| This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. I mean, not really. My argument is simple and not particularly nuanced, but checkou

| This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. I mean, not really. My argument is simple and not particularly nuanced, but checkout what it's a response to: | Infest is not the right word to use for animals in their natural habitat. In wilderness, it is humans who can be considered to be infesting... AND | is disturbing in its human-centricity It's unreasonable to ask everyone else to change how they speak because one person finds something disturbing. I'm not going to write a book saying why that person is wrong when they can't be bothered to write a reasonable proposal as to why everyone else needs to change their language patterns. The onus is on the one asking for a wide scale change to provide a reasonable argument. Your statement is much better than the original one as it actually starts to make headway as to why language changes might be desirable. However, I can still just respond with "I care more about people than I do about crocodiles, so my language pattern is staying the same." So you kind of need studies on ecology (how do crocodile populations help people), studies on psychology (how will changing language help the crocodiles), and studies on language efficiency (will the cost of the language change be worth the benefit to crocodiles and indirectly people). Meanwhile, a person with a box of free t-shirts with pictures of cute crocodiles on them with the back saying "save Katie the Krock" will do mountains more to actually help crocodile populations than random people arguing about language on the internet ... which kind of proves my point about information theory compressing things down.