Panthers, You have a point but there have been a lot of pro atheletes who have been in serious financial trouble, wheter it be from dumb investment, gambling, carelees managmnet etc.
If we banned all of them, wed have a lot fewer teams.
CNT, I am not so sure dog fightng isnt part of our heritage. It has existed since recorded history and spans many cultures. It is either legal or overlooked in many places.
It is easily as well established as hunting for sport or sport fishing. Not necessarily a Nowegian thing but since Roman times, animal fighting has been very popular.
I am OK with saying its illegal and end of story. But I am not necessarily OK with saying our laws and attitudes about this stuff are easily reconcilable.
Vick
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
wow, a good post made my packerboy. I like it.
I've asked time and time again for people to tell me what they can't understand of my posts and I've never gotten anything. If you don't understand that two things that are different can be compared without being the same, that's your issue, not mine.
There's no point in debating if you're just going to say "it's illegal, so it's wrong." No one on here is claiming that what Vick did isn't illegal. I'm not. What I'm saying is that what he does is comparable (similar; not the same, but similar) to many acceptable behaviors in our society. We place humans so much higher than animals in our society. But now when a domesticated animal is killed it's suddenly a bad thing.
PB, you're very right that it's been a huge part of our culture for a long time. So, aside from "it's illegal" why is dogfighting so wrong?
CNT, I don't hunt, but I know all that you put in your "uninformative post." It is still killing an animal. Whether you use all the meat, the hide, or what have you, it's still killing an animal. So is fishing. So are a lot of other things.
I'm not arguing whether it's legal or illegal now, I'm arguing whether it is right that it isn't given what other things are.
I've asked time and time again for people to tell me what they can't understand of my posts and I've never gotten anything. If you don't understand that two things that are different can be compared without being the same, that's your issue, not mine.
There's no point in debating if you're just going to say "it's illegal, so it's wrong." No one on here is claiming that what Vick did isn't illegal. I'm not. What I'm saying is that what he does is comparable (similar; not the same, but similar) to many acceptable behaviors in our society. We place humans so much higher than animals in our society. But now when a domesticated animal is killed it's suddenly a bad thing.
PB, you're very right that it's been a huge part of our culture for a long time. So, aside from "it's illegal" why is dogfighting so wrong?
CNT, I don't hunt, but I know all that you put in your "uninformative post." It is still killing an animal. Whether you use all the meat, the hide, or what have you, it's still killing an animal. So is fishing. So are a lot of other things.
I'm not arguing whether it's legal or illegal now, I'm arguing whether it is right that it isn't given what other things are.
To put it in another Yogi Berra-esque term you may understand... If we don't know understand what you're saying, how are we supposed to understand how to make you understand?HShockeywatcher wrote:I've asked time and time again for people to tell me what they can't understand of my posts and I've never gotten anything.
See above.HShockeywatcher wrote:If you don't understand that two things that are different can be compared without being the same, that's your issue, not mine.
-
Neutron 14
- Posts: 5339
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:48 pm
It is not similar. Is the sun similar to a banana because they're both yellow? The differences are many, the similarity just one. Equating hunters and fishermen and their organizations with these "sports" that are so henious that they have to be done behind closed doors, is ludicrous.HShockeywatcher wrote: What I'm saying is that what he does is comparable (similar; not the same, but similar) to many acceptable behaviors in our society.
Except for a few remote areas on earth, the human race has come a long way from what used to be acceptable behavior.
We don't even throw Christians to the lions anymore. We do roast them on Minnhock though.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
The only reason it has to be done behind closed doors is because it's illegal. Same reason people play poker behind locked doors, same reason underage kids drink behind closed doors, same reason people smoke pot behind closed doors, same reason so many other things happen behind closed doors.
It's okay for you to have an opinion that gambling shouldn't be illegal, that the drinking age should be different, that marijuana should be legal, etc, etc, but while they are illegal, if you don't want to get caught you need to do them behind closed doors.
If you don't understand something, send me a PM, or post, saying "I don't understand this:..." and I will explain it. The quote you didn't understand Nuetron 14 did, so maybe you can ask him.
And yes, to be similar you only need one characteristic similar. You learn that at a very young age when putting similar things into groups of colors, numbers, etc. But to say that is the only similarity is very naive of you.
It's okay for you to have an opinion that gambling shouldn't be illegal, that the drinking age should be different, that marijuana should be legal, etc, etc, but while they are illegal, if you don't want to get caught you need to do them behind closed doors.
If you don't understand something, send me a PM, or post, saying "I don't understand this:..." and I will explain it. The quote you didn't understand Nuetron 14 did, so maybe you can ask him.
And yes, to be similar you only need one characteristic similar. You learn that at a very young age when putting similar things into groups of colors, numbers, etc. But to say that is the only similarity is very naive of you.
-
Neutron 14
- Posts: 5339
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:48 pm
In your world does that make them similar to dog fighting?HShockeywatcher wrote:The only reason it has to be done behind closed doors is because it's illegal. Same reason people play poker behind locked doors, same reason underage kids drink behind closed doors, same reason people smoke pot behind closed doors, same reason so many other things happen behind closed doors.
I got lucky this time.HShockeywatcher wrote: If you don't understand something, send me a PM, or post, saying "I don't understand this:..." and I will explain it. The quote you didn't understand Nuetron 14 did, so maybe you can ask him.
For a guy who doesn't hunt, and then to compare something to it makes you ignorant.HShockeywatcher wrote: But to say that is the only similarity is very naive of you.
I'm out.
Who's turn? CNT?
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
No, that would make me informed. That's saying that you can't use an activity you don't participate in personally in conversation without being ignorant.
Yes, it is similar in that they are illegal activities that are participated in behind closed doors. No, animals aren't dying. But in the "doing them behind closed doors" area they are similar.
Yes, it is similar in that they are illegal activities that are participated in behind closed doors. No, animals aren't dying. But in the "doing them behind closed doors" area they are similar.
Dog fighting is not part of our heritage or culture.
The Roman Empire had dogs fights but these were dogs against larger animals, usually bears, bulls, lions, etc. Dog fights like these ended after the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe except in Britain where it continued until the early 1800's when bears became scarce and dog fighting was outlawed. This opened the door to dog on dog fights which was outlawed in 1860. Certain groups continued to promote dog fighting including the AKC until dog fighting virtually disappeared in the US except for pockets in rural Georgia and West Virginia in the early 20's. Dog fighting saw a reemergence in the late 60's but it died a quick death until it again resurfaced largely in the Latino and Black gang sub culture of the late 90's where it continues to be popular though far from it's beginings as a sport on which to gamble more often than not dog fighting now is more a status symbol and wagering is of secodary importance. *from the Humane Society*
People who claim dog fighting as part of their heritage or culture had bettter be from the sticks of WVA or Georgia or their "heritage" only goes back 10 years. You could make a much better argument justifying Slavery or burning anyone at the stake that could swim as being okay because it's part of our heritage.
PB, if you're convicted of a felony and go to jail for 3 years would you have your job when you came out of jail? If you made prominant news committing your crime that dragged the name and reputation of your company down with you do you think they'd rehire you?
Watcher, you continue to show ignorance., and for your sake I hope you're a strict Vegan who has nothing made of leather anywhere near yourself or you may be the biggest hypocrit on the planet. To kill and not use a wild animal is wanton waste which is a crime. By law any hunter who kills, injures, or cripples game must make a reasonable attempt to find such animal and keep them until the animal is cleaned and eaten, given to another person for such a purpose, tanned, or taken to a taxidermist. Last year in Nevada the penalty for wanton waste of a (1) mule deer was $7000 and forfiture of a pick up truck and rifle. The minimum penalty for wanton waste in Nevada is $1000. In Iowa a huter killed 3 whitetails and left them in the field the penalty was $15,000 and forfiture of hunting equipment. In Minnesota an ice fisherman was found to have discarded 30 perch and was fied $600. A trapper was fined $3000 and given 90 days in jail for a Pine Marten and 8 years in jail plus a $20,000 fine for other fur bearers he wasted.
The Roman Empire had dogs fights but these were dogs against larger animals, usually bears, bulls, lions, etc. Dog fights like these ended after the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe except in Britain where it continued until the early 1800's when bears became scarce and dog fighting was outlawed. This opened the door to dog on dog fights which was outlawed in 1860. Certain groups continued to promote dog fighting including the AKC until dog fighting virtually disappeared in the US except for pockets in rural Georgia and West Virginia in the early 20's. Dog fighting saw a reemergence in the late 60's but it died a quick death until it again resurfaced largely in the Latino and Black gang sub culture of the late 90's where it continues to be popular though far from it's beginings as a sport on which to gamble more often than not dog fighting now is more a status symbol and wagering is of secodary importance. *from the Humane Society*
People who claim dog fighting as part of their heritage or culture had bettter be from the sticks of WVA or Georgia or their "heritage" only goes back 10 years. You could make a much better argument justifying Slavery or burning anyone at the stake that could swim as being okay because it's part of our heritage.
PB, if you're convicted of a felony and go to jail for 3 years would you have your job when you came out of jail? If you made prominant news committing your crime that dragged the name and reputation of your company down with you do you think they'd rehire you?
Watcher, you continue to show ignorance., and for your sake I hope you're a strict Vegan who has nothing made of leather anywhere near yourself or you may be the biggest hypocrit on the planet. To kill and not use a wild animal is wanton waste which is a crime. By law any hunter who kills, injures, or cripples game must make a reasonable attempt to find such animal and keep them until the animal is cleaned and eaten, given to another person for such a purpose, tanned, or taken to a taxidermist. Last year in Nevada the penalty for wanton waste of a (1) mule deer was $7000 and forfiture of a pick up truck and rifle. The minimum penalty for wanton waste in Nevada is $1000. In Iowa a huter killed 3 whitetails and left them in the field the penalty was $15,000 and forfiture of hunting equipment. In Minnesota an ice fisherman was found to have discarded 30 perch and was fied $600. A trapper was fined $3000 and given 90 days in jail for a Pine Marten and 8 years in jail plus a $20,000 fine for other fur bearers he wasted.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
I don't have things made of leather, alligator skin, etc, etc. Why should I be a Vegan? I'm fine with doing things for survival's sake, which eating things that were once alive is doing. If we never ate anything that was once alive or came from something that was once alive all we'd do is drink water.
I didn't think dog fighting specifically was part of our heritage, like you said, but training two different things to fight (or not training them) to the death has been.
I just think it's odd that it's an issue in "civilized society" when if put in the wild these animals would be doing the same things, fighting for their survival. No, someone wouldn't be training them and betting on it, but they'd be fighting, many times to the death.
The ONLY point I've been trying to make this whole time is about how it's odd that there are degrees of legality in similar actions. You can go to a pet store and buy a mouse, rat, or rabbit and feed it to your snake, but if you were to cook your dog for dinner that would be a bad thing. I wonder if this would be an issue if instead of killing in the ways he did, Vick had done it in a humane way and cook them for their meat?
I didn't think dog fighting specifically was part of our heritage, like you said, but training two different things to fight (or not training them) to the death has been.
I just think it's odd that it's an issue in "civilized society" when if put in the wild these animals would be doing the same things, fighting for their survival. No, someone wouldn't be training them and betting on it, but they'd be fighting, many times to the death.
The ONLY point I've been trying to make this whole time is about how it's odd that there are degrees of legality in similar actions. You can go to a pet store and buy a mouse, rat, or rabbit and feed it to your snake, but if you were to cook your dog for dinner that would be a bad thing. I wonder if this would be an issue if instead of killing in the ways he did, Vick had done it in a humane way and cook them for their meat?
sorry goldy but animal fighting (bloodsports) has existed down thru the ages and obviously still has a fair amount of participants.
It is illegal and should be but that doesn't mean it hasnt been part of our culture. The English were very big into it and brought it here with them. Many breeds that still exist today were started for fighting.
I would lose my job but I am not a football player and the idea that there is harm done to the sports reputation because of a criminal elememt is pretty old fashioned. Again, I dont like it that way but thats the way it is.
I am an avid fisherman, I dont hunt but only because I dont have the time. I wear leather and eat meat.
But I dont get why shooting a deer through the lungs and tracking it till it bleeds to death and drops and then gutting it is worse than dogfighting.
I am not a PETA guy at all and as far as I am concerned every deer who gets shot deserves to die. Every Walleye that I catch desrves to end up in my frying pan afetr I gut it while it is still breathing.
But some of the things we think are OK and make legal might be more due to the fact of who does them than how right they are.
It is illegal and should be but that doesn't mean it hasnt been part of our culture. The English were very big into it and brought it here with them. Many breeds that still exist today were started for fighting.
I would lose my job but I am not a football player and the idea that there is harm done to the sports reputation because of a criminal elememt is pretty old fashioned. Again, I dont like it that way but thats the way it is.
I am an avid fisherman, I dont hunt but only because I dont have the time. I wear leather and eat meat.
But I dont get why shooting a deer through the lungs and tracking it till it bleeds to death and drops and then gutting it is worse than dogfighting.
I am not a PETA guy at all and as far as I am concerned every deer who gets shot deserves to die. Every Walleye that I catch desrves to end up in my frying pan afetr I gut it while it is still breathing.
But some of the things we think are OK and make legal might be more due to the fact of who does them than how right they are.
-
State Champ 97
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
- Location: Bemidji
I see what you're saying PB. I am a hunter and a fisherman.packerboy wrote:sorry goldy but animal fighting (bloodsports) has existed down thru the ages and obviously still has a fair amount of participants.
It is illegal and should be but that doesn't mean it hasnt been part of our culture. The English were very big into it and brought it here with them. Many breeds that still exist today were started for fighting.
I would lose my job but I am not a football player and the idea that there is harm done to the sports reputation because of a criminal elememt is pretty old fashioned. Again, I dont like it that way but thats the way it is.
I am an avid fisherman, I dont hunt but only because I dont have the time. I wear leather and eat meat.
But I dont get why shooting a deer through the lungs and tracking it till it bleeds to death and drops and then gutting it is worse than dogfighting.
I am not a PETA guy at all and as far as I am concerned every deer who gets shot deserves to die. Every Walleye that I catch desrves to end up in my frying pan afetr I gut it while it is still breathing.
But some of the things we think are OK and make legal might be more due to the fact of who does them than how right they are.
Here is another way to look at this, even if just for argument sake.
Is raising cattle or pigs for slaughter really any different than raising pitbulls, primarily, to fight to the death? Either way the person raising the animals is doing it for the money and the death of the animal is going to be the end result. I don't like the way he supposidly killed some of these dogs but that just seems to be the media's way of making this sound as bad as possible.
Again, what Vick did was illegal and no philisophical argument changes that.
But on this issue, I think we need to leave room for the possibility that whats legal and what isnt may be determined by:
1. Whether men do it with their sons
2. Whether it is good for the economy
3. Whether it generates tax revenue for the liberal tax and spenders to give to the 'poor' so they have some money to bet on dogfighting
These factors may be more important than any bright line of right and wrong.
But on this issue, I think we need to leave room for the possibility that whats legal and what isnt may be determined by:
1. Whether men do it with their sons
2. Whether it is good for the economy
3. Whether it generates tax revenue for the liberal tax and spenders to give to the 'poor' so they have some money to bet on dogfighting
These factors may be more important than any bright line of right and wrong.
[quote="HShockeywatcher"
The ONLY point I've been trying to make this whole time is about how it's odd that there are degrees of legality in similar actions. You can go to a pet store and buy a mouse, rat, or rabbit and feed it to your snake, but if you were to cook your dog for dinner that would be a bad thing. I wonder if this would be an issue if instead of killing in the ways he did, Vick had done it in a humane way and cook them for their meat?[/quote]
No, but reality is Vick isn't in trouble for how he killed his dogs, that just compounded his problems publically. Eating dog isn't illegal, it wouldn't fall into wanton waste then either though, neither would feeding your snake a mouse. Vick had dog fights - a crime, crossed state lines to committ a crime (dog fights) - another crime, bought dogs form outside Virginia to be used in a crime - another crime, then gambled on those fights - another crime. There aren't degrees of leaglity, only degrees of sense in your brain.
The ONLY point I've been trying to make this whole time is about how it's odd that there are degrees of legality in similar actions. You can go to a pet store and buy a mouse, rat, or rabbit and feed it to your snake, but if you were to cook your dog for dinner that would be a bad thing. I wonder if this would be an issue if instead of killing in the ways he did, Vick had done it in a humane way and cook them for their meat?[/quote]
No, but reality is Vick isn't in trouble for how he killed his dogs, that just compounded his problems publically. Eating dog isn't illegal, it wouldn't fall into wanton waste then either though, neither would feeding your snake a mouse. Vick had dog fights - a crime, crossed state lines to committ a crime (dog fights) - another crime, bought dogs form outside Virginia to be used in a crime - another crime, then gambled on those fights - another crime. There aren't degrees of leaglity, only degrees of sense in your brain.
-
Neutron 14
- Posts: 5339
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:48 pm
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
If you are suggesting no father has ever brought his son to a dog fight you are again naive.
There are many things (smoking is the big one that comes to mind) that are legal but not "good for the economy.
I haven't debated whether it's legal or not. It isn't. He should be punished for it. The degrees I'm talking about is how we can kill/hurt certain animals in certain ways and not others.
To add to that, I could think of so many ways dogfighting could be "good for the economy" from giving many people jobs, to learning about the animal's body and how to strengthen it, etc. There are many things like smoking and gas powered cars that are completely bad for the economy but yet are legal and on the market.
There are many things (smoking is the big one that comes to mind) that are legal but not "good for the economy.
I haven't debated whether it's legal or not. It isn't. He should be punished for it. The degrees I'm talking about is how we can kill/hurt certain animals in certain ways and not others.
To add to that, I could think of so many ways dogfighting could be "good for the economy" from giving many people jobs, to learning about the animal's body and how to strengthen it, etc. There are many things like smoking and gas powered cars that are completely bad for the economy but yet are legal and on the market.
You have got to be kidding. Are cows being raised for slaughter being used for entertainment purposes? When was the last time you heard of an illegal cowfighting operation? Do you suppose these dogs that are killed and maimed in these fights end up on a plate with a caesar salad and side of au gratin potatoes?State Champ 97 wrote:Is raising cattle or pigs for slaughter really any different than raising pitbulls, primarily, to fight to the death? Either way the person raising the animals is doing it for the money and the death of the animal is going to be the end result.packerboy wrote:sorry goldy but animal fighting (bloodsports) has existed down thru the ages and obviously still has a fair amount of participants.
It is illegal and should be but that doesn't mean it hasnt been part of our culture. The English were very big into it and brought it here with them. Many breeds that still exist today were started for fighting.
I would lose my job but I am not a football player and the idea that there is harm done to the sports reputation because of a criminal elememt is pretty old fashioned. Again, I dont like it that way but thats the way it is.
I am an avid fisherman, I dont hunt but only because I dont have the time. I wear leather and eat meat.
But I dont get why shooting a deer through the lungs and tracking it till it bleeds to death and drops and then gutting it is worse than dogfighting.
I am not a PETA guy at all and as far as I am concerned every deer who gets shot deserves to die. Every Walleye that I catch desrves to end up in my frying pan afetr I gut it while it is still breathing.
But some of the things we think are OK and make legal might be more due to the fact of who does them than how right they are.
There is way more than world of difference between raising an animal with the intent of having it crush the throat of another so that you can get a laugh for the night, and raising an animal for human sustainment and nourishment.
I'm by no means a PETA guy (unless you mean People for the Eating of Tasty Animals... I always love that one), but for crissake... to raise an animal for the sole purpose of one night of beer drinking, a couple of rounds of $50 bets, and watching a dog bleed out on the floor while screaming says that there's something beyond wrong with you, and your lack of conscience could most definitely make you a danger to "society" (it's that word again). And just because it's "been around since recorded history", doesn't mean it should be given the green light now. What's next? Tar and feathering? Burning at the stake? The guillotine? Being drawn and quartered?
Last edited by Govs93 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Can't Never Tried
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:55 pm
And less then 12 hrs later Bong tops the dumbest thing he's said today?HShockeywatcher wrote:To add to that, I could think of so many ways dogfighting could be "good for the economy" from giving many people jobs, to learning about the animal's body and how to strengthen it, etc.
As far as my "Uninformative Post" well.... Jane Goodall had more luck with the primates then any on this bored have had getting thru to you.
It appears now your in favor of this Dogfighting?
Since you like to talk in circles, surround your self with this...tell me the ways if would help the economy...and then list the negative effects on "Society" that would come from this financial boom.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
state champ, that's a little far. You have to be able to eat. Now what you could argue, which is just sick if you learn how it works, is how these animals are treated. That is very inhumane.
So the only thing is that it is being used for entertainment that makes it wrong? Not really sure what to make of that.
I'm not going to bring up the fact that people fight to the death because I bet everywhere it's done it's underground. But why are dogs so special? If it was rat fighting, or insect fight, or other little things like that, that do actually happen, would anyone care? I'm not saying I don't like dogs, but what makes them so special compared to the many others who are in fights like these?
I've already listed a couple ways in which it can be good for the economy. My main point was that this is something that wouldn't be completely horrible for the economy, and there are plenty of things that are legal and regulated that are horrible for the economy. But really the only negative effects of this would be dogs would die, which already happens, except if it was legal it would be controlled.
How come bull fighting is okay? Hopefully you all know what happens to the bull in the end there. That's done by a person too. But he's no criminal.
So the only thing is that it is being used for entertainment that makes it wrong? Not really sure what to make of that.
I'm not going to bring up the fact that people fight to the death because I bet everywhere it's done it's underground. But why are dogs so special? If it was rat fighting, or insect fight, or other little things like that, that do actually happen, would anyone care? I'm not saying I don't like dogs, but what makes them so special compared to the many others who are in fights like these?
I've already listed a couple ways in which it can be good for the economy. My main point was that this is something that wouldn't be completely horrible for the economy, and there are plenty of things that are legal and regulated that are horrible for the economy. But really the only negative effects of this would be dogs would die, which already happens, except if it was legal it would be controlled.
How come bull fighting is okay? Hopefully you all know what happens to the bull in the end there. That's done by a person too. But he's no criminal.
Govs, so whats your point? If its used for entertainment its bad but if we eat it, its OK? Why do we hunt? For food or entertainment. I throw back 99% of the fish I catch.
Anybody who doesnt admit that some of this stuff is a little fuzzy, isnt giving it much thought.
Bass dont make good household pets so its OK to hook them in the mouth and be entertained by their thrashing to get loose. A deer doesnt lay its head on your lap and lick your face when you come home so its OK to shoot it and track it while it bleeds to death and then gut it.
If dogfghting were legal, the cynic in me says it would be very popular.
Remember, horse racing and dog racing were illegal too until we figured out we could make some money on it.
This puts me in the mood for a beer and steak on the grill tonight while watching the Twins.... up at the lake. The fall bite should be just about ready to start.
Anybody who doesnt admit that some of this stuff is a little fuzzy, isnt giving it much thought.
Bass dont make good household pets so its OK to hook them in the mouth and be entertained by their thrashing to get loose. A deer doesnt lay its head on your lap and lick your face when you come home so its OK to shoot it and track it while it bleeds to death and then gut it.
If dogfghting were legal, the cynic in me says it would be very popular.
Remember, horse racing and dog racing were illegal too until we figured out we could make some money on it.
This puts me in the mood for a beer and steak on the grill tonight while watching the Twins.... up at the lake. The fall bite should be just about ready to start.
-
quickgym guy
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:00 am
Bull fighting is OK in Mexico idiot...HShockeywatcher wrote:state champ, that's a little far. You have to be able to eat. Now what you could argue, which is just sick if you learn how it works, is how these animals are treated. That is very inhumane.
So the only thing is that it is being used for entertainment that makes it wrong? Not really sure what to make of that.
I'm not going to bring up the fact that people fight to the death because I bet everywhere it's done it's underground. But why are dogs so special? If it was rat fighting, or insect fight, or other little things like that, that do actually happen, would anyone care? I'm not saying I don't like dogs, but what makes them so special compared to the many others who are in fights like these?
I've already listed a couple ways in which it can be good for the economy. My main point was that this is something that wouldn't be completely horrible for the economy, and there are plenty of things that are legal and regulated that are horrible for the economy. But really the only negative effects of this would be dogs would die, which already happens, except if it was legal it would be controlled.
How come bull fighting is okay? Hopefully you all know what happens to the bull in the end there. That's done by a person too. But he's no criminal.
-
HShockeywatcher
- Posts: 6848
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:21 pm
Very good. Not sure what your point is. Sorry if I commented on something that happens outside of the US. Not have anything to say about the rest of what I said?
Two things that PB said sum up the points I've been making: "Anybody who doesn't admit that some of this stuff is a little fuzzy, isn't giving it much thought" and "If dogfighting were legal, the cynic in me says it would be very popular."
I can't speak to it, but the conditions dogs and horses are raised in for racing probably isn't great all the time. We know animals that are used for food aren't treated well. But this is a problem why? Because he gambled on it? Because it's a domesticated animal?
Two things that PB said sum up the points I've been making: "Anybody who doesn't admit that some of this stuff is a little fuzzy, isn't giving it much thought" and "If dogfighting were legal, the cynic in me says it would be very popular."
I can't speak to it, but the conditions dogs and horses are raised in for racing probably isn't great all the time. We know animals that are used for food aren't treated well. But this is a problem why? Because he gambled on it? Because it's a domesticated animal?
-
State Champ 97
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
- Location: Bemidji
Like I said Govs it was just another way of looking at it. I am not in favor of dogfighting but you have to admit there are similarities between the two. Since dogfighting has been around forever, it is probably more prevalent in some places than others. Just like anything else.
What I really don't understand is how these high profile athletes, who know they are being watched every second of every daym cntinue to get themselves in trouble for making poor choices. I would have thought Vick could have learned something from his brother who essentially ended his playing career because of poor choices.
What I really don't understand is how these high profile athletes, who know they are being watched every second of every daym cntinue to get themselves in trouble for making poor choices. I would have thought Vick could have learned something from his brother who essentially ended his playing career because of poor choices.
Oh geez, c'mon now... you're not talking to Circle here - you know exactly what I was saying - don't start twisting things around on me - I was clear. You can't equate one dog crushing another's larynx for a human's craps-and-giggles to shooting a deer and eating it for human consumption. You just can't compare that - it's not fuzzy in the least.packerboy wrote:Govs, so whats your point? If its used for entertainment its bad but if we eat it, its OK? Why do we hunt? For food or entertainment. I throw back 99% of the fish I catch.
Anybody who doesnt admit that some of this stuff is a little fuzzy, isnt giving it much thought.
Bass dont make good household pets so its OK to hook them in the mouth and be entertained by their thrashing to get loose. A deer doesnt lay its head on your lap and lick your face when you come home so its OK to shoot it and track it while it bleeds to death and then gut it.
If dogfghting were legal, the cynic in me says it would be very popular.
Remember, horse racing and dog racing were illegal too until we figured out we could make some money on it.
This puts me in the mood for a beer and steak on the grill tonight while watching the Twins.... up at the lake. The fall bite should be just about ready to start.
I need to preface this by saying I'm neither a hunter nor a fisherman, so I'm by no means an expert here (not out of any ethical stance, it just wasn't something my family ever did, so I just never really got into it), but I don't believe any ethical hunters go out to the woods, shoot a deer and leave it lying dead on the ground, do they? I honestly don't know. I thought it was typical to take them with to have it gutted and collect the meat. That, to me, is perfectly acceptable.
I suppose you could go ahead and twist this around and say "well if they ate the dogs would it be ok?". Well, #1 - they're not. And #2 - There's still a level of violence, pain and morbidity that's not there when hunting. If a deer doesn't go down on the first shot, they'll generally go down shortly thereafter. A dog in a fight gets ripped to shreds for up to 45 minutes (per the Real Sports story I saw about a week ago).
-
State Champ 97
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:43 am
- Location: Bemidji