I think we’re losing sight of one of society’s more appalling forms of abuse:
Larger than average children being forced to crouch behind yellow barricades just to protect “normal” children from a squashing.
Well, I’m a vegan, and I’d love to have you over for dinner, sometime (honestly; and I don’t mean to prepare you for the meal, either). Though you’re doubtless a far better flute player than I , so I’d be doing all the learning in the post-prandial mini-session, whereas you’d be doing all the wincing. The dinner, if I were cooking, wouldn’t have any animal products in it, but I’m sure I could make you something satisfying and even pretty yummy.
If I shunned everyone I knew who ate meat, I’d be a lonely fella, even here in the wacky San Francisco Bay Area.
It’s perhaps worthwhile to point out that I didn’t see a single real objection (on vegetarian grounds) to the thread, or any preachiness in the thread, at all. Dale’s stated that the private objections he got were about the family nature of the board, not about vegetarian activism. The first preachy post we got, as far as I can see, was Brian’s, railing against something that hadn’t, to all appearances, happened. Sort of weird. But hey.
It’s interesting that there are at least two vegans on this board (Redwolf and myself) and that we represent fairly different ends of the political spectrum, at least in certain broad-brush areas. I think one can choose to be an (ethical) vegan and hold just about any other belief as well. Alas, there are silly people that try to buttonhole all of us who hold to this lifestyle, but they’re, well, silly people . . .
I’m vegan primarily because I think the philosophical/ethical/environmental arguments in favor of this lifestyle, given the circumstances in which I (and most of us) live, are stronger than those for a lifestyle that includes the use of animal products when alternatives are available. Not because I’m just attached to “fluffy chickens” or soft-hearted (if you’re interested you can read my post in the “Political” thread to see what my view on compassion is – not “soft-heartedness”).
And though I don’t think a person causing harm to an animal is funny essentially, I can recognize absurdity and black humor very well; I’ve been doing cancer research for years, and if you can’t make dark jokes out of the subject you’d probably go crazy pretty quickly. Y’all would probably faint at the jokes I’ve heard pediatric oncologists tell . . . So I think that most of the jokes on the defunct “chicken” thread were pretty damned funny (esp. Wombat’s, which neatly tied together both sex and chickens again, as in the original post), but then I’m a twisted son of a . . .
Anyway, as Redwolf pointed out, the “canine” argument for carnivory in humans is plain dumb (both biologically and anthropologically), so I get a laugh at those who suggest that silliness, too. I worked intimately with the gorillas at the San Diego Zoo and the Wild Animal Park, and nary an ounce of meat passed those lips – and their canines are several inches long.
(That said, that thread – at least when I saw it – didn’t seem to be getting out of hand or particularly line-crossing, but ya gotta respect the decision of as lenient a moderator/bandwidth provider as our generous Dale. The leeway, and the civility, on this board is pretty exceptional in this digital era. Also, I think a quiet deletion probably would have served, though I realize this stuff must be tricky for moderators/owners. I don’t envy you, Dale. But I admire you. Really. Kind of a lot. Scary, huh?)
I’m with you all the way on this one, Dale.
The chicken liked it and died happy.
I think we’re somehow thinking that the thoughts and ideas
in our heads make some difference to this event that
already happened far away. Or that our saying these
things may promote the sexual abuse of animals,
or suicide.
Of course taken seriously this is a report of a
tragedy, but, frankly, I think there is no harm
in taking it non-seriously, under the circumstances.
I’m a vegetarian and utterly opposed to
cruelty to animals. But I’m unwilling to
be so grim. Best, Jim
P. S.
How many feminists does it take to change a
light bulb?
I don’t know.
Well, guess.
I don’t know, really.
Guess anyway. How many feminists does it take
to change a light bulb?
Three?
THAT’S NOT FUNNY!
That’s just plain scary!
Redwolf
Quote @ herbivore12
It’s interesting that there are at least two vegans on this board (Redwolf and myself) and that we represent fairly different ends of the political spectrum, at least in certain broad-brush areas. I think one can choose to be an (ethical) vegan and hold just about any other belief as well. Alas, there are silly people that try to buttonhole all of us who hold to this lifestyle, but they’re, well, silly people . . .
I am currently an ethical vegan (as opposed to health reasons), but I have been back and forth with (homo, heh) milk for the past few years. I always end up going back to veganism though because my conscience can’t handle knowing what happens to dairy cattle (we’ve gone into that many times on this forum, too).
I’m not going to lie and say I don’t like the taste of dairy. I do. If I could have a few cows of my own that I could monitor how they were treated, I’d consider drinking what milk the calves didn’t need. But I’m not going to be able to have a bunch of cattle in the backyard any time soon. Soy milk is delicious and allows me to sleep well.
As for politic beliefs, I think I come from a different area than jim stone, Redwolf, or herbivore. I used to know a woman who was active in the Reform Party who was an ethical vegan. She’s since went Republican (shame!! 
).
I don’t think lowly of you at all, Nanohedron.
Lock this thread!
No. Delete it…
and then start a new thread on “Why I Deleted The Why I Deleted The Chicken Thread”.
this could go on forever!
Remember: they’re not really deleted if they live in the memory of future threads about why they were deleted!
Why delete it if the politic thread has five thousand pages?
No. Only 117.
And i’m going to sleep now. 
Dale, thank you.
All other issues aside, I think the board will get along quite well without the “chicken thread.”
–James
Actually, I’m not choosing not too, but it doesnt seem to be working that way for me!
Uh-oh, I can see this thread heading the way the chicken thread was going when it was (let’s assume humanely) killed!
Swords, double-edged, ouch, eh, Dale?
To me, this all reads as if it originally came from an animal rights handbook or from a guest speaker or something. Maybe I’m wrong. This kind of rhetoric makes me ask lots of questions.
First is a re-iteration of anothers position. Why do some folks feel the need to try to convert, or insult at the very least, folks like me who enjoy eating meat? Just because I don’t wish to change what I do, does not mean that I can’t respect that you made a choice of consciene for what you do. I just do not feel bad about where my food comes from. I’d help butcher a deer once. I didn’t feel bad about it. I’d do it again if I needed to do it to eat, or if I started hunting. I clean and eat all the fish I don’t throw back. I went through Ag school for a BS. I know what happens in slaughter houses, processing centers, and packing houses. No pictures, stories, or other attempt to educate me (actually about things I am familiar with) will influence my decision. Why is this such a polarizing topic for some folks while other folks (like me) just don’t feel motivated to form carnivour clubs that promote the elimination of the vegetarian diet?
Another is, “what if someone feels that eating meat for a particular meal is part of their religion and spiritual life?” The Jewish seder falls into this category. Is this something that Animal rights folks feel the need to interfere with, or need to modify the behavior of others? And yes, I’m aware that some folks have chosen to practice vegetarianism and the Jewish faith at the same time, but that is their choice.
Some food for thought or discussion: Is it a conscious decision to not care about an extinction of a species if it saves the lives of individual animals. I find this to be as objectable as animal rights supporters might find me eating a New York strip (rare, please). Here is one source covering the kind of event I’m talking about.Animal rights folks release alien invasive gray squirrels in red squirrel habitat.
It’s time for me to go to sleep. I’m going to have bacon and eggs tomorrow morning and I’m actually going to enjoy it, even after I take my lipitor pills (yes I understand the connection between those events, as ironic as it seems. I might go bird watching after that. . .
I think black bears, for one species, have a much higher plant content to their diet verses meat.
Also, the red wolf will become genetically swamped by the grey wolf since people created conditions where greys expanded their range into red areas. Blah, blah, blah, and I digress, or is that digest.
Hey, the chicken dance is a polka. Why can’t we talk about the chicken dance?
The thing that you, and at least one other person, seem to have missed is that the “preaching” started against vegetarianism before anyone responded. Dale closed a post because of (what he said were) reasons of propriety, then a person made an ill-informed and rather childish remark about vegetarians (who, as far as anyone can tell, had nothing to do with the closure of the thread). And now you’re talking about vegetarians as if they’re the preachy ones. Man, at least that’s revealing . . .
Why do some folks feel the need to try to convert, or insult at the very least, folks like me who enjoy eating meat? Just because I don’t wish to change what I do, does not mean that I can’t respect that you made a choice of consciene for what you do. I just do not feel bad about where my food comes from.
Now, see, there’s all this about how you respect the other position and just want respect in return, and your later comments about respecting religious tradition and so forth. Some people do feel bad about where your food comes from. So what are you doing to respect the religious or otherwise who feel that eating meat is wrong, or killing specific animals is wrong? Sure, you can pay lip service (“I realize you think this cow’s holy, but I want a burger, can’t you respect that?”), but that’s all it is. Why would you expect anything more than that from the folks who disagree with you, especially if they’re motivated ethically? (And do you have any moral beliefs that you would stand up for and speak about? Some people’s beliefs include strong and reasoned beliefs about the slaughter of animals; why whould they remain any more quiet about their stance than someone opposed to abortion, or to Democrats, or to Republicans, or to billboards, or whatever? Or is it only annoying because you disagree?) No one here preached about vegetarianism or tried to convert anyone, but your response seems to indicate someone had done so. And if you’re bringing it up “just for the debate”, then why fuss about how tired you are hearing about the subject, and how polarizing it is? It’s so weird; I wonder what you’re trying to get at, or if you see what you’re doing.
Note that no one’s made an argument that meat eating is in all cases wrong or bad. Note that no one’s even made a case that not eating meat is always superior in any way. What gives, here?
If you want to play the game of matching dumb vegetarian squirrel actions with dumb ideas from supporters of meat-eating (e.g., canine length), we can do so off-line, but setting up straw men to knock them over is pretty weak debating technique.
To me, this all reads as if it originally came from an animal rights handbook or from a guest speaker or something. Maybe I’m wrong. This kind of rhetoric makes me ask lots of questions.
Too bad you didn’t actually ask the questions, as you might have learned something (if you were interested in the answers). Redwolf’s info is in fact correct. The biggest canines in the anthropoid line belong to animals who are exclusively or effectively exclusively herbivores (gorillas, mandrills, and so forth); canine size, in many species, has a lot to do with display, and nothing to do with use as a killing or eating tool. So yeah, you were wrong when you called it simple rhetoric. If you need credentials, I have degrees in both biology and (biological) anthropology.
I mean, sheesh, guys. If you’re going to cry foul, at least wait until someone’s made a freakin’ play. . . What bad sports.
Sorry, Dale. I’ll go away now for a bit.
What was wrong, as long as the chicken was a willing adult?
The only thing the deletion of this thread does for me is remind me again of what a cultural gulf there is between America and Australia.
When faced with reports of isolated bits of behaviour so disturbingly bizarre as to be scarcely believable, you can do one of two things. One is to duck for cover. The other is to take the bizarre and go completely over the top with it. In Australia the convention is to do the latter. Both are ways of coming to terms with ones sense of unease, of registering that a boundary has been crossed. You can lock the doors and pretend that nothing exists on the other side of that boundary. Or you can lurch out there and view the boundary from the other side.
To think that the surreal humour which greeted the post that started that thread is evidence of morbid curiosity strikes me as just about as bizarre as the content of that post itself. As one of those engaging in the surreal humour, I’m quite staggered at the suggestion that I might have been enjoying the horrible incident that gave rise to that thread. I eat very little meat and never feel wholly comfortable about it. I would never watch a cock fight or a bull fight. As for beastiality … you must be joking .. er ..censoring … 
Beastiality jokes are such a staple of the Australian repertoire that all but the most creative are considered boringly unimaginative not shocking.
I’ve often puzzled about this cultural difference. Actually, I suspect that in all pluralist societies, the tendency to defuse tension by censoring and the tendency to defuse tension by taking it straight over the top must both be in evidence. I think that which way a culture goes tells us quite a bit about that culture but I’m not quite sure what that is.
Since so many obviously don’t get it, I should explain how going over the top defuses tension? Actually those of us who go in for it regard it as a more effective method of boundary policing than censorship. By crossing a boundary and looking at it from the other side but with a steadfastly surreal gaze, you are actually indicating a refusal to contemplate taking the possibility of actually transgressing that boundary seriously. This is actually a very effective way of countering those who attempt to shock by pushing a boundary, you simply take the rug from under them. They get ridiculed with laughter. That seems to those of us who prefer this method a much more effective form of boundary policing than censorship which actually creates an interest in the very thing one wants to prevent.
How on earth did this thread get to be about vegetarianism?
An ill-informed and then insensitively boorish comment from a member who seems to have assumed that Dale responded to vegetarian pressures rather than a request from one or more (maybe slightly prudish) members, a polite rebuttal with actual info from another member, then sudden pre-emptive defensiveness about things that never happened, then probably ill-considered responses by me, who was flummoxed seeing this all unfold, though I shouldn’t be taken by surprise at stuff like this anymore. I guess.
I am surprised that the thread was deleted; sure, I’m a vegan, but I found nothing there to offend me (though maybe something weird happened after I last visited the thing), and plenty there to laugh about and to find bizarre. I fully agree with all that you’ve written here, though I’m not sure it’s a cultural difference as much as it is an artifact of computer bulletin boards. That’s to say, the folks I hang out with and work with are as likely to engage in over-the-top and self-deprecating humor as are the folks I’ve met in other countries (I’ve lived in England-- well, Oxford, anyway! – and Switzerland, and have travelled quite a lot(including a couple of weeks in Australia, even)).
Then again, maybe we Americans are more likely to be a bit quicker to take offense at even perceived slights, but then, look at our presidential model for pre-emption! Maybe this explains a lot . . .
Chickens can’t consent (I’m sure you already knew that, but just in case somebody out there didn’t - you never know..)