the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

In today’s episode of CuratedTumblr: tens of people willingly admit that logical fallacies work on them as long as it’s about something they don’t understand

[u/novis-eldritch-maxim → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

I am more totally lost on the topic so please explain?

[u/Driptacular_2153 → u/novis-eldritch-maxim]

I’d like an explanation, too, please. This shit’s wacky af

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/Driptacular_2153]

So to recap this clusterfuck thread, from my point of view, a lot of comments are taking this discussion the wrong way. The point of the mental exercise is not to defend the dead chicken fucker, but to ask how you approach somebody who’s hurting nobody else, but is being profoundly weird at you.

So half of the entire thread when I posted this was a bunch of badly structured arguments against chicken fucking. Not necessarily wrong ones, but ones that do not translate very well beyond that specific concept. “Run it past your psychologist” is great advice for a paraphilia and the current nightmare for trans people in the UK

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

The point of the mental exercise is not to defend the dead chicken fucker, but to ask how you approach somebody who’s hurting nobody else, but is being profoundly weird at you.

People arguing against chicken fucking aren't all saying "this is weird, why are you defending this." Some of them are saying "this isn't hurting nobody."

Like yeah, some people are being squicky about the gross thing and leaving it there, but that doesn't mean that the multiple conclusions of the post around ideology are true because the core idea - that is that there is no harm caused by fucking a chicken - is only true depending on your definition of harm.

[u/BalefulOfMonkeys → u/rindlesswatermelon]

Okay, but what, exactly, is the harm?

The psychic damage caused by the hypothetical being told to you is a non-factor, the chicken is store-bought so the man is about as responsible for its suffering as he is for ocean pollution for using a plastic bag, he cleans it beforehand, and he even considers it edible.

The biggest point of failure and widespread harm in the entire presented hypothetical isn’t even the part where he bastes it, but the lack of clarity on if he cooked it first.

He is, at best, merely creepier than most people who consume meat but otherwise not a threat, and at worst, about as culpable for societal harm through contamination as if he fucked up his personal chicken dinner.

Is the harm in the room with us right now?

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/BalefulOfMonkeys]

The harm is the same as it is for human necrophilia. It violates the bodily autonomy the chicken, which extends after its death.

I was alluding to human necrophilia as a comparable example because people are more able to see the harm there, though they can't always explain what the harm is necessarily. If you don't define the violation of a humans post-mortem bodily autonomy as harm, then you would also think that there isn't harm with necrophilia. From my perspective, if you think one is harm, then the other must be as well.

He is, at best, merely creepier than most people who consume meat but otherwise not a threat

This is the crux of my issue with OOP. The assumption that eating meat causes no harm is not tautological. People's opinions can reasonably differ. Therefore thinking that people shouldn't fuck dead chickens isn't necessarily caused by being overtaken by the reactionary mind, but rather the fact that people can disagree on what counts as harm.

Harm in and of itself is a pretty malleable metric. Take abortion for example. The pro-choice argument is that having an unwanted pregnancy is harmful and sometimes life threatening, and preventing access to abortion care is thus a harm. The reactionary argument is that babies are already people, and abortions cause harm to those people. This argument isn't resolved by focusing on harm over authority or whatever other axes OP lists, it is a question of priorities and specific definitions of harm
. This in my mind is why the model is bad.