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’.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.