So you consider humanity superior in morality to chickens right? Which means that you identify the horrible things they do as horrible, and deem them unacceptable and definitely shouldn't be repeated by a being of supposed higher intellect and control over one's own actions beyond simple instincts?

Seems like an even better argument against eating other animals and especially, especially industrialized factory farming if you ask me, where everything you said is still done, but by humans to the chickens.

[–] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Big logical gaps in this argument:

The op never said they were superior morally.

Even, given the above, the op deemed chickens immoral that does not make all chickens' actions immoral. Preening, roosting and eating grain are not immoral activities.

Defining only the horrible acts as horrible is a circular argument as no definition has been provided as horrible.

Other than those three, you really stuck it to the carnist, chief.