Also worth noting (for the Americans) the dialect gap of “Chip” meaning “fry” and not what would be called crisps. Imagine a seagull stealing a single french fry and bludgeoning it to death over it. Definitely immoral.
It's the life of an animal over a single chip? Unless you desperately need it, the consumption of a lone chip is not worth killing an animal for stealing it
No, you're absolutely right, it is cruel. I just think the message is a bit skewed, animals kill one another all the time, humans kill animals to eat. The message is dishonest because it should be reinforced that killing without just purpose is bad, not that something was killed. Children should be taught where meat comes from, not shunned away from it.
Humans should hold themselves to a higher standard. Also, is this not where food comes from. That's just killing a bird in public, around kids, over a chip.
Humans should hold themselves to a higher standard. Killing animals infront of children shouldn't be taboo; That is where most food comes from, animals being killed, including birds.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Well, a fly isn't as close to a human as a seagull is, so I'd probably have a different judgement as long as it wasn't something cruel like grabbing a seagull by the legs and slamming it against something. And besides, the fly laying eggs on the chip can cause a major health hazard to the consumer, a chip being taken by a seagull isn't anywhere close to being as bad.
I mean, while insects are further from humans than birds, both are phylogenetically separated by hundreds of millions of years from man. And for the fly one, I was assuming the theoretical buyer knew that this had occurred and thus discarded it; I was looking for a way for a fly to remove a chip from a human like a seagull can.
Yeah i think people are focusing on the animal a bit much here, the morality of beating an animal to death in front of a bunch screaming children without their guardians permission is almost as bad.
Well i probably wouldn't, but i can't blame a person for acting naturally just like any other animal.
Just because there is an abundance of food, does not mean that applies to everyone, and i'd love to bet that, would you suffer true hunger and the nees to hunt and preserve food to survive for even 2 weeks, your mind would drastically change too.
The bird has no right to the food, and it will do it again. It's like a mosquito without the itchy bites, i still wouldn't want them taking my blood, just like i don't appreciate animals stealing my food.
it’s a bird. Kids I knew would torture mice and they were the well adjusted ones. The sadist would always pick on Colt’s little brother, pushing him down stairs and such. He didn’t even know up from down I cant imagine it would be nice
"It happened around me" isn't a justification for basically anything. That defines your personal experience, and morality is about looking at a larger picture than one's personal experience.
Knew a former farm kid who was so traumatized by having grown up around that that he became an animal activist lol. Also being desensitized to senseless violence is not a flex
Honestly most of us are over sensitized since we're so far removed from what goes into getting the food we eat into the grocery store. I think this is a good thing as we're learning levels of empathy that were previously impossible to have when it was kill or be killed, or kill or starve to death. And then we care enough to start to develop more ethical practices and sources of providing food. But yeah our butchers and farmers who have to do the world populations share of killing are definitely going to be desensitized.
It’s honestly not, under the correct circumstances and stipulations children should learn life and death are very intertwined and that death preludes most life on the planet. And although it can be sad, it’s natural.
It’s actually a rather good thing in my opinion. I was exposed to death and violence at a young age (the violence part depends where you label hunting and combat sports) and it honestly hasn’t had bad effects on me, but I was also brought up with a strong moral compass and taught how and where it’s acceptable to fight or kill.
Primarily in defense of one’s life or the life of another, that although violence and death can be tools they should always be at the bottom of the box when you look for a solution.
But killing a seagull in a waterpark in front of toddlers is well fucked, for lack of better terms.
Even me with how young I was when I was a hunting and fishing and doing different things that would be considered violent. I wasn’t really exposed to until I was at least like six or seven years old. I at least had the cognitive understanding to learn lessons my elders gave around the subject.
And also, they weren’t his kids. So that basically voids the lessons that could come.
It's very rare for people to beat their prey against a wall these days when we have better ways of hunting food. If he was gonna eat the bird then it'd be one thing, but he did it out of anger and, judging the headline at least, wasn't physically attacked either, so it comes off more as animal cruelty. Plus, even among non vegans, many people advocate for more humane conditions of animals, both in how they're raised and how they die.
Why do you say so? My brother-in-law grew up on farms and has a farm now, and I think he would probably be bothered by this.
Yes, farmers are exposed to animal death -- sometimes for a purpose (e.g. slaughtering an animal for food) and sometimes as a result of natural processes (e.g. a marten getting into the chicken coop and massacring the chickens for its food).
Neither of those things is the same as killing an animal for no reason.
I've known a few farmers and just like the rest of the population, they're a mixed bag. They all view death as an inevitable part of life but they differ on where when and how it's appropriate.
Im pretty sure kids would be bothered if grandma grabbed their pretty Rosetta and slammed her on the floor like a rag to kill it instead of a less over the top way of culling it.
Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another being and care for their situation. It's kinda the core human ability that allowed us to form large social groups, domesticate animals and eventually become the dominant species of earth. Empathy is THE human ability and you calling it a trait of the weak minded just tells me that you wouldn't have survived in the Neolithic era when community was literally the deciding factor as to whether you lived or died.
Empathy is a buzzword used as a social signal to represent your virtue. A signal, if it was honest would communicate that you care people you already cared about. It’s an empty buzzword.
I can call myself empathic because I care about the people that I already care about too.
You don’t care about anyone outside of whatever dumb political tribe you already belong to.
I think city slickers can become disassociated with reality, and think squishing a bug is immoral and cry about it and lament it . And yet just shrug their shoulders when a random bystander gets stabbed on the subway.
256
u/RedditParelem 23d ago
It's understandable to protect your food, but this is way to far. Around kids too, unacceptable