Comment on Double standards

Kirp123@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• mienshao@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The common peacock, also called Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), seen in the pic above, is not endangered. Least concern in fact.

  The Green peafowl (pavo muticus) is endangered, but I highly doubt the Florida man had/ate that species. Much harder to acquire—I’ve never even seen it at a zoo.

  source

  • Kirp123@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    People get tigers and lions so I don’t think a peacock is much harder to acquire. Also according to Wikipedia:

    The green peafowl is in demand for private and home aviculture and threatened by the pet trade, feather collectors and hunters for meat and targeted.

    source

    • mienshao@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Lol just admit you got it wrong, why argue? You said peacocks are endangered, and they’re not. Just say oops and move on.

      source

      • Klear@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Here’s the thing. You said a “peacocks are endangered.” Is Green peafowl in the same genus? Yes. No one’s arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies peacocks, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls Green peafowl peacocks. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing. If you’re saying “peacocks” you’re referring to the taxonomic grouping of Pavonini, which includes things from indian peafowl to mbulus to green peafowl. So your reasoning for calling a peacocks endangered is because random people “call the ornamental animals peacocks?” Let’s get mandarin ducks in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. A green peafowl is a green peafowl and a member of the pavo genus. But that’s not what you said. You said peacocks are endangered, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the pavonini tribe endangered, which means you’d call indian peacocks, congo peafowl, and other peacocks endangered, too. Which you said you don’t. It’s okay to just admit you’re wrong, you know?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        They recognized a blind spot in their knowledge, did some learning, then reported back with what they learned. Then you yelled at them? It’s not like they were being combative.

        source
      • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I can’t find any mention of the specific species of peafowl the man had. My personal guess is that it’s just a stock image of a peacock. None of the articles below mention the species, but one does have the same mugshot.

        apnews.com/…/peacocks-killed-florida-man-arrested…

        nypost.com/…/florida-man-arrested-for-allegedly-k…

        cbsnews.com/…/florida-man-eats-pet-peacocks-dispu…

        Quoting the AP article,

        The 61-year-old man from Hudson, Florida, was arrested last week on a third-degree felony charge of aggravated animal cruelty, according to an affidavit from the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office.

        The man told investigators that he had killed the two peacocks because his neighbor kept feeding them. He had written the neighbor a letter telling her that he would continue to kill his pet peacocks if she kept feeding them “to prove a point,” according to the affidavit, which didn’t say how many peacocks he kept.

        The man “admitted to killing the bird by cutting the bird’s neck out of spite, then bleeding it out, and then later eating the bird after cooking it on a frying pan,” the affidavit said.

        So it doesn’t seem so simple as him merely getting arrested for deciding to eat one of his peafowl.

        Killing an endangered animal and cruelty to animals are separate statutes. So I think it’s safe to safe it’s not an endangered peafowl.

        • www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=D…
        • www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=D… “level four violations” are also third degree felonies.

        I don’t care enough to pull the man’s actual court records and see if he was also charged with Intentional killing or wounding of any species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern.

        source
• borderstolutenfolk@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  But would a pet affect this? Isn’t endangered status about wild animals?

  source

  • HikingVet@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If the animal is endangered you still get dinged even of they are you pets. The laws are written as such to prevent this and things like getting an endangered or threatened species as a “pet” and then killing them to taxidermy.

    source
  • Kirp123@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    No. It doesn’t really matter if the animals are wild or in captivity.

    Under the ESA, it is unlawful to “take” any endangered or threatened animal species, which is broadly defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, or killing.

    source
  • Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Its to discourage people from capturing wild endangered species and raising them as pets. Making something a pet is as good as killing it in the wild.

    source
• marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  They are quite common livestock all over the world.

  And exotic to Florida, so calling them “endangered” is completely meaningless.

  source
• jve@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  probably that’s why?

  Nope!

  He was charged with animal cruelty, probably because of the wacky letter he sent to his neighbor, and that he did it “out of spite.”

  source

  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    animal cruelty laws are a good thing, but this is bullshit, why are some animals allowed to have rights, while others allowed to be butchered and eaten?

    I’m not vegan, but there should be a consistent framework.

    source

    • JenIsBringingTheDrugs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      bird law

      source
    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      why are some animals allowed to have rights, while others allowed to be butchered and eaten?

      The line is generally a combination of social, practical, and culinary. That is, if it’s not a companion animal, it’s not endangered, it is customarily raised as livestock and it is tasty those are all evidence it probably goes in the latter category. So chicken = food, whooping crane = not food because endangered, german shepherd = not food because companion, blue ringed octopus = not food because taste bad.

      source

      • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        but those are also cultural.

        horses? food in France.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ulterno@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        So, who’s asked whether it is “tasty” or not?
        What if someone fed a really bad diet to chicken and as a result the produce was not tasty to anyone that bought it? Can the seller now get jailed for selling non-tasty chicken? :P

        Also, I never really found chicken tasty, out of the few times I tried. Once, it was, due to the marination, but then it’s the marination ingredients that are really tasty. So I guess you are better off not referring to me when deciding what is legal :P

        source
    • BillCheddar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Dude our whole country is governed based on the feelings of right-wing men.

      Every issue, every unsolvable problem, every “why the fuck do we do THAT?!” exists because right-wing men have huge feelings about things and the only cards they can play are either “violence” or “control” (which are usually the same thing.)

      source
    • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yes the charges are related to the way he slaughter the animals. Because the neighbors were taking photos of the beautiful peacocks this guy decided to brutally kill the peacocks and eat them to spite the neighbor.

      Well that is what I read in a comment somewhere.

      source

      • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        if he were to slaughter chickens that way, no one would bat an eye, bleeding them to death is the Kosher/Halal way

        source
  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    To be fair, from what I’ve seen if peacock behaviors, they’re dicks.

    Animals being dicks is not a good enough reason to kill and eat them. They should also be tasty.

    Is peacock tasty? I’ve never had any. Can we ask the guy in the news story?

    source
• starik@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  They are common livestock. People let them roam freely, and they’re dumb as rocks, so they’re always standing in the road.

  source

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    This. There is a colony of them up the road from me. Dumb as rocks and louder than they have any right to be.

    source
• gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Yeah, I feel like every other park I’ve ever been to has had a peacock…

  source

  • West_of_West@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You haven’t lived until a peacock tries to steal your sandwich in a park

    source
  • SillyDude@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    There are groups of feral peacocks where I grew up.

    source
• RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I grew up in an Italian community where peacocks and peahens were commonly raised for food - exactly like chickens are now raised by hipsters.

  source
• HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  they are? we got a town overrun with invasive peafowl near here and we just want to kill them.

  source