The New York Times recently ran a story about chicken eating with this image:
unusually provocative", only proving once again that words have no meaning to these people.
On cue, PETA became outraged:
“It’s down-right offensive, not just to people who care about animals but almost to everyone. It’s a plucked, beheaded, young chicken in a young pose.” - Ingrid NewkirkThere is a lesson here. The Socialist, above all, is against things and rarely for anything, other than forcing other people to bow to the whims of the Socialist that change with the seasons. Just browse through a few articles by folk who are self identified social liberals and how they describe the chicken picture. Sexy, erotic, sensual . . . It does not even look like it is oiled up!
Something PETA, the New York Times, Greenpeace, and others have in common is a hatred for American industry and the free choice of people to buy from industry. However, they do love certain things so they look the other way when their particular choice is supplied by an industry. In this case, they all find themselves looking the other way and right at each other. One group does not want us to eat a healthy, omnivore diet, another wants food to be chased down for consumption rather than grown on farms (the free range advocates), yet another has a fit if we use fire.
As for describing the chicken as posed like a sexy woman prepared for eating and cooking as some sort of corporate carnivore propaganda designed to lure the otherwise vegan natured human into sins of the flesh, I submit that Dolcett images are a lot closer to those descriptions: