How do you feel that roosters break all the human laws.?

Question

roosters are murderers, robbers, rapists and cannibals.

- murderers (they murder other roosters in their flock)

- robbers (from infants to full grown they steal food from others)

- rapists (they mate without the approval of the hen)

- cannibals (they eat other chicken eggs if they crack)

personally i think its all ok because thats their culture, but their might be some people out there who think cannibalism is cannibalism and raping is raping.

mainly im asking how you feel about this, but as a side note, what do you think would happen if they were given human rights?

Answer 1

I think you have too much time on your hands. And chickens don't have "culture."

I have chickens too. While they have a social hierarchy, this doesn't amount to culture. When they figure out art, religion, science, and politics then we can talk about chicken culture (and the ridiculous notion of giving them human rights).

Answer 2

You forgot to mention 2 very major offenses commited by roosters.  These may not be crimes per se, but they might as well be, and those d**n birds should be prosecuted as if they were.  Anyone who has ever lived near a rooster also knows exactly what I'm talking about.

1)  Roosters are dumb as sin.

2)  Roosters are noisy as sin.

Answer 3

what? they're BIRDS. You could say that all animals "break human laws" but who cares? they're freaking animals! how do you give human rights to chickens? It doesn't matter what "crime" they commit, they all get the death penalty anyway, courtesy of the Colonel. Put the bong away, you've had enough for tonight.

Answer 4

Chickens don't have "culture", they don't have "society". They are programmed to do what they do on an instinctive level, and their behavior is all either preprogrammed or learned behavior governed by guidelines that are preprogrammed; that's why roosters in China act the same way as roosters in Europe and North America.

Roosters only "murder" each other because they can't get away from each other; in the wild the loser of a battle could run away. The dominant rooster isn't smart enough to figure out that his opponent doesn't have a choice but to stay; his instincts tell him that the other rooster is an opponent and he needs to fight it and drive it off. Since the other rooster can't leave even when he wants to, he just gets beat on until he dies. This isn't either rooster's fault, it's the fault of the human who neglects to separate them.

As for robbing, a lot of animals will take food from one another; some animals actually can't understand that a morsel of food is "someone else's"; they just say "oh, look, food! I think I'll eat it!" They don't have any concept that if it's already under somebody else's nose that makes it "theirs"; they don't think that way (neither do very young children; they have to be taught this). Besides, roosters can also be considerate in their own way; they will call hens over when they find food, and share it with the hens. There are a lot of species that don't do that for each other.

As far as rape, it's questionable if chickens can even understand the concept of "rape"; mating is, after all, instinctive. Nobody tells a rooster what to do, he just instinctively knows how. And some instincts can be very strong; even if a rooster does have control of himself, there's very little chance that he would be able to understand that it is wrong, or why.

As far as cannibalism, it really depends on what you consider to be cannibalism. A mother hen may eat her own egg if it's broken; unless there's a developed embryo inside, it isn't really cannibalism, it's simply recycling resources so that she can try again, instead of wasting those resources and taxing her body even more when she lays the next egg.

Ultimately, chickens cannot be given human rights and human laws, because they do not have the same kind of awareness that humans have. That would make as much sense as punishing a blind man for wearing a color that's been outlawed; they do not and cannot know that they have done something wrong, so holding them responsible for it is in itself unjust.