[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
A pig is more intelligent than a dog. Why then can we farm raise them for slaughter, hunt them and otherwise exterminate them under permit, but dogs are deserving of protection under your analysis.
Under your analysis, pigs are a higher life form than dogs. Pigs should not be protected, and dogs left unprotected. [/quote]
see above answer
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
So you should make the laws? Is that your best argument? “You” draw the line.
[/quote]
That’s being facetious. I was asked my opinion. I never suggested my opinion is the only one that counts.
I’ve given several reasons why I would draw the line at dogfighting. Another would be that I don’t think it’s healthy for men or society for them to sit around a little ring getting sprayed with blood watching a couple of pit bulls lock onto each other.
I don’t agree.
[quote]
I’m not taking a “right” or “wrong” position here regarding any bloodsport. I’ve stated at the beginning that it is wrought with irreconcilable differences and slippery slope arguments and finally, hypocrisy.
But like freedom, and even a better example - free speech, we must allow some things that some might find objectionable to enjoy those rights and freedoms fully. [/quote]
I agree with that sentiment.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< animals simply do not have rights and are not equal to or superior to man. If you agree with this, why do we have laws that imprison men over their treatment of animals?[/quote]Apparently you require that I spell this like totally out for you. Ask the people who support such laws. I am not one of them. Here, just in case. I do not support the prosecution of those who purposelessly inflict pain on animals despite my abhorrence of both the act and them.
There is no crime higher or more eternally felonious than the refusal to surrender one’s heart, will, mind and body to the King of all kings, but I would be first in line to protest any law that civilly criminalizes that refusal. Please feel free to inform me if I have somehow still failed to adequately convey my view on this subject.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
…and when my dog’s tell them they are intruders and proceed to subdue them I am sure they will engage my dogs aggressively and I will be forced to use lethal defense to ensure the safety of my property. [/quote]
Sounds like you’re looking forward to it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I can understand why some, I should say many, don’t like it.
A few years ago I simultaneously owned three brothers out of the same Rott bitch (mine) and Dobie stud (brother’s). They were fabulous canine specimens, displaying the quickness and intelligence of the Doberman and combining the muscle mass of the Rottweiler. Damn beautiful athletes.
But they would tussle from time to time and while it was gruesome and undesirable for me, and I did my best to break up the fights…it was an awesome spectacle to behold. I can understand why some would find it an enjoyable sport.
I can’t for the life of me imagine boxing, MMA, cage sports and such being perfectly legal sports in the Western world and dogfighting being an abomination. It doesn’t make sense to me. Too paradoxical for my lil ol’ mind, I guess.
It also doesn’t make sense to me that a man can and does go to prison for being involved in dogfighting and cockfighting. No way.
[/quote]
I’ve found Dobermans to be a bit highly strung but maybe that’s just the ones I’ve had contact with. I know Dobermans and Rottweilers make great cross-breeds. I imagine the Rottweiler lines would improve temperament too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Another would be that I don’t think it’s healthy for men or society for them to sit around a little ring getting sprayed with blood…
[/quote]
You mean like in a typical boxing or MMA match?
[/quote]
They don’t fight to the death. They can tap out or throw in the towel also. But your point is still valid. There will always be contradictions when people make decisions about these things.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
…and when my dog’s tell them they are intruders and proceed to subdue them I am sure they will engage my dogs aggressively and I will be forced to use lethal defense to ensure the safety of my property. [/quote]
Sounds like you’re looking forward to it.[/quote]
MAybe a little, no just have a specific group of people on ATV’s with no respect for property lines, the cost of fencing and some other issues in mind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Utility is individual and subjective, always. [/quote]
I will not attempt to dispute that. But biological sophistication is not subjective. And those utitility related attributes are a result of the biological sophistication of the canine. A dog is more intelligent than a rooster. That is NOT subjective. Or not by any reasonable standards in that ANY judgement we make has to be subjective in some sense. There are very few people who would attempt to argue that a chicken is more intelligent than a dog. And if they did attempt to argue such they’d look very silly indeed. Basically I’m saying that if you try to tell me a chicken is smarter than some of the working dogs I’ve had I’d call bullshit. Subjective maybe. But regardless, the hound is a more biologically sophisticated lifeform - not a subjective judgement by any reasonable standard.[/quote]
The problem with reducing the argument to an hierarchy placement based on smarts, and therefore value, is that in the example of the pig it could easily be argued that he is smarter than the dog and rooster put together.[/quote]
That’s true. But I wouldn’t support a pig being torn apart in a ring even though it resembles how a pig would die in the hunt. And yes, the hierarchical argument based on intelligence has flaws. But’s it’s not my only argument. I have many reasons why I don’t like dogfighting.[/quote]
The law of the land should not be based upon what someone “likes”. That’s terribly flawed. Your whole “argument” has been flawed.
The ONLY reason these laws have been passed is b/c of the squeaky wheel AR agenda/lobby. And guess what? They don’t want to stop at so called “cruelty”…no. They want YOUR dogs too. It’s “slavery” to them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Another would be that I don’t think it’s healthy for men or society for them to sit around a little ring getting sprayed with blood…
[/quote]
You mean like in a typical boxing or MMA match?
[/quote]
They don’t fight to the death. They can tap out or throw in the towel also. But your point is still valid. There will always be contradictions when people make decisions about these things.[/quote]
you sir, with all respect, are not familiar with a professional dog fight. a professional dog fight is not a fight “to the death” but a test of “gameness” (which is the backbone upon which the apbt was bred for over a century). the rules are specifically set up to determine which dog will QUIT first and they are given ample and numerous opportunity to do so. most professional dog fights end up with a dog quitting. that is a fact. it is not subject to debate. it is irrefutable.
and again, by pointing this fact out to you, I am not taking a position with regards to the bloodsport or otherwise in any manner “promoting” it; but rather, I am pointing out to you the facts - of which I am familiar due to my long involvement and expertise with the breed. no matter what my sensibilities may or may not be on the subject, i cannot hypocritically blindly condemn the practice that is DIRECTLY responsible for giving me the breed that I love and cherish. as I stated earlier, to preserve certain freedoms, we must all suffer some discomfort. and I believe what a man does with his property, and I believe animals are property, is HIS business - not yours, and not the States.
I hope I’m clear in that regard.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Another would be that I don’t think it’s healthy for men or society for them to sit around a little ring getting sprayed with blood…
[/quote]
You mean like in a typical boxing or MMA match?
[/quote]
They don’t fight to the death. They can tap out or throw in the towel also. But your point is still valid. There will always be contradictions when people make decisions about these things.[/quote]
you sir, with all respect, are not familiar with a professional dog fight. a professional dog fight is not a fight “to the death” but a test of “gameness” (which is the backbone upon which the apbt was bred for over a century). the rules are specifically set up to determine which dog will QUIT first and they are given ample and numerous opportunity to do so. most professional dog fights end up with a dog quitting. that is a fact. it is not subject to debate. it is irrefutable.
and again, by pointing this fact out to you, I am not taking a position with regards to the bloodsport or otherwise in any manner “promoting” it; but rather, I am pointing out to you the facts - of which I am familiar due to my long involvement and expertise with the breed. no matter what my sensibilities may or may not be on the subject, i cannot hypocritically blindly condemn the practice that is DIRECTLY responsible for giving me the breed that I love and cherish. as I stated earlier, to preserve certain freedoms, we must all suffer some discomfort. and I believe what a man does with his property, and I believe animals are property, is HIS business - not yours, and not the States.
I hope I’m clear in that regard.
[/quote]
and to that note, I have seen some men pull their dogs, because they are like family. They put some much time and effort into them, It is almost like your son in a wrestling match. He may be sick or weak, but he has the will to finish regionals.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The law of the land should not be based upon what someone “likes”. That’s terribly flawed. Your whole “argument” has been flawed.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I was specifically asked what I think about dogfighting - i.e. if banning it was put to a referendum in my country how would I vote. That’s how I interpreted it. I think that’s twice I’ve explained that now. We’re heading towards a threefold repetition again.
[quote]
The ONLY reason these laws have been passed is b/c of the squeaky wheel AR agenda/lobby. And guess what? They don’t want to stop at so called “cruelty”…no. They want YOUR dogs too. It’s “slavery” to them. [/quote]
I won’t argue with you there. I despise the AR lobby. That’s something that needs to be considered.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you sir, with all respect, are not familiar with a professional dog fight. a professional dog fight is not a fight “to the death” but a test of “gameness” (which is the backbone upon which the apbt was bred for over a century). the rules are specifically set up to determine which dog will QUIT first and they are given ample and numerous opportunity to do so. most professional dog fights end up with a dog quitting. that is a fact. it is not subject to debate. it is irrefutable.
[/quote]
I know this. Because of the terrier lines a good pit bull won’t give up though. MOST organised dogfights end in the death of one of the dogs in the fight or the dog being put down based on the injuries sustained. Dogfighting is popular all over the world not just the US. In Northern Ireland there is a well known dogfighting family that has been in dogfighting for generations. They organise the underground dogfights. Often both dogs are put down via electrocution because of the injuries they have sustained. Similar in the north of England and elsewhere. These are professional organised dogfights by the people whose families have been in it for years.
Yes sir!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know this. Because of the terrier lines a good pit bull won’t give up though. MOST organised dogfights end in the death of one of the dogs in the fight or the dog being put down based on the injuries sustained. Dogfighting is popular all over the world not just the US. In Northern Ireland there is a well known dogfighting family that has been in dogfighting for generations. They organise the underground dogfights. Often both dogs are put down via electrocution because of the injuries they have sustained. Similar in the north of England and elsewhere. These are professional organised dogfights by the people whose families have been in it for years.
[quote]
Dude, you’re wrong. I don’t care what you think you know. You. Are. Wrong. And we are WAY OFF topic here.
Most professional dogmen worth their salt can damn near bring a dog back from the brink of death and do so b/c the dog has value. LOL dude even my group that hunts boar has IV’s and anti-shock medications, along with staples, sutures, antibiotics, etc. (an entire medical kit and knows how to use it). I can personally probably outperform a vet tech in the field.
The only dogs purposefully put down are dogs that quit. Most dogs will quit at or under the hour mark. Dogs aren’t nearly as fragile as you think. Many more dogs that are clearly over-matched are often “picked up” and the fight conceded. And the fact of the matter regarding that is that even dogs that don’t hunt get put down. Which brings us nicely full circle back to your utility analysis which leads us to my property position.
Your clearly second or third-hand propaganda-filled information is wrong.
And as to your original positions (the alleged hierarchy of animals based upon “complexity”), they have been repeatedly eroded by logic.
We now understand what YOU like and don’t like. But again, that wasn’t the topic of the thread now was it? We already agreed that laws shouldn’t exist based upon YOUR (or those that would share your sensibilities) personal taste.
I’m done with the thread b/c your ignorance is making it appear that I’m defending the practice of dog fighting and I’m not comfortable with that. To be clear again, it is the AR agenda and the draconian laws that sprang from the movement (of a minority) and its thought that I oppose, because I understand where it logically leads - and it leads to the loss of freedoms I (and most others) enjoy - dog ownership, breeding and hunting.
As I said earlier, in a truly free society, we must suffer some things that we don’t agree with, in order to have those freedoms. I’m sure your average hunter never gave a moment’s consideration to the banning of blood sports (and the basis by which they do it) and what that possibly means to the future of hunting, likewise the average pet owner has never given a moment’s thought to the AR’s true agenda - which is to end “animal slavery”. To put it simply, they don’t want you to own dogs and cats.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The law of the land should not be based upon what someone “likes”. That’s terribly flawed. Your whole “argument” has been flawed.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I was specifically asked what I think about dogfighting - i.e. if banning it was put to a referendum in my country how would I vote. That’s how I interpreted it. I think that’s twice I’ve explained that now. We’re heading towards a threefold repetition again.
[quote]
The ONLY reason these laws have been passed is b/c of the squeaky wheel AR agenda/lobby. And guess what? They don’t want to stop at so called “cruelty”…no. They want YOUR dogs too. It’s “slavery” to them. [/quote]
I won’t argue with you there. I despise the AR lobby. That’s something that needs to be considered.[/quote]
no one asked you specifically about dog fighting. the question as properly posed and constructed was how you can have no problem with cockfighting (which you stated you do not oppose), yet draw the line at dog fighting. you attempted to construct a number of arguments, all of which were proven illogical and ultimately personal. only after a few pages of retorts did you concede that your position was indeed wholly personal.
if you simply said that from the start, there would be no debate. the only repetition arises from your lack of simple concession on the original point, instead obfuscating your seeming concession with empty rebuttals 
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
no one asked you specifically about dog fighting. the question as properly posed and constructed was how you can have no problem with cockfighting (which you stated you do not oppose), yet draw the line at dog fighting.
[/quote]
True. I was going to say that but I thought I’d paraphrase it to make it simpler. The truth is you wanted to know what I thought about dogfighting. That was the point of the question. Don’t try and tell me otherwise dog man. I may not pick it up in little plastic baggies but I know dogshit when I smell it.
Untrue. Some contained a larger subjective element than I originally thought. Anything else I may have said was just whiskey talk.
Nonsense.
[quote]
if you simply said that from the start, there would be no debate. the only repetition arises from your lack of simple concession on the original point, instead obfuscating your seeming concession with empty rebuttals :)[/quote]
I appreciate the emoticon.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Dogs aren’t nearly as fragile as you think.
[/quote]
You’re saying this to someone who knows working cattle dogs? The ACD is the toughest dog south of the 55th parallel.
you love to cut and reply. spending too much time in PWI my friend.
Anyhow, there is no dog tougher than the apbt or the smaller terriers (some of whom I have imported from Ireland by the way) pound per pound. Period.
From one dogman to another, good day sir.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you love to cut and reply. spending too much time in PWI my friend.
Anyhow, there is no dog tougher than the apbt or the smaller terriers (some of whom I have imported from Ireland by the way) pound per pound. Period.
From one dogman to another, good day sir. [/quote]
Depends how you define ‘tough’ of course. Anyway, good talking to you.