Dogfighting or Cockfighting: Which do you prefer?

[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.

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.

[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.