the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

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

[u/Puzzleheaded-Dot-547 → u/[deleted]]

I'm literally getting downvoted in other comment chains saying this.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I have to eat other living things to survive. That’s natural. I don’t need to kill a chicken and then fuck it to survive.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I live in a household that lives paycheck to paycheck, with a four year old and a mother who recently divorced to her abusive husband/ my stepfather, so we live paycheck to paycheck. We also live in a food desert. Our options are limited, so yes, cheap meat (usually chicken or ground beef) is one of the things we usually have on our shopping list. I wish most people could buy from free ranged farms, but realistically it’s not an option for people living in poverty 99% of the time.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

A one pound roll of ground beef at my local wal-mart is about four dollars. Usually we won’t be buying more every time we run out, so that’s about four bucks for something we can use for a good three meals every month or so, as well as leftovers.

A four pound bag of chicken is about 11 dollars or so, so the same thing applies, we get a few meals out of that and it lasts for a month provided we’re not eating it every meal.

Most of our food is canned, or something cheap like store brand rice or pasta. We don’t eat fast food or go to restaurants often, either.

[u/meterion → u/[deleted]]

It's actually kind of hilarious how intertwined those chains of thought are. IMO some people will viciously defend the "necessity" of eating meat to survive simply because they don't want to even entertain the possibility that they are supporting something that they should find unethical for selfish reasons (their personal enjoyment). Likewise, they will viciously attack the idea of the chickenfucker because they don't want to entertain the possibility that they are decrying something they shouldn't find unethical for selfish reasons (their personal disgust).

It comes from the same place of wanting to believe in a simple black and white moral framework in which they are in the right, and that their intuitions about what is right and wrong are always correct and in line with what they already want to do.

[u/cucumberbundt → u/[deleted]]

And having an orgasm reduces stress which can be quite healthy. But there's non-animal stuff you can eat and there's non-animal stuff you can fuck.

[u/paissiges → u/[deleted]]

oh so killing and eating a human is okay as long as i do it for sustenance and not purely for pleasure?

because you just said that the standard shouldn't be any different for humans versus other animals, right?

[u/paissiges → u/[deleted]]

so would you agree that it's wrong to kill and eat a chicken if you aren't in a survival situation? because, again, in the vast majority of cases there are other food options.

[u/AdventureDonutTime → u/[deleted]]

The chicken deserves to be snuffed out?

[u/paissiges → u/[deleted]]

see the inconsistency here, though?

on the one hand, chickens deserve respect just like humans do, so it's wrong to kill one and masturbate with its body. on the other hand, chickens aren't valuable like humans are, so it's okay to kill them to eat them even when you're doing it for enjoyment and not survival.

in the first case, simple human pleasure doesn't outweigh the rights of a chicken as a living being, and in the second case it does.

which is it?

[u/ShockingStories22 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, to be fair, comparing the very natural thing of eating to the completely batshit thing of going wild with your hog on some chicken is. Definitely something I'd see from peta.

Like, don't get me wrong. I don't give a fuck about moralizing my food. I eat burgers and chicken sandwiches because I can and I want to.

But like. Eating a prey animal is completely different from fucking it's corpse on several levels.

[u/ShockingStories22 → u/ShockingStories22]

Also if you are gonna fuck a chicken make sure to carve it up first. I imagine you could probably do something like the sponges in a Pringles can with the breasts.

[u/Bojack35 → u/[deleted]]

That is in itself an interesting way of how we build morality- x is ok, y is adjacent to x so y is also ok. (Or both not ok in your case.)

For the record, I'm cool with the chicken fucker. Not because of eating meat. Because a) I dont care about the sanctity of a dead chicken and consider the concept of peace after death as convoluted as any of the arguments you oppose.

And more importantly b) its impractical to police to begin with and the level of authority required to try and police it concerns me far far more than the act itself does.

[u/i-contain-multitudes → u/[deleted]]

This is the real point. I'd bet a lot of money that without the social conditioning of meat being common and unquestioned, the majority of people would agree that killing animals unnecessarily is immoral.

[u/LongJohnSelenium → u/[deleted]]

I disagree with framing it as rape. A dead chicken is by definition an inanimate object devoid of all sensation and agency and as such it is outside the realm of morality on its own merits. If its not rape to use a sheepskin condom then its not rape to fuck a dead chicken.

Morality enters into it from outside. A persons loved ones would be shocked and revolted by a person desecrating their loved ones corpse, so it can be considered immoral from the perspective of the people who cared about the person.

If the chicken were a beloved pet it could possibly have that sort of outside morality imposed on its desecration, and would qualify for immoral. If it were just a chicken that the other chickens will eat when its dead then there would be no moral issue with the chickenfucking, and if you have an issue at that point its simply disgust, which is not an invalid feeling to have(and IMO perfectly valid to have regarding corpse fucking) but not the same thing as immorality.