[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Depends what you mean by ‘bloodsports.’ I don’t think they are all the same and I would not support cockfighting bans.[/quote]
so tell me the difference between a dog fight and a cock fight? do you know, or are you basing your beliefs off some media reports?
while you’re at it, I’m interested to know if you think animals have some hierarchy of order in terms of “rights”?
i fucking hate i got sucked into this but here i am :([/quote]
OOH Ooh I know this one,
In a cock fight they will generally attach a razor to the cock’s spur. It is less a test of perseverance, or gameness and more luck or skill. It has also created some of the nastiest birds to be around.
Dog fighting has created one of the most noble an loyal dogs ever. It is like 2 warriors proving who is the best, and if you take the drugs and gangbangers out of it, the old dogmen usually treated their dogs like kids. And if you take the drugs and gangbangers out of it, you wouldn’t have these trash backyard breed shit pits, making headlines all the time.
oh and value, who says a dog has more value, maybe to you, to someone else a rooster might, that is all subjective.
[/quote]
oh, and not all cockfights use the blades.
there are 2 game animals on the face of this good planet, created by man: the american pitbull terrier (and some would argue the smaller hunting terriers and in some cases, I’d be inclined to agree) and, gamecocks.
I’ve heard an argument for beta fish but I know nothing of them.
and by the way, the “old dogmen” you revere (most of whom I know) have done as much to fuck the breed up as any of the gangbangers. they were not as noble as you might want to romanticize.
the very first time man placed a wager on the outcome (unavoidable for the investment of time - i know), he perverted the purity of the endeavor. when i became about “winning”, the dogs, the purpose and nobility became second.
anyway, this brings me full circle back to my original position. animals either have rights or they do not. all animals, like man, are created equal. there is no moral or intelligent basis for any “relative value” or “hierarchy” to animals. they are all equal under God. and even if you’re an atheist, they are still equal. if you can kill one (and i believe we can), you can kill them all, including those that your culture or sensibilities would “value”.
the idea of “animal rights” is rife with irreconcilable differences and no clear moral guidance. it them becomes a network of nonsensical laws that infringe the rights of man, and potentially punishes a man thereby placing the value of any animals life higher than that of the man. this is fundamentally wrong at the most basic level.
you can’t cry “animal rights” in one breath, and close your eye to hunting and farming, while filling your belly with animal products and fashioning yourself with their hides. it’s hypocritical. you can’t say it’s okay to kill this animal, but not this one, because your cultural sensibilities do not agree with it.
i think we have a responsibility for the proper care of animals under our stewardship. that’s it.
but guess what happens under the law if you violate that? here’s the biggest hypocrisy of all; they will seize your animals and kill them. and the biggest irony is that these “humane” organizations are probably responsible for the killing of more animals than all the bloodsports, “abusers” and “neglecters” combined.
like i said in the very beginning; slippery slopes, irreconcilable differences and hypocrisy. and now we have “laws” that only pandering-to-special-interest politicians could create.
animals either have rights, or they do not.
it says here that animals are “property”. [/quote]
I know, most of the guys I know were good to their dogs, from my perspective. But they were property, a commodity, I have seen both types of dogmen.
I was trying to keep answers short.
I see animals as property and they serve a purpose. Like with my pits, if I could not train them to protect the livestock and not kill them, they would not be serving their purpose. If one ever bit a person they were not supposed to, they would be buried that day. Even the livestock though, you treat them good and keep them happy, the food is better that way.
the problem is with so many people being brought up away from reality, where their food, clothes come from, how “cruel” nature really is, and what work is and how animals serve a purpose. These groups just don’t understand what reality is.
Carry on sir. I like your AVI by the way as I boar hunt (which by the way puts those dogs of mine in peril).