Dog fighting - Wrong?

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

lmao!! so his right to kick your ass for shooting his dog should be taken away!!!!....lmao. kiddin bro, but i thaught that was funny. now look at you!!! you made the shyt legal, then you bait his mutt's into your yard so you can unlawfully discharge a firearm in the city limt's!! damn...just by wrongfully legalizing a dangerous activity, it turned a normally lawful citizen (you) into a criminal...shame, shame...shoulda just left it illegal in the first place!

lets assume we're talking right's as defined by state (the kind of right's, i'm assuming your not in agreement with on this subject)....then, does someone have that right? no...thats why its against the law!

but, we could talk about the right's that your trying to take the coversation too...our natural right, or right by existance...we can go that way, even though the world (our world) dont work that way, and for a good reason....
by our natural right. you seem to think man should have a natural right to train a dog to attack, kill, maim another..regardless of injury to another man....bro, it's not NATURAL that the dog WANTED to fight...it was trained, there for, it's not man's NATURAL RIGHT to TRAIN a dog to kill!! now, if you want all the dogs to roam free...el'natual...and a fight breaks out, so be it...thats natural. but, you dont have the right, just becouse your a man, and you exist, to train/force a dog to fight. your just an animal as well...by what authority do you claim that right?...oop's...authority....we're back to the state's law's...

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

lmao!! so his right to kick your ass for shooting his dog should be taken away!!!!....lmao. kiddin bro, but i thaught that was funny. now look at you!!! you made the shyt legal, then you bait his mutt's into your yard so you can unlawfully discharge a firearm in the city limt's!! damn...just by wrongfully legalizing a dangerous activity, it turned a normally lawful citizen (you) into a criminal...shame, shame...shoulda just left it illegal in the first place!

lets assume we're talking right's as defined by state (the kind of right's, i'm assuming your not in agreement with on this subject)....then, does someone have that right? no...thats why its against the law!

but, we could talk about the right's that your trying to take the coversation too...our natural right, or right by existance...we can go that way, even though the world (our world) dont work that way, and for a good reason....
by our natural right. you seem to think man should have a natural right to train a dog to attack, kill, maim another..regardless of injury to another man....bro, it's not NATURAL that the dog WANTED to fight...it was trained, there for, it's not man's NATURAL RIGHT to TRAIN a dog to kill!! now, if you want all the dogs to roam free...el'natual...and a fight breaks out, so be it...thats natural. but, you dont have the right, just becouse your a man, and you exist, to train/force a dog to fight. your just an animal as well...by what authority do you claim that right?...oop's...authority....we're back to the state's law's...

Man has a right to "pursue" his own happiness based on his own beliefs. You can't make that dependent on the majorities approval. That makes nonconformity dangerous - you forget we have had several irrational societies throughout history. Individuals can do all the "unnatural" things they want as long as they do not infringe upon the natural rights of other men.

It should never be illegal for an individual to discharge a firearm in defense of his life.

I think this is why so many people think Libertarians are loons. All topics in our culture are mostly looked at pragmatically, with no exception to when it comes to the Libertarian positions. So when Libertarian positions are looked at only one issue at a time, relative to our current societies approach, it looks ridiculous. When in fact it is the only political system that is consistent. Sure all Libertarians do not all have the same position but most attempt to use the same process; logic.

Your approach to dog fighting is pragmatic and a consequence to that is you are not remaining just with what that implies to our rights. The emotional argument is extremely difficult to separate from what we support with law but if we value our own rights, we must.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

^ouch...that hurt my head...i'll get back to ya...but, the one part (i'll address the rest after the tylonal kicks in), about logic...i dont get that...libertarians attempt to use logic when? and...libertairians (for the most part) support dog fighting?

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

sorry brotha...still realing from the librarians supporting dog fighting.....that fuked me up a little. so...a vote for ron paul, is a vote for dog fighting?...i must be mistaking. i wish i could pose that question to him...

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

^ouch...that hurt my head...i'll get back to ya...but, the one part (i'll address the rest after the tylonal kicks in), about logic...i dont get that...libertarians attempt to use logic when? and...libertairians (for the most part) support dog fighting?

sorry brotha...still realing from the librarians supporting dog fighting.....that fuked me up a little. so...a vote for ron paul, is a vote for dog fighting?...i must be mistaking. i wish i could pose that question to him...

The majority of Libertarians believe in natural rights. They believe the state is only intended to protect individual rights, not issue them to those they deem fit. The Libertarian platform has the most consistent political platform of any party. Other parties positions are incompatible and hypocritical.

It would not be a vote for dog fighting it would be a vote for individual freedom, which would include the freedom to purchase a dog, train it and fight it to its death. This does not include a right of your property to infringe the rights of others (I know your still having a problem with this) Libertarians have many unpopular positions but they are all consistent with individual freedom and thus individual responsibility.

Ron Paul may have a different view on dog fighting; I highly doubt it but I think his reasoning has come up short on his foreign policy and on abortion so its possible.

[solidground]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

I highly doubt it but I think his reasoning has come up short on his foreign policy and on abortion so its possible.

what do you mean coming up short on his foreign policy?..hes not an isolationist, only a non interventionalist..he voted to go in to afganistan, so hes not a pacifist, he just wants to follow the constitution as we should..just curious as to what you mean because his foreign policy views are in line with my opinions.. and he has a liberatarian view on foreign policy, no?

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

The majority of Libertarians believe in natural rights. They believe the state is only intended to protect individual rights, not issue them to those they deem fit. The Libertarian platform has the most consistent political platform of any party. Other parties positions are incompatible and hypocritical.

It would not be a vote for dog fighting it would be a vote for individual freedom, which would include the freedom to purchase a dog, train it and fight it to its death. This does not include a right of your property to infringe the rights of others (I know your still having a problem with this) Libertarians have many unpopular positions but they are all consistent with individual freedom and thus individual responsibility.

Ron Paul may have a different view on dog fighting; I highly doubt it but I think his reasoning has come up short on his foreign policy and on abortion so its possible.

sooo...that'd be yes?...
your right. my problem is that legalizing would lead to others rights being infringed upon...now your getting it. if you dont want other's right's infringed upon, how can you support this activity?...or, you feel that others rights should be infringed upon MORE, before you even THINK about making it an illegal activity, thus infringing on "mr dog trainers" rights....so, who's right's do you feel you should protect? thats what it come down to, to me....i say fuk "mr dog trainer man"...average joe is ok with me, id rather protect his rights. dont pretend that legalizing this activity wouldnt necc. lead to MORE injuries...we both know better. well...unless you regulate it. and thats just what we need!!! more government regulation!!! (witch would be against the same right's your trying to defend....i'm getting dizzy)

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

what do you mean coming up short on his foreign policy?..hes not an isolationist, only a non interventionalist..he voted to go in to afganistan, so hes not a pacifist, he just wants to follow the constitution as we should..just curious as to what you mean because his foreign policy views are in line with my opinions.. and he has a liberatarian view on foreign policy, no?

I guess this comes down to how to initiate a non-interventionist policy when you have already intervened. You can't un-ring that bell. We can't leave and act as if we never went. Dr. Paul's position on Iraq is we leave, now! But it is a fact we are at war with our enemy (radical Islamic groups) and the battlefield is in Iraq. If we leave Iraq we will still be at war with them, only the battlefield will change locations and we will have handed one of our enemies major suppliers (Iran) a huge population to tax to support Jihadist's efforts against us and the rest of the west. I just don't see how that can be justified.

sooo...that'd be yes?...
your right. my problem is that legalizing would lead to others rights being infringed upon...now your getting it. if you dont want other's right's infringed upon, how can you support this activity?...or, you feel that others rights should be infringed upon MORE, before you even THINK about making it an illegal activity, thus infringing on "mr dog trainers" rights....so, who's right's do you feel you should protect? thats what it come down to, to me....i say fuk "mr dog trainer man"...average joe is ok with me, id rather protect his rights. dont pretend that legalizing this activity wouldnt necc. lead to MORE injuries...we both know better. well...unless you regulate it. and thats just what we need!!! more government regulation!!! (witch would be against the same right's your trying to defend....i'm getting dizzy)

How about a state mandatory registration of fighting dogs to confirm the kennels functional ability to maintain the dogs and keep others safe. Failing to register the dogs would be an illegal civil offense and so would having an unreliable kennel but possessing the dogs would not.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

How about a state mandatory registration of fighting dogs to confirm the kennels functional ability to maintain the dogs and keep others safe. Failing to register the dogs would be an illegal civil offense and so would having an unreliable kennel but possessing the dogs would not.

ok...yea. that could work. we'll implement rules and regulation's on how the animals should be handled, and what kind of secured shelter they should be kept in, as well as what kind of "fighting" area should be utilized as to make sure none get out. we'll hire more city/county/state and federal workers to monitor these conditions as well as spot check these individuals (we know most are on the shady side, so we gotta keep an eye on them) and we'll level fines and possible jail time for continuos infractions!!! (ofcourse, we'll have to raise taxes, just a smudge, to pay for the added government employees) there we go!
now, the circle of crap is complete!!!

sooo...your for bigger government?...more government regulation?...huh. is that libertarian as well?

[space mountain]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

well the dog has no choice to fight as you're training them to fight in the first place. then you're betting on this and making then kill each other and risk their lives just for fun and money. w/ hunting, you kill it instantly and its for food. its the food chain. we're meat eaters. we eat animals. but watching an animal torture another animal for your own pleasure is just plain wrong. whether its a dog, a rooster, whatever.

well said !!!

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

ok...yea. that could work. we'll implement rules and regulation's on how the animals should be handled, and what kind of secured shelter they should be kept in, as well as what kind of "fighting" area should be utilized as to make sure none get out. we'll hire more city/county/state and federal workers to monitor these conditions as well as spot check these individuals (we know most are on the shady side, so we gotta keep an eye on them) and we'll level fines and possible jail time for continuos infractions!!! (ofcourse, we'll have to raise taxes, just a smudge, to pay for the added government employees) there we go!
now, the circle of crap is complete!!!

sooo...your for bigger government?...more government regulation?...huh. is that libertarian as well?

Don't like that idea, huh?

Up until now your argument has been that you would support infringing individual liberty because dog fighting is a potential threat to individual liberty and thus for the "greater good" you would justify the sacrificing of individual liberty in favor of protecting individual liberty. (I know; its your position, not mine)

The above proposal questioned the authenticity of your position and your response implies your reasoning backwards to protect a previously developed position.

Civil offense!! Monitored by civilians enforced through civil court. Nice try though!

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Don't like that idea, huh?

Up until now your argument has been that you would support infringing individual liberty because dog fighting is a potential threat to individual liberty and thus for the "greater good" you would justify the sacrificing of individual liberty in favor of protecting individual liberty. (I know; its your position, not mine)

The above proposal questioned the authenticity of your position and your response implies your reasoning backwards to protect a previously developed position.

Civil offense!! Monitored by civilians enforced through civil court. Nice try though!

yep...pretty much sumed up my position. i dont feel ANYONE should have the right to put other individuals in harms way, for the sake of something inwitch there's NO bennifit to anyone. i do not think it possible to legalize this activity, without putting tax money behind it, to insure that average joe will not be put in harms way. and, quite frankly, i dont feel that anyone should have to support such an activity, though their tax payments, to insure the type of regulation and monitoring that would need to be done, to insure that it's handled in a safe way. what really gets me is that you believe that this activity can be done without unexeptable risk's of injury to others...either that, or your SOOOO farout, into protecting others individual freedoms, that you trample on others individual freedoms without notice or care. i know there's not ANY black or white issues. there are lines...good (white) and bad (black). the deeper you go into gray, the more others are affected negitivly by the decission. this subject passes into the black. it HAS injured people uninvolved in it, and would very likely injur many moore should it be legalized. to me, it comes down to, do i think that the people engaging in such a thng's personal freedom is more important than someone else's. no. what makes the trainers personal freedoms so important to you bro?...what makes him the one you want to protect and trample on the personal freedoms of his nieghbor? your not seeing my point, and refuse to try to look at it. in this case, you can protect the personal freedom (tired of typing that!!) of...
a) the trainer's
or
b) their nieghbors
witch one....there is no middle. you protect one or the other. i'll take the average guy, the nieghbor..

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

THATS WHAT I THAUGHT!!! LOL

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

yep...pretty much sumed up my position. i dont feel ANYONE should have the right to put other individuals in harms way, for the sake of something inwitch there's NO bennifit to anyone. i do not think it possible to legalize this activity, without putting tax money behind it, to insure that average joe will not be put in harms way. and, quite frankly, i dont feel that anyone should have to support such an activity, though their tax payments, to insure the type of regulation and monitoring that would need to be done, to insure that it's handled in a safe way. what really gets me is that you believe that this activity can be done without unexeptable risk's of injury to others...either that, or your SOOOO farout, into protecting others individual freedoms, that you trample on others individual freedoms without notice or care. i know there's not ANY black or white issues. there are lines...good (white) and bad (black). the deeper you go into gray, the more others are affected negitivly by the decission. this subject passes into the black. it HAS injured people uninvolved in it, and would very likely injur many moore should it be legalized. to me, it comes down to, do i think that the people engaging in such a thng's personal freedom is more important than someone else's. no. what makes the trainers personal freedoms so important to you bro?...what makes him the one you want to protect and trample on the personal freedoms of his nieghbor? your not seeing my point, and refuse to try to look at it. in this case, you can protect the personal freedom (tired of typing that!!) of...
a) the trainer's
or
b) their nieghbors
witch one....there is no middle. you protect one or the other. i'll take the average guy, the nieghbor..

Your argument is shaped on the automatic acceptance that you are equating "potentially" with "actually" infringing personal freedom.

I understand your argument but with that premise our leaders could effectively ban everything.

...but to you potential is synonymous with actual. So until you concede that point continuing to reason with you is like Thomas Paine said "like administering medicine to the dead."

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Your argument is shaped on the automatic acceptance that you are equating "potentially" with "actually" infringing personal freedom.

I understand your argument but with that premise our leaders could effectively ban everything.

...but to you potential is synonymous with actual. So until you concede that point continuing to reason with you is like Thomas Paine said "like administering medicine to the dead."

well, again, i understand where your coming from, but with your rational of thinking....they could make just about anything legal!!!

potential is ABSOLUTELY NOT synonymous with actual!!!! actual attacks have occured. more have occured up here just this past week!! pontiac cops are finding more and more of these rings every couple weeks. a boy was attacked in pontiac, witch is leading to these bust's....so, is ACTUAL synonymous with ACTUAL???? it's happening NOW...if you would rather turn a blind eye to justify your position, fine. but i realize that if more people were paticipating in this activity, were it to be legal, more injuries would occur...it's really that simple bro. at this point, with the corner you have paited yourself into, i dont actually ever expect you to admit, maybe it's a good ideal to leave this activity illegal. i'm at the point where i just like to read how your trying to sell me on the fact that it should be legal....funny shyt. i still luv ya buddy....but your still fukd up on this one!