Are you trying you imply chicken lives are as valuable as human lives? You are failing at doing so, if that is the case. What you are actually doing is saying human lives are as valuable as chicken lives, i.e., not very valuable.
And that's quite disturbing. The value of human life is the cornerstone of human civilization, take that away, as you are trying to do, and you have only devastation left.
Your argument doesn't prove your point.
FTR, I eat meat and I yet think that chicken lives are as valuable as human. I choose to eat them nonetheless.
Put a chicken and a human in front of him. Tell him he has to slaughter whichever one he wants for dinner.
His real preference will be exposed. I would rather starve.
Ok, imagine theres a plate of cooked chicken breast next to a plate of grilled human forearm.
Suddenly, you would say, "yes these two pieces of meat are both equally delicious!"
What ? I don't put values on things based on how they taste.
That's why I'd pick up the breast chicken. I still think the chicken lives matter as much as human. I am sad we are causing them unnecessary sufferings (most of the time) but I am still going to eat them over a humane forearm (unless I am trapped in the Andes after a plane crash or something).
I insist: I value both lives and yet I eat chicken. Deal with it.
It's not what I do to a thing that express the value I put in it, it's what I think of it.
However, my cultural upbringing (and eating habits) favors eating chicken over dead humans. This is conditioning. And an easy position to maintain, I am aware of it but I won't pretend chicken lives have less value than human lives because I eat chicken.
Parent puts A and B on the same point of his value™ scale (his scale, his choice)[0].
But you put A on top of your scale and B a little lower (your scale, your choice).
But now you are saying that since parent equals A and B it means parent equals his A to your lower B ? That's where your argument is weak. It's your scale, not parent's.
[0] I assume it's near the top but the demonstration works the same if it's on the bottom.
He thinks he is raising chickens to the level of humans, but his actions would actually lower humans to the level of chickens.
And my "actions"? What actions? I literally don't know what you are saying. I didn't take any actions or describe any.
The pure quantity of lives built here is negative. I wasn't making a judgment about the quality or significance of the lives. If there has to be a conflict (I don't think that's inevitable), I support the human lives over chicken ones. I'm just not so dense that I completely disregard the notion of chicken lives (as the headline does, not that the business is doing that).
I've met people that said all people should commit suicide to save the planet, and they were serious, but also hypocrites.
I haven't given it enough thoughts yet but it seems closer to a guilty trip than a concern for the environment or animal suffering.
Or if the animal fell out of the sky. (2 points for being old enough to know the reference).
Yeah, obviously my comment fails to imply that since it wasn't trying to.