I saw this in the local paper today. This dog won the "world's ugliest dog" contest.
Although the dog probably didn't know what was happening, I find it insensitive to hold such a contest. Imagine holding a contest where we have the ugliest human in the world and a human blind in one eye, crippled and balding come to win such a prize. In such a situation, we'd probably would call it discrimination against the disabled and violation of human rights. But when we come to the animal realm it is perfectly fine to have the ugliest, smelliest etc. animal contest. I do not see any purpose in it except to serve humans' greed of the prize money. Moreover, such a contest further increase our discrimination of "cute kitties and doggies who should be fed and groomed nicely" to "not so pretty chicken, cow and pig who are meant for food" and those "ugly smelly rats which should be dead or those lab mice who are too insignificant to deserve life".
Discrimination exist everywhere. My collegue once said - you are either discriminating against or discriminated against. For example, vegetarians get discriminated by omnivores (sometimes). When there are a lot of vegetarians, the omnivores get a taste of being discriminated against (sometimes). That's on the human level. We then have the human-animal level (speciesism), whereby we discriminate against the animals, and discriminate between different types of animals e.g. cat and cow. This is the reason I think being a vegetarian reduces at least one kind of discrimination.
The Green Hut 原素坊
4 days ago