Dogfighting or Cockfighting: Which do you prefer?

[chefmike]

It appears as though dogfighting has experienced a renaissance in the past decade or so, in part to the iwannabeagangsta culture...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-pinkerton/a-step-backward-into-barb_b_51046.html

I myself find both activities reprehensible, and I find the cockfights and dogfights here at HA to be much more civilized and entertaining...

But what about youse guys?

[4star4]

I voted for the later, chefmike. Mike Vick and his alleged dog fights make me sick. Hope it's not the truth, but wouldn't suprise me.

[chefmike]

I voted for the later, chefmike. Mike Vick and his alleged dog fights make me sick. Hope it's not the truth, but wouldn't surprise me.

It's true. I have many ties to Virginia and the VA Tech campus, and most people would agree that Vick and his jackass brother became an embarrassment long ago.

[ARMANIXXX]

You know what...

The way I see it, It's Michael Vicks freakin dog, and he can do whatever in the hell he wants to do with the freakin dog he owns.

I personally am not into dogfighting, but if I want to fight my dog, then so what.

Humans fight. Boxing, MMA, Swordfights (underground and overseas).

So the way I see it, HIS dog....so....good for him I guess.

[4star4]

ARMANIXXX,

You don't have a dog, do you? If you do, please don't make him fight. I see you have quite a few posts here, so I hope you listen to me. Humans fight because we are stupid. Dogs fight because they are loyal.

[chefmike]

Is dogfighting a cultural thing? Other than the whole iwannabeagangsta crowd, I mean... I know that when the subject came up at work I was surprised at some of the reactions to it.

[TJT]

Ties to the Gobblers,eh? That's appropriate for a tranny chaser ;)

I grew up in a region where cockfighting is widespread and traditional. I don't have a problem with it. Roosters are going to fight in the barnyard or a pen. It's what they do. If people want to organize it and bet on it I don't give a damn.

I also grew up hearing about and witnessing informal dogfighting,but nothing organized. It was rare and more of a "my dog can whup your dog" type of thing when the local good ol' boys would get drunk and start arguing over who had the better coonhound? They were brief affairs,just until one dog was showed itself as being dominant. You'd hear of one about once a year. I saw two in my 20 odd years growing up in the sticks. Hunting dogs were considered too prized to risk a serious injury to one.

As for this current round of organized dogfighting,I'm against it. The type of dogs raised for it can be lethal to folks in if they get loose? All dogs get loose every now and then. A fighting mastiff on the loose is a dangerous thing. A trained fighting dog used as a weapon by an unstable owner is worse. Too much risk,IMO.

Dogfighting,no. Cockfighting I don't have a problem with. When is the last time you heard of a man-killing chicken?

[TJT]

NM.

[4star4]

No Chef,

Dogfighting is not a cultural thing, unless you're referring to secluded, Redneck parties that should be banned.

[chefmike]

No Chef,

Dogfighting is not a cultural thing, unless you're referring to secluded, Redneck parties that should be banned.

The only people that I've heard defend 'organized' dogfighting at work have been black, 4star4. Amongst whites(rural ones, anyway), I think dogfighting is closer to the scenario that TJT described....and certainly you aren't claiming that dogfighting isn't a part of would-be thug hip hop culture, are you?

[4star4]

Chef,

I guess I'm quite naive on this topic. I didn't know that black people were more apt to advocate dogfighting. Anyway, I'm white, and I would be considered rural. I have a Jack Russell Terrior, named Katie. She's very gentle around me, but doesn't take well to strangers. I'll have to read back to TJT's comment. I don't know about that "would be thug hip hop culture" you referred to though.

[Jericho]

Slap the living fuck outta the owners and then make them fight to the death....That would be much more entertaining, IMO.

[LG]

chefmike said:

I myself find both activities reprehensible, and I find the cockfights and dogfights here at HA to be much more civilized and entertaining...
Jericho said:

Slap the living fuck outta the owners and then make them fight to the death....That would be much more entertaining, IMO.

I agree. Training animals in order to fight and then forcing them to do so is cruel and barbaric. Such people deserve to be put in jail and bitchslapped till they cry.

[LoadedRevolver66]

ARMANIXXX, I totally agree with your libertarian position on the matter.

Personally, I don't think I'd have a problem with either, just because I have a general interest in gruesome shit, death scenes, etc. The closest I've come to actually seeing one was on a clip from Faces of Death - at a Mexican dogfight - and the action looked pretty intense. There are some places where cock fighting is legal - Louisiana and Puerto Rico come to mind - and its more of a cultural tradition in those places. It's not like people watch it with no bloodlust, and its definitely not traditional to the extent of Spanish bullfighting, but it has a hell of a lot more significance than some 50 cent wannabe fighting his rottweiler in the projects. Not to say I wouldn't be down for watching said wannabe fight dogs in someone's basement, but that's just a thrill, totally devoid of any cultural significance. But if I actually get around to seeing a cock or dog fight, then I might change my mind. There's a world of difference between just talking about something online and actually doing it in real life.

[LG]

You know what...

The way I see it, It's Michael Vicks freakin dog, and he can do whatever in the hell he wants to do with the freakin dog he owns.

I personally am not into dogfighting, but if I want to fight my dog, then so what.

Humans fight. Boxing, MMA, Swordfights (underground and overseas).

So the way I see it, HIS dog....so....good for him I guess.

On this we disagree completely. If some guy is bloodthirsty let him get into a ring with another and have them punch their brains out. But don't force two dogs to fight each other.

You might own the dog legally, but that doesn't give you a right to make the dog fight. It doesn't give you a right to be cruel to it.

A dog is a living, breathing creature that unlike humans doesn't have the capacity to hate and kill for pleasure.

Dogfighting is immoral and wrong in my opinion and anyone who makes their animal fight is an asshole of the highest order and deserves to be locked up.

:angry

[peggygee]

It's inhumane and barbaric.

The owners of these animals
should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law.

[ARMANIXXX]

On this we disagree completely. If some guy is bloodthirsty let him get into a ring with another and have them punch their brains out. But don't force two dogs to fight each other.

You might own the dog legally, but that doesn't give you a right to make the dog fight. It doesn't give you a right to be cruel to it.

A dog is a living, breathing creature that unlike humans doesn't have the capacity to hate and kill for pleasure.

Dogfighting is immoral and wrong in my opinion and anyone who makes their animal fight is an asshole of the highest order and deserves to be locked up.

:angry

__________________________________________________ ____________________________


I've owned 3 dogs in my life, mostly German Shephers, and while I would have never "fought" them in some contest, I do feel humans are the absolute owners of their pets and thus, I believe they can and SHOULD be able to do what they want with them.

Your cup of tea may not be someone elses and vice versa. What I don't appreciate is the general and overal meddling in other peoples affars. Kinda like what I feel is going on in Iraq right now, but thats for a whole different topic.


At anyrate, I think Michael Vick didn't do anything wrong if he did fight dogs.

[LG]

On this we disagree completely. If some guy is bloodthirsty let him get into a ring with another and have them punch their brains out. But don't force two dogs to fight each other.

You might own the dog legally, but that doesn't give you a right to make the dog fight. It doesn't give you a right to be cruel to it.

A dog is a living, breathing creature that unlike humans doesn't have the capacity to hate and kill for pleasure.

Dogfighting is immoral and wrong in my opinion and anyone who makes their animal fight is an asshole of the highest order and deserves to be locked up.

:angry

__________________________________________________ ____________________________


I've owned 3 dogs in my life, mostly German Shephers, and while I would have never "fought" them in some contest, I do feel humans are the absolute owners of their pets and thus, I believe they can and SHOULD be able to do what they want with them.

Your cup of tea may not be someone elses and vice versa. What I don't appreciate is the general and overal meddling in other peoples affars. Kinda like what I feel is going on in Iraq right now, but thats for a whole different topic.


At anyrate, I think Michael Vick didn't do anything wrong if he did fight dogs.

So if it's your dog it's okay to starve him to death or beat him on the head with a crowbar because he belongs to you? Just because you paid the puppy farm you feel you should be entitled to do what you want with the dog? If your neighbour beat his dog and let him die of thirst would you not care because he owned him?

Does a dog not have a life worth living?

It's not about cups of tea, it's about morality and the treatment of sentient beings. And let me tell you that if I saw my neigbour kick his dog I'd warn him in no uncertain terms that the next time I saw him do it I'd get the cops to haul his ass into jail for animal cruelty.

[tonkatoy]

Being cruel to animals is cowardly and unbelievably stupid. I am an atheist so I can not wish for practitioners of the activity to be damned to hell, but i wouldn't loose any sleep if somebody came to their house late at night and fed them into a tub grinder, the big tracked kind they use to make mulch. I like animals far more than other people.

I am not a vegetarian, and I hunt and fish, but at least in hunting I try and only make clean kills, I have passed up many many shots because I just wasn't sure. Hunting and fishing and farming all serve a purpose, they are not gratuitous.

Dog fighting and cock fighting are just evil. I don't want the govt looking over my shoulder either, so I think people who are cruel to their animals , I mean unforgivably cruel, should be taken out and quietly beaten to death by their peers.

[trish]

This is a tough one, Chefmike. Usually I support individual liberties when they don’t infringe on the rights of others. Now one might think that in this case, these liberties entail same consequences as gambling generally does, and that cockfighting, dog fighting and bull fighting are no different than say, boxing. One difference might be that boxing only injures intelligent, sentient beings; another that boxer’s choose to fight. The Australian philosopher Singer (forget his first name at moment) contends that it’s immoral to cause another creature unnecessary pain, regardless of that creature’s species. If in fact dog’s feel pain (and they probably do), according to Singer, it would be immoral to put them in a situation that will cause them pain merely so you can enjoy the fight and make a bet. I don’t have a lot of sympathy with Singer, but I find it very difficult to argue against his point.

In the end, though i'm not a vegetarian, i'm going to go with peggy on this one...she's almost always right (meaning after she says it, what she says seems sooo obviously right).

Still, I must confess, I thought this thread was going to be about cocks and maybe Tgirls who fought each other like dogs.

[deke]

No Chef,

Dogfighting is not a cultural thing, unless you're referring to secluded, Redneck parties that should be banned.

The only people that I've heard defend 'organized' dogfighting at work have been black, 4star4. Amongst whites(rural ones, anyway), I think dogfighting is closer to the scenario that TJT described....and certainly you aren't claiming that dogfighting isn't a part of would-be thug hip hop culture, are you?

Hmmm So many breeds of dogs, developed over centuries (especially in England) would seem to indicate that it isn't/wasn't only rednecks or gangstas. It IS a cultural thing. what's changed is the cultures. It used to be working class English men in the 19th century, then "rednecks" in the southern US and with the whole hip-hop gangsta culture it has found a new home. England has banned it of course along with the breeds that were bred specifically for fighting.

[LG]

Hmmm So many breeds of dogs, developed over centuries (especially in England) would seem to indicate that it isn't/wasn't only rednecks or gangstas. It IS a cultural thing.

So was slavery, once.

I rest my case.

[jmt]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[TJ347]

The Australian philosopher Singer (forget his first name at moment) contends that it’s immoral to cause another creature unnecessary pain, regardless of that creature’s species. If in fact dog’s feel pain (and they probably do), according to Singer, it would be immoral to put them in a situation that will cause them pain merely so you can enjoy the fight and make a bet. I don’t have a lot of sympathy with Singer, but I find it very difficult to argue against his point.

I agree with Singer on the immorality of causing another creature pain, but the scope of that is truly extraordinary. Think about it... What creature can't feel pain? If you spear a worm, it has a reaction that gives evidence of it experiencing pain, just as clearly as a a dolphin, chicken or dog would under the same circumstances. So, if we would not cause another creature pain, it logically follows that we have no choice but to become vegetarians, unless studies which show plants respond to stimuli should one day be viewed as enough for them to be classified as semi-sentient creatures, in which case we would have a moral dilemma leaving the morally superior with nothing to eat at all...

[trish]

I was thinking more about what I find wrong about Singer’s view: it’s immoral to cause any being unnecessary pain. One difficulty is that it flies in the face of the modernist Copernican perspective of our place in the universe: i.e. we’re not so special. Taken on face value the rule would have us judge every living organism as cruel and immoral. Felines play with their food, arachnids cocoon their captives alive, bot flies lay their eggs just below the epidermis of living animals (including humans) etc. I see only two ways out of this judgment. One is to claim that with one exception, the beasts of nature are not the sort of creatures who behaviors have moral content; i.e. they are not moral agents. Only the actions of human being can be moral or immoral and Singer’s rule should only apply to moral agents. This solution, of course, runs counter to the Copernican perspective of our place in the universe, and puts us back in the center of things. Another way out of the conundrum is to interpret “unnecessary” rather loosely. That’s the only way spider’s can feed, cats sharpen their hunting skills by playing with their food and so on. But then one can claim that cock fighting was and is “necessary” for the cultural and social cohesion of those who practice it. I’m still with peggygee on this one, but I have trouble finding a ground for my prejudice other than just saying: I don’t like cruelty to animals and I don’t condone it.

[BlackAdder]

I prefer dog fighting. Dogs are much more viscious then chickens.

Some of you nancy asses would never survive if not for your nice safe non-darwinian play nice laws.

[LG]

I prefer dog fighting. Dogs are much more viscious then chickens.

Some of you nancy asses would never survive if not for your nice safe non-darwinian play nice laws.

:what
Well, let's throw you into a pit with a couple of Dobermans or a few pitbull terriers then. See how well you would survive. And the word is "vicious", by the way, not "viscious".

Non-Darwinian laws? You think humanity should be based in "survival of the fittest"? I'm sorry but that's bullshit. If your kid was seriously sick would you let him die becuase he's not fit to live or would you move heaven and earth to save your child's life?

Don't give me crap about Darwinism. Darwin untangled the way way that life evolves, he did not suggest a moral philosophy.

If you force two dogs to fight, that's not Darwinism, nor is it natural. It's barbarism, plain and simple.
:roll:

[bassman2546]

I'd like to know who the five motherfuckers were that voted for the top three categories. For their sick thoughts they should be put in a ring and have the living shit kicked out of them!

Why is there a choice in the title of this thread. The creator is a sick fuck also!

Michael Vick if found guilty, which it looks like he will be, should be jailed for life with one queer hungry three hundred pound cellmate with a twelve inch dick. Then maybe he'll change his opinion on cockfighting, dogfighting and any other gross treatment of defenseless animals.

[jmt]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[bassman2546]

You know what...

The way I see it, It's Michael Vicks freakin dog, and he can do whatever in the hell he wants to do with the freakin dog he owns.

I personally am not into dogfighting, but if I want to fight my dog, then so what.

Humans fight. Boxing, MMA, Swordfights (underground and overseas).

So the way I see it, HIS dog....so....good for him I guess.

And your opinion is sick too. Humans fight, by choice, dickhead. Dogs are trained by someone they've been loyal too. I'd rather see a human get killed in the ring, than a dog. At least I know the human went in voluntarily. Maybe you should take a trip into the ring, now that I think about it.

[LG]

I prefer dog fighting. Dogs are much more viscious then chickens.

Some of you nancy asses would never survive if not for your nice safe non-darwinian play nice laws.

lol@ this clown.

Thats one of the reasons I could never work in animal control. If I ran into one of these fools I would end up breakin their neck.

For those who likes to think these dogs are vicious by nature. These dogs are chained up, abused, shot up with drugs, fed gun powder, ect. from the time they are pups. Of course theyre gonna be vicious. The point is, its never the dog or certain breeds fault, its the scumbag owners who create this.

Agreed 100%. "There is no such thing as a bad dog", goes a saying, "only bad owners". Alhough he did say they were "viscious", not "vicious". So really he may have meant that dogs are most viscous than chickens. And I can't argue with that, 'cos I don't know.


Why is there a choice in the title of this thread. The creator is a sick fuck also!
I disagree on this particular point- but agree with you on everything else. Chefmike made a point by providing the choices. He should that there are people who are into these kinds of things and he helped to spark up a debate. I think if you read his posts, it's pretty clear what his opinion is, and it's no different than ours- that forcing dogs to fight is cruel and barbaric. But his way of creating this poll helped us see that not everyone see things our way. You could even say it's pretty clever.