Here, little chickie... Here little chickie... I'm going to KILL YOU!!

Great Debates
41

**

Which is why you brought up the killing of children after they were cute, huh?

See, either you are equating a chicken with a human in terms of how we should treat them and the rights they should have, or you were just making a false analogy just for inappropriate shock value. Take your pick.

**

Then you’ll retract the above superfluous and unrelated commentary, I’ll assume.

**

In theory (and I believe in practice too in spite of the charges of a “coverup” of some sort), the zoo is using the chicks for kids to enjoy as a living entity, and then using them so an aligator or lion might enjoy living, as a natural part of the food chain.

A human being happens to be allowing the former to happen and is making the latter happen directly, but even without us chopping it into small bits for them, I assure you that carnivores have been eating tons of other animals to live throughout history.

In addition, ask any kid on a farm who grew up with a chicken, turkey or cow which later was used for dinner, how “traumatic” this is. Most I’ve talked to see it as a way of life and nothing more.

**

So then you suggest raising them just to kill them for food? After all, we have to feed carnovores something, and unlike you, they don’t want tofu and don’t find it to be strange that they eat other animals.

Seems to me that they are not raised for cuteness, but as food for other animals. So if their fate is already preordained, what’s the harm in some kids petting them?

If it will make you feel any better, we can always starve out the carnivores. Does that help any “sanctity of life?” Assuming it doesn’t, what’s the harm in letting the kids pet the animals before they go into the food chain? It’s all natural, after all.

I have more of a problem not telling the kids what will happen to them than anything else, though I can understand why they don’t. But if I was a parent, I would certainly tell my kids that a Lion is not like in some fucking Disney movie.

Good for you. More for me, and they’re delicious.

However, that is your choice, a choice that you, as an omnivore, can make. A carnivore doesn’t have that choice.

42

I think you have jumped the gun in assuming that anything short of an equality is a false analogy. I stand by my statements. I repeat: “I put them [chicks and people] on the same continuum, just at different places, and do not believe that animals exist to serve at our pleasure. . . . . I do not support the needless killing of animals for the same reason that I would not support the needless killing of people – a fundamental sanctity of life.” What I suggest is that the relationship is neither equal nor adscititious; a similarity in nature but a difference in degree.

I also find it ironic that you demand retraction of my “superfluous and unrelated commentary,” but then come out with the non sequitur “If it will make you feel any better, we can always starve out the carnivores.” I have made no comment concerning carnivores. As far as people who eat meat go, I have also addressed this by pointing out how a person can make values judgements which respect the life of the animal which has been taken while recognizing the needs of the person.

Finally, we obviously disagree on the point at issue. You find no harm in the tangental use of the chicks, whereas I do. I believe that the lesson to be learned is not that animals are products to be used by people, but rather that animals should not be used by people without a darn good reason, and therefore when we do use them, we should stop and think about what benefit we are receiving, what cost they are paying, and whether it is an ethically reasonable thing to do.

FREE THE DAPHNIA!

43

**

Repeating things which are WRONG and also not actually describing the statement you made which was equating EXACTLY human children and chicken offspring does not make them any more RIGHT.

**

Did you READ what you wrote? You substituted a human child with a chick in the story. Directly substituted. Quit playing semantics here, muffin, but that is equating them. Not “almost.” Not this “silularity in nature but a difference in degree” BS.

Tell you what: The simularity in nature is that both are inarguably alive. The difference in nature is that one is a person and the other is a fucking chicken that we (the colloqiual “we” meaning, most humans) eat.

**

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of irony.

And sarcasm while I’m at it.

Your post seemed to never once take into account that the animals were being killed to feed other animals. Ergo, I felt the need to point this out to you.

This does not address the fact that these chicks are not being killed “for entertainment” or even for OUR DIRECT BENEFIT. They are being killed to FEED OTHER ANIMALS.

This kinda takes your whole argument a different tact, unless you find something inherently perverse about kids playing with another animal’s dinner. (“Don’t play with the Lion’s food, junior…”) Because your argument never once acknowledges that other animals eat the chicks, not patrons of KFC.

With this, can you construct some kind of reasoning to rebut the statement that, well, if we have to raise them long enough so they would be good for other animals to eat, why not have kids play with them a bit? Because if we didn’t the chickies would still die to feed other animals. Sho what does it hurt?

And what the hell is a Daphina? One of Scooby Doo’s sidekicks? :slight_smile:

44

What can I say. We have a profoundly different world view. I still stand by my statements. What to you appears to be BS is to me of fundamental importance to who I am and how I perceive my place in the world. Should I accuse you of being obtuse because your world view has clearer bounds? Of course not. I don’t suggest that, and I won’t suggest that. So rather than complain about my shades of grey as being BS and semantics, why not consider for a moment that I am on the level and the subtilies are of significance to me.

**

“Save the Daphnia!” refers to a response by the toxicology grad students of the U. of Guelph in the 90s to vandalism done on campus by animal rights folks.

45

**

I didn’t take you to task for your “world view.”

I took you to task for the piss-poor analogy your offered as a way of showing what your world-view is.

What you said is in no uncertain terms “human child = chick.” Period. And since then, you have tried to make a whole bunch of nonsense not equal that statement, yet you refuse to see that’s exactly what you said.

**

Which one. The one where you equated a human child to a chick? Or the weaseling back-tracking where you tried to NOT say that but never once just saying that your previous statement was sensationalist garbage that didn’t make the point you intended?

**

What appears to me to be BS - unless you do equate your “world-view” with that inflammatory soundbite - is how you made a statement which is patently bullshit and instead of simply admitting that your logic is wrong there, you weasel.

**

What is significant? That human child = chick? There is no shade of gray in you making the following comment:

Especially since nobody brought up the killing of children until you did.

Face it, you were trying to make a point, got too cute and sensationalistic about it for your own good, and you instead said something that you don’t actually believe or can back up. Just admit it and I’m done with it, really.

And in spite of you doing all this huffing and puffing, you STILL have not responded to the fact that you never ADDRESSED the fundamental flaw in your logic because, as I said, the chicks are feeding other animals. Does it make your head explode that if you are against the killing of an animal that animals who need to eat them to live will die?

I am trying to make you THINK here, Muffin. I get along just fine with pldennison, who is a fine vegetarian animal rights-type. But what he does not do is:

  • Offer false analogies designed to inflame and antagonize and not meaning how he really feels about something.

  • Not answer a question to back up his views or clarify them when asked an honest question about them.

Please do manage to see the difference. I could care less if you decide that all life is precious and you start eating your toenails for sustenance.

The issue is your analogy was flawed and sensationalistic, and your rhetoric speaks nothing of the fact that other animals, not humans, are using the animals in death.

That phrase you are using, it was meant to be sarcastic when said by the grad students, yes?

46

Seems to me that most people are not too upset that the chicks are killed and frozen for animal food, but that before it happens, people actually get to see them. Should a child’s eye’s be covered when driving past a field of cows? Why not? What exactly is the difference? That it is not known for an indisputable fact that the cow is gonna get cut into porterhouses in a week?

A couple of arguments seemed to imply that it’s wrong now cuz the chick should be allowed to grow up into the vile, violent and anti-social creatures that chickens really are. Then it’s okay if they are nuked and frozen for food?

Are they being offed in front of the visitors? No. So where’s the tragedy for the people who like to look at chicks?

If the zoo had only arranged to have chicks killed someplace else, and delivered frozen like a cornish hen at the supermarket, it seems as though it wouldn’t be a problem. Just as it’s not a problem that they recieve other animals and slabs of meat that way already. Nobody seems to give a shit about the whole frozen goats that are delivered. As long as human eyes cannot see a chick prior to it’s processing to be owl chow (or whatever eats chicks), then it’s okay?

I just find it interesting by the way, not bagging anyone’s views.

47

Actually, what I said was: “I don’t think it is a good idea to cuddle children until they lose the cuteness and then throw them in the dumpster. Not such a hot idea for chicks either.” I stand by this statement. It is fundamental to my world view. In my opinion, both share a sanctity of life, and as such deserve respect and the greatest of consideration concerning decisions and actions affecting their lives, yet both are frequently subject to horrendous misuse, abuse, and devaluation of their lives which, again in my opinion, is unjustifiable.

You are adamant on insisting that my statement equates children absolutely with chicks, and that I therefore should assign the same rights to chicks as I do children, or retract my statement as being irrelevant and inflammatory. If I had intended to state that children are the equivalent of chicks, I would have said so. But I did not. If I had intended to state that children and chicks should have equal rights, I would have said so, but I did not. What I have stated, and what I continue to stand by, is that I put people and animals on the same continuum based on my belief in a sanctity of life, but that I do not place them on the same place on the continuum. You insist on rejecting this as “BS” and “superfluous” and “unrelated”. Regardless of what you may think of it, I stand by it just the same.

You have complained of my “logic.” I suggest that you are pointing in the wrong direction. I have put forward that I oppose the trivial use and discarding of both children and chicks. This no more means that the one absolutely equals the other than my saying that I oppose shooting bunnies and boars means that bunnies and boars are the same thing. By the same token, it also no more means that the one is unrelated to the other than my saying that I oppose shooting coyotes and wolves means that coyotes and wolves are unrelated. My statement is a juxtaposition, not an equation, and not an irrelevancy. In this juxtaposition you find almost no connection, and you take great offence at my making a connection, whereas in this juxtaposition I place my world view. I believe that both people and animals are on the same continuum and should not be harmed if at all possible, and if such harm is to be done, then only after a very close evaluation which includes respecting a sanctity of life shared by animals and humans, chicks and children. Heck, I even hug trees and would rather that rock not be disturbed by people. Ever come across the Gaia theory? Well, I don’t quite buy it, but I’m darn closer to it than any other belief system. I submit that you have confused my logic, which is solid, with my belief and values system, which by definition has nothing to do with logic, and may be flaky as my grandmother’s pie crust, or may actually be on target.

I keep answering to the best of my ability, but it is not possible to provide the answers which you wish to hear, namely retractions of my statements. I stand by my statements, and I’d be glad to try to explain my position again if you would be willing to cut back on the hostility.

It is rather presumptuous for you to decide how I feel about something. I have stated how I feel on the issue. That you chose to believe that I feel differently than I have stated suggests that you are having difficulty in accepting that I have such views. I assure you, I do hold the views which I have purported. Regardless of whether the chicks were later used as feed or not, I find the use to which the chicks were put concerning the children to be disturbing, and the deliberate avoidance of the promotion of ethical decision making by the zoo to be troubling. I find particularly disheartening the societal acceptance that the cuteness of chicks should be commodified without thought or respect being given to the immediate future of the chicks by those benefitting from them.

From your world view, I present a false analogy, but as I have repeatedly tried to explain, from my world view it is a juxtaposition which is core to my beliefs. For you, the only relationship between chicks and children is that “both are inarguably alive. The difference in nature is that one is a person and the other is a fucking chicken that we (the colloqiual “we” meaning, most humans) eat.” For me the relationship is no where near as black and white. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I place animals and people on the same continuum. I by no means equate them, but I certainly do consider them to be on the same continuum. For me the nature of the being is the same, and only the degree of sentience is different. To me a chicken is far more than someone’s dinner.

That you find my statements so troubling is your problem, not mine. I will not take responsibility for how you react to my beliefs or to my explanations of my beliefs. Furthermore, I find it ironic that for someone so concerned about being inflammatory, you repeatedly call me a “weasel;” you dismiss my position as “BS” and a “whole bunch of nonsense;” you ridicule my statements as being “piss-poor,” “sensationalist garbage,” “inflammatory soundbite[s]” of “inappropriate shock value;” and you put forward an extremely patronizing attitude toward me with comments such as “Did you READ what you wrote?” and “Allow me to introduce you to the concept of irony. And sarcasm while I’m at it.” How about toning down your attacks? Your opening post asked if the zoo was acting in an ethical manner, and I have given my position. Just because you do not see it, either because it is too alien to you subjectively, or is just plain alien objectively, there is no need to get hostile over it. Obviously you are frustrated by my answers, but I assure you that I am equally frustrated by my inability to get my point across despite my best attempts.

The issue arose out of animal testing at Guelph in the mid-90s. At that time it’s toxicology department ran experiments which killed more creatures than any other Canadian university. The purpose of the studies was to learn what different creatures could tolerate, so that environmental standards could be set to ensure their protection. For example, creosote was tested on trout so that environmental standards concerning logging road bridges could be made with a view to protecting trout. Yes, many creatures were killed, but only after a great deal of thought was given as to the necessity. Many animal rights persons did not accept this, leading to quite a few protests and a couple of break-ins. The toxicologists (including the one who got me into literally hugging trees) were concerned that the protesters did not understand the decision making process which led to an ethical taking of life. The protesters’ position was that there could be no such thing as the ethical taking of life.

Daphnia are water fleas – minute freshwater branchiopod crustaceans which push themselves about with antennae, which are pretty darn low on the sentience scale, and which as a genus are in no way in need of protection. The joke was that the toxicologists sold quite a few t-shirts stating “Save the Daphnia!” to animal rights protesters who jumped on the bandwagon and proudly wore them at protests without first troubling to learn what daphnia were.

48

Satan:

Let’s try a different tack. I have put forth that mistreatment of children (A) is bad ©, and that mistreatment of chicks (B) is bad ©. This is not a syllogism. It is a juxtaposition.

You insist that based on the above, either I must equate the treatment of children and chicks (X{A = B}), or accept that the treatment of children and chicks is not related (Y{A = ~ B}). You force a syllogism which I reject.

Drafting it out, your argument is as follows:

A = C
B = C
Therefore X{A = B} v Y{A = ~ B}

Now let’s break it down by the numbers.

You hop directly to a disjunctive syllogism, modus tollens, with your first premise being a limited set of alternatives: X v Y.

Your error is that you commit the logical fallacy known as false dilema, which prohibits you from claiming that either X or Y must be true when both could be false.

So lets first look at X{A = B}, which when drafted out fully reads:
A = C
B = C
Therefore X{A = B}

Although A = C is true, and B = C is true, when you then assert that this means that A = B must also be true, you commit the logical fallacy of non sequitur. There is simply no logical connection. If mistreatment of children bad, and mistreatment of chicks is bad, it does not follow that mistreatment of children is necessarily the same as mistreatment of chicks.

The same problem exists with Y{A = ~ B}, which when drafted out fully reads:
A = C
B = C
Therefore Y{A ~ B}

Although A = C is true, and B = C is true, when you then assert that this means that A ~ B must also be true, you again commit the logical fallacy of non sequitur, for again there is simply no logical connection. If mistreatment of children bad, and mistreatment of chicks is bad, it does not follow that mistreatment of children is necessarily different from the mistreatment of chicks.

Now that both X{A = B} and Y{A = ~ B} can both be false, your attempted argument fails due to false dilema.

You have complained about my logic, but as you can see from the above proof, it is your logic which is in error. Your fundamental mistake was to assume a limited set of possibilities from the git go. You were thinking within the box. You limited the possibilities, insisting that I follow either one or the other of the paths you laid out, but by ignoring other approaches, you only created a false delima.

In addition to depending on the fallacies of non sequitur and false dilemma, you have also relied on another type of fallacy: argumentum ad invidiam/ad hominem. Quite simply, slinging little balls of defecate derision at me has no logical bearing what so ever on either the truth or validity of my position. If you wish to debate well, you would do well to not use such tactics.

By insisting on repeating the same logical flaws over and over again, it bogged down the debate, Rather than debate, you played a broken record. This was a pity. Perhaps the next time you find yourself circling around the same point for extended periods, you might consider listening to what is being said to you and then go re-examine your premises, the arguments which you based them on, and the fallacies you may have tripped over.

Now let’s move on to a more delicate matter, separate from the technical flaws in your argument. The following has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong in this debate. Rather, it concerns your deportment.

I note that as the debate went on, rather than turning to look at your argument, you simply covered your ears and hurled more and more abuse. This is extremely unfortunate, for it demeans the forum, and takes pleasure away from debating. I encourage you to lose your superior attitude, which is both unsupportable in fact and just plain rude in practice. I also encourage you to lose the personal vindictive, which is juvenile. Quite frankly, you behaved as would a nasty drunk, progressively becoming less rational and more abusive. There is a difference between a debate and a pissing match. If you derive some pleasure from your behavior, or actually have fooled yourself into believing that your behavior is appropriate, then all’s the more the pity. In short, if you wish to be treated courteously or even just to be taken seriously, then pull up your socks and start acting like an adult.

49

I’d respond to your ‘get over yourself’ with a hearty ‘fuck you’, but this is not the Pit and no place for personal insults. I can reply to the rest of your post, however.

I at no time claimed to know your personal reasons for choosing to be a vegetarian. I simply shared my opinion that the reason more people are becoming vegetarians over the years is that less people grow up knowing where their meat comes from. Your personal anecdote in no way disproves this hypothesis, which makes more sense the more I think about it. But tell me, who do you think is less likely to have moral problems with eating meat - someone who was taught from the beginning that you get meat from dead animals and is well-acquainted with the process, or somebody who doesn’t realize until they are 7 years old and fully infected with the ‘Animals=Cute Furry Friends’ meme? I can already predict my stepdaughter is going to cry a while and probably refuse to eat meat for a while after she is told.

Does anybody know of any sites that breakdown the population by their dietary preferences? Best I have found is here, but it doesn’t really break it down by urban vs. rural, just by race, gender, income, and region. It does show that there are a lot more vegetarians in the western U.S. (10%) than in the south (4%).

50

Oh, I’m sure it does–the more one sits around and congratulates oneself over cleverly worded analogies, the more those analogies make sense, no matter how dumb they are. In the meantime, in the absence of oh, say, evidence, the experience of an actual vegetarian carries somewhat more weight than idle speculation.

I mean, it isn’t as if there are lots of vegetarians at the SDMB that we could, like, ask or something. :rolleyes:

51

If, um, what Badtz Maru is suggesting is correct…wouldn’t the problem be six and ten year old vegetarians? Or, Badtz, are you suggesting that folx are reaching adulthood without recognizing cows=beef?

'Cos I’m with pldennison here. I stopped eating meat at 20, not because I realized that my chick patty was a relative of the chickie in the petting zoo but because I looked into the conditions of factory farms. I think there’s a world of difference in those realizations and stances.

52

Badstz Maru:

[Moderator Hat ON]

Um, right. And since you clearly know what forum this is, do not tell anyone “fuck you” here even if it is phrased as a rhetorical comment. I don’t really think remarks like, “if this was the Pit, I’d say ‘fuck you’/call you a yak-felching moron/tell you to [obscene act]”, etc. can be legitmately considered to not be an insult. Thanks.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Edited by Gaudere on 03-05-2001 at 02:08 PM]

53

I would think that if you’re going to correlate “knowing where meat comes from” with “becoming a vegetarian”, it would be just the opposite. If fewer and fewer people know where meat comes from, they’ll be more likely to view it as just another food item, wrapped in plastic and on sale at Kroger, not as an actual chunk of muscle tissue from a formerly living animal. So you’d actually have a higher proportion of meat-eaters who are meat-eaters simply by default–they don’t know where meat comes from and they don’t care. And you’d have fewer and fewer vegetarians, as fewer and fewer people realize where meat comes from and swear off it forever.

For Opal:

Zoo animal diet, at the Phoenix (Arizona) zoo.
http://www.wre.liverpool.k12.ny.us/whacked/alligator%20habitat/diet_zoo.html

These are the Phoenix Zoo animals listed that receive “meat supplements”, which I am assuming means dead chicks, among other things.

I am assuming that if they had larger snakes, they’d be getting chicks, too.

Black bears eat meat.
http://www.westerville.k12.oh.us/ZOO/BLACK%20BEAR/BBEARINFO.htm

Storks eat meat.
http://www.sandi.net/roosevelt/mstorkdiet.html

Fennec foxes eat meat.
http://www.phillyzoo.org/pz0041.htm

Arctic foxes eat meat.
http://www.rossparkzoo.com/virtualtour/lowerzoo/articfox.htm

Rosco the Spectacled Bear eats something called “Omni Meat Loaf”, among other things. Omni Loaf is 29% of his total diet.
http://www.lphs.dupage.k12.il.us/stu_proj/mic_chem/final/bear/diet.htm

Chimpanzees eat meat
http://www.whozoo.org/students/brawil/chimps2.htm

Omnivore diet means meat.

54

We may just have to agree to disagree on that one, Arnold.

It’s true that we can sustain ourselves quite well without animal protein. But there’s no doubt that our bodies weren’t evolutionarily designed with that in mind, which is why vegetarians have to think about whether they’re getting the right balance of amino acids, which is something nature takes care of automatically for us carnivores. And while there are many who are vegetarian by choice, most of us that can eat meat, do. Looking at us as a species, it seems that in our bodies and in our psyches, consuming animal protein is still the default setting.

The same cannot be said about creating and sacrificing animals for our entertainment, despite the long history of cock-fighting, bear-baiting, and other such pastimes. We’ve always had an abundance of ways to entertain ourselves that didn’t involve the death of animals.

That’s my best argument on the point, but I’m aware that it’s not fundamentally persuasive.

I hear you saying that these are like in that they’re both things that people do, involving killing animals, that they don’t absolutely have to do. I see them differing because they’re at nearly opposite ends of a potential spectrum of such things (for the reasons just outlined). Neither viewpoint is inherently superior; there are many spectrums (spectra?) which might as well be a single point, based on the moral difference between one end and the other.

IOW, I expect we’ll have to agree to disagree.

55

How to humanely kill poultry.

In small quantities.

http://www.sonic.net/~melissk/prekill.html

In large quantities, the technique is the same, only the container is bigger, and sometimes they add argon to speed things up.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950731_en_18.htm

A table of humane killing methods for poultry.

http://animalwelfare.ucdavis.edu/publication/poultryeuth.html

I don’t know for sure, but this may be the sort of thing the Dallas Zoo uses.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/co2chamber.htm

It’s basically an airtight acrylic box that you put the cage full of critters into and then feed the gas in. IMO, this, from the article–

–is needlessly sensationalistic. Using the comparison to our old friend the microwave, star of a dozen horror stories about exploding kittens, and saying that zoo personnel “herd them in there”, with its overtones implying the chicks have a choice (“run for your lives!”), is just designed to sell newspapers.

56

Never! Submit to my reasoning, o argumentative one!
I’m not convinced by the reasoning that ‘this behaviour has more tradition behind it and has biological reasons, therefore it has ethical justifications’. One could just as well use that reasoning to defend, say, the idea that women should be housewives. Ethics should profit from the advances made by science and society.

I won’t agree to disagree, but I will admit that my persuasive powers may be insufficient to convince you of the inerrancy of my propositions. Perhaps I will practice speaking with stones in my mouth like the great Demosthenes, and thus achieve an inexorable eloquence.

57

I’ve opened up a new thread in MPSIMS:

Why did you become a vegetarian?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=62370

58

No, I wasn’t suggesting that people were reaching adulthood without realizing what meat was, but that a person’s attitudes and beliefs are often based on events that happened in childhood. For many kids these days learning the source of meat can be a traumatic event, something that will stick in their minds and could color their future decisions.

I’m not exactly sorry I brought Pit language in Great Debates, but I feel like making it clear that the only reason I did so was pldennison’s attacking me instead of my post with his ‘get over yourself’ comment. Maybe it was just the mood I was in at the time, but that pissed me off and I felt it was inappropriate for this forum, so I reacted in kind.

59

[Moderator Hat: ON]

You felt it was inappropriate for this forum, so you reacted in kind?

Don’t you see a bit of a problem with that?

I do…

If you see something that you think is inappropriate for this forum, e-mail the Moderators, don’t add to it.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

60

Why don’t the kids get to come back when they are older and press the ‘gas’ button ?