PETA: Chicken Causes Small Penises
Findings published by the Study for Future Families showed that eating poultry during pregnancy may lead to smaller penis size in male infants. Looking at dairy products, eggs, fish, fruit, bird meat, potatoes, tomatoes, vegetables, and red meat, researchers found the most significant link between chicken consumption and decreased penis size because of a chemical compound found in the meat. Furthermore, evidence indicates that heterosexual women’s sexual satisfaction depends in part on their partner’s penis size. Now that you are well endowed with this information, I hope you will have the backs of future Buffalo residents and visitors by not allowing their pregnant mothers to participate in the wing-eating contest.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably mention that I’m a huge supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Their work to prevent animal cruelty is both laudable and worthy of support. Being vegan, I appreciate their efforts to highlight the benefits of a plant-based diet. That said, even I have to recognize that some of PETA’s tactics are a bit…well, odd would be a charitable description. I’m not a militant vegan, and I understand that it’s called a food chain for a reason, but there are those vegans who scream “MEAT IS MURDER!!!” to anyone who will listen…and most folks won’t. This leads to the perceived need to do outlandish things in order to attract attention to the cause. I’m not going to detail any of the silliness that’s gone before, because it feels rather pointless. PETA may think it’s being provocative and original in how it gets its message in front of carnivores, but most of the time they just look ridiculous. Instead of trying to reason with people who don’t think like they do, the “MEAT IS MURDER!!!” crowd resorts to cheap, silly antics that do little to convince anyone of the righteousness of their cause. These tactics do, however, convince many observers that PETA is a cabal of crackpots…and it can be tough to argue with that assessment.
Then you have the latest example of overheated self-righteousness. If you wanted to become a laughingstock, there probably isn’t a better way than arguing with no sense of the absurd that eating poultry during pregnancy means your son will have a dick the size of a baby carrot. That the argument is thinly sourced is the first thing that leaps out at me. The second is the alleged connection between eating poultry and smaller penises. Is it causative or merely a correlation? Just because A and B are present doesn’t mean that A causes B. How can anyone make such a ridiculous argument with so little to support it? This speaks to the fact that PETA too often feels that because they own the moral high ground (in their humble estimation), evidence is superfluous. If it’s self-evident, why would anyone need to back up their argument with evidence? Here’s some breaking news: Being vegan doesn’t mean the need to support your assertions no longer applies.
If you want people to take you and your cause seriously, you need to state a serious case in a serious manner. You can start by finding other arguments besides “eating poultry cause small penises.”
Here’s one more suggestions for the PETA hierarchy: You might give some thought to losing the cheap sexual double entendres, knowhutimean? Sex may get people’s attention, but you’re not going to convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause using sex to make your point.
