Blood Sports Poll

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored]-a Doodle-Doo (damn censorship software!)

If there were more women on the 2+2 site, I'm sure there would be more votes against the blood sports. I think one of the MAJOR reasons why these blood sports have largely disappeared in the USA is that fact women were given the right to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what are you saying? women shouldn't have right to vote and world would be a better place?

[ QUOTE ]
Women (and Dems) are more likely to vote their moral code upon others rather than having a more tolerant philosophy.....

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure you have better info, but here is an article which is not supporting your ideas:

only 11% of voters oppose banning cockfighting.

Political party was not a determining factor in voters' support for a ban, with
80% of republicans
83% of democrats
72% of independents/others

Note: survey was related to New Mexico, one of only 3 states where it was allowed before banning.
i'd say those percents of those supporting a ban of cockfighting in other states would be higher. and i'd say percents of those supporting a ban of dogfighting would be much higher.

Some interesting info from Wikipedia :
Zoosadism - the enjoyment of causing suffering to animals, Zoosadist - those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal.

Studies have shown that individuals who enjoy or are willing to inflict harm on animals are more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including antisocial personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals.

"the FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders." and "A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well."

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Setting animals up to fight is a very cruel thing to do.


And yes, there is a difference between animals in a state of nature and setting animals up to die for your entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but is there any free-market "solution" to this?
If you own the animals, I guess you're free to do whatever you want with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How 'bout your thing being to buy cats and rip the skin off of them with pliers? This life is not a free-for-all. 'We' tell people what they can't do all the time. How grotesque does something have to be for certain of you to say 'no, you can't do that' to someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply because 'we' do something all the time doesn't mean 'we' are right to do that something.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Setting animals up to fight is a very cruel thing to do.


And yes, there is a difference between animals in a state of nature and setting animals up to die for your entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but is there any free-market "solution" to this?
If you own the animals, I guess you're free to do whatever you want with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How 'bout your thing being to buy cats and rip the skin off of them with pliers? This life is not a free-for-all. 'We' tell people what they can't do all the time. How grotesque does something have to be for certain of you to say 'no, you can't do that' to someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply because 'we' do something all the time doesn't mean 'we' are right to do that something.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why 'we' all get together and vote on things. If some amongst us don't like the outcome we can campaign and try for another vote. I'm dead certain, though, that no matter how many votes are taken animal fighting will never be legalized. I'm a go-along, get-along, live and let live type but there are things that are just not right and I'm willing to draw some lines.

It's strange to see that there are some people who wonder if there is a 'market solution' or are willing to defend someone's property rights even in the face of barbarism. Sometimes it's proper to just say 'No'.

[maxtower]

[ QUOTE ]

With regard to roster fighting, I think the loser should be battered, deep-fried, and be served with a slice of key lime pie.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the way they are bred, these fighting birds don't taste as good as birds bred for consumption.

[Metric]

If you don't feel strongly enough about "activity X" to personally barge into your neighbor's house with a shotgun to get them to stop doing "activity X", then you probably shouldn't be voting for the government to do it either.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

With regard to roster fighting, I think the loser should be battered, deep-fried, and be served with a slice of key lime pie.....

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who has actually been to a [censored] fight (and won money gambooling on it), I have seen the loser being plucked and prepared for cooking.

By the way, I am a liberal Democrat.

[hmkpoker]

Banning blood sports is just as silly as banning drugs.

We should be more concerned with spreading a message of peace, love and happiness rather than artificially blocking the release of hate.

Treating the symptoms does not cure the disease.

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't feel strongly enough about "activity X" to personally barge into your neighbor's house with a shotgun to get them to stop doing "activity X", then you probably shouldn't be voting for the government to do it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I thought my neighbor was raping 5 year olds I'd be perfectly happy shooting them with a shotgun. Does that mean I actually have to do it or can I vote for some people with a bit of sense to snatch them up for me?

I don't get it. You want to let people run riot? Do you know what people are capable of doing?

[hmkpoker]

I don't get any of this at all. Why does anyone care what I do to animals in my spare time? We live in a very anthropocentric world, and for good reason: it's incredibly convenient and useful.

We murder animals, en masse, for purposes that are completely unnecessary, all the time. In fact, we specifically breed them to be docile and weak so that it is easier to enslave them in death camps. We eat meat despite the fact that it is unhealthy and more expensive than vegetarian alternatives, and we wear their flesh for fashion. It's perfectly acceptable to keep them imprisoned for their entire lives, against their will, at our discretion.

Why is letting them kill each other for our entertainment any different? What is the basis for this nonsensical argument that animals have rights? There's no environmental threat, and no one here is stupid enough to suggest that it's going to lead to the downfall of civilization (which is obviously completely anthropocentric).

I'm going to pump my cat full of vicodin, shave it, and slowly peel its flesh off with a razor blade while I penetrate it. I want to hear one good reason why anyone gives a rat's ass about this private activity.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is letting them kill each other for our entertainment any different? What is the basis for this nonsensical argument that animals have rights? There's no environmental threat, and no one here is stupid enough to suggest that it's going to lead to the downfall of civilization (which is obviously completely anthropocentric).

I'm going to pump my cat full of vicodin, shave it, and slowly peel its flesh off with a razor blade while I penetrate it. I want to hear one good reason why anyone gives a rat's ass about this private activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people feel empathy. Do you deny that someone might sincerely experience pain at the thought that an animal was being tortured? Or disgust that a person gained pleasure from torturing an animal?

Libertarians and ACist seem to routinely dismiss the externality effects of their actions when those actions do not infringe on the "property rights" of another person, especially when the effect on the third party is primarily psychological.