Answer:
Explanation:
<u>One of the examples of behavior that would be considered deviant in one society and not in the other is the eating of certain animals. The examples are:</u>
- Some societies in India consider the cow a sacred animal and never would consume beef.
- Muslim societies do not eat pork meat.
- Insects are considered a tasty snack in many countries, including Thailand, while it would be considered gross by many people from the west.
- While some of the western European countries (like France and Belgium) have specialized butcher shops and restaurants for horse meat, eating it would most likely be considered taboo in the US or UK.
- The most radical example is the eating of dogs, which occurs in some Asian countries, most notably China. There is even a whole festival for dog meat consumption in Yulin, and every year there are protests across the globe because of this event. Slaughtering dogs for meat consumption is prohibited in the US and plenty of other countries.
<u>With all of this, we can conclude that some food consumption can be seen as deviant in some parts of the world, while in others it is a normal occurrence and part of the every-day diet.</u>
Despite various taboos and laws, what we have to understand is that our connection to the animals is culturally constructed. The fact that people of the US feel closer to dogs, cats, and horses, but not to sheep and pigs, is not the fact supported by nature. There is nothing in nature itself and the nutrition of horses, insects, and various other species that prevents us to eat them. These deviances surrounding different meats are all culturally constructed. <u>This does not mean they are less real or that we should eat all the animals, just that we have to realize that our ways are no naturally more or less right than someone else’s.</u>
<span>In order for a bill to be presented to the President for signature, it must pass both the House and Senate in the exact same form. The device used for reaching agreement between the two Houses is often, but not always, a conference committee. Sometimes differences between the two bodies are resolved by amendment — e.g., the House will agree to the bill as passed by the Senate with an amendment and the Senate will subsequently concur with that amendment.</span>
I have no idea it showed an answer on here and I'm trying to get it. I dont know how this thing works
I'd say listen to her then go back to work.
Answer:
promissory estoppel
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario Kenneth can sue his parents under the doctrine of a promissory estoppel. This is a doctrine which prevents an individual/group from abiding to a promise, even if that promise was not made into a legal written contract. Such as is the case in this scenario since Kenneth's parents promised to deed him the ranch.
