In case you’re unable to watch the video: a woman named Kelly walks into a restraunt and demands everyone’s attention.
She then begins to speak of “having a little girl” named Snow who had been abused her entire life. She then drops the ball that this little girl is actually a pet chicken.
She proceeds to shame everyone there for eating meat, and tells them the dead animals on their plates were all living creatures with hopes and dreams we have shattered. A large crowd shortly surrounds her with chants and signs that read: “It’s not food, it’s violence!”
Before I critique the merits of the video, I would like to express a hope I have. I hope that Kelly is pro-life. I hope that her following is all pro-life. I hope that they hate abortion, that they protest it with eagerness and passion, and that they are never afraid to embarrass themselves publicly to make their important anti-abortion message heard. Why do I hope that? Well, not only because I value baby’s lives, but because that would mean Kelly and her minions would be consistent.
But as we all know, statistically, she is most likely not pro-life. She is most likely emblematic of nearly every other passionate, food-protesting vegitarian: a pro-choice liberal.
I wonder how she would feel if I walked into a Planned Parenthood (PP) passionately heralding a message about a baby that was saved from there, but her brothers and sisters were not. What if I walked into a PP with signs that read: “It’s not reproductive rights, it’s VIOLENCE!” Would she applaud? Would Kelly still be crying tears of passion? Maybe she would, but she probably would not. You see, this is a great example of most pro-choice lunacy. You can kill the human inside you, but don’t you dare touch that cow! Almost everything she said could be screamed inside of an abortion clinic where real injustice is being legally executed. Bodies are dismembered and left on metallic trays there too, Kelly. And those bodies wanted to live too, Kelly. And those bodies had no say in their dismemberment and murder, Kelly. Where are you, Kelly?
I hope this woman is not that absurd. I hope she fights for baby lives more often than she fights for cow and chicken lives. But, we all know she doesn’t. She will happily stand by and open the door for any woman who wants to pay a doctor to slaughter her baby in horrific ways, but watch out, she will cry if there is bacon on your plate.
What makes this all the more ironic, is that what Kelly uses to pluck our heartstrings and grab our attention is a rhetorical technique of speaking about her pet as if it is a human! She uses personification. She instinctively knows that humans being mistreated is worse than animal cruelty (I am not condoning animal cruelty) because she captured our attention by making us, for a moment, think about her pet as a human.
The worldview soil her passions grow from springs forth this inconsistency as its fruit. On one hand, she assumes naturalism, then on the other, she expects us to behave as if naturalism isn’t true. She is standing on contradictory foundations.
She assumes naturalism (with no justification) when she assumes that animals are of equal value as humans. This is classic Darwinism. We are all just evolved animals. We all come from star-stuff. Whether it’s a baby human, or a baby chicken, or a baby cow, it’s all just baby animals, and we all come from the same place. That is why she so comfortably speaks of her pet “Snow” as if it experiences what a human daughter would, and is just as worthy of being saved from those experiences as is any human daughter.
However, she then turns and behaves as if naturalism is not true. She thinks violence is evil. She thinks eating others’ bodies is evil. Where, in a naturalistic worldview, does evil come from? Where does this objective standard of morality come from that she is imposing on us? In other words, why is violence wrong? Why is eating children of any species wrong?
If all we are are animals, then there is no objective moral standard for not treating each other however our animalistic instincts desire. If a lion is hungry, he runs down a zebra and he eats it. And such is life.
When a caterpillar gets hungry it eats a living plant. And such is life.
And when the human animal gets hungry, it uses it’s evolved killer instincts to cook up a delicious, barbecued chicken breast with a cold glass of milk. And such is life.
Who is Kelly to call any of that evil? What is evil in that worldview?
If all we are are accidental animals, there is nothing objectively evil about being violent or eating one another, especially since eating animals helps our own personal happiness and continues our species. If anything, Darwinism promotes the eating of other animals. It keeps us alive, fills us with protein, adds some pleasure to our lives, and helps us continue the species. It’s not even permissible, it’s a virtue.
Kelly’s worldview ends up dictating against her passionate outcry.
In conclusion, I would like to end with Dr. White’s commentary on this very video, as it throws in yet another criticism I had not thought of:
“This video is offensive, ridiculous, absurd, and just plain stupid. Which makes it hard to get past how ridiculous it is to a more important point: it is also evil. Yes, evil. Why? Because ‘species equality’ is a dangerous, foolish, absurd, and, if I might add, deeply anti-biblical, and hence anti-Christian idea. God made men in His image, not chickens. Man has been given dominion over this creation, and though that likewise brings responsibilities and stewardships, it also makes the silly emotional sentiments of Kelly and her ilk grossly wrong. It is demeaning to man to make him a mere animal (as Darwinism does); it is likewise destructive of human relationships, and the sanctity of life, to parallel the life of a chicken with the life of one’s daughter, which foolish weeping Kelly does in this restaurant. She may cry her eyes out all she wishes: the worldview she has adopted is nihilistic and evil. The whole movement is reprehensible to its core.”– Dr. James White