It's obvious you didn't read my response to your earlier similar question, so I've repeated it below in its entirety. Might I suggest reading it very slowly and perhaps placing your finger under each word so as to not lose your place?
I thought only Liberals engaged in moral relativism. Cock fighting is nothing like killing animals for food. It’s unspeakably cruel. He didn’t humanely chop off the rooster’s head to eat him, he forced him into fights to the death. It’s bloodlust, pure and simple.
Worded another way, except for vegetarians (which I'm not) we have to kill to eat, it just needs to be done humanely. In case you're still having trouble comprehending words with more than one syllable, I'll answer your question in one: NO.
It’s still obvious, despite your smarmy reply, that you are committing the sin that Paul preached against: worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.
Animals have no souls, and a man doesn’t deserve death because he kills an animal...whether through trapping, fishing, hunting, fighting them together or slaughtering for food.
By linking that mans’ death as a just punishment for his sins to chickens, you are declaring man and animal morally equivalent, and they are not.
If you can’t respond to this without a smarmy, slimy tone, please don’t bother replying at all...thanks.
Ed