The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's strange David, because I'm not really sure if I should agree with you or disagree with you. Certainly it's not the Best Reason Not to Put on Dog Fights. Can it be? You are speaking of negative politeness. If it's not to much trouble to you I'd like to burn a $100 bill, have dogs fight, or wear my lucky shirt. But there are other types of politeness. Politeness that regards the relationship being strong enough to withstand acts that would normally be considered impolite. I think the 2nd has more value. For example, your post about showing a friend that you cared about him, by cheating a business asscociate is of the 2nd type is of politeness. I'm not sure that you can ethically steal to be polite, but I would have posted in the thread if it was terrible wrong. I think what you are trying to say is that if there was no other reason to not put on Dog fights you probably still shouldn't as good manners. And that's a true statement, hence "best". Best because even if everything else wasn't true it would still be a valid reason. I will just assume that "Best" is just grandiose typical sklansky, and say good post .

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if by 'best reason' DS means 'one possible reason' then good post.

chez

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, I sure hope there is not much more than that. I'm not sure he made any claim different. I don't believe he has stated that it's a good enough reason to not do something simply because it would upset others. It appears that he is stating that if you only gain a mild pleasure from something, not a small increase in pleasure over an alternative, you should not do it if it causes terrible displeasure to others. I much more prefer the other type of politeness, but many people prefer negative politeness. David used the term best, so it could be grandiose or he believes it's a trump card of sorts. Dog fights can only produce mild pleasure, It's impolite negatively to hold dog fights. I still believe that negative politeness isn't as important as positive politeness. In this case it's "I understand you value dog fights, I'm aware of your desire to have freedom in business." So politeness isn't a very good reason as it works both ways. But if we only consider negative politeness he has a point.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're very polite [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

[David Sklansky]

By "best" I meant the argument that figured to work the best.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
By "best" I meant the argument that figured to work the best.

[/ QUOTE ] These prize pools can get upwards of $250,000. Perhaps, that's a bit more then just the mildest of pleasure, and your theory is still intact.

[DougShrapnel]

Here are some quotes regarding Chicago Bear Tank Johnson's arrest and pets.

"But another neighbor, who didn't want to be named, said the dogs have escaped and even fought with each other, and that one of them is very aggressive.

"He fought so much that he tore up his mouth and was in the animal hospital for three days. It was so vicious, blood everywhere," the neighbor said."

"Tank Johnson called the Chicago Bears Wednesday morning and said he believed it was in his best interest to no longer take care of his three pit bulls."


I just found this interesting and figured this is a good thread to put it in.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance if someone in your poker game is known to be highly allergic to a certain favorite shirt of yours, I would think you would avoid wearing it even if he was only a mild acquantance. I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being ignorant about that could be the secret of Johnny Chan's success, think about it...

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what if their distress is completely ridiculous in that they are distressed over something that has no effect whatsoever on them and thus shouldn't concern them? In the case of the sweater/allergy, there's a bonafide physical reaction. There are a lot of people who are terribly upset if I read pornography in the privacy of my home, or commit some particular sexual act that only gives me slightly greater pleasure, or maybe not even as much pleasure, as another act of which they approve, or if I read certain political writings, or do the things that James Boston cited in his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't come up in real life. There aren't A LOT of people who are TERRIBLY upset over things that are CLEARLY ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

vegetarians ftw?

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]


The reason you shouldn't do it is similar to the reason you shouldn't light cigars with hundred dollar bills. Which is that many people (perhaps the majority, perhaps not) are EXTREMELY upset with the practice, whearas you, (hopefully), are getting only the mildest of enjoyment from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who love dog fights love them way more than your assessment. It's not like it's a simple choice between TV channels. It's a very strong almost extreme attraction. Which is why they spend so much time and dedication training those dogs and preparing them to fight. Which is why they come from all walks of life, from NFL stars to street sweepers, to engage in their passion.

There are no females involved in dog fighting btw.