Reply With Quote
Interesting - but animals are companions to those that live alone and to the elderly. Isn't that a direct human benefit?
What if the deer were being hunted for FOOd? Is there a difference between being humted for sport or for food?
Interesting - but animals are companions to those that live alone and to the elderly. Isn't that a direct human benefit?
I understand that some people are lonely and this serves as a form of companionship... but if you are going to own an animal, and just keep it in a house, effectively caged in, with not even a back yard... I still find it to be cruel and selfish. Now if you live on some kind of estate where the animal can go free, I have little issue with it. Dogs are domesticated, but only to a point. Most need a level of freedom.
Just like anything else, there are levels and degrees involved here, or shades of gray (whatever you want to call it). For example, both Michael Jordan and Kevin Willis are NBA champions, but no one would say they had equal careers.
There are lots of different kinds of hunters. I hunt deer, but it is more or less for the meat. (Farmers have had me help them shoot a few to protect their crops too.) I don't particularly enjoy it, especially since it is so restricted in Indiana.
In terms of "trophy hunting" or gratification, I would love to hunt a great brown bear (Grizzly, Kodiak, etc.). That is pretty much the pinnacle for North America. However, I will never do so for a number of reasons: 1) I hate bear meat and won't eat it (only tried black bear); 2) Most subspecies of brown bear are at least on watch lists, if not endangered; 3) It is fantastically expensive, considering the travel, permits, etc.; and 4) Ultimately, I would be doing it for the "wrong" reasons.
I would love to go on an East African safari and just kill enough to supply a party in the field. You know, sort of a combination between a "photo safari" and a traditional hunt. This is one of the best ways to appreciate the big game animals in their own environment and see the world at the same time.
O.K. Now the "dark" side. I am mostly an upland hunter. I eat all of the birds, but I must admit I enjoy blasting the suckers. I also enjoy shooting at clay birds more than a paper target. In my case, I think it is a case not so much of enjoying killing an animal, but enjoying the challenge of a moving target. (Few firearms were ever designed just to make holes in paper.)
I hope this explains this better for some people. My point is that there are many different types of people involved in hunting. Some of them are conservationists, some need the food, some enjoy the sporting aspect, and some people are just plain assholes, whether hunting or what have you.
MARBURY
Look...the point is dogfighting is illegal, so deal with it. Vick broke the law where he damn well knows dogfighting is not allow.
Oh, and the popular conscience among the people is that dogfighting is morally wrong. If a load of people write to the "insane people running this country" and request that dogfighting be legal, you don't think they'll change the law for it????
after all this incident, i bet yah some animal protection governing body will be looming...rspca....
Some animal protectionists feel that it is much kinder to keep an animal inside (especially cats) since they do not fall prey to predators (spelling?) and automobiles. And many cats are happy inside if provided with enough space and sunlight. Along the same lines, what do you think about the ethics of breeding and selling pedagreed animals?
Than they are not animal protectionists, they are cat and/or domesticated animal protectionists. With that line of logic, you are taking away a vital food source for those often HIGHLY endangered predators.
As far as automobiles, it is certainly not ideal, but in my real life experence, it is survival of the fittest: The squirrels on my block look both ways before they cross the street. No joke. Besides, that roadkill is just a much a part of a scavenger/predator's diet.
I know that sounds a little absurd, but that is conclusion to that line of reasoning.
If you keep a cat indoors, and need to declaw it, I think that you have already crossed the line... But if you are willing to live with a clawed cat, and it seems content with the space it is given, it is no different than the estate I mentioned earlier... but if you are constantly worried that when you open the door, the cat is going to run away, I think you need to seriously consider the fact that by keeping it indoors you are being somewhat cruel and a little selfish. I get that it is for their own good, but try telling the cat that. Or, don't own the cat.
Absolutely absurd, completely inhumane, eerily racist, and totally disgusting.
Owning an animal may be justified, especially if said animal has the personality, and the owner makes the necessary concessions. But breeding for pedigree is so wrong on so many levels.
The history of 'pedigreed' animals is a strange one. Pets were not common among the peasants before the industrial age, but was a luxury of the wealthy, those who like to hunt foxes, for example. It was a way of the nobles showing superiority as they were able to feed the animals and take care of them, as well as their families.
But as the peasants became factory workers and more well off and wanted to emulate their nobles, they too took pets. To distinguish their animals from that of their 'subjects', the nobles started to 'breed' their animals based on totally arbitrary attributes and traits. Basically, if said particular breed didn't have said particular 'perfect' attribute, said animal was an inferior animal.
It made the 'nobles' feel good, and inadvertently also caused a long term problem with the animals. The only way to keep the traits of the animals consistent, is to inbreed them. This wreaks havoc with the genetic diversity and variability. Animals now bred to be a certain type are now at high risk of genetic defects and diseases. All because people want to breed them a certain way, inconsistent with how nature intended.
Some would say that the idea of keeping a breed 'pure', not even for strength, or for size, but just for color and shape, was an early way people could justify being able to marginalize people in this fashion, as was prevalent in the early part of the 20th century.
It is laughable that people all of a sudden decided to declare a certain dog a species out of the blue, especially when the dogs themselves never diverged in this way naturally. Dogs are some of the most physically diverse animals on earth, and while these traits are significant, speciation within dogs themselves is as limited as humans, i.e. nonexistent.
Last edited by jacobdrj; 08-23-2007 at 12:03 PM.
Alright here's my take.
Is Vick getting the short end of the media straw? Proabably, but his actions are reprehensable. Sadly today he would have been better off beating a stripper outside the club at 3am... thats the way things are, it sucks but there it is.
But to compare running an illegal, interstate dogfighting circuit, breaking numerous state and federal laws in the process, going through all kinds of pains to hide what they were doing and keep it "behind closed doors", to hunting and fishing? Or even to try to compare ti to feeding kittens to hawks and bobcats... thats a stretch.
Even if you dont support hunting (which I do), the arguments dont coincide. No matter what I say on hunting, the Vick apologists will ignore it and everythign has been seaid already in the thread, but I can try again.
Hunting is a sport where you go into the woods and try to kill and animal. usually in the end you eat it and mount its head... is it a little barbaric? Yeah. Does the animal have a chance? No... not if youre a good hunter, but it is legal. in Utah if you didnt hunt deer they would over populate, eat all the food and die of starvation in 2 years and there would be disease rampant in the animal world from all the rotting deer carcasses.
If you didnt dogfight... I dont see the same thing happening.
Exotic game reserves and enclosed hunting is a little different but the same principles applies. The animals are born raised and allowed to wander around eating, breeding and living until they get shot... not quite the same as being born, having your ears cut off, beaten and tortured every day, thrown into a pit against stolen housepets and forced to fight, then fought against an equally abused and tortured animal until your jaw is ripped of, your eye is missing and your bleeding out internally from ruptured organs. All this time you are trying to do the same to another dog. Then, if you live through it, you are beaten, electrocuted, drowned or shot to death.
The lives are markedly dissimlar dont you think? The only thing they have in common is they die by human hands.
Trying to say eating meat and not supporting dogfighting is hypocrtical is also disingenuous.
Eating meat is something we are built to do, we are omnivores. There are also a whole lot of people on this planet, which requires a process of raising, slaughtering, butchering and distributing animal products.
I dont go to the grocery store, place a bet on a pig and hope he kills another pig after I have tortured it for a year, then hope to take home the tenderloin.
Feeding kittens, mice whatever to predators in another story in genral. Its not like a hawk can say "Oh well it just give me a carrot." Thats insane to expect a predatory animal to not eat prey. There really is no argument here.
The Vick apologists need to understand that yes, people take a certain offense at torturing animals... in Virginia he is also probably facing additional prison time. The animal cruelty law there is punishable by 5 years in prison PER DOG. He could be locked up for over 40 years for this.
The racketeering and interstate gambling laws are federal felonies they use to prosecute organized crime... but its just some dogs right?
Wrong.
i have personally seen some dog fights, and they are brutal as . a friend of mine used to fight some of his dogs and i saw a couple. not that i condone it personally, but there are some good points made in this thread. it's a sport, a ing SPORT to go out and kill a deer or a buffalo or all kinds of and mount that mother er on your wall to boast and brag at "your kill" but the public shuns what happened here? i mean, the torturing is mad ed up, but all you bas s crying foul need to get in touch with reality. dog fighting itself is no more ed up than going out and hunting innocent live animals for no other purpose than to prove that you can.
Funny you think dog fighting is no more ed up then hunting since you enjoy watching a good dog fight!Keep trying to justify to yourself that you're not a sick .
Same old, tired-ass argument.
If you cant see the difference between dog-fighting and hunting, youre a delusional idiot. Congratualtions! Youll receive your prize in the mail, right after you get you OJ prize.
Yeah, that too. Nothing like breeding, conditioning and implementing a system by which you can enjoy the "sport" of two animals tearing each other apart literally, piece by piece.Funny you think dog fighting is no more ed up then hunting since you enjoy watching a good dog fight!
I'm sorry, but you're a dumb and just trying to justify your enjoyment of having dogfights in your garage.
I agree with the declawing - it's cruel.
I'm not an expert on dog or cat speciation - but I know that dogs are considered a single species. And I don't think that the different breeds are even considered subspecies.
In modern times cats are not only bred for appearance but, more importantly, for temperament. And out-crossing between the 2 parental types is often done (eg. a Tonkinese is a cross between a siamese and a bumese)- so the incidence of genetic defect is lessened. Personally I am conflicted when it comes to breeding for type - is it better to do this type of breeding or should we just let the animals run wild and self-select? And with random selection, is it even necessary or ethical to neuter?
From your comments I would wager a guess that you would never have, for example, a Golden Retriever. Do you have any pets?
Not only is this wrong, the way people ed up the breed is the reason you hear about so many pit bull attacks on children. Do you sick s that see nothing wrong with dogfights also see nothing wrong with fatal pit bull attacks on children? These dogs aren't naturally blood thirsty monsters, they are raised and made that way by man. So Johngateswhitely next time your on your high horse trying to sound like a hardass, think about all the people maimed and killed by pit bull attacks and tell me if it's "just a dog" and that aint wrong.
For sure
The amount of greyhounds killed a year (in just as horrible ways in not worse) is huge, but you hardly ever hear any public outcry for those animals.
I didn't know greyhounds fought once they crossed the finish line.
So it has to be a horse fighting to be deemed cruel, evil and inhumane? Are there levels of animal cruelty or is it just animal cruelty?
Selective outrage is funny.
okay okay this, i'm done.
nobody is condoning dog fight in any way, and i have yet to see anybody say they enjoy watching a dogfight. mother ers are seriously misreading here because theyr'e blinded by rage of someone suggesting that their beloved pasttime of blasting deers straight to Deer just might be morally wrong in some way (though NOT NEARLY as wrong as dogfighting).
but it's clear that all the gun-totin' rednecks on this board are gonna continue to tell all us "Communists" that there's no double standard because their thirst to snuff out the life of innocent animals helps prevent chronic wasting disease.
so dogfighting - evil, trophy hunting - noble work blessed with God's loving approval. the end.
And thats the point many idiots dont get, just because greyhounds or horses dont actually fight each other, its humane. Not realizing the horrible treatment that these animals get. But I guess since they dont actually fight each other, its ok to treat animals like
you stupid bas , i never said i "enjoyed" . i said i had seen a couple of dog fights. i said i do NOT condone it. people do what people do, who am i to say ? if you think it's ok to ing shoot a deer in the head while it's in its natural habitat not hurting anybody but have the opinion that it's so ing inhumane to put a couple of dogs against eachother then you seriously need to wake the up. you're the dumb for trying to make ty assumptions about what i "enjoy".
If it can be profitable and isn't viewed by the empowered as "low class" like dogfighting and fighting - it's just fine according to the govt. Nobody getting arrested for slaughtering horses or greyhounds. ed up hypocricies like that have just been engrained in our culture for so long, nobody even questions it anymore.
Well, their going to euthanize all of the dogs found on his property, its the most humane things to do
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...r6l2lg0&src=ap
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions