If dominance is the prime source of a right to control or be cruel to something, wouldn't it extend over the weaker members of our own species?

 

 

 

There are strong humans and weak ones. Based on the rights we have established, a stronger being can take advantage of another being for reasons other than pure survival.

 

 

 

We don't eat each other because of health reasons, and easy transmission of prion disease, but other forms of exploitation are available.

 

 

 

Bullying, slavery, etc.

If dominance is the prime source of a right to control or be cruel to something, wouldn't it extend over the weaker members of our own species?

 

 

 

This thread could be considered humans vs. animals. Humans vs. humans is a totally different thing.

 

 

 

Humans are not on the same level as animals. I wish people would stop contrasting each other.

Ah, I see some confusion. I don't support cockfighting, but I do support killing animals to feed people. Maybe that will clear things up.

I forgot to say, people who think the roosters are killed slowly are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

If the rooster can't fight anymore, a "vet" (which is more like a rooster doctor) looks at the rooster, if he declares the rooster won't survive the wounds, the rooster is shot at/the owner steps on the rooster's head, crushing the brain and killing the rooster.

 

 

 

I find the word rooster very hard to say on English.

people > roosters

 

 

 

Agreed. Why do people keep putting them in the same level?

 

 

 

Why do you put entertainment on the same level as survival? I'm getting tired of asking. Yes, entertainment is important but not on the level where we should ignore the health of animals.

If dominance is the prime source of a right to control or be cruel to something, wouldn't it extend over the weaker members of our own species?

 

 

 

This thread could be considered humans vs. animals. Humans vs. humans is a totally different thing.

 

 

 

Humans are not on the same level as animals. I wish people would stop contrasting each other.

 

 

 

What differentiates us?

 

Sure, humans are completely aware of their situation, and once exploited, would know that they are experiencing something terrible.

 

Animals aren't as smart, but they can still feel their conditions.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about just cockfighting here, I know you'll bring up some counter about how roosters are well-fed and don't know they are being exploited. I'm talking about all forms of needless control upon animals that bring about pain.

people > roosters

 

 

 

Agreed. Why do people keep putting them in the same level?

 

 

 

Why do you put entertainment on the same level as survival? I'm getting tired of asking. Yes, entertainment is important but not on the level where we should ignore the health of animals.

 

 

 

 

 

What does survival has to do with this?

 

 

 

The roosters that fight are the ones that farmers sell because they are just waisting food on keeping them alive. A normal rooster last about 3 months being well fed, with vitamins and it's being taken care of. The fight lasts a couple of minutes and the rooster is killed immediately if it cannot fight anymore.

I think it's wrong. Those poor creatures shouldn't have to feel the pain.

 

 

 

If they're going to be slaughtered, it's quick and painless. They don't know. But this... It's just a whole new level.

 

 

 

:shame:

What does survival has to do with this?

 

 

 

The roosters that fight are the ones that farmers sell because they are just waisting food on keeping them alive. A normal rooster last about 3 months being well fed, with vitamins and it's being taken care of. The fight lasts a couple of minutes and the rooster is killed immediately if it cannot fight anymore.

 

 

 

I'm saying that just because we use them for food, that doesn't mean we should use them for sadistic entertainment. A comparison Shadow has been bringing up a lot.

What does survival has to do with this?

 

 

 

The roosters that fight are the ones that farmers sell because they are just waisting food on keeping them alive. A normal rooster last about 3 months being well fed, with vitamins and it's being taken care of. The fight lasts a couple of minutes and the rooster is killed immediately if it cannot fight anymore.

 

 

 

I'm saying that just because we use them for food, that doesn't mean we should use them for sadistic entertainment. A comparison Shadow has been bringing up a lot.

 

 

 

 

 

Roosters that fight are the ones that farmers sell, because they are useless/have too much. If there was no market for the roosters, the farmer could just kill them. With the market, he gains money, people get their fights, roosters are well fed and taken care of for a few months and then die. If they win, they are taken care of the wounds until they are ready again.

Quicker than the gratingly slow pain that occurs through numerous wounds. Jugular is cut, ok I admit it probably happens, so i admit I was wrong, but again look at my previous sentence

 

 

 

Err so rooster is not killed slowly so long as no human is harmed? Umm we're still talking about pitting the birds against each other in a fight (often to the death) right?

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying we don't have dominance. However, just through dominace can we do what we like? Is it right for a king to murder someone he believes is in the wrong? Is it right for a dictator of any kind to make someone suffer because they've wrong HIM or HER?

 

 

 

Stop comparing roosters to humans. It's annoying.

Roosters that fight are the ones that farmers sell, because they are useless/have too much. If there was no market for the roosters, the farmer could just kill them. With the market, he gains money, people get their fights, roosters are well fed and taken care of for a few months and then die. If they win, they are taken care of the wounds until they are ready again.

 

 

 

That doesn't change anything. It's still sadistic. I'd rather die than be forced to box for the rest of my life, merely for entertainment purposes at the expense of my health. The roosters don't even get that choice though. You're telling me that because they're gonna die anyways, then it's all free game. It's not.

What differentiates us?

 

Sure, humans are completely aware of their situation, and once exploited, would know that they are experiencing something terrible.

 

Animals aren't as smart, but they can still feel their conditions.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about just cockfighting here, I know you'll bring up some counter about how roosters are well-fed and don't know they are being exploited. I'm talking about all forms of needless control upon animals that bring about pain.

 

 

 

Yes, the difference is that we are intelligent compared to them.

 

 

 

That doesn't change anything. It's still sadistic. I'd rather die than be forced to box for the rest of my life, merely for entertainment purposes at the expense of my health. The roosters don't even get that choice though. You're telling me that because they're gonna die anyways, then it's all free game. It's not.

 

 

 

Well the rooster always has the option of just standing there and take the beating. That could be considered suicide.

Well the rooster always has the option of just standing there and take the beating. That could be considered suicide.

 

Does it really have that option? I would think that's bad entertainment.

It's still sadistic.

 

I quite agree with your stance on this. I don't understand how anyone can be entertained by it.

 

 

 

 

 

Carlo you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument. The rooster's instinct would be to fight not die so it wouldn't really have the choice to 'stand there'.

Well the rooster always has the option of just standing there and take the beating. That could be considered suicide.

 

Does it really have that option? I would think that's bad entertainment.

 

A family of five will have food on the table for dinner. That's all that matters.

 

Carlo you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument. The rooster's instinct would be to fight not die so it wouldn't really have the choice to 'stand there'.

 

It wasn't an argument

Well the rooster always has the option of just standing there and take the beating. That could be considered suicide.

 

Does it really have that option? I would think that's bad entertainment.

 

A family of five will have food on the table for dinner. That's all that matters.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. Especially after all that.

They don't HAVE to fight >.> It probably occurs naturally in the wild. People just bring them together on purpose to observe it for fun.

 

I think it's okay as long as you take good care of the winner and eat the loser (so nothing's wasted.. wasting is bad).

They don't HAVE to fight >.> It probably occurs naturally in the wild. People just bring them together on purpose to observe it for fun.

 

I think it's okay as long as you take good care of the winner and eat the loser (so nothing's wasted.. wasting is bad).

 

Or eat them both.

They don't HAVE to fight >.> It probably occurs naturally in the wild. People just bring them together on purpose to observe it for fun.

 

I think it's okay as long as you take good care of the winner and eat the loser (so nothing's wasted.. wasting is bad).

 

Or eat them both.

 

 

 

Well, yeah, if the winner's damaged beyond repair.

There's this KFC branch a couple of kilometers away from where I live. Behind KFC is a cockfighting arena. Now I wonder where KFC gets their chicken hmm...

There's this KFC branch a couple of kilometers away from where I live. Behind KFC is a cockfighting arena. Now I wonder where KFC gets their chicken hmm...

 

 

 

They get their meat from frozen boxes shipped from corporate. Also, the frozen boxes contain kitten meat. That's a fact. Which is why I do not eat at KFC as I am a cat owner.

It is fairly disturbing to see how many people on here support this...it's a disgrace. From what i have seen people seem to think just because we are the dominant species on this planet that we deserve to do whatever we want with them;there is a big difference between feeding yourself (even though there is some unwanted crualty going on there as well at times,unfortunately) and making them participate in brutal acts such as this.

 

 

 

I will never compare a human's life to that of an animal,however as the dominant species..we have the responsibility to look after them the best we can instead of screwing them over and using them for moronic pleasures such as this.

 

 

 

and Barihawk,do you have a source to the kitten meat claim ?

I was fairly sure the joke was implied, there.

 

 

 

http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/drinkingsongs/mp3s/2000s/2000-by-popular-demand-vol-2--seamus-kennedy-(CD)/09-mcdonald-s-kitchen.htm

ahhh right,my mistake there....and interesting song at that. :P