Dog fighting - Wrong?

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

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

Why should an activity that is not actually infringing another's rights be illegal?

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!

Actual attacks are actually infringing another's rights, potential attacks are not but your wanting to treat the two the same by force (government), at the expense of undermining individual liberty.

If I saw your position more rational than mine, I would concede your point but it is not. To maintain your position, you must maintain the premise that your property is only yours if your treatment of that property meets the criteria of the majority or of some other authority. I think your type of mindset is what is dangerous in our society. Without private property, we can have no rights. You believe, your position is common sense but it contradicts many other aspects of our existence. George Bush believes defining a terrorist is common sense. These are the arguments of a pragmatic, whimsical philosophy. We each live the results of our own philosophies and our society is demonstrating, now days, the consequences of living by pragmatism.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Why should an activity that is not actually infringing another's rights be illegal?



Actual attacks are actually infringing another's rights, potential attacks are not but your wanting to treat the two the same by force (government), at the expense of undermining individual liberty.

If I saw your position more rational than mine, I would concede your point but it is not. To maintain your position, you must maintain the premise that your property is only yours if your treatment of that property meets the criteria of the majority or of some other authority. I think your type of mindset is what is dangerous in our society. Without private property, we can have no rights. You believe, your position is common sense but it contradicts many other aspects of our existence. George Bush believes defining a terrorist is common sense. These are the arguments of a pragmatic, whimsical philosophy. We each live the results of our own philosophies and our society is demonstrating, now days, the consequences of living by pragmatism.

thats one problem we're having...you want to wait untill someone is hurt to say it's NOW infringing on anothers rights. that now that something happened...yep, thats bad, so HE'S the one in the wrong. i dont want me or someone that i love to be the person infringed upon. your willing to risk being that person, and i'm not...you've never had contact with that activity, and i have. you try to broadin the scope of that activity to blanket a whole philosophy of government, your whole mindset, and i isolate that activity. i can admit to your argument having merrit in ALOT of circumstances. this aint one of them. i wont ever believe that one persons personal freedoms are more valuble than anothers, and you feel, just by my position in this, that i am in fact, putting one mans personal fredoms OVER anothers. i can see your point, and in this case, if thats the way you see it, then yes...i put the personal freedoms of YOU and YOUR family, over a group training dogs to kill...sorry.
the issue is not the whole way we want or decide to govern the people. you have managed to open this debate up to all aspects of life and government. no...it's about dog fighting. 1 activity. 1 specific law. would you allow it in your house? would you allow your son to say "hey dad, i'm picking up a few pittbulls, some chains, cattle prods, a few dead animal carcases and ****. i'm gonna be making me some killer dogs out back....see ya"...i find it hard to believe that you would. but, what about his personal freedoms? i know...."another analogy....", but dude, i'm trying to make a point. i feel you lean waaay to far to one side. i think, were you faced with this in your house, personal freedoms would be out the door in favor of the rest of your family's safty!!! no? i'd kick my kids ass up and down the street untill i was sure i kicked that dumbass thaught right out of his head!!! sorry, but you cant convince me that it's someones personal freedom to engage in something like this. i, while supporting the right to bare arms 100%, would not support you setting up targets in your back yard (think subdivision) and shooting UNTILL someone got hurt, either! c'mon dude...your scaring me now!

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

the issue is not the whole way we want or decide to govern the people. you have managed to open this debate up to all aspects of life and government. no...it's about dog fighting. 1 activity. 1 specific law. would you allow it in your house? would you allow your son to say "hey dad, i'm picking up a few pittbulls, some chains, cattle prods, a few dead animal carcases and ****. i'm gonna be making me some killer dogs out back....see ya"...i find it hard to believe that you would. but, what about his personal freedoms? i know...."another analogy....", but dude, i'm trying to make a point. i feel you lean waaay to far to one side. i think, were you faced with this in your house, personal freedoms would be out the door in favor of the rest of your family's safty!!! no? i'd kick my kids ass up and down the street untill i was sure i kicked that dumbass thaught right out of his head!!! sorry, but you cant convince me that it's someones personal freedom to engage in something like this. i, while supporting the right to bare arms 100%, would not support you setting up targets in your back yard (think subdivision) and shooting UNTILL someone got hurt, either! c'mon dude...your scaring me now!

Infringing the rights of the minority is never one issue, one law; its one precedent for doing it again. Supporting the infringement of any one person's rights is undermining your own.

I raise my children to respect life. I would not allow my child to train fighting dogs even if it were legal.. Like I said, I find it extremely immoral. Children do not have full rights, nor should they. So they could not participate in it until they were independent.

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

That's right, just like dogs, children don't have rights. We as responsible adults direct children. We as responsible adults direct dogs. They both are living beings with feelings. There are adults out there that dose their babies up with xannax/vallums or whatever so they'll chill out and go to sleep. I guess that's their liberty and right as owner of that baby that doesn't or shouldn't have rights huh?

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

That's right, just like dogs, children don't have rights.

You said that, not me! I said children do not have full rights. Dogs have no rights. Do you think they dogs should have rights? If so, how can you give dogs rights without undermining the human right to own animals for production, slaughter, research, etc?

We as responsible adults direct children. We as responsible adults direct dogs. They both are living beings with feelings. There are adults out there that dose their babies up with xannax/vallums or whatever so they'll chill out and go to sleep. I guess that's their liberty and right as owner of that baby that doesn't or shouldn't have rights huh?

All living species cannot be given rights. We kill them, we eat them, we use them for production, transportation, research, etc. This is the same initial, emotional response I had. I love dogs, I want to protect them but we can't without going PETA, i.e. contradicting ourselves - being irrational; giving creatures rights that can't even represent themselves.

The options we have are:
Giving all animals rights (even though, they can't represent themselves or protest when they feel their rights have been infringed). This is similar to most people that align themselves with PETA. This is irrational.
or
The more rational course is that animals do not have rights, even when a$$holes own them. With this route the only action you can take when an a$$hole is "mistreating" an animal is ostracize or boycott (in Vick's case) them.

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Just the phrase "animal rights" is loony. I'm with you. You have a strong argument that holds plenty water and you could go til the cows come home with it, but come on now...those aren't our only options. I know, I know, I know the whole argument and understand your point and where you're coming from with this, but get real. This is a great argument anywhere, you could go on for days about capital punishment among many things with your view point, but there is a right way and a wrong way, and you don't have to give animal's rights to enforce this law. They don't have them do they? No. Then you have the whole argument but that's nonsense. PETA is constructed of irrational nonsense. We will have them on the sidline on out, as long as dumbasses can keep breeding. That's as far as they'll get.

There is a right way and a wrong way.

Do you know that you're right on this subject in that dogs should not be treated this way?...Or, do you think that these low-lifes that engage in dogfighting, torturing, and killing the way Vick did these animals are right?

Just give me your answer to those questions please.

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Just the phrase "animal rights" is loony. I'm with you. You have a strong argument that holds plenty water and you could go til the cows come home with it, but come on now...those aren't our only options. I know, I know, I know the whole argument and understand your point and where you're coming from with this, but get real. This is a great argument anywhere, you could go on for days about capital punishment among many things with your view point, but there is a right way and a wrong way, and you don't have to give animal's rights to enforce this law. They don't have them do they? No. Then you have the whole argument but that's nonsense. PETA is constructed of irrational nonsense. We will have them on the sidline on out, as long as dumbasses can keep breeding. That's as far as they'll get.

There is a right way and a wrong way.

I agree that you don't have to give animals rights to pass and enforce laws of tyranny. Meaning in today's society, you can pass laws that contradict anything and everything as long as it has the majorities approval. Just because it is law doesn't mean it is unjust in reference to personal rights.

So yes! I will agree with you, you do not have to give animals rights to enforce laws that prevent people from using their animals in "despicable" ways. But who defines despicable (or any other adjective you agree with)? The majority? And will you support a law that defines despicable as scientist researching animals to create drugs to cure cancer, aids and autoimmune diseases if the majority defines these actions as despicable? Why? Because the majority is irrational or lack common sense (defined by you)? You have helped set the precedent that majority defines law but when you don't agree with it you change your mind?

Do you know that you're right on this subject in that dogs should not be treated this way?...Or, do you think that these low-lifes that engage in dogfighting, torturing, and killing the way Vick did these animals are right?

Just give me your answer to those questions please.

I know I am right. My repulsion and belief that dog fighting is immoral, stems from those who endorse it have a general lack of respect for life. They prove this by demonstrating that the instant gratification of gambling and entertainment is more important than a somewhat intelligent life. I do not see how a dogs life could ever be of lesser value than gambling. But I cannot support force being applied to people to coerce them to treat their property the way I see fit; unless I support those who have the power, if ever compelled, to coerce me to treat my property the way they see fit.

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

I agree that you don't have to give animals rights to pass and enforce laws of tyranny. Meaning in today's society, you can pass laws that contradict anything and everything as long as it has the majorities approval. Just because it is law doesn't mean it is unjust in reference to personal rights..

Laws of tyranny?..hardly. It isn't like "YOUR DOGS ARE TO BE TREATED IN THIS MANNER etc, etc, etc..." Not even basically tyranny.

So yes! I will agree with you, you do not have to give animals rights to enforce laws that prevent people from using their animals in "despicable" ways. But who defines despicable (or any other adjective you agree with)? The majority? And will you support a law that defines despicable as scientist researching animals to create drugs to cure cancer, aids and autoimmune diseases if the majority defines these actions as despicable? Why? Because the majority is irrational or lack common sense (defined by you)? You have helped set the precedent that majority defines law but when you don't agree with it you change your mind?

Thank God the definitions have been prvided by a smart and reasonable individual or group. This is another situation where the system works. Despicable is what it is. Stop with the you say it is but they say it isn't. No, even they, the dogfighters themselves, know that's despicable actions.

Who's to say? The more intelligent people that are correct. There is a right and wrong.

I know I am right. My repulsion and belief that dog fighting is immoral, stems from those who endorse it have a general lack of respect for life. They prove this by demonstrating that the instant gratification of gambling and entertainment is more important than a somewhat intelligent life. I do not see how a dogs life could ever be of lesser value than gambling. But I cannot support force being applied to people to coerce them to treat their property the way I see fit; unless I support those who have the power, if ever compelled, to coerce me to treat my property the way they see fit.

Keep in mind your talking about life. Not just inanimate property. People are not going to come arrest you for not washing your car. You understand the difference. This is a rediculous argument the more I think about it. We aren't moving the wrong direction with getting rid of dogfighting. I'm sure children attend these events and there goes some more minds. Dogfighting is a
despicable, infectious and contagious among the ignorant action that needs not go on. There are adults that have to be governed.

If you think that people should be allowed to treat dogs this way, then stand up for what you believe and go hard. Go like you could argue your point to the end. ALLOW DOGFIGHTING

I know I'm right in that people should not commit this crime and that they are dead wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.

There are allot of things that you need to be standing up for though with your view point and the prisons would clear out. I'm done. This dead horse needs no more beating.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

wow...all this about dog fighting!!! (ofcourse klash, you believe all this is about "personal freedom", but it's not...it's about dog fighting)...so....we done? agree to disagree? lets move on to baligamy....i love women! why cant i have more than 1 wife (other than the fact that this one i got would kick the shyt out of me in my sleep!!!)

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

Laws of tyranny?..hardly. It isn't like "YOUR DOGS ARE TO BE TREATED IN THIS MANNER etc, etc, etc..." Not even basically tyranny.

Are the dogs your property? No! So your telling someone how to treat their property. Property is a representation of someones production created by their life. You support infringing that! Give me a better term for that support!

Thank God the definitions have been prvided by a smart and reasonable individual or group. This is another situation where the system works. Despicable is what it is. Stop with the you say it is but they say it isn't. No, even they, the dogfighters themselves, know that's despicable actions.

Who's to say? The more intelligent people that are correct. There is a right and wrong.

What happens when what you define as "smart and reasonable" people work against your best interest? ****** was elected! Witches were burned by the majority. Even Barabbas was set free, while Jesus crucified; the majority is not always smart and reasonable - I find it the opposite. These consequences are always a result of flawed, irrational philosophy. In this case, a disconnect between issues. The belief of infringing freedoms in one instance is o.k. because it is justified by the majority's ethical beliefs.

Keep in mind your talking about life. Not just inanimate property. People are not going to come arrest you for not washing your car. You understand the difference. This is a rediculous argument the more I think about it. We aren't moving the wrong direction with getting rid of dogfighting. I'm sure children attend these events and there goes some more minds. Dogfighting is a
despicable, infectious and contagious among the ignorant action that needs not go on. There are adults that have to be governed.

The two people here that have stated to have seen dogfighting have also stated they would never watch it again. I don't think it is infectious and I don't think if it was legalized it would grow rampant in society. People incorrectly associate legalization of an activity with an increase in the activity.

Where do you draw the line on infringing peoples rights? Kock [sic] fighting? Dog fighting? Slaughtering Chickens? Eating Cows? Wearing fur? Hunting? Driving SUV's? "Illegal" drugs? Prostitution?

If you think that people should be allowed to treat dogs this way, then stand up for what you believe and go hard. Go like you could argue your point to the end. ALLOW DOGFIGHTING

That is what I am arguing it should be allowed but I won't participate in it I find it despicable - like you.

[Klash]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

wow...all this about dog fighting!!! (ofcourse klash, you believe all this is about "personal freedom", but it's not...it's about dog fighting)...so....we done? agree to disagree? lets move on to baligamy....i love women! why cant i have more than 1 wife (other than the fact that this one i got would kick the shyt out of me in my sleep!!!)

It is about personal freedom when someone is threatening it. I think I have articulated my position very well. You deny wanting to see it very well.


i think we would agree to much on polygamy!!

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

You have articulated your position very well. When someone is wrong they should be taught right. There is always a right and wrong and until people know the difference we need these laws. These ignorant people sure aren't taking the time to teach themselves. Evolution is still happening and needs to keep heading in the right direction. I know that by legalizing things doesn't mean that they'll run rampant, but let everybody in America be allowed to carry a gun on their side everywhere they go like the old days and see what happens.

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

...and my wife said that she just wouldn't be too comfy with the whole polygamy thing.

[daved150]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

It is about personal freedom when someone is threatening it. I think I have articulated my position very well. You deny wanting to see it very well.


i think we would agree to much on polygamy!!

klash, klash, klash...bro?, c'mon now...just becouse you dont have, what i consider, a valid point, dont meen i cant see your point. i see it. i can even understand your rashonal...but it's wrong...thats all...black/white, right/wrong...your wrong. dog fighting wouldnt "run rampant", but it would, most certainly, increase...and, again, i'm not willing to risk my brotha klash getting bit!! i know, i know your a tuff guy....i just wont risk it! i love ya buddy, so i take, what you consider, a horribly mistaken stance on this....for you!

[horsepwr]

Re: Dog fighting - Wrong?

klash, klash, klash...bro?, c'mon now...just becouse you dont have, what i consider, a valid point, dont meen i cant see your point. i see it. i can even understand your rashonal...but it's wrong...thats all...black/white, right/wrong...your wrong. dog fighting wouldnt "run rampant", but it would, most certainly, increase..!

exactly..don't think that I don't see your point as well. I read ya loud and clear klash and fully understand your point. I also understand that pedophiles are naturally attracted to young children such as I am to my wife but pedophiles are absolutely wrong and need to be locked away for life because of their way of thinking. Better yet, save us money and put a bullet in their head because they are uncurable. You can't cure me from being attracted to hot adult women.