I grew up in an Italian community where peacocks and peahens were commonly raised for food - exactly like chickens are now raised by hipsters.
Comment on Double standards
Kirp123@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Huh, apparently peacocks are endangered. So probably that’s why?
I honestly thought they were quite common as livestock but I guess I was wrong.
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
marcos@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
They are quite common livestock all over the world.
And exotic to Florida, so calling them “endangered” is completely meaningless.
borderstolutenfolk@lemmy.wtf 7 hours ago
But would a pet affect this? Isn’t endangered status about wild animals?
HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 hours 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.
Kirp123@lemmy.world 7 hours 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.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 hours 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.
jve@lemmy.world 4 hours 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.”
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours 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.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world 57 minutes 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.)
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 hours 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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
but those are also cultural.
horses? food in France.
CovfefeKills@lemmy.world 3 hours 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.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
if he were to slaughter chickens that way, no one would bat an eye, bleeding them to death is the Kosher/Halal way
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 3 hours 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?
starik@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
They are common livestock. People let them roam freely, and they’re dumb as rocks, so they’re always standing in the road.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 hours 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.
gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Yeah, I feel like every other park I’ve ever been to has had a peacock…
West_of_West@piefed.social 7 hours ago
You haven’t lived until a peacock tries to steal your sandwich in a park
SillyDude@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
There are groups of feral peacocks where I grew up.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
they are? we got a town overrun with invasive peafowl near here and we just want to kill them.
mienshao@lemmy.world 7 hours 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.
Kirp123@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
People get tigers and lions so I don’t think a peacock is much harder to acquire. Also according to Wikipedia:
mienshao@lemmy.world 6 hours 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.
Klear@quokk.au 5 hours 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?
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 hours 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.