Blood Sports Poll

[Felix_Nietzsche]

One of my interests is the history of the Rome Empire.
I remember reading that most Romans LARGELY perferred the Circus (chariot racing) to the fights in the coliseum (just as Nascar is bigger than boxing, MMA, etc..).

There was a story (I think by Ovid) who wrote that during the last days of some celebratory games they announced that they would have gladiators vs elephants. Elephants were a big curiousity and the demand for seats on that day was particularly competitive. The author wrote as the elephants were being killed many of the people in the coliseum changed their attitudes from eager anticipation to feeling sympathy for the elephants. I guess it was easier for them to see a gladiator get killed than an elephant... But unlike roosters, elephants are not overly agressive except when the males are in rut. So these elephants probably died both confused and in pain.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

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

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

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
...more likely to vote their moral code upon others...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll leave the debate about whether Republicans or Democrats are more likely to do this for another time, but it did get me thinking about something that I don't think was mentioned in the other thread.

For all the people who think that animals are simply property and property rights are absolute, do you also support the decriminalization of bestiality? If not, why not?

[Shoe Lace]

Felix_Nietsche,
How exactly can you quote Ovid's (assuming that is his name, I don't know either) story and then blame women for the banning of blood sports in the US?

Is it not obvious general human morals were against such activities even during roman times?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone have different answers for these questions? It seems like it's all one question, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not all one question, if you think it matters that roosters have a much lower awareness than dogs do.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly can you quote Ovid's (assuming that is his name, I don't know either) story and then blame women for the banning of blood sports in the US?


[/ QUOTE ]
Because rooster fights are a male dominated sport. The people supporting the continued legalization of such sports are largely men. Using backwards logic, I make the assumption that women largely either do not support and/or oppose such events. Also rooster fighting was much more common before women had the right to vote.... I find that coincidence to be quite compelling...


[ QUOTE ]
Is it not obvious general human morals were against such activities even during roman times?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not obvious. The Romans held such events for thousands of years. In later times, public executions use to be family events and people would bring picnic lunches and watch these events with their children.... So no it is not obvious. I will go on youtube and watch lions kill other animals and find the whole process fascinating. So no it is not obvious... When you go to the store and buy hamburger, you are paying someone to shoot a cow and harvest the meat. Most people never think about this... Nature is about predators and prey and death. Living in modern times, most of us are insulating from this reality. If our civilization ever got destroyed, the survivors would have to get back to basics in order to survive. This means kill or be killed...

[Nielsio]

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.

[Shoe Lace]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it is not obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed pretty obvious from what you initially wrote. People cheered when gladiators died yet showed some sign of emotional disinterest when elephants were put in the ring.

Btw I see public execution much differently than forced animal fights to the death. I'm pretty sure if I were around during Roman times I'd check it out myself (the executions).

[ QUOTE ]
I will go on youtube and watch lions kill other animals and find the whole process fascinating.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mix of PvP and evolution, much different. Would you search youtube for videos where some dude walked into a pet store and started jabbing the eyes of out kittens and still feel fascinated?

[ QUOTE ]
Nature is about predators and prey and death. Living in modern times, most of us are insulating from this reality. If our civilization ever got destroyed, the survivors would have to get back to basics in order to survive. This means kill or be killed...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but animals in the wild aren't killing each other for fun. They are doing it because if they don't eat they are going to starve.

I normally don't think about civilization collapsing in my life time. If it happened I'm sure I would adjust. If that meant personally killing animals for food, so be it. Since the world is still ok for now, I'll pay someone else to hunt for me.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Human fighting :

[x] Completely Agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell's yeah, let's stop being hypocrites to the animals and make the WWF (or whatever its called now) real!

[morphball]

[ 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 ]

There is no nature, there is only cage