Why I deleted the chicken thread.

[jim stone]

The thread may have been National Enquirer-ish in it's mood, but it shouldn't have been. A real chicken was actually assaulted and KILLED. Anytime a chicken (or any person or animal) is assaulted (sexually or otherwise), it's a horrible thing.

BTW, I played along with the xxxchurch link, not the assault on the innocent chicken.

Edited to add, before it's brought up, that yes it's also a tragedy that the man involved killed himself. But that was his choice. It was not the chicken's choice to be so brutally treated.

In fairness to Brian, this is what he responded to and I don't
think it's a big stretch to see this as vegetarian
preaching. The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

I don't know what it means to say that this is a family site.
In the past we have said onboard that this isn't for
children, when the objection arose that some posts
might not be readable by children.

I thought that policy makes sense. We say what we
think, civilly, parental discretion advised. I think it's
worked well enough for nearly a decade. Is something
changing? Best

[Brian Lee]

Herbie - ya just don't get it do ya? Again, I think someone slept through elementary biology class - but since that's not really the point. I said what I said and I stand by it unabashedly. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow - even if it's made of chicken. Funny how a decided few (who we've heard from before on the subject) took offense at something originaly directed at poultry. A direct correlation to brain power? You decide. Anyway, I'm having fun with this!

[Azalin]

Okay Dale, do we really have to start watching what we're writing because children might be reading the posts?!? While there's a war between vegies and carnivores, this is the only thing I'm worried about. Now that the board has more "OT" messages than whistle or music related ones, spiced up "OT" threads are sure more interesting to read.

[herbivore12]

Herbie - ya just don't get it do ya? Again, I think someone slept through elementary biology class

Brian, I have degrees in both biology and anthropology. I make my living developing treatments for people with cancer. I help others, even those who eat meat. My work might even save your life someday. You'll have to lecture someone else about their knowledge of biology. I'd suggest starting by educating yourself.

Jim, I'm frankly not sure how Cranberry's objection to the assault of an animal -- he said nothing about vegetarianism or killing animals for food -- can be seen as particularly preachy, except by people who actually support the sexual assault of animals.

Hmm. Maybe that explains more than I thought.

A direct correlation to brain power? You decide. Anyway, I'm having fun with this!

Since Brian has been only rude, after having directly insulted other members and accusing them of doing things they haven't done, and hasn't responded at all to a substantive point, and since he admits to having fun doing so, well . . . Yeah, Brian, I think there may be a direct correlation. Just not the one you think. (If only there were a killfile on UBB boards. Bye.)

[Alan]

I have noticed in various threads recently a number of forum members claiming the childish rudeness they sometimes post as being indicative of their 'sense of humor (humour)'. Personally I often have doubts about this being anything other than a justification for continued rudeness.

Also although there are good reasons to use the 'over the top' approach it is incumbent upon those who do so to avoid the risk of going 'beyond the pale'. Of course I understand that it is often difficult to see those boundaries that are necessary to maintain at least a semblance of decorum amongst so varied a membership. This can lead to moderator actions that might seem arbitrary.

In conclusion I suggest a bit of self restraint may be in order as in "Do I really need to make these remarks to maintain my self esteem?" and "Are the comments I am about to post really devastatingly witty, or just make me seem a petulant child?".

I realize this can have an effect on your post count, take a look at mine.

Hope I have not seemed too petulant...

[herbivore12]

Having reread and thought it over:

I feel awful having gotten sucked into this thread, now. Poor choice on my part, even if I'm still just amazed trying to figure out how people can have gone on about preachy veggie-types before any preaching happened, or why someone would choose to be intentionally mean to others and then complain about *their* behavior. Geez.

But I shouldn't have tried, and then shouldn't have stooped so low. Bad decision. Apologies to anyone dismayed by the sniping here.

Now, where's that hair shirt . . .

[susnfx]

Hope I have not seemed too petulant...

No, just devastatingly witty.

[Jack]

The thread may have been National Enquirer-ish in it's mood, but it shouldn't have been. A real chicken was actually assaulted and KILLED. Anytime a chicken (or any person or animal) is assaulted (sexually or otherwise), it's a horrible thing.

BTW, I played along with the xxxchurch link, not the assault on the innocent chicken.

Edited to add, before it's brought up, that yes it's also a tragedy that the man involved killed himself. But that was his choice. It was not the chicken's choice to be so brutally treated.

In fairness to Brian, this is what he responded to and I don't
think it's a big stretch to see this as vegetarian
preaching. The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

In fairness to me, Jim, you're wrong; in that post I was responding to Nanohedron, not Brian. Brian hadn't even posted yet.

[jim stone]

The thread may have been National Enquirer-ish in it's mood, but it shouldn't have been. A real chicken was actually assaulted and KILLED. Anytime a chicken (or any person or animal) is assaulted (sexually or otherwise), it's a horrible thing.

BTW, I played along with the xxxchurch link, not the assault on the innocent chicken.

Edited to add, before it's brought up, that yes it's also a tragedy that the man involved killed himself. But that was his choice. It was not the chicken's choice to be so brutally treated.

In fairness to Brian, this is what he responded to and I don't
think it's a big stretch to see this as vegetarian
preaching. The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

Jim, you're wrong; in that post I was responding to Nanohedron, not Brian. Brian hadn't even posted yet.

Right, and then Brian responded to you.
You said, with passion, that anytime a
chicken is killed, that's a horrible thing.
That entails immediately that eating chickens
is wrong, for this is the principal reason chickens
are killed (in staggering numbers, as we know).
Eating chickens must be wrong, if any killing of
chickens is horrible.
Hence Brian's response, while over the top, IMO,
was a fair enough reading of your post, I thought.

Passion begets passion; sometimes good, sometimes
not. Best, Jim

[glauber]

Hope I have not seemed too petulant...

No, just devastatingly witty.

And tragically hip, too.

[Nanohedron]

Whoah Nellie! I sat out for a bit (a case of the crud, you don't want to know) and see what happened to this thread!

Wombat, I'm thinking that you may be on to something with your observations about cultural differences between the U.S. and Australia in matters of humor boundaries. For many Yanks, designated venues count. I myself have a near-bottomless fund of gallows humor; I've "horrified" my friends plenty of times to my satisfaction and their guilty pleasure. Among them, at times I swear like a stevedore. But in that setting, it's seen as "okay" for me to play the part I do. Disclaimer: I do NOT f*rt in their presence. Even I have limits.

Now in those settings that are designated family-oriented, it is certainly at least a U.S. phenomenon to anticipate the observation of limits which admittedly are vague, depending on whose party it is, and on who's monitoring whom. The thing is, when a so-designated "family-oriented" board is as freewheeling and mad as this one, boundaries seem to become arbitrary at best. But, my own example: I chuckled at the thread in spite of myself; I wasn't surprised that it was deleted. I would have been uncomfortable if it hadn't. A family oriented board, you see.

So I'm trying to hash out what this means to me. It desn't mean total antisepsis of content; that is impossible, and unrealistic both functionally and in view of the world around us. But there is a sense of "filtering". Like as not it's the inheritance of Victorian mores and circumlocution that was so readily adopted in the States as signs of respectability and refinement. The discreet charm of the bourgeoisie: THAT we could do, and now it's habitual on a surface level at least. With some the grain runs deeper than that; but it's there, and although it may be seen as hypocritical by some, it is cultural. I don't even think about it. It's pretty automatic; I prefer my iconoclasm and mayhem to be offered up strategically. My parents would have told me about the chicken incident in private, both out of humor AND as a way to get me to consider morals in my life. In public, never.

Canadians?

[Jack]

Quote @ jim stone

Right, and then Brian responded to you.

That is not what you said:

Quote @ jim stone

The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

You tried to make it appear my original post was in response to Brian, and it wasn't. It couldn't have been because Brian hadn't even posted yet.

[Wombat]

The other thirty or so messages in my inbox seemed to be thankful I asked you guys to stop preaching veganism and it's relationship to modern animal ethics and its relationship between third and first world countries - or whatever you'd like to call it. We don't care about what you eat. You shouldn't care about what we eat either. We carnivores have a saying for people like this:

GO SCREW A CHICKEN!

I'm a carnivore, although I don't eat much meat. I've said it once on this thread and now I've said it again. I was not one of the people who PMd you and not a single vegetarian, vegan, hypnotist or Martian has attacked me or preached at me, in public or in private. I'm feeling so left out.

Guess what—I know and like very much a great many of the people you seem to be attacking. I was talking to one a few moments ago and our dietary differences didn't enter the conversation. None of them has ever said anything offensive to me or preached at me that I can recall. What is the source of my false consciousness? Why do I feel so unoppressed that I out myself here rather than write secretly to you Brian, oh great protector of downtrodden carnivores?

So let's hear it from the 30 people who PMd Brian thanking him for remarks like this and no doubt for the tasteful little Hitler emoticon. Let's see who you are. Perhaps you could also tell us why you want to keep your identities secret. Be bold; I have been. Tell your stories. Share your pain. I want to know. Right now, I'm mystified.

[jim stone]

Quote @ jim stone

Right, and then Brian responded to you.

That is not what you said:

Quote @ jim stone

The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

You tried to make it appear my original post was in response to Brian, and it wasn't. It couldn't have been because Brian hadn't even posted yet.

No, honestly, sorry if I was unclear.

Obviously you didn't respond to Brian;
he responded to you.

I thought his response
to you was excessive. So I said
'the response was excessive.' What Brian wrote
in response to you.

I thought your post
was a bit on the passionate side (though
I sympathize with your point), so I thought
the two posts rather canceled each other. Best

[Redwolf]

In fairness to Brian, this is what he responded to and I don't
think it's a big stretch to see this as vegetarian
preaching. The response was excessive, if I may say so.
And the two posts cancel each other nicely. So there.

Jim, you're wrong; in that post I was responding to Nanohedron, not Brian. Brian hadn't even posted yet.

Right, and then Brian responded to you.
You said, with passion, that anytime a
chicken is killed, that's a horrible thing.
That entails immediately that eating chickens
is wrong, for this is the principal reason chickens
are killed (in staggering numbers, as we know).
Eating chickens must be wrong, if any killing of
chickens is horrible.
Hence Brian's response, while over the top, IMO,
was a fair enough reading of your post, I thought.

Passion begets passion; sometimes good, sometimes
not. Best, Jim

Actually, what he said was that it was a horrible thing for the chicken to be so brutally treated. If you remember from the deleted post, the animal was sexually assauted before it was killed and eaten. AND the post you quote was, quite specifically, talking about THIS animal...not about chickens in general nor about meat eaters in general. Surely we can agree that, no matter what one may think about killing chickens for food, this one was treated savagely, and without any regard for its pain or fear? His point was that, while it's tragic that the man is dead, he made all the choices in this situation...he's the one who decided to assault the animal and he's the one who decided he had to die for doing so. The animal had no choice in either instance and, perhaps, deserves just a bit more of our sympathy than she's getting. THAT's how I read that post.

Redwolf