The Best Reason Not To Put On Dog Fights

[Philo]

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.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But even that's a different example, because you can apply a value to helping the cause of advancing a good agenda, depending how much you value the wellbeing of future generations or holding to a good principle.

[/ QUOTE ] Or you can apply a negative value to it, if you, like a lot of people did x years ago, think it would be a horrible thing if blacks and whites started mixing together.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do that, but if you're asking me and Sklansky to say what we think now all you're doing is highlighting the difference between how we think now and how we'd think if we were born and raised in the 1930s.

If I was from year x, yes my answer would probably be that I should marry the white person.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But even that's a different example, because you can apply a value to helping the cause of advancing a good agenda, depending how much you value the wellbeing of future generations or holding to a good principle.

[/ QUOTE ] Or you can apply a negative value to it, if you, like a lot of people did x years ago, think it would be a horrible thing if blacks and whites started mixing together.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do that, but if you're asking me and Sklansky to say what we think now all you're doing is highlighting the difference between how we think now and how we'd think if we were born and raised in the 1930s.

If I was from year x, yes my answer would probably be that I should marry the white person.

[/ QUOTE ] The woman in question is from year x.

[r3vbr]

How can you determine that people only get "mild" enjoyment over dogfights?

and also, even if your arguments are true, individuals are only not going to seek "mild enjoyment" if some law or government is enforcing it. and any law that values "social utility" as in "the greater good for the greater number of people" instead of individual freedom is bound to fail at some point in my opinion

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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 ]

History is full of examples showing this principle to be incorrect. Some acts NEED to be done precisely because they cause A LOT of people to be TERRIBLY Upset.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ 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 ]
Maybe, I'm sure I'd enjoy dog-fighting if there was no suffering involved. I'd wager that as the technology gets better we will see a huge rise in the popularity of robot fighting, and if a robot fox that was as effective at running away as a real fox was invented then drag-hunting would be even more popular.

I guess you could argue there still some imagined sadism involved but imaginary sadism is okay - we're back to tom and jerry.

chez

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that dogs might be sentient. Because many disagree. Its not that it is an indication that you might be a sociopath or a sadist. Because many disagree. And its not because it is illegal. Because it isn't illegal everywhere.

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.

I have no problem with people treating themselves and their immediate family much better than they treat others. But it seems to me there should be a limit. Even if it is not a legal one. 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.

Now I don't know if the idea of eschewing mild amusement to keep others from having major distress is a trait that comes from DNA, God, chezlaw, pragmatism or whatever. But I do know that most people agree with this idea and might even change a behavior it they were shown that such behavior was contradicting it. That should include most dogfight fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any thoughts on how to quantify the ratio? IE, say you held control of all the wealth in the world. What percent of it ought you give away? Would it be acceptable to leave yourself a trillionaire? billionaire? millionaire? etc?

[wtfsvi]

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

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

Marrying a different race is not just for mild enjoyment.

Doing something that many people are distressed by to prove a point is different than do something for amusement.

I still say that using (and destroying) 100 bills as cigarette lighters is one of the better analogies.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing something that many people are distressed by to prove a point is different than do something for amusement.


[/ QUOTE ]

It speaks to the point of why distressing people should or should not stop you from doing something for amusement. Since there are circumstances where distressing people should not stop you, it shows that you don't have a valid general principle.

Being part of a counter culture that smoked marijuana, or even just grew long hair was terribly distressing to a lot of people back in the 60's. Some did it for amusement. Some did it to prove a point.

A white woman casually dating a black man was terribly distressing to a lot of people at one time.

Wearing shorts was terribly distressing to a lot of people at one time.

Dancing is terribly distressing to a lot of people in some churches even today.

Listening to rock and roll was terribly distressing to a lot of people at one time.

Going to see Elvis swivel his hips was terribly distressing to a lot of people at one time.

Reading certain books was terribly distressing to a lot of people at one time.

Freedom of expression is terribly distressing to a lot of people in a lot of places at a lot of times.

You need to rethink and clarify your idea. As a general principle it just doesn't work.

PairTheBoard