Dog fighting - Wrong?

[chaos]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

culture be damned. dogs are innocent, loving creatures. you COULD NOT make my pits fight, they don't have an aggressive bone in their bodies...instinct can be overcome. raise them with 100% love, and you'll raise lovable, goofy, dorks for dogs, just the way they should be.

a pit will not make us more manly, won't make our dicks bigger, and i sure as hell don't need protecting...so why raise a mean dog?

my dogs are my children. i would, in fact, kill for either of them.

c

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

klash....in what world would the "perveted" ever become the majority??!! you actually are suggesting that pedifiles will one day be in a position to change the law inregards to this subject??! the reason why i state it's a common sence law, and is law becouse it's wrong, is becouse of the coercion factor!! it only makes sence that a child may or maynot have been mentally or physicly coersed into the relationship, and since on an individual case we cant be sure, we ban the shyt all together, BECOUSE IT'S WRONG...training these animals to fight, kill, maim is wrong! they are animals. there's is absolutly no way of telling if they will turn on a human and cause serious injuries (witch has happened!!), so it should be illeagal!!! you cant wait untill it happens, and then say, "oh, yea...that one was a bad one, we'll put that one down" the damage has been done, so we make a law against it, before it happens!! dude, c'mon...get back over on the right side of the fence (i'll even open the gate)...it's not about individual liberties being taken away...it is about what's right or wrong. it's about bennifit's and disadvantages. in what way could dog fighting EVER bennifit the community....yes, it could bennifit individuls entertainment, or pocket book, but at what POSSIBLE cost to the community. if your individual liberties means that there's a possibility, however slim, that my individual child may get hurt....fuk your liberties!! it is arguments like that, that lead people away from looking at individual liberties and concerning themselves with the community at large. certain individual liberty's should never have a possibilty of physicly hurting another individual....thats fuked up

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

klash....in what world would the "perveted" ever become the majority??!! you actually are suggesting that pedifiles will one day be in a position to change the law inregards to this subject??! the reason why i state it's a common sence law, and is law becouse it's wrong, is becouse of the coercion factor!! it only makes sence that a child may or maynot have been mentally or physicly coersed into the relationship, and since on an individual case we cant be sure, we ban the shyt all together, BECOUSE IT'S WRONG...training these animals to fight, kill, maim is wrong! they are animals. there's is absolutly no way of telling if they will turn on a human and cause serious injuries (witch has happened!!), so it should be illeagal!!! you cant wait untill it happens, and then say, "oh, yea...that one was a bad one, we'll put that one down" the damage has been done, so we make a law against it, before it happens!! dude, c'mon...get back over on the right side of the fence (i'll even open the gate)...it's not about individual liberties being taken away...it is about what's right or wrong. it's about bennifit's and disadvantages. in what way could dog fighting EVER bennifit the community....yes, it could bennifit individuls entertainment, or pocket book, but at what POSSIBLE cost to the community. if your individual liberties means that there's a possibility, however slim, that my individual child may get hurt....fuk your liberties!! it is arguments like that, that lead people away from looking at individual liberties and concerning themselves with the community at large. certain individual liberty's should never have a possibilty of physicly hurting another individual....thats fuked up

I agree that training an animal to fight, kill and maim is immoral but it shouldn't be against the law. It is not my place to tell someone how they must treat their property. Just as it is not Peta's place to tell someone they cannot raise cattle for slaughter. Both cases are opposed on moral grounds but in both cases the supposed immorality is not infringing a single humans rights.

Your argument that canines that are trained to attack are potentially dangerous to children is true but the owner would be completely liable for his property and if his dog killed then he would be charged with murder.

But we cannot ban all potentially dangerous activities. If we did, we would be unable to live. Every year children die on the playground, in the bathtub, from insect stings, food allergies, biking, etc.

The crux of your argument is that individual freedom is to be sacrificed for how you define what is best for the community. And no matter how genuine your intentions are once the concept of the "greatest good" defines law - what your talking about is who's liberties to sacrifice and for who's benefit. These infringed liberties never start off with great atrocities in mind. They start off with a perception of good intent but they put into motion a philosophy that sacrifices individual liberty and the consequences are the same only on a grandeur scale, justified by the same "greater good".

Imo, it seems more liberties are irrationally justified away in the name of protecting children than any other argument. It is an emotional argument every parent can relate to and with that it implies why would you sacrifice your child for a trivial individual freedom? Anti-war protesters do the same thing with the war "would you sacrifice your child for our freedom". Supporting freedom is not sacrificing my child to a dog or anything else. If anything it is securing their future.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

I agree that training an animal to fight, kill and maim is immoral but it shouldn't be against the law. It is not my place to tell someone how they must treat their property. Just as it is not Peta's place to tell someone they cannot raise cattle for slaughter. Both cases are opposed on moral grounds but in both cases the supposed immorality is not infringing a single humans rights.

Your argument that canines that are trained to attack are potentially dangerous to children is true but the owner would be completely liable for his property and if his dog killed then he would be charged with murder.

But we cannot ban all potentially dangerous activities. If we did, we would be unable to live. Every year children die on the playground, in the bathtub, from insect stings, food allergies, biking, etc.

The crux of your argument is that individual freedom is to be sacrificed for how you define what is best for the community. And no matter how genuine your intentions are once the concept of the "greatest good" defines law - what your talking about is who's liberties to sacrifice and for who's benefit. These infringed liberties never start off with great atrocities in mind. They start off with a perception of good intent but they put into motion a philosophy that sacrifices individual liberty and the consequences are the same only on a grandeur scale, justified by the same "greater good".

Imo, it seems more liberties are irrationally justified away in the name of protecting children than any other argument. It is an emotional argument every parent can relate to and with that it implies why would you sacrifice your child for a trivial individual freedom? Anti-war protesters do the same thing with the war "would you sacrifice your child for our freedom". Supporting freedom is not sacrificing my child to a dog or anything else. If anything it is securing their future.

oooohhh...i still luv ya buddy, but your fuked up....i'm gonna have to let ya sit for a little while longer before i tap the old man for a favor..
klash...if the dog wasnt taught to kill, there's less liklyhood that it would attack someone! c'mon...insect stings? (no-one trained the insects), bathtub drownings? (neglect at most) play ground?...your compairing these ACCIDENTS to a dog that was trained to kill?...really?...c'mon, quit jackin with me...you know better!! you actually believe it is someones personal liberty to train an animal to kill for pleasure? with your argument klash, a whole world of fuked up behavior and activity's should be lawfull!! yes, some laws are passed to protect the populus at large and if it steps on a couple personal freedoms, personal freedoms that have the likelyhood to injur, mame, and kill other individuals, then, again, fuk them! we're not talking about the freedom to enter in a homo relation. we're not talking about the freedom to let your grass grow as high as the house...we're talking about you supporting a freedom that could injur and kill other individuals (note, didnt use the "children" thing...just looking for a little credit), and if it were legal, very likely would increase the number of said attacks...attack's against other individuals,(again, not children) that you dont feel need to be protected in their individual backyard!

oh, and i used children for the same reason you say above, plus the fact that they would be more likely to suffer more damage...me and you would probobly fair better, but you may insert yourself, or me in these senario's if you perfer...

i believe 100% in personal freedoms, as long as it dosnt infringe too much on others personal freedoms! what's too much? let the voters decide!!!! i do not support your personal freedom to get shytfaced drunk and drive. i also donot support your personal freedom to stand in the back yard of your home, in the middle of a subdivision, and fire off your ak-47. i also dont support your personal freedom to train a dog to be a weapon. those are examples of personal freedoms that, i feel, infringes too much on others personal freedom to live a safe and peaceful of a life as possable.
now, i do support legalizing pot, aas (big surprise) and multible wives...see? i can be flexable

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

oooohhh...i still luv ya buddy, but your fuked up....

LOL!! One of these day's I'll have you phucked up too!

i'm gonna have to let ya sit for a little while longer before i tap the old man for a favor..
klash...if the dog wasnt taught to kill, there's less liklyhood that it would attack someone! c'mon...insect stings? (no-one trained the insects), bathtub drownings? (neglect at most) play ground?...your compairing these ACCIDENTS to a dog that was trained to kill?...really?...c'mon, quit jackin with me...you know better!! you actually believe it is someones personal liberty to train an animal to kill for pleasure? with your argument klash, a whole world of fuked up behavior and activity's should be lawfull!! yes, some laws are passed to protect the populus at large and if it steps on a couple personal freedoms, personal freedoms that have the likelyhood to injur, mame, and kill other individuals, then, again, fuk them! we're not talking about the freedom to enter in a homo relation. we're not talking about the freedom to let your grass grow as high as the house...we're talking about you supporting a freedom that could injur and kill other individuals (note, didnt use the "children" thing...just looking for a little credit), and if it were legal, very likely would increase the number of said attacks...attack's against other individuals,(again, not children) that you don't feel need to be protected in their individual backyard!

oh, and i used children for the same reason you say above, plus the fact that they would be more likely to suffer more damage...me and you would probably fair better, but you may insert yourself, or me in these senario's if you perfer...

O.k. your arguments are for the "greater good" of the community to be defined by the voters without regard for individual freedom or to be put differently, in disregard for the minorities freedoms (mob rule). Your other argument is a hypothetical "what if" the animal trained to kill (other dogs) escapes its owner (fear mongering).

i believe 100% in personal freedoms, as long as it dosnt infringe too much on others personal freedoms! what's too much? let the voters decide!!!! i do not support your personal freedom to get shytfaced drunk and drive. i also donot support your personal freedom to stand in the back yard of your home, in the middle of a subdivision, and fire off your ak-47. i also dont support your personal freedom to train a dog to be a weapon. those are examples of personal freedoms that, i feel, infringes too much on others personal freedom to live a safe and peaceful of a life as possable.
now, i do support legalizing pot, aas (big surprise) and multible wives...see? i can be flexable

Individual freedoms cannot infringe on other's freedoms or there is an automatic implication that some individuals rights are superior to others and thus the society is not built on individual freedom any longer. You cannot support your freedom and then infringe your neighbors because he is "immoral", without assaulting your own freedoms.

Why do you support the legalization of AAS? Is it not for the greater good of the community not to have men with incredible strength and aggression running around. It is far less likely that roid rage or suicide would kill our children if they were illegal (can't forget the children).

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

LOL!! One of these day's I'll have you phucked up too!



O.k. your arguments are for the "greater good" of the community to be defined by the voters without regard for individual freedom or to be put differently, in disregard for the minorities freedoms (mob rule). Your other argument is a hypothetical "what if" the animal trained to kill (other dogs) escapes its owner (fear mongering).




Individual freedoms cannot infringe on other's freedoms or there is an automatic implication that some individuals rights are superior to others and thus the society is not built on individual freedom any longer. You cannot support your freedom and then infringe your neighbors because he is "immoral", without assaulting your own freedoms.

Why do you support the legalization of AAS? Is it not for the greater good of the community not to have men with incredible strength and aggression running around. It is far less likely that roid rage or suicide would kill our children if they were illegal (can't forget the children).

yep, one of these days!! i got's ta party with you!!, lol

dude, you can call it mob rule if you want. i call it majority rule. it's worked many of times, for many of years, and again, yes...if YOUR personal freedom, infringes on my personal freedom, who's to say that yours is right, and fuk mine? you say, that i'm saying "what if"? i dont really feel like googling shyt, but "what if" has happened!! look up news items, i KNOW it happened in fla. during the mid 90s more than once!!. you dont remember the big push to ban pitbulls altogether? what do you think braught that about? many attack's. also, i was and am against banning the dog's. it's not the dog, it's the owners!! did those (and yes, a couple were children) people deserve to have their personal freedoms ripped away? dude, your not the keeper of the personal freedom flame, you make good points, and put up a fairly good argument, but you cant argue that 1 man's personal freedom is more important than anothers, expesially when it come to the personal freedom of breathing! not a what if!!! now that you know it's happened, and in all probobility, if it was LEGALIZED, would more than likely happen more often, how do you stick with that argument? how do you justify taking one mans personal freedom over another's?

your paragraph about not infringing on one personal freedom over another, is MY argument!! (you cant claim it, i was doing it first, lol) not a question of immoral, it's a fact that IT'S HAPPENED BRO!!! why do you think mr. dog fighting man's personal freedom to train a dog to fight was more important than other's safty. you can say, "oh, well HE was to blame, not all killer dog trainers", bullshyt, thats a cop out...any dog can get away from any owner at any givin time, and becouse of that happening there was a push to ban ALL of the breed!!! THAT would have been stepping on personal freedoms!!!

aas is a personal freedom that i dont believe infringes on others. i think if users are fuk heads, they are fuk heads without gear! everything i've been saying IS NOT about wellfare of the community (although, i think a MAJORITY of the community WOULD bennifit from the freedom to use aas!) i'm the one that's been asking why the dog trainers personal freedom is more important than his nieghbors, remember? why? why should he be ALLOWED to engage in such an activity? why should he have the right to infringe on his nieghbors? it's happened bro, it's not just a what if!

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

yep, one of these days!! i got's ta party with you!!, lol

dude, you can call it mob rule if you want. i call it majority rule. it's worked many of times, for many of years, and again, yes...if YOUR personal freedom, infringes on my personal freedom, who's to say that yours is right, and fuk mine? you say, that i'm saying "what if"? i dont really feel like googling shyt, but "what if" has happened!! look up news items, i KNOW it happened in fla. during the mid 90s more than once!!. you dont remember the big push to ban pitbulls altogether? what do you think braught that about? many attack's. also, i was and am against banning the dog's. it's not the dog, it's the owners!! did those (and yes, a couple were children) people deserve to have their personal freedoms ripped away? dude, your not the keeper of the personal freedom flame, you make good points, and put up a fairly good argument, but you cant argue that 1 man's personal freedom is more important than anothers, expesially when it come to the personal freedom of breathing! not a what if!!! now that you know it's happened, and in all probobility, if it was LEGALIZED, would more than likely happen more often, how do you stick with that argument? how do you justify taking one mans personal freedom over another's?

your paragraph about not infringing on one personal freedom over another, is MY argument!! (you cant claim it, i was doing it first, lol) not a question of immoral, it's a fact that IT'S HAPPENED BRO!!! why do you think mr. dog fighting man's personal freedom to train a dog to fight was more important than other's safty. you can say, "oh, well HE was to blame, not all killer dog trainers", bullshyt, thats a cop out...any dog can get away from any owner at any givin time, and becouse of that happening there was a push to ban ALL of the breed!!! THAT would have been stepping on personal freedoms!!!

aas is a personal freedom that i dont believe infringes on others. i think if users are fuk heads, they are fuk heads without gear! everything i've been saying IS NOT about wellfare of the community (although, i think a MAJORITY of the community WOULD bennifit from the freedom to use aas!) i'm the one that's been asking why the dog trainers personal freedom is more important than his nieghbors, remember? why? why should he be ALLOWED to engage in such an activity? why should he have the right to infringe on his nieghbors? it's happened bro, it's not just a what if!

There needs to be a distinction made here. Giving men the freedom that allows them to breed animals for the sole purpose of fighting them, possibly to their death. Is not equivalent to giving men the freedom to let a dangerous dog kill a human. I understand your argument but the possibility of infringing another mans rights is not infringing another mans rights. Passing legislation that takes a mans rights from doing what he desires with his property (as long as it doesn't infringe another's humans rights) is infringing another mans rights.

You see, so you have become the man that is taking another mans rights in the name of protecting people's rights. You are contradicting yourself. This is how our republic is transitioning into an all out democracy. You suggest this is a trivial personal freedom that should be overlooked for the communities greater good. Someone else will suggest banning the operation of drilling for oil in the interest of the communities greater good. Someone else will suggest banning SUV's. Someone else will suggest banning you from cutting trees off your own property. Someone else will suggest retribution for the treatment of a particular races ancestors. It is just the whittling away of "trivial" freedoms that is dangerous.

I am the keeper of the personal freedom flame!!

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

There needs to be a distinction made here. Giving men the freedom that allows them to breed animals for the sole purpose of fighting them, possibly to their death. Is not equivalent to giving men the freedom to let a dangerous dog kill a human. I understand your argument but the possibility of infringing another mans rights is not infringing another mans rights. Passing legislation that takes a mans rights from doing what he desires with his property (as long as it doesn't infringe another's humans rights) is infringing another mans rights.

You see, so you have become the man that is taking another mans rights in the name of protecting people's rights. You are contradicting yourself. This is how our republic is transitioning into an all out democracy. You suggest this is a trivial personal freedom that should be overlooked for the communities greater good. Someone else will suggest banning the operation of drilling for oil in the interest of the communities greater good. Someone else will suggest banning SUV's. Someone else will suggest banning you from cutting trees off your own property. Someone else will suggest retribution for the treatment of a particular races ancestors. It is just the whittling away of "trivial" freedoms that is dangerous.

I am the keeper of the personal freedom flame!!

liked that didnt ya??!!

well, we deffinatly wont see eye to eye on this one...you feel that a mans personal freedom to weild a weapon is more important than another persons personal freedom to breath...i get it bro, it's cool. kinda like the "gangsta's" personal freedom to have his mak10 and uzy to use in drive by's, is waaay more important than any bystanders personal freedom to breath (i'm all for the right to bare arms, but i do think there should be limits)...i mean really, what's the harm if he didnt hit anyone this time. dosnt mean he'll hit someone the next time either, right? so, no harm, no foul!
oh, and your wrong...giving them the freedom to train the dog is giving them them the freedom to hurt others. it is giving them the rope they will need to hurt others. maybe not directly, but indirectly, it will be the result. how many injury's from that sport do you think go un-reported. i know a mexican in immoklee fla. thats missing a piece of ear...i know he's illegal and it wasnt reported..eh, god gave him 2 ears, so he'll be fine. you really dont think there is numerous injuries that go unreported? you think these animals are all "shaggy the dog" during the day and "killer mojnero" at night??? please bro...you havnt been around these things ever, have you? you've not witnessed these things first hand, huh? i think if you seen the way they are handled, the half assed pens they are put in, the MANY opertunity's these things have to do damage, you'd maybe, MAYBE feel a little different. some people even think they are "good" pets...they let them mingle around their back yards like these things are all fido an shyt..my buddy john had one that he trained almost the same way for hog hunting...his dog was named cupcake, lol no shyt. he used to let it walk around the house. he'd make a point about how it was soooo good with his kids (yes, we are going there), the perfect house pet. john hadnt hunted cupcake for a couple years becouse the last time a hog broke the animals hip...one day, while laying around the house, i guess cupcake didnt like the way she was being petted anymore, so she bit his youngest daughter...no gory story, just bit her arm, broke the skin, and went to lie down in the kitchen...john freeked and put the dog down. imagine if this was a legal activity. imagine how many more stories you'd hear. how would you feel if your nieghbor was engaging in the legal act of dog fighting on his side of the fence? you'd be fine? you'd let your kids play in the back yard without a shred of worry?....

and so now, i have become "the taker of personal freedoms", mauhahahahahaaaa

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

oh, and remember the minor getting married analogy. the one you shot down becouse of the POSSIBILITY of coersion...."so you ban it"

"The banning of marriage/sex with a minor is logical it may meet some peoples undefined immorality ("because it's wrong") but that is coincidental. It's wrong because there is implied coercion. You cannot remove it; it is the same as letting police officers solicit sex while on duty and in uniform - coercion is implied, same with prison guards. There is a necessary intervention to protect a minor from being coerced and manipulated and since you could never ascertain if it is coercion or something else you ban it" (very well put, and i agree 100%, by the way).

soooo, your implying, by the shere nature of debating this, that you can, in fact, "ascertain" wether or not a dog that is trained to kill, will not hurt ANYBODY at anytime. so you can "ascertain" that should this be a legal activity, no people, children or other (i'll even go farther) that IS NOT involved in the activity, will be hurt, ever. if you cannot "ascertain" this....shouldnt we ban it? isnt there a necessary intervention to protect the average joe against the possibility of such an attack? if not, why is there an "necessary intervention" to protect, what could very well be, 2 concenting people from entering into a relationship/marrige.....please, do tell.

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

liked that didnt ya??!!

well, we deffinatly wont see eye to eye on this one...you feel that a mans personal freedom to weild a weapon is more important than another persons personal freedom to breath...i get it bro, it's cool. kinda like the "gangsta's" personal freedom to have his mak10 and uzy to use in drive by's, is waaay more important than any bystanders personal freedom to breath (i'm all for the right to bare arms, but i do think there should be limits)...i mean really, what's the harm if he didnt hit anyone this time. dosnt mean he'll hit someone the next time either, right? so, no harm, no foul!

Gangsta's are a product of prohibition. They are criminals already, they have access to guns that are already illegal. It has become cliché but it is true, gun control only keeps guns from the citizens that obey the law.

You have an immoral hypothetical situation to suit every freedom you wish to infringe on people. There is no Utopian society; I am not arguing there is - I am only arguing how all men should be equal in the eyes of the law. For that to happen laws must not contradict each other.

The right to bare arms is not synonymous with the right to shoot at people and only illegal when you hit one.

oh, and your wrong...giving them the freedom to train the dog is giving them them the freedom to hurt others. it is giving them the rope they will need to hurt others. maybe not directly, but indirectly, it will be the result. how many injury's from that sport do you think go un-reported. i know a mexican in immoklee fla. thats missing a piece of ear...i know he's illegal and it wasnt reported..eh, god gave him 2 ears, so he'll be fine. you really dont think there is numerous injuries that go unreported?

Quit helping me with my side! Why do you think they go unreported? The same reason the meth head doesn't report the theft of his quarter gram - its illegal.

you think these animals are all "shaggy the dog" during the day and "killer mojnero" at night??? please bro...you havnt been around these things ever, have you? you've not witnessed these things first hand, huh? i think if you seen the way they are handled, the half assed pens they are put in, the MANY opertunity's these things have to do damage, you'd maybe, MAYBE feel a little different. some people even think they are "good" pets...they let them mingle around their back yards like these things are all fido an shyt..my buddy john had one that he trained almost the same way for hog hunting...his dog was named cupcake, lol no shyt. he used to let it walk around the house. he'd make a point about how it was soooo good with his kids (yes, we are going there), the perfect house pet. john hadnt hunted cupcake for a couple years becouse the last time a hog broke the animals hip...one day, while laying around the house, i guess cupcake didnt like the way she was being petted anymore, so she bit his youngest daughter...no gory story, just bit her arm, broke the skin, and went to lie down in the kitchen...john freeked and put the dog down. imagine if this was a legal activity. imagine how many more stories you'd hear. how would you feel if your nieghbor was engaging in the legal act of dog fighting on his side of the fence? you'd be fine? you'd let your kids play in the back yard without a shred of worry?....

and so now, i have become "the taker of personal freedoms", mauhahahahahaaaa

No, I have not seen a dog fight and your right I am sure it would affect me but that would only confirm what I already believe; it is immoral.

Would you decide dog fighting was moral if it was legal? Of course not and there is no evidence that making an activity illegal decreases that activity; but there is a guarantee driving activities to the black market does make it more dangerous. There is no civil recourse if you feel you have been screwed.

I would not be fine with the hypothetical of my neighbor participating in dog fighting in his backyard. I told you I detest it. As a parent I wouldn't take a chance and I would take every legal action I could to put pressure on him and my kids would spend their time inside unless I was outside with them. But then no animal is 100% tame or domesticated.

[littlelouie]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

100% wrong IMO, animals dont ask to do it and are treated like crap. I used to hang out in Trenton, NJ and saw some of it up close and personal and man it was really bad. These damn dogs were all chewed up and bloody.....I did not like it and didnt go back!

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Gangsta's are a product of prohibition. They are criminals already, they have access to guns that are already illegal. It has become cliché but it is true, gun control only keeps guns from the citizens that obey the law.

You have an immoral hypothetical situation to suit every freedom you wish to infringe on people. There is no Utopian society; I am not arguing there is - I am only arguing how all men should be equal in the eyes of the law. For that to happen laws must not contradict each other.

The right to bare arms is not synonymous with the right to shoot at people and only illegal when you hit one.



Quit helping me with my side! Why do you think they go unreported? The same reason the meth head doesn't report the theft of his quarter gram - its illegal.




No, I have not seen a dog fight and your right I am sure it would affect me but that would only confirm what I already believe; it is immoral.

Would you decide dog fighting was moral if it was legal? Of course not and there is no evidence that making an activity illegal decreases that activity; but there is a guarantee driving activities to the black market does make it more dangerous. There is no civil recourse if you feel you have been screwed.

I would not be fine with the hypothetical of my neighbor participating in dog fighting in his backyard. I told you I detest it. As a parent I wouldn't take a chance and I would take every legal action I could to put pressure on him and my kids would spend their time inside unless I was outside with them. But then no animal is 100% tame or domesticated.

so it's only hypothetical that a dog trained to fight would/did bite someone? read the news, NOT HYPOTHETCAL!!! i use hypothetical situations to make a point, but most of those situations have happened!! (just like the drive by's i was being just a tad sarcastic about). gangta's are a by product of prohibition?? lol...what?, so do you suggest we make rec. drugs legal? (after all, thats you position on dog fighting) makes sence...no more illegal drugs, nomore gangsta's!!! and why should automatic weapons be illegal anyways, right? nothing like throwing a couple dozen rounds into a squirl to stop it in it's tracks!!! see?...we solved the whole gansta thing!

your right, i dont want to help your side, lol!! we make it legal, THEN we findout about all the people that get maimed and injured...lets supply the means for some tragadies, before we use COMMON SENCE. great plan! sounds like the making of a great country! the no common sence approach. i like it! (some would argue we do that now!!)

having mutible wives is illegal, were it not, i'd have a herrem....proof positive that making an activity illegal DID decrease that activity (and i'm probobly not the only one, but it's decreased by 1 atleast)


there is no pressure to put on him....you made it a legal activity, remember? sorry 'bout your luck, but my man thanks ya.

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

so it's only hypothetical that a dog trained to fight would/did bite someone? read the news, NOT HYPOTHETCAL!!! i use hypothetical situations to make a point, but most of those situations have happened!! (just like the drive by's i was being just a tad sarcastic about). gangta's are a by product of prohibition?? lol...what?, so do you suggest we make rec. drugs legal? (after all, thats you position on dog fighting) makes sence...no more illegal drugs, nomore gangsta's!!! and why should automatic weapons be illegal anyways, right? nothing like throwing a couple dozen rounds into a squirl to stop it in it's tracks!!! see?...we solved the whole gansta thing!

your right, i dont want to help your side, lol!! we make it legal, THEN we findout about all the people that get maimed and injured...lets supply the means for some tragadies, before we use COMMON SENCE. great plan! sounds like the making of a great country! the no common sence approach. i like it! (some would argue we do that now!!)

having mutible wives is illegal, were it not, i'd have a herrem....proof positive that making an activity illegal DID decrease that activity (and i'm probobly not the only one, but it's decreased by 1 atleast)


there is no pressure to put on him....you made it a legal activity, remember? sorry 'bout your luck, but my man thanks ya.

Why should recreational drugs be illegal? Individuals research and produce drugs with their time and energy; it is a product of their lives. Those who desire to purchase them are not being coerced and are purchasing them with the production of their lives. Self-destruction should not be illegal. The question we are disagreeing on is: Do we own our lives?

I say we do. Of course, you say we do but then support legislation that implies we don't. If we don't own our lives, who does? The majority? And what they define as moral? There are atrocities throughout history of what the majority agreed to be the right thing to do. If we own our lives we own the production of our lives and as long as we are not infringing others same rights we should be free to act according to our own desires. To lay claim to our own lives we must support the freedom of others and that means even those we find repulsive.

I do not believe my neighbor has the right to take my property because he disagrees with how I am owning it. That same standard is applied to the government.

I do not think I can get any more articulate on the matter. If someone chooses to disagree; they do not support individual liberty. You believe in some degree of statism where some people are sacrificed to the "good" of the state. Of course when people believe in this type of society; they never intend on being the ones sacrificed.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Why should recreational drugs be illegal? Individuals research and produce drugs with their time and energy; it is a product of their lives. Those who desire to purchase them are not being coerced and are purchasing them with the production of their lives. Self-destruction should not be illegal. The question we are disagreeing on is: Do we own our lives?

I say we do. Of course, you say we do but then support legislation that implies we don't. If we don't own our lives, who does? The majority? And what they define as moral? There are atrocities throughout history of what the majority agreed to be the right thing to do. If we own our lives we own the production of our lives and as long as we are not infringing others same rights we should be free to act according to our own desires. To lay claim to our own lives we must support the freedom of others and that means even those we find repulsive.

I do not believe my neighbor has the right to take my property because he disagrees with how I am owning it. That same standard is applied to the government.

I do not think I can get any more articulate on the matter. If someone chooses to disagree; they do not support individual liberty. You believe in some degree of statism where some people are sacrificed to the "good" of the state. Of course when people believe in this type of society; they never intend on being the ones sacrificed.

thats not the question at all!! the question is, do you feel that someone has THE RIGHT to engage in an activity that has a high proboble cause of causing injury to another individual, whether involved in the activity or not? that, my friend, is the question.
i believe taking the conversation in the direction you did is a great ideal for you to have, and i can see where it would bennifit your arguement, but that's not what we're talking about. we're not discussing legalizing suicide, witch in that case, you are dealing with your own life, and should be able to do so, even if it's truly selfish, idiotic thing to do!

the old "if your not with me, your against me" argument, eh?...nice...i like that one, lol. i wish life was that simple...

i dont believe you can be anymore articulate either. you conveyed your position very well, even if it's wrong, lol( joking bro, we all are entitled to our belief's and opinions). if the rationel that you displayed here was in reflection to the way things were done in the world, it would certainly lead to a very intresting, eventful, and even scary life. (fear mongering again, lol), you can certainly apply that logic to many topics, some dangerous, some not. i guess i'm just glad that more people see this as the dangerous activity that it is, and outlawed it.

the one question i was kinda curious to here your response on, witch maybe i didnt pose as a question, was...how? how could you stop your nieghbor from training a couple dozen dogs, next door to you, when you legalized it?...and, if it's such a safe activity to engage in, with little or no fear of anything for you or your nieghbors, why would you try to stop it? (other than morals....face it, neighbors could be doing many immoral things right now, and if it didnt present any danger to you, you wouldnt blink an eye)

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

thats not the question at all!! the question is, do you feel that someone has THE RIGHT to engage in an activity that has a high proboble cause of causing injury to another individual, whether involved in the activity or not? that, my friend, is the question.

Yes but you have to define "RIGHT" first. Are rights given to us by the state or are they natural - given to us by existence. That is the first question that must be answered. If we own our lives, we own the production of our lives and dogs are property and the fighting to that degree is a skill taught to the dog, which is a production of a humans time and resources. No matter how much we disagree.

i believe taking the conversation in the direction you did is a great ideal for you to have, and i can see where it would bennifit your arguement, but that's not what we're talking about. we're not discussing legalizing suicide, witch in that case, you are dealing with your own life, and should be able to do so, even if it's truly selfish, idiotic thing to do!

the old "if your not with me, your against me" argument, eh?...nice...i like that one, lol. i wish life was that simple...

i dont believe you can be anymore articulate either. you conveyed your position very well, even if it's wrong, lol( joking bro, we all are entitled to our belief's and opinions). if the rationel that you displayed here was in reflection to the way things were done in the world, it would certainly lead to a very intresting, eventful, and even scary life. (fear mongering again, lol), you can certainly apply that logic to many topics, some dangerous, some not. i guess i'm just glad that more people see this as the dangerous activity that it is, and outlawed it.

the one question i was kinda curious to here your response on, witch maybe i didnt pose as a question, was...how? how could you stop your nieghbor from training a couple dozen dogs, next door to you, when you legalized it?...and, if it's such a safe activity to engage in, with little or no fear of anything for you or your nieghbors, why would you try to stop it? (other than morals....face it, neighbors could be doing many immoral things right now, and if it didnt present any danger to you, you wouldnt blink an eye)

Morally I do disagree with it. Secondly, I suppose it would depend on the individuals degree of competence when it came to securing his animals to his property. If he was not competent in the responsibility he had to contain his dogs and I felt my children were in danger, when outside. I would probably try to get a restraining order so when I antagonized his dogs into my yard and shot them their would be a record of his perceived negligence from my end.