2006-10-12 10:42:50 · 8 answers · asked by Like An Ibis 3 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
Eating is legal. Cruelty to animals isn't. This shouldn't really be confusing.
2006-10-12 10:45:56 · answer #1 · answered by Nelson_DeVon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know people are poling all this right and wrong crap, which is not really crap its good stuff, but this is what I have to say. Everything in this wonderful world we live in is driven by money. The Gov. does not make money off of cockfighting because of the natch of the practice of it. (Or the gov. didn't nip it in the bud in time, to make money off it. lol) The Gov. does however make money off of eating food, and it just so happens that cocks and chickens are taste! Put all this together and you have a legal act.
So there for if now there was a way to make cockfighting money for the gov. I'm sure they would, but right now its more money to make it legal and to much trouble."pity..." So that's the bottom line, any questions?
2006-10-15 19:47:02 · answer #2 · answered by Gumby G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killing animals for food is not immoral to most people. Cockfighting serves no purpose other than to amuse sickos by watching animals suffer. Eating is necessary for survival and I, for one do not want the government legislating what I should and shouldn't put my dinner plate. If you don't like KFC, then don't eat there, and leave the rest of us alone. Its really that simple, isn't it?
2006-10-12 18:00:22 · answer #3 · answered by the internet is stupid 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When KFC gets the alledged chickens, they are already dead.
Soaking dead chickens in big vats of hot grease is not illegal.
With Cockfighting, people pay to watch chickens fight and kill each other, and often gamble on the results.
I think I would rather go to KFC... it would be the lesser of two evils IMO.
2006-10-12 17:48:57 · answer #4 · answered by still fun 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The illegal part has nothing to do with killing. You can not hold a rooster responsible for killing another, or a man for making the killing situation possible.
What is illegal and immoral is the salacious enjoyment some sick people take in betting or watching cruel animal fights to death. Dog fights are another example of this form of voyeuristic perversity.
KFC does not kill chickens for fun.
2006-10-19 03:58:17 · answer #5 · answered by willgvaa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not OK for people to kill people, so its no OK for chickens to kill other chickens. That's logical, right?
It all works until you take into account that people kill, eat, and deep fry chickens with 11 herbs and spices chickens all the time.
It's certainly not OK for chickens to kill people, though.. which I think is a double standard.
Chickens rarely ever kill people unless they are giving salmonella to old ladies.
So there you have it. The Colonel is higher on the food chain, thus he can deep fry chickens as long as they don't have salmonella and kill people.
2006-10-12 17:57:19 · answer #6 · answered by Ancient Mariner 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Matching animals up to fight to the death for the entertainment of an audience is considered animal cruelty.
When an animal is killed so that it can be eaten, it's usually done quickly, without any undue stress to the animal. That's generally considered to be "humane" death.
2006-10-12 17:58:52 · answer #7 · answered by Ali 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You see, this world generally believes that the eating of animals is legal but murder of them is not. The world is very ironic.
2006-10-12 18:23:53 · answer #8 · answered by Lying from you 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋