Your point still stands, but to be fair we do that with almost all meats we consume. Pork instead of pig, veal instead of baby cow, beef instead of adult cow, etc. Chicken is the only one that comes to mind that we call it as we see it. I'm curious what we'll end up calling ants and grasshoppers when we start eating them en masse.
I think you also need to accept that most people don't care that it was a living, intelligent, conscious creature. I know plenty of people who will vocally celebrate a meal with bacon (or steak or whatnot) with a blatant reference to the animal that died to be on the plate. I hope this attitude changes in our time, but it is the current reality.
Not just chicken but most birds (goose, turkey, duckling, pheasant...). Also, lamb.
My understanding is that the difference is because at one point in England the nobility (who ate the animals) spoke something closer to French while the peasants (who raised the animals) spoke something closer to German. So we get beef on our plate but a cow in the field, pork versus pig or swine. It wasn't to distance the food from the animal, but the lower classes from the aristocracy. Whether it now serves that role is another question.
Interesting, thank you. I didn't really know much about the etymology, but yes, I think the current language certainly perpetuates a convenient cognitive dissociation
I think you also need to accept that most people don't care that it was a living, intelligent, conscious creature. I know plenty of people who will vocally celebrate a meal with bacon (or steak or whatnot) with a blatant reference to the animal that died to be on the plate. I hope this attitude changes in our time, but it is the current reality.