Animal activist calls a chicken her little girl

[sunglasses]

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/animal-a ... 1644596141

Alrightly then. I know we have vegans and vegetarians on this site. And I know what I'm about to say might not sit well with some (I'm apologizing ahead of time) but first and formost a chicken is not a child.

A chicken is not a child.

A chicken is not a child.

You wanna raise a chicken, fine. You don't wanna eat meat? Ok, that's cool. You wanna go into a restuarant and talk about you kid and how we're essentially eating her? That's...a little creepy.

[Tesseracts]

I don't think anybody on this forum equates a chicken with a human child. If they do I will pray for their sanity. And by pray I mean I will call the mental hospital.

Watching this video makes me want to eat chicken. Actually no, I hate the taste of chicken. But it's the thought that counts.

#NotAllVegetarians #hashtags #nofilter

[Australia]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To get away from the fucking psychopath who was trying to breastfeed it, bathe it and teach it how to use the potty. And even then, it was chased back down and lectured about looking both ways before it does that again and is put in the naughty corner for the next three hours.

Has a nice ring to it.

[Aquila89]

This is obviously an incredibly stupid act, it's not going to help animals, it's just going to make people think that vegans are all crazy. It's not particularly newsworthy either. A stupid person is being stupid, that's what it is. In this particular case, the stupid person happens to be a wannabe animal activist.

By the way, I hate the tone of this article. As I said, this is not newsworthy. This person just wanted an excuse to point at vegans and laugh.

He also writes "she and those like her legitimately believe "speciesism" is a thing". Speciesism is not the idea that there are no relevant differences between humans and animals (or different animal species). It's "the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership." Saying that a human child's life is worth more than a chicken because humans are more intelligent is not speciesism. Saying that it's okay to eat pigs but it's wrong to eat dogs is, since pigs and dogs are equally intelligent.

[Ericthebearjew]

This is less misguided hippie-ish vegan idealism and more of a case of a manic upped hand clapping nut in need of a padded room.

[Tesseracts]

I decided to look at the FAQ on the website for the organizers of this restaurant-yelling event.

Why doesn't DxE use graphic images? And why does DxE sometimes share Facebook posts from other groups with graphic images?

In a survey on college campuses, we explored people's receptiveness to liberationist ideology once primed by one of four kinds of images: 1) A photo of graphic violence against a nonhuman; 2) a quote on animal rights by a figure of authority; 3) a perspective-shifting image of an animal that shows something of who the animal is; and 4) a control image. Though the study was small in scope, preliminary results suggest that graphic images made people more aversive than the control group to nonhuman rights, while images that demonstrated the individual's personality primed people to be more receptive to the anti-speciesist questions asked.

While many of us have felt that films like Earthlings or short videos like “From Farm to Fridge” were incredibly emotionally motivating for us, that can only be the case for someone who already regards those animals as beings who matter morally. And even then, horrific, graphic images can trigger defence mechanisms that make people shy away from the scene, thereby discouraging engagement with the liberationist message.

Also, significantly, we are concerned that repeatedly seeing images of people of a given group (nonhumans) being objectified by one's own group (humans) may normalize their objectification in the viewer's mind. Images of dead bodies being treated as objects do not challenge speciesist thinking. Images that show the story of who that animal is or was, however, do.

Even if a first glimpse into a slaughterhouse is morally shocking for the typical human in our society who has never witnessed the violence, that shock value will wear off as increased exposure to such images only decreases sensitivity to the violence. That is a serious threat to the movement, because people have to care about the violence if they are going to demand its end. So if and when we do share images of nonhuman people being violently violated, we must carefully consider the context of those images. Only when people recognize that each of these animals is a someone who does not want to die and has a right to live will they be able to acknowledge that violence against them is wrong.

They're smart enough to figure out that showing people graphic images that induce disgust isn't an effective persuasion tactic, yet they think screaming at people during lunch will somehow promote empathy for chickens? Doesn't seem right to me.

Why a nonviolent, non-hostile approach? Aren't you angry?

Of course we are angry. There is an atrocity happening all around us and everyone we know is participating in it. Innocent beings are crying for help all over the world at a scale that our limited minds cannot even remotely conceive of, and people incessantly make "bacon" jokes with no sensitivity to the infant whose head is being smashed into the pavement on the other side of that blind comment. Of course we are furious. But even justified anger is destructive when uncontrolled... and incredibly powerful when directed and channeled by confidence and resolve into carefully thought-through actions. It is important that we think before we act, not only so that we do not end up doing things that are counter-productive, but in order to take the most effective action possible in the interest of challenging speciesist society. Part of this means not lashing out against individuals, but instead addressing either a company that profits on nonhuman exploitation or speciesist society at large as the "enemy," because we will only get so far with people if we address them as the “bad guy” and position ourselves as their enemy. And part of that means we use terms like “we” and “us” and “our” instead of an Otherizing framing of “you” and “your” or “they” and “them” and “their.” We let our anger fuel our voice, not burn it up.

I like how nowhere in this explanation of why they are not a terrorist group does it say "violence against humans is wrong." Killing chickens is morally wrong, but killing a human is bad for political reasons only.

Relevant.

[Aquila89]

There's a lot of talk about animal rights extremists, but I don't know of a single instance of them killing anyone. The worst they have ever done is some property damage and intimidation. There are more dangerous terrorist groups for virtually every cause.

[Tesseracts]

There's a lot of talk about animal rights extremists, but I don't know of a single instance of them killing anyone. The worst they have ever done is some property damage and intimidation. There are more dangerous terrorist groups for virtually every cause.

There are extremists in every political cause, and chances are, no matter what the political cause is, somebody somewhere has killed over it. A quick Google search brings up this, this and this. Oh, and remember the default Cracked avatar?

[sunglasses]

There's a lot of talk about animal rights extremists, but I don't know of a single instance of them killing anyone. The worst they have ever done is some property damage and intimidation. There are more dangerous terrorist groups for virtually every cause.

There are extremists in every political cause, and chances are, no matter what the political cause is, somebody somewhere has killed over it. A quick Google search brings up this, this and this. Oh, and remember the default Cracked avatar?

Whoa. I had no idea that WWF was once behind death threats. Heavy.

Also, the shit I'm reading today. It must be a slow news day.

[blehblah]

This is disturbing. Does no-one think of the corn?

If you are thinking, "Yummy", you are a corn-baby-killer, you beast!

I really think that some people are too focused on animal life. Life is life (sha-nah-nah-nah-nah)! How does a chicken have more rights than a plant, or a donkey, or an amoeba? Do you know how many amoeba's you've killed today, just to support your lifestyle? Same.... shame.... shame, on you!

One doesn't "need" to kill corn babies any more than one "needs" to kill chickens, or amoebas. Sure, one could argue that chickens are more environmentally difficult to raise, but following that, human children are the true enemy. I mean, the Irish barely eat them anymore, and their impact on the environment is massive!

End global catastrophes, eat more Irish babies.

[Aquila89]

A quick Google search brings up this, this and this. Oh, and remember the default Cracked avatar?

All of the examples you bring up, except for Marie Lowell, are eco-terrorists, not animal rights extremists. It's not the same thing. Eco-terrorists may very well be meat-eaters, like Kaczynski was. As for Nicholas Mockford, the oil executive, he was actually killed by a common thief. Only Lowell would qualify, if she gotten beyond the "trying" stage, which she did not.

[aviel]

By the way, I hate the tone of this article. As I said, this is not newsworthy. This person just wanted an excuse to point at vegans and laugh.

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately, the standard for this subforum is to allow the posting of anything that is currently taking place. So you can feel free to tell is that you just took a shit in the CAaSS section if you want. It may not be fit for news, but it's fit for TCS.

[Tesseracts]

By the way, I hate the tone of this article. As I said, this is not newsworthy. This person just wanted an excuse to point at vegans and laugh.

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately, the standard for this subforum is to allow the posting of anything that is currently taking place. So you can feel free to tell is that you just took a shit in the CAaSS section if you want. It may not be fit for news, but it's fit for TCS.

I'm not going to lie, this is getting annoying. I'm fine with you saying you don't think this story deserves media attention, but there's nothing that can be accomplished from relentlessly criticizing the standards of this small internet forum that split off from the comments section of a humor website. I think everyone is entirely clear on what your opinion is already.

I'm saying this as a transparent bulbasaur not as an admin.

[aviel]

People may be clear on my opinion, but are apparently not clear on the best policy. And yes, I know that TCS is not a particularly influential corner of the internet, but you may have noticed that I spend a lot of time in it, so I want it to be as nice a place as possible.

[DamianaRaven]

BREAKING NEWS: Avi Acts Persnickety, Entire Forum Dies of Surprise