Not The Onion

12420 readers

3362 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay

396

Zoo defends ‘panda’ exhibit after criticism for using dogs dyed black and white (www.unilad.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Viking_Hippie to c/nottheonion

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/11618175

Zoo defends ‘panda’ exhibit after criticism for using dogs dyed black and white

On May 1, the zoo drew large crowds of excited animal lovers as it prepared to unveil a new attraction.

When the zoo revealed the animals, visitors were met with the sight of little four-legged creatures, with white faces and black spots around their eyes and ears - not unlike the colorings of a panda.

The only thing is, these creatures weren't pandas. In fact, they were Chow Chows - a dog you might recognize from real life or social media, since they're very much the opposite of a wild animal.

The spitz-type dogs originally come from northern China, and were presented at the zoo because the owners said they didn't have any actual pandas to show visitors.

The owners were accused of trimming and dying the dogs to look like pandas, causing some backlash as locals accused the zoo of animal cruelty.

However, a spokesperson for the zoo hit back at the criticism as they pointed out that 'people also dye their hair'.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] surewhynotlem 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In our society, when a person or thing cannot consent, another person or a thing can be assigned to consent on their behalf. This is how children get vaccines. This is how some people with mental illnesses have their finances managed. This is how Grandma gets looked after in the nursing home.

If you are okay with all of the above, then your problem is not with our model of delegated consent. Your problem is with the actions the delegate is choosing to take.

Now, if you would make it illegal for a delegate to consent to hair dying, then for consistency you would also need to be okay with parents not dying the hair of their children. Children cannot consent. Is that a statement you're willing to make?

[+] morphballganon -8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Hair-dyeing is an aesthetic choice for entertainment. Children can consent to dyeing their hair because they can understand and accept the skin irritation. When we say children cannot consent, we are talking about activities with consequences they cannot grasp.

If you are equating dyeing the hair of animals with giving children vaccines necessary for their health, you're a laughably obtuse self-centered buffoon, at best.

[–] surewhynotlem 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I just reread your post and realized you insulted me.

It boggles my mind that people who would be absolutely polite in regular society go on the internet and assume that, just because they can't see someone's face, there aren't real people on the other end of the conversation. I'm a real person. What you said was needlessly mean.

[+] morphballganon -10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You are advocating for the violation of helpless animals, so the insult was appropriate. Are you unable to understand that hurting animals is bad?

[–] surewhynotlem 10 points 6 months ago

And insulting someone because you jump to conclusions about their point without understanding it is not actually appropriate. Is that another consistency problem you have? Do you think it's ok to insult people online but not in person? Would you not ask for clarification in real life, and just come out and insult people? That seems like a pretty intense way to live life.

[–] surewhynotlem 6 points 6 months ago

I was actually advocating for consistency of thought. Either we need to stop violating children. Or maybe it's not a violation. It's one of those.

I personally have no skin in the game. I don't do anything to my kids that I wouldn't do to an animal, and vice versa. So I'm consistent.

[–] surewhynotlem 8 points 6 months ago

Children can't consent. They can have opinions. They can't consent. They don't have the cognitive capacity to properly weigh options nor the context.