Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

Would you like to see your state legalize cockfighting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 78 58.6%

  • No

    Votes: 55 41.4%
  • Total voters
    133
whatever 2 dudes do in their bedroom is their business..........

Some countries they will be decapitated and stuff but if they wanna slap meatsticks, go for it.....
 
ctnjason said:
whatever 2 dudes do in their bedroom is their business..........

Some countries they will be decapitated and stuff but if they wanna slap meatsticks, go for it.....
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as it is voluntary and both men consent, it should be legal.
 
decriminalized-yes, but legalized , no

I think it is legal in Oklahoma

it would end up on TV, just as bullfighting is in Spain.

chickens are different than dogs; dogs are pets, not food. but it should not be encouraged.

what about two consenting adults fighting to the death? winner get a share of the pay per view
 
depends on what country you are in....... those shows on food network of the bald guy eating monkey legs on a stick make you wonder what we will be eating when things are really bad.
 
How about torturing dogs since "they don't have rights."

I don't think this should be legal.
 
I don't have a problem with a LOCAL government banning the use of animals forced to violently fight/kill one another for the enjoyment of humans. Likewise, I have no problem with a local government looking the other way or even putting it into the books as legal and ok.

Ron Paul often says about abortion, and I think it applies here: the more difficult/controversial a law, the more local the decision should be.
 
Animals have no rights. It is unfair and inconsistent to give different rights to one animal over another such as a dog over a chicken because dogs are "pets," and chickens are "food." I have had pet chickens before, and they lived in my very own room when I was a kid. I would drag them along in a cart behind me in the back yard, and the chickens would follow me like I was their parent. In oriental countries, cats and dogs are regularly eaten as well. It is silly to give one animal species rights over another. What, is one more rational than the other? Is it because one is cuter or more cuddly/fuzzy than the other? Cats and dogs get rights and people go nuts if others use them as fish bait, but worms and crickets can be used as fish bait? Is it because of size? Do whales have more rights than mice? What about the rights of ants? Don't they get any rights? Kids should be locked up and have the key thrown out because of the millions of ants that they kill daily. Wait, if certain animals have rights, isn't it our responsibility to intervene in the wild and punish animals for killing other animals? That must be it, right? This is all wrong. Any role that an animal takes in peoples' lives does not change the rights of an animal. It doesn't matter how big, cute or common an animal is. Just because you like a certain animal, doesn't mean that it magically gains rights. To do this is to believe in a neoconservative philosophy where, if they don't like something, they make it illegal. Animals are not rational beings, and they cannot grasp the concepts necessary to be rational, thus disqualifying all animals for rights. People try to give animals rights, but they only do this out of emotion and not out of any logical philosophy. Therefore, any kind of animal fight should be legal so long as the owners have consented to the fight. Humans are fully rational beings, thus qualifying for rights. This is why we have rights. It isn't because we are cute, fuzzy or larger than other animals. It's because of rationality.

As for the torturing of animals, this has to be legal as well in order for a consistent philosophy to take hold. Again, animals have no rights, so we owe them nothing in terms of rights. That doesn't mean that a person's life couldn't be drastically affected by torturing animals. In a free society, the torturer's community could deny any interaction with this person, which includes products, services or even entrance into facilities. Hell, private road and park owners could deny that person the convenience of driving on their roads or entering their parks. Flyers could be put up everywhere, letting people know about this animal abuser as long as the story is absolutely true. It would be completely legal to do all of these things in reaction to the torturing of animals, and this person would likely be quite bothered by it, possibly to the point of stopping because it's just not worth it.

Think rationally, and use consistency to create a philosophy. Don't let emotion come into play.
 
Last edited:
charrob said:
"Should cockfighting be legal?"

absolutely not.

Animals have natural rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm with BamaAla in that I would like to know your philosophical reasoning that would grant animals natural rights. If so, what animals get rights, and why? Please read post #12 to see my objections to animals having rights.
 
I don't think cockfighting would survive as legal business. it thrives now because it is underground, with illegal gambling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
DOJ orders federally funded legal service providers to stop support at immigration courts
Replies
0
Views
113
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
V
July 11- Nuland announced another 'unhappy surprise' for Putin
Replies
6
Views
597
Valli6
V
jct74
Trump endorses cannabis legalization 😃
Replies
11
Views
2K
jct74
jct74
Anti Federalist
  • Poll Poll
Will Biden be replaced?
14 15 16
Replies
301
Views
39K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Deporting Illegals Is Legal — Military In America's Streets Is Not!
Replies
1
Views
9K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top