Portis and Samuels: Dogfighting is OK

[THAY3R]

Your points are pretty flawed.

Your first one is just retarded, and re: your 4th one, dogs are pretty dumb. Pigs are much smarter, but they are slaughtered all the time. We just feel compassion for dogs because they have personality, and they are a popular pet.


There is a BIG difference between something being wrong and something that should be illegal and enforced by the government.

[UATrewqaz]

There was a thread in politics a few months ago that got pretty big called

"Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land"

which basically discussed what would or would not be done in the case of these things in an AC society.

It probably covers alot of the ground being covered here.

[THAY3R]

Comparing animal cruelty to child molestation(or even putting them anwyhere close to the same level) is just insane.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
NT!

Sorry if I misread your post. You started off that paragraph with "dogfighting should be illegal because...." so naturally I read it to mean it should be illegal because people who participate in it are likely to develop into murderers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. This was elaborated several times, it's not hard to understand. You haven't addressed any of the huge gaping flaws in your post.

[UATrewqaz]

Agreed, that wasn't the point of the thread, but rather a general discussion of "who will help the helpless" sort of deal.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
We intervene against these types of risky phenomena all the time, be they illegal or not, without incarcerating people or even using force. Something like drug abuse, underage drinking, poor diet and nutrition - all these are also linked to subsequent social and personal problems, many of which are severe. But they don't (in my mind) merit forceful intervention. Dogfighting does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree on this until your last two words.

I'll try to sum up my argument as concisely as possible because this thread should die soon and I don't want to talk in circles for days.

1. Laws, should they exist at all, should exist to protect the rights of other people; NOT to discourage immoral behavior or deviance from the social norms.
2. I doubt these laws are effective at discouraging this behavior. If someone can prove to me otherwise I might waver a bit.

The first point is useless to debate, the second is hard to prove either way I imagine.

I could support a system where private companies lease or rent out animal companions. If the terms of the lease aren't followed, they may be taken away and the customer must pay damages that are agreed on beforehand.

Anyway, fun talking to you guys, if you want clarification on anything feel free to pm me.

[HajiShirazu]

Dog fighting probably wasn't made illegal for reasons related to animal rights but instead because of its heavy ties to gambling and organized crime.
Also, I hope nobody on this forum actually believes dog fighting is ok. But it's really not too much worse than horse racing or rodeo.
Finally the reason there are more problems like this in the NFL and NBA than in MLB is because there are more black players in the NFL and NBA and black people commit more crimes than white people. I guess kyleb really leveled us all if that's not what he meant. Unfortunately in our society everyone thinks this is some kind of racist statement and refuses to believe the hard statistics proving this. Black people commit more crimes? Must be because cops have a racial bias toward blacks, everyone is the same. Black people do worse on standardized tests? The tests must be anti-black, everyone tries equally hard in school, of course.

[NT!]

Apparently dogfighting has experienced a major resurgence in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. Laws against it are no longer enforced and peasants claim it is 'part of their democracy.'

In regard to your first point, trying to reframe this as a strictly legal issue and making basically a minarchist/anarchist claim against all dogfighting laws is silly for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that laws against dogfighting ARE intended to protect the rights of individuals insofar as dogfighting - especially as it exists in America, which is increasingly as a gang subculture, and one in which dogs are used to intimidate rivals - is a threat to public safety, and therefore individual safety, our most basic and inalienable right.

I am STILL waiting to see how laws against dogfighting impinge on your individual rights as a human. That has to be one of the most absurd statements I've seen in this whole discussion. Looks like you are just going to do the old 'bow out of the thread' move because we are 'going in circles' (read: people are running circles around my indefensible proposition).

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Dog fighting probably wasn't made illegal for reasons related to animal rights but instead because of its heavy ties to gambling and organized crime.
Also, I hope nobody on this forum actually believes dog fighting is ok. But it's really not too much worse than horse racing or rodeo.
Finally the reason there are more problems like this in the NFL and NBA than in MLB is because there are more black players in the NFL and NBA and black people commit more crimes than white people. I guess kyleb really leveled us all if that's not what he meant. Unfortunately in our society everyone thinks this is some kind of racist statement and refuses to believe the hard statistics proving this. Black people commit more crimes? Must be because cops have a racial bias toward blacks, everyone is the same. Black people do worse on standardized tests? The tests must be anti-black, everyone tries equally hard in school, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. HajiShirazu,

Sounds like someone is unhappy that the blacks are reducing the number of dogs available for Asians to eat.