The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be acceptable to leave yourself a trillionaire? billionaire? millionaire? etc?

[/ QUOTE ] I like to imagine I could get more than mild enjoyment from being a billionaire.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think it would make you more or less happy than it would make you and 999 other people to be millionaires?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be acceptable to leave yourself a trillionaire? billionaire? millionaire? etc?

[/ QUOTE ] I like to imagine I could get more than mild enjoyment from being a billionaire.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think it would make you more or less happy than it would make you and 999 other people to be millionaires?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I was a billionaire it would make far more than a 100 high stakes poker players very happy.

chez

[oe39]

because we have a sexboat to catch in minnesota?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it would make you more or less happy than it would make you and 999 other people to be millionaires?

[/ QUOTE ] No, but that has nothing to do with David Sklansky's original statement in the OP.

[James Boston]

"Legalizing marijuana isn't the same as you personally smoking it."

Of course, this is true.

My point is still the same. The moral opposition that would present itself after, and/or during the process of, legalization is equally opposed to personal usage. Do you disagree?

[DougShrapnel]

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.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

The best reason not to put on dog fights is that dogs feel pain and putting on dog fights is unnecessary in the sense that there is no other, overriding reason that would permit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats sort of begging the question. I don't think anyone who advocates dog fighting would agree with any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who put on dog fights don't think that dogs feel pain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they might not, but I suppose you got me. They don't agree with the REST of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, well I certainly hope they don't agree with the rest of that, otherwise they're simply being sadistic. At least if they think it is morally permissible there is hope they can be educated.

As for begging the question, I am saying that putting on dog fights is wrong largely because dogs feels pain. Now, there may be circumstances where hurting a dog is morally permissible, as in a case of justified self-defense, for example. But putting on dog fights for entertainment value is not one of those circumstances. I think that putting on dog fights is morally wrong for the same reason that torturing babies for entertainment purposes is morally wrong.

I also think that Sklansky's comments about it being wrong because many people are extremely upset with the practice, which outweighs the entertainment value, completely whiffs on the moral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but then I'd ask you to be a bit more rigid when you refer to 'circumstances.' Human enjoyment is apparently right out, how about human convenience? Human palate?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I think the sadistic aspect is part of the attraction. The gambling and the spectacle are enhanced by the adrenaline rush from knowing the pain and agony the animals are experiencing.

I really doubt that the gambling and the spectacle would be just as alluring if the fights were between animatronic dogs, for example, and no actual pain was involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Fight Night 2 was pretty kickass, but I doubt Jay-Z is going to pay $500/ticket to sit on my couch and watch me play.

EDIT: I hope it is obvious which parts of boxing and dog fighting I am comparing, and that I am not making a wholesale analogy between the two. There are very real and very significant differences that make most analogies inappropriate, but this works for this specific purpose.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[DougShrapnel]

[ 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.