no one said anything about declawing their cat. No one suggested that declawing cats wasn’t harmful to them. What exactly is the point of getting pissy with someone for using the correct term for a thing?
The top-level comment literally said “because the cat isn’t declawed” not “because cats have claws.”
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm, when the reality is that cats with claws are the norm and that cats being declawed is the deviation. Not only that, but it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets, and the next person’s response was completely appropriate and called for.
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm
No, it doesn’t. Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places. It’s not that unusual to find rescue cats that have been declawed.
it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
Yes, for the 10th time in this thread, literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets
Not it’s not, it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence. If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed, rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness.
Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places.
Exactly, all the more reason to call it out when you see language that normalizes it.
literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
If you agree that it’s bad, then get with the effing program instead of focusing your ire on the people who are actually calling it out!
it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence.
Again, a sane person would say “cats have claws,” not “that cat hasn’t been declawed.” See the difference?
If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed
Oh, you want to question whether someone really cares about cats? Someone who actually called out language that was attempting to normalize declawing, while you’re the one rushing to defend that language? I don’t think so.
rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness
You’re the one doing that by arguing on the same side as the rhe people saying things like “do you go around looking for reasons to be offended” and “some people make impotent rage their identity.”
You literally just contradicted yourself in two sentences.
You claim you don’t support inhumane practices, but then you call it “unnecessary drivel” when someone speaks out against them? And then you try to normalize those inhumane practices as simply “perfectly well accepted terms”?
They’re not just words, those words have meanings, and the meaning of this one is atrocious.
Ok, but no one said anything about declawing their cat. No one suggested that declawing cats wasn’t harmful to them. What exactly is the point of getting pissy with someone for using the correct term for a thing?
The top-level comment literally said “because the cat isn’t declawed” not “because cats have claws.”
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm, when the reality is that cats with claws are the norm and that cats being declawed is the deviation. Not only that, but it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets, and the next person’s response was completely appropriate and called for.
No, it doesn’t. Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places. It’s not that unusual to find rescue cats that have been declawed.
Yes, for the 10th time in this thread, literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
Not it’s not, it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence. If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed, rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness.
Exactly, all the more reason to call it out when you see language that normalizes it.
If you agree that it’s bad, then get with the effing program instead of focusing your ire on the people who are actually calling it out!
Again, a sane person would say “cats have claws,” not “that cat hasn’t been declawed.” See the difference?
Oh, you want to question whether someone really cares about cats? Someone who actually called out language that was attempting to normalize declawing, while you’re the one rushing to defend that language? I don’t think so.
You’re the one doing that by arguing on the same side as the rhe people saying things like “do you go around looking for reasons to be offended” and “some people make impotent rage their identity.”
If it’s a euphemism then it’s not the correct term; mutilation is correct.
It is the currently used term, perhaps but it’s certainly not the correct one.