How my email address gets on these lists I do not know, but last night I received an urgent email which asked me to help do something about a sick Cockatiel for sale at a pet store in New York. A link went to this web site, where I saw a number of comments posted -- almost all of which display fanatic abolitionism on the subject of pet stores. They believe passionately that it is immoral to sell animals, and the only "debate" involves whether it is immoral to pay money to the store to "rescue" a sick bird.

The bird is described as having ascites -- an infection which can result when impregnated birds retain egg yolk:

Egg yolk peritonitis (the presence of yolk material in the coelomic cavity) is a common cause of abdominal distension in birds. Yolk material by itself induces a mild inflammatory response and may be reabsorbed by the peritoneum. Because yolk is an excellent growth medium for bacteria, peritonitis may result from secondary bacterial infection. Localized to diffuse fibrinous peritonitis may result, and may lead to secondary ascites and organ inflammation or compromise in chronic cases.

Egg peritonitis is characterized by fibrin or albumen-like material with a cooked appearance among the abdominal viscera. It is a common cause of sporadic deaths, but in some flocks may become the major cause of death and give the appearance of a contagious disease. It is diagnosed at necropsy.

Lodgment of eggs in the oviduct was probably due to reverse peristalsis brought about by breakage of the thin-shelled eggs and secondary bacterial infection. Peritonitis follows reverse movement of albumen and Escherichia coli bacteria from the oviduct into the abdomen. If the incidence is high, culture should be done to differentiate between Pasteurella (fowl cholera) or Salmonella infection.

When hens have too many large ovarian follicles, a problem described as erratic oviposition and defective egg syndrome (EODES) is seen in broiler breeders.

One commenter decried the horrors in this and other pet stores and said poignantly,

I have been taking pictures of all the dead fish in Wal Mart.

What bothers me the most about this abolitionist mentality is that there's no compromise with it. To these people, it is immoral for animals to be kept in zoos, pet stores, raised on farms or even kept as pets. To them, a picture of a dead fish at Walmart is as shocking as a picture of a bloody fetus is to an abortion activist, and presumably, they think that non-activists will be shocked into agreeing with them by seeing the images. When this does not happen, the activists only become more determined.

This principle has been called group polarization:

Study of this effect has shown that after participating in a discussion group, members tend to advocate more extreme positions and call for riskier courses of action than individuals who did not participate in any such discussion.

The study of group polarization began with an unpublished 1961 Master's thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky shift", meaning that a group's decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met. The discovery of the risky shift was considered surprising and counter-intuitive, especially since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups, leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would conform to the average risk level of its members. The seemingly counter-intuitive findings of Stoner led to a flurry of research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to the standard decision-making practice. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the overall phenomenon "group polarization".

Group polarization has also been found to occur with online (computer-mediated) discussions e.g. (Sia et al., 2002). In particular, research has found that group discussions conducted when discussants are in a distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to PAT) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviours (due to social comparison).

Of course, if you disagree with the group in question, the reverse tends to occur. What is fascinating about this is that even when people's positions are refuted or debunked, that only makes them adhere to their beliefs more obstinately. Persuasion does not work, because arguments do not win, and those who are unconverted tend to become more set in their ways. Little wonder that totalitarian states imprison dissenters; they know that while repetitive propaganda may fuel the believers, it also tends to fuel dissent.

While it's beyond this post, there may be an inherently irreconcilable conflict between those who want to be told what to do, and those who do not.

Anyway, what all of this means is that to the extent I want to remain rational and objective, I'd probably be better off not subjecting myself to activist propaganda. An additional problem for me is that even if I agree with an argument, if I start seeing it too often I am more likely to become critical of it. Thus, I tend to become repelled and disgusted by group polarization even if I agree with the premise of the group! It makes it very difficult for me to be an activist on any level. At best, I end up being disappointed with humanity again, even if I manage to hold my nose and support the group. (Yes, I should learn to be more understanding -- but even that sounds condescending on my part.)

But what I find especially annoying is when people demand I care about something I don't care about, simply because they care deeply about it. That makes me care, perhaps not enough to "join the other side" (as I might have when I was younger), but still. Someone demanding that I care about what I don't about forces me into a position of at least caring enough to be annoyed by their demand.

I am forced to give a crap only because others give a crap. The existence of the "give a crap" forces requires me to give a crap, even though I resent giving a crap.

And just as I felt compelled to give a crap about pornography, right now I give a crap about dead fish.

Enough that I took a picture of the dead fish at my local supermarket, which I rescued from being eaten by a total stranger, and which are now in my refrigerator.

Is that picture persuasive of anything?

That picture reminded me of another one which was clearly intended to persuade, but which failed in my case.

So, simply because of my irritation over an email, I am now running the risk of being seen as making fun of an issue that a growing number of devout abolitionists feel very, very strongly about.

And I'd be foolish not to feel strongly about the fact that they feel strongly, for I'm sure that many animal rights activists believe there is a special place in hell for people like me.

Please bear in mind that I could have written about other emails from various activists who have failed to persuade me, but I selected this one because it's easier for me to write about, plus I thought it would offend the least number of readers.

That's because animal rights activists don't think their position defines conservatism, nor do they call their enemies RINOs.

I guess I need to try harder not to care.

MORE: Citing a post about a new movement to eat your pets in the name of CO2 reduction, M. Simon propose having activists eat each other to lighten the load for the rest of us.

Mmm mmm good!

Maybe someone should start an organization called People for the Eating of Tasty Activists.

Come to think of it, isn't the above picture suggestive of the idea?