4w ago

Hundreds of animals killed in Dallas shopping center fire

abcnews.go.com Hundreds of animals killed in Dallas shopping center fire

Authorities in Dallas say a fire that broke out at a shopping center in Dallas has killed more than 500 animals, most of which were small birds

Summary

A fire at a Dallas shopping center killed over 500 animals, mostly small birds, from smoke inhalation.

The fire, which took two hours to extinguish, caused severe damage to the building but no human injuries.

Texas @lemmy.world

FenrirIII @lemmy.world

3w ago

Hundreds of animals killed in Dallas shopping center fire

abcnews.go.com /US/wireStory/hundreds-animals-killed-dallas-shopping-center-fire-117325373

6 0

You're viewing a single thread.

14 comments

Maybe we shouldn't keep animals that evolved to fly around in little cages in the first place? Just a thought.
- We as a species built our civilizations on an economy of suffering. Trading work product is just an exchange of suffering, and those who can best exploit the suffering of others build the most power and influence. We can extract a lot of value from the suffering of animals. It might be pain and death for food and clothing, forced labor to save our own backs and legs, scientific discovery through experimental suffering, or just the confinement of something pretty for a bit of amusement and companionship.
  Empathy is the skill that allows us to develop morality, but compartmentalization is the skill that allows us to ignore empathy and commit violent acts of selfishness. Whether it's caged wild animals, factory farming, fast fashion slave labor, homeless children mining lithium and cobalt to make batteries for our devices, it's all a form of violence that we condone and support.
  
  I don't know that I would call a caged pet bird violence, but I certainly think it's cruelty. Especially when they clip the wings.
  Once went into a local pet store to get some dog treats. They had a bunch of birds that must have had their wings clipped, because they were all crowded into little open top acrylic boxes. It was just awful. If I thought contacting the local humane society would do anything, I would, but I've dealt with them before and I know they wouldn't do shit. And it's an established store that's been there for decades, so I'm guessing anyone in authority who might know about it does.
  Anyway, I never went in there again and I badmouth it every chance I get.
  
  If you're not sure if it is violence, consider how a person would feel in the same conditions. Deprivation is widely considered to be an act of violence against people, and it should be the same with animals.
  
  Life on earth functions on the economy of suffering. Humanity is just REALLY good at it
  
  Sure, but humans are unique in their ability to extract and hoard suffering from others on industrial scales.
  
  A person would feel they would be treated cruelly. You are using the word violence where it isn't necessary. There's a reason 'cruel and unusual punishment' is forbidden in the U.S. Constitution rather than violent punishment. Because violence is a subset of cruelty. You seem to be using it the other way around.
  
  We don't need to debate this. The World Health Organization Violence Prevention Authority has defined violence for us:
  "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
  https://www.who.int/groups/violence-prevention-alliance/approach#:~:text=%22the%20intentional%20use%20of%20physical,%2C%20maldevelopment%2C%20or%20deprivation.%22
  
  I'm pretty sure they don't suggest that applies to birds. You know, what with birds not being part of public health unless they're a disease vector.
  
  Violence is violence. That we don't mind it sometimes is how we manage to live the way we do.
  Bird culling to avoid diseases is an act of violence. It's justified, and necessary to protect the lives of humans, but it is still a violent act. If someone were to cull birds for no reason at all, most people would think that was disconcerting. Likewise, if someone went to the park with a birdcage, and grabbed one of the pigeons and then placed it in a cage, and then just left the cage there, you'd be like, "what the fuck? Why did you put that bird in a cage for no reason?" And then they'd be like, "don't worry, I'll feed it, I just want it inside that cage there." It would be unsettling. You'd probably try to let the bird out, or call someone about the weird guy putting pigeons in cages.
  But do it in the rainforest, and then bring the bird home to your house in a region where it couldn't possibly survive in the wild, then it's no longer depriving that bird of freedom? That's ok.
  
  Yes. Killing things is an act of violence. I do not disagree. We are not talking about that. We're also not talking about grabbing a pigeon and putting it in a cage or bringing something from the rainforest home.
  The vast majority of birds kept as pets have been bred to domestication. They are not caught wild. Plenty of them didn't even exist before we started breeding them.
  That doesn't justify it, but it also does not have anything to do with the scenarios you're presenting.
  All you are doing is muddying the waters and it will just make people think you're unserious and about as effective at stopping animal cruelty with pets as PETA is stopping people eating meat.
  People really need to read Marshall McLuhan.
  
  You're arguing past the point. Deprivation is violence. That's just the definition, and there's nothing to argue about there.
  I'm not suggesting you to run through the aisles of your local PetCo and free all the little creatures. I'm pointing out that we, as a civilization, are able to compartmentalize and justify almost anything if we accept it as normal. Consider the entire concept of "bred for domestication" and think about the generations of animals that have lived and died in small boxes so that we could have the prettiest and most docile birds. Does that really mitigate the suffering of caged finches?
  On the scale of human atrocities, that's so close to zero that it does not merit inclusion. But it's not quite zero, and it reveals our intimate relationship with suffering as a commodity. There's nothing wrong with having pets, just like there's nothing wrong with enjoying the modern world and all of its conveniences. We're all just individual snowflakes in the avalanche of human history, and in our brief lives we try to do the best we can with the limited control we get.
  
  See my last two sentences. Especially the last one.
  Does that really mitigate the suffering of caged finches?
  I've repeatedly said it isn't justified. This literally started with me saying that. Have you not read a single one of my comments?

14 comments