or is it?

When I was talking to my friend about animals and stuff and saying that I thought that he should have a larger tank for his fish (instead of the 4.75" bowl that he has now), he said something to the effect of 'it bothers me that you criticize me for having my fish in what is obviously a fishbowl'. This bothered me, but I didn't quite have my finger on the reason for it at the time. However, while I was in the shower this morning, the reason crystallized for me.

It's marketed as a fishbowl. It's sold as a fishbowl. It was bought as a fishbowl. It is indeed a bowl and does indeed have a fish in it. I guess it's a fishbowl. (We sold them at JoAnn-Fabrics as vases.)



It's Twinkies (with a purported shelf-life of 12 years, though this might be urban legend). It's labeled food. People eat it. It has a nutrition information label. It must be food. (Even though it has no nutritional value.)





It's called clothing. It was worn as clothing. A corset must be a piece of clothing. (Even though frequent use leads to back muscle atrophy, rib deformation, and other problems.)








It's marketed as a slave. It's bought as a slave. It's treated like a slave. It must be a slave. (Even though a human being is subjected to utter degradation.)



I guess the point here, is that even though something might commonly be given a certain use, it's good to question those uses. Sometimes a commonly accepted usage is less than healthy or humane.