Dog fighting the norm in the south

[mawilson 2,133]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

People really have a difficult time with understanding comparisons. I think the point is a very good one - that what may be cultural doesn't remove from being consider morally reprehensible.

[mawilson 2,133]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

People really have a difficult time with understanding comparisons. I think the point is a very good one - that what may be cultural doesn't remove from being consider morally reprehensible.

Morals are relative.

I don't think dogfighting is morally reprehensible (whatever that means.)

Then again, I'm a cat person and hate dogs, especially big ones.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

People really have a difficult time with understanding comparisons. I think the point is a very good one - that what may be cultural doesn't remove from being consider morally reprehensible.

Morals are relative.

I don't think dogfighting is morally reprehensible (whatever that means.)

Then again, I'm a cat person and hate dogs, especially big ones.

Morally reprehensible would be anything that involves the deliberate maming or killing of an animal simply for the sport of doing so. It's cruel and deviant behavior...closely related to psychopathology.

[Logres 0]

Morals are relative.

Some would disagree, Plato for instance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

People really have a difficult time with understanding comparisons. I think the point is a very good one - that what may be cultural doesn't remove from being consider morally reprehensible.

Morals are relative.

I don't think dogfighting is morally reprehensible (whatever that means.)

Then again, I'm a cat person and hate dogs, especially big ones.

Dunno - that seems a rather amoral stance to me...

On a general point of principle I'd say that it is always morally wrong to abuse an animal or put it in a position where it experiences pain and suffering for people's enjoyment.

On some level a person should think "I wouldn't like it if it were me in that ring". If you choose not to care - that's your choice. Morals are indeed relative - but on some level at least they are defined by social consensus.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Excellent point, Charles.

Also a very stupid one. Are you comparing dogs to women now?

well at times they are called the same name.....b1tch

[Sheriff Uling 3]

If we use Whoppi's logic, then we should be forgiving to drug dealers, murderers, prostitutes, and any other unacceptable social and illegal behavior that steams from certain neighborhoods without that individual suffering from extreme public opinion and the long are of the law for their crime. I strongly disagree with her logic/explanation. In fact, I find it very insulting. He was wrong. Period!

[Stabu 0]

it's illegal i know, but i've never seen a major movilization like with michael vicks, for dogs.. probably there hasn't been a celebrity engaged in cockfighting.. but i wouldn't think they'd made such a big fuss.. and.. personally, I like cockfighting, i think it's entertaining..

It's simply because cockfighting and bullfighting are non-issues, since they aren't widely practiced in the US (as far as I know, although I may be wrong). You cannot make a political issue of something that doesn't exist.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

it's illegal i know, but i've never seen a major movilization like with michael vicks, for dogs.. probably there hasn't been a celebrity engaged in cockfighting.. but i wouldn't think they'd made such a big fuss.. and.. personally, I like cockfighting, i think it's entertaining..

It's simply because cockfighting and bullfighting are non-issues, since they aren't widely practiced in the US (as far as I know, although I may be wrong). You cannot make a political issue of something that doesn't exist.

You forget, flag burning is an "issue" in this country.

[mawilson 2,133]

Dunno - that seems a rather amoral stance to me...

On a general point of principle I'd say that it is always morally wrong to abuse an animal or put it in a position where it experiences pain and suffering for people's enjoyment.

On some level a person should think "I wouldn't like it if it were me in that ring". If you choose not to care - that's your choice. Morals are indeed relative - but on some level at least they are defined by social consensus.

Hmm. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see animals suffer at the hands of humans

any more than the next guy, but animal fighting is a different story.

Mother Nature is extremely cruel and vicious - often more so than man who has

lowered himself to some pretty despicable acts. Most wild animals die slowly and

painfully either through starvation or predation. Weak and sick animals are

usually taken first. The animal world doesn't play by our rules - they don't

understand "theft", "rape" or "murder".

When two dogs fight, you call it "morally wrong", I call it "nature".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dunno - that seems a rather amoral stance to me...

On a general point of principle I'd say that it is always morally wrong to abuse an animal or put it in a position where it experiences pain and suffering for people's enjoyment.

On some level a person should think "I wouldn't like it if it were me in that ring". If you choose not to care - that's your choice. Morals are indeed relative - but on some level at least they are defined by social consensus.

Hmm. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see animals suffer at the hands of humans

any more than the next guy, but animal fighting is a different story.

Mother Nature is extremely cruel and vicious - often more so than man who has

lowered himself to some pretty despicable acts. Most wild animals die slowly and

painfully either through starvation or predation. Weak and sick animals are

usually taken first. The animal world doesn't play by our rules - they don't

understand "theft", "rape" or "murder".

When two dogs fight, you call it "morally wrong", I call it "nature".

But.... The act of orchestrating the fight is not "natural".

The animals can't choose not to fight - but the people putting it on can choose not to put them in that position.

[mawilson 2,133]

The animals can't choose not to fight - but the people putting it on can choose not to put them in that position.

Why can't they?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The animals can't choose not to fight - but the people putting it on can choose not to put them in that position.

Why can't they?

Electrodes on their nads.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When two dogs fight, you call it "morally wrong", I call it "nature".

Deriving pleasure from watching the dogs mame and kill each other is where the "morally wrong" applies...not to the dogs themselves.