I’d honestly rather pay the 6 euros for IPTV at that point (it’s only that cheap because our Internet is 3x more expensive than neighboring countries so they let you have cheap IPTV as an extra).
I get the “haha” of this particular search getting reported on…but I think that this sort of surveillance is definitely stepping into creepy territory that will end up doing more harm than good.
There were definitely web searches I performed about topics back when I was younger that I would never want my parents to know. When you live in an oppressive household where you are taught never to think outside of the box or be anything your parents don’t want you to be, having the internet available is supposed to be a path to liberation.
If they want to set up filters that block certain results, fine. But tattling is just unethical, especially if the child does not know their search history is being monitored by their parents.
to investigate, study, or analyze : look into
➡️sometimes used with indirect questions
This definition makes no distinction between factual and speculative, and in fact invites speculative use with the second point. Additionally, there’s a long history of using the word “explore” in this exact type of situation.
Anyway, the point is, don’t be such a wet blanket, plz.
The thing is, parents get incredibly conflicted messages about this. When a child DOES end up looking at something bad parents get all the blame for not supervising and controlling their child and get called abusive. If they supervise and control their child they get called helicopter parents or abusive as well.
And it’s not only regarding the internet. When parents let their children roam, for example, the neighborhood and something bad happens, the parents get the blame and called abusive for letting their child roam the neighborhood. If they control outdoors time for they child, they are abusive again.
It literally doesn’t matter what you do as a parent, a lot of people will call you a bad parent or an abuser for it. I believe it is one reason why some people don’t want to have children at all. It’s basically an impossible task.
This sort of oppressive situation is my childhood in a nutshell. And you’re right, it’s entirely unethical, and in combination with other factors can be used as a factor in psychological abuse. I know I at least am traumatized from it, and surveillance was definitely one of many signifigant factors.
Exactly. Kids grown in high volume of surveillance (e.g. my nieces) end up being more aggressive towards rules, which creates people who think rules are there to be broken.
For me as outsider they look even more desturbing, it’s about a kids show and they dress up really fucking weard but I guess it could be a unfair assumption for om my side too, kinks are always kind of weard!
Depends on what you mean by ‘comparable’! I think the two fandoms are quite similar, just that bronies focus on being a fan of one series whereas furries are more fans of the idea of anthropomorphized characters, or animal-ish characters.
And there’s a lot of differences between fans, too. Just in like any fandom. I’m pretty sure for some it might be a kink like the stereotype says, but other MLP fans use it as a vehicle for self-expression or self-discovery through the prosocial messages and themes. Ultimately it’s a complicated topic that one could write a lot about!
Can we not bring the randomly hating groups of people doing benigin things from Reddit? Please? What’s wrong with drawing MLP characters on a pixel map exactly?
I’ve kept chickens. They do not understand the family concept. Roosters will happily rape their siblings or their mothers, and hens will enforce a gruelling pecking order even if it means someone dies of hunger/beatings 😢
That one whooshed right over your head eh? He’s saying that chickens families are not, in fact, the same as human families. They don’t form a family unit with bonds above those of other chickens. It’s mostly because they’re chickens…and not humans and it was a dumb comparison for PETA to try and make.
Pointing out how chickens relate to other chickens does not mean it’s an endorsement for cruelty…you stretched big time for that one.
I make this practically correct binary because in practice more than 90% of all livestock is kept in inhumane conditions.
The theoretical possibility of an ethical way to raise and slaughter livestock is irrelevant to my argument and in essence a straw man because I don’t argue against a hypothetically well raised and humanely slaughtered livestock but against the fact that in reality livestock is mistreated, tortured and killed in horrible conditions in most of all cases.
If I go to the supermarket and buy meat I am all but guaranteed that the animal has suffered.
If you raise your own livestock out on open field and treat it right I don’t have a problem with you. But you don’t, do you?
And even if you just are a carnivore I don’t have any problem with you, you can live your life how you see fit. I don’t really care.
But if you go to the internet to shit on people that care about animals to feel better about the fact that you don’t, I think you are a dick.
Not saying that applies to you specifically, but I have seen examples in this thread.
Possible.
The majority of people I know in person would disagree I hope.
I agree that I am pretty combative here, but I am also tired of the ever same old and disproven arguments. I am not even vegan myself, but ridiculing people for trying to save animals is just low imho so I kinda don’t care if I am an asshole to people that do it.
Well, either you’re really bad at expressing yourself through online comments…or you forgot to add a /s to the end of your comment. Certainly seems to me like you’re still a bit confused.
But what it does do is point out that PETA is full of shit and you shouldn’t listen to the organisation that runs kill shelters becaus they think you shouldn’t have pets.
The fuckers have actually STOLEN PETS and “euthanized” them inside of a day, when the animal was in good health and in a loving home.
I assume that you are vegan and dont contribute to the industrialised mass killing of sentient beings in any way? Otherwise you seem quite hypocritical.
PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.
Lmao this bullshit again. PETA only euthanizes animals that are suffering and beyond saving. They accept animals that are rejected by those “no-kill” shelters that are more concerned with how their statistics look than helping suffering animals, which sometimes means euthanizing. The whole “PETA hates animals” thing is just another way for people to justify their own behaviour against animals. Do you honestly believe PETA is some kind of evil organisation that’s out to kill animals out of pure spite?
Unfortunately yes, I don’t like that, that’s abuse, but I’m not against murdering and eating things. I support stopping cruelty towards animals whilst they’re alive.
I wonder if they would do the same free in the nature. Locked together in tight spaces and restricted freedom will change the behaviour of every creature.
This is the default behaviour for chickens. I can’t think of any chicken like creatures that exists in the wild that resembles. The chickens I kept had plenty of room both inside and outside. Outside was a predator proof fence around a large area with different kinds of vegetation, bushes and wet and dry environments (I also had a couple of mallards). Inside they had running water, things to climb on to roost, and various boxes to lay and sleep in. Every week I cleaned their living quarters and threw down fresh bedding. They were not for food or for egg production. I ate and gave away the eggs they laid.
Edit: to keep the roosters from doing the dirty with close relatives, I swapped rooster with other people that kept poultry as a hobby
yea i do the same with mine, they roam free in the garden during the day and have a protected outdoor and indoor area so its basically a large playground for them and still the behavior you mentioned is what i see as well. also chickens in the wild? the measures i had to take to keep my chickens safe from foxes, martens, cats, dogs… is just crazy, they have zero defense capabilities so i dont know how they survived ubtill we kept them as livestock
Chickens originated from the red jungle fowl which is a much leaner and flighted bird (as are certain breeds of chicken) We’ve made modern chickens into something that can’t survive in the wild, much like we turned wolves into pugs!
i love my chickens, they eat all my scraps and weeds from the garden, fertillize my garden, fresh eggs every day which i trade with neighbors for his surplus veggies or a a batch of waffles. its a nice way to live
I would assume that large chicken farms would separate the mother from the chicks long before any family bond could be established. There are a lot of viable concerns about how the animals are handled and treated, but the issue of separating a family is just not one of them.
So you consider humanity superior in morality to chickens right? Which means that you identify the horrible things they do as horrible, and deem them unacceptable and definitely shouldn’t be repeated by a being of supposed higher intellect and control over one’s own actions beyond simple instincts?
Seems like an even better argument against eating other animals and especially, especially industrialized factory farming if you ask me, where everything you said is still done, but by humans to the chickens.
Even, given the above, the op deemed chickens immoral that does not make all chickens’ actions immoral. Preening, roosting and eating grain are not immoral activities.
Defining only the horrible acts as horrible is a circular argument as no definition has been provided as horrible.
Other than those three, you really stuck it to the carnist, chief.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.
They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:
PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.
The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):
A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html
The monkey selfie:
The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.
PETA equating milk to racism:
White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.
Final thoughts (I promise):
PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.
Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.
Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.
The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.
For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.
lemmy.ml
Hot