Apparently, there is a large debate on the blogosphere that says that we are all hypocrites for charging Michael Vick with a crime while we are eating burgers. How, these folks argue, can you say that Michael Vick is guilty of cruelty to animals when the cruelty in reducing cows and chickens to table-fare is ignored?
This is one aspect of the law that is becoming more than just annoying. Our society chooses to battle each and every personal decision (right down to what we eat) as though there should be a law that embodies the proper decision. I like my dog, and don't want anyone to torture her. I like fried chicken, and understand that my body needs protein. From my point of view, that's the way things were when our Constitution was written (dogs were domestic, and chickens were game). So, the only honest way to change this is to get State legislators to make a decision that humans shouldn't be eating animals. I've got some degree of confidence that I will outlive that argument. But, what a cruel waste of society's time and resources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment