NationStates Jolt Archive

So, many of us have probably heard about this whole flap involving Michael Vick (quarterback for the Falcons, at least for now), who apparently organized some dogfighting on his estate in Virginia.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-spvick0725,0,5823514.story?coll=ny-homepage-mezz

Blank didn't offer any assurances that Vick would remain with the team once the case is litigated, especially if Vick is found guilty of the charges, which include the murder of under-performing dogs by drowning, shooting, hanging and electrocution.


Now, I'm not going to defend Michael Vick in this case - regardless my feelings on dogfighting, the kind of unnecessary cruelty the police claim was used, if true, is unacceptable, I believe.

That said, dogfighting was pretty common when I was a kid, at least among African-American friends and acquaintances of mine, and a few to this day are still involved in some way or another, if less openly. It was an element of the culture, a point of pride in certain families who bred their dogs, trained them and saw to their nutrition and horomones to produce a superior animal.

Now, none of this really drew my attention until I saw this in the news this morning - regarding a large cockfighting bust:

http://www.local6.com/news/13741992/detail.html

Officers raided a rural area of Polk County Monday and found a massive grave of freshly killed roosters, drawers full of sharp fighting spurs for birds and $25,000 in cash.

"It was really, a very professional operation," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said. "They had a box, a fighting box, and they had benches set up on each side of the box and the benches were numbered. You sat on the bench in order to place your bets."

Two of the 17 men captured and arrested were from Orlando; Oscar Herrara, 36, and Jose Herrara, 40, according to police. One of the men had a hat on that said "cockfighting."

-----------

So obviously, there's a bit of a pattern here - the police in recent months seem to be cracking down not on illegal betting, or cruelty to animals, but on types of animal betting almost exclusive to the Mexican- and African-American communities. So I ask the narrow question:

Does this sort of thing sound a bit like selective enforcement, or at least racial profiling? Aren't these activities legitimate cultural pursuits?

I'm not really sure, myself. Like I said, I've known more than a couple ordinary people who were otherwise moral in anyone's opinion, who have fought dogs or roosters. Somehow I doubt the feds are looking in on racehorse owners who might do similar things or neglect *their* animals. Maybe I'm imagining things, though. ;)

And then the broader question:

In which ways do you find the use of animals in entertainment to be legitimate? Where do you draw the line? The Chinese have their cricket fights, Southeast Asians have their beetle fighting, and others do similar things with roosters and dogs. I don't think many of us would object to the loss of a cricket in a sports-betting atmosphere, but do you think the government should be involved in legislating things like this? If we start legislating roosters, are horses or race-dogs a step away?

Poll is on the way. :)

Edit part II: Aha! Found the 'add poll.' Cool. :)

Does this sort of thing sound a bit like selective enforcement, or at least racial profiling? Aren't these activities legitimate cultural pursuits?

No. This has been another installment of simple answers to easy questions.

No. This has been another installment of simple answers to easy questions.

I don't agree. But there's another part to the question, if you're bored. ;)

Well, they could race whippets instead, but I think whenever you have a chronically poor underclass and access to cheap dogs, this kind of thing is going to happen for obvious reasons.

Only if there is not intent to cause harm. If harm winds up being incidental, then there is no objection, as incidental harm is part of everyday life for all living things.

If the object is harm, though, than it is cruel, indecent and unjust. There is no reason to bet on animal fights.

Well, they could race whippets instead, but I think whenever you have a chronically poor underclass and access to cheap dogs, this kind of thing is going to happen for obvious reasons.

That's probably true, though it isn't only the poor or recent immigrants - if you look at Michael Vick with dogfighting (the man's very wealthy) or the cockfighting operation I cited ("very professional" probably means the participants weren't amateurs or dirt poor). It seems there's a cultural element involved, but also a basic enjoyment common to many classes of people.

Only if there is not intent to cause harm. If harm winds up being incidental, then there is no objection, as incidental harm is part of everyday life for all living things.

If the object is harm, though, than it is cruel, indecent and unjust. There is no reason to bet on animal fights.

Would you extend that prohibition to include crickets or beetles? Or is it mostly mammals? I'm not disagreeing exactly - it just seems to me that it's often not so much the spirit of the activity that's considered wrong, but rather the use of animals some people own as pets.

Although, I'm reluctant to call the unjust killing of animals murder...murder is something one human being does to another, not a human to an animal, or vice versa.

I'd call it sick and twisted, certainly. And doubtlessly worthy of a good old fashioned psychiatric evaluation followed by some time in the State Pen, but certainly not murder.

Missouri outlawed animal fighting a few years ago. So the rooster fighters just joined the Missouri Poultry Producers and told the state they were raising "show birds". I have two within 3 miles of me. They take them to the Indian reservations in OK to fight. The Indians say it is part of their culture so can't be outlawed. Now how it could be a part of Indian culture when Indians didn't have chickens? That's the way American law works.

Does this sort of thing sound a bit like selective enforcement, or at least racial profiling? Aren't these activities legitimate cultural pursuits?

It's not a question of race, any sort of animal fighting operation is cruelty to animals, regardless of who runs it, and should be shut down as soon as the authorities find out about it.

In which ways do you find the use of animals in entertainment to be legitimate? Where do you draw the line? The Chinese have their cricket fights, Southeast Asians have their beetle fighting, and others do similar things with roosters and dogs.[/B] I don't think many of us would object to the loss of a cricket in a sports-betting atmosphere, but do you think the government should be involved in legislating things like this? If we start legislating roosters, are horses or race-dogs a step away?

Racing =/= fighting. See, in an animal race, the losing animal isn't killed or maimed. And yes, I do believe the government should be involved with making sure animal fighting is stopped.

And on a related note, the Atlanta Falcons have officially announced that they will change their theme song to Who Let The Dogs Out.

:D

But on a serious note, I think this is more about issues of animal cruelty than it is about gambling legality. After all, you have greyhound and horse racing where there's gambling on animals with no inherent animal cruelty in the sport. Mistreatment of animals by handlers and owners aside, of course. But cockfights and dogfights are simply bloodsports where there's a good chance of the losers getting killed and then discarded like trash.

So, many of us have probably heard about this whole flap involving Michael Vick (quarterback for the Falcons, at least for now), who apparently organized some dogfighting on his estate in Virginia.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-spvick0725,0,5823514.story?coll=ny-homepage-mezz



Now, I'm not going to defend Michael Vick in this case - regardless my feelings on dogfighting, the kind of unnecessary cruelty the police claim was used, if true, is unacceptable, I believe.

That said, dogfighting was pretty common when I was a kid, at least among African-American friends and acquaintances of mine, and a few to this day are still involved in some way or another, if less openly. It was an element of the culture, a point of pride in certain families who bred their dogs, trained them and saw to their nutrition and horomones to produce a superior animal.

Now, none of this really drew my attention until I saw this in the news this morning - regarding a large cockfighting bust:

http://www.local6.com/news/13741992/detail.html



-----------

So obviously, there's a bit of a pattern here - the police in recent months seem to be cracking down not on illegal betting, or cruelty to animals, but on types of animal betting almost exclusive to the Mexican- and African-American communities. So I ask the narrow question:

Does this sort of thing sound a bit like selective enforcement, or at least racial profiling? Aren't these activities legitimate cultural pursuits?

I'm not really sure, myself. Like I said, I've known more than a couple ordinary people who were otherwise moral in anyone's opinion, who have fought dogs or roosters. Somehow I doubt the feds are looking in on racehorse owners who might do similar things or neglect *their* animals. Maybe I'm imagining things, though. ;)possibly, since they don't mention the other 14 arrested in your second article. it could be that those two were pointed out because they were from Orlando and the others from Polk County...

so not racial profiling IMHO.

And then the broader question:

In which ways do you find the use of animals in entertainment to be legitimate? Where do you draw the line? The Chinese have their cricket fights, Southeast Asians have their beetle fighting, and others do similar things with roosters and dogs. I don't think many of us would object to the loss of a cricket in a sports-betting atmosphere, but do you think the government should be involved in legislating things like this? If we start legislating roosters, are horses or race-dogs a step away?

Poll is on the way. :)

Edit part II: Aha! Found the 'add poll.' Cool. :)

Here in Hawaii, Dog/Cock fights are illegal. the difference is that horse racing normally doesn't end with one animal dead. same with Dog Racing.

now animal neglect is illegal and people have been arrested for it (as well as cruelty) reguardless of the animal involed.

I've seen Rooster races that were legal since none of the animals were hurt or killed. so I think the legislating line is intentional harm/death to the animal that results from the activity.

Would you extend that prohibition to include crickets or beetles? Or is it mostly mammals? I'm not disagreeing exactly - it just seems to me that it's often not so much the spirit of the activity that's considered wrong, but rather the use of animals some people own as pets.

I'm not really a fan of bloodsports, just on principle.

That's also to differentiate from my view that there is utility in killing certain animals, so long as it is done in a humane fashion

Although, I'm reluctant to call the unjust killing of animals murder...murder is something one human being does to another, not a human to an animal, or vice versa.

I'd call it sick and twisted, certainly. And doubtlessly worthy of a good old fashioned psychiatric evaluation followed by some time in the State Pen, but certainly not murder.

I'd agree if you meant torturing or killing animals for "fun" in isolation and for no gain, as is supposedly a tip-off that a kid is a future serial killer, that kind of thing. But I doubt attending a cockfight to bet on a friend's animal (for example) is indicative of a psychological defect. :p It seems a bit hard to define 'unjust' or 'just' killing of animals, since we don't usually even consider that criterion in using animals for food or sports that *our* culture finds acceptable.

I'm not really a fan of bloodsports, just on principle.

That's also to differentiate from my view that there is utility in killing certain animals, so long as it is done in a humane fashion

Ah, okay then. :) I understand that point of view well, and respect it. I can see where you're coming from.

I'd agree if you meant torturing or killing animals for "fun" in isolation and for no gain, as is supposedly a tip-off that a kid is a future serial killer, that kind of thing. But I doubt attending a cockfight to bet on a friend's animal (for example) is indicative of a psychological defect. :p It seems a bit hard to define 'unjust' or 'just' killing of animals, since we don't usually even consider that criterion in using animals for food or sports that *our* culture finds acceptable.

I guess it's a case of "It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

That's probably true, though it isn't only the poor or recent immigrants - if you look at Michael Vick with dogfighting (the man's very wealthy) or the cockfighting operation I cited ("very professional" probably means the participants weren't amateurs or dirt poor). It seems there's a cultural element involved, but also a basic enjoyment common to many classes of people.

Yah, but Vick started out poor, and doubtless that's when he picked up his interest in dogfighting. And I gather that cockfighting is primarily of interest to the rural poor, even though the venue may be professionally organized. (Actually isn't it still legal in Louisiana? Which would also explain why it was so well set up).

I do agree though, that within nearly every social strata there are people who enjoy this sort of thing. Just the middle and upper classes tend to do it on horseback with a pack of hounds, thus making it legitimate.

It's not a question of race, any sort of animal fighting operation is cruelty to animals, regardless of who runs it, and should be shut down as soon as the authorities find out about it.

possibly, since they don't mention the other 14 arrested in your second article. it could be that those two were pointed out because they were from Orlando and the others from Polk County...

so not racial profiling IMHO.

The case I cited in the OP isn't evidence enough to conclude that racial profiling is at work, I agree. It just seems like I've been reading more and more accounts of states, particularly in the Southwest, dedicating increased amounts of police resources to combating the 'problem' of cockfighting, for example. There's not much question which groups are being targetted in that case, I don't think.

I guess it's a case of "It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it."

That's basically my feeling, too. It just gets a bit tougher when we have a dynamic immigrant population, who really do no harm but treat their animals differently in some cases. It's hard to judge everyone's culture with our lens sometimes, I think. We want to promote integration, but strongarming otherwise innocent people might be counterproductive.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1173277999-117294024890.b.jpg


Like there's any way that I'm NOT betting on this! :p

I'd agree if you meant torturing or killing animals for "fun" in isolation and for no gain, as is supposedly a tip-off that a kid is a future serial killer, that kind of thing. But I doubt attending a cockfight to bet on a friend's animal (for example) is indicative of a psychological defect. :p It seems a bit hard to define 'unjust' or 'just' killing of animals, since we don't usually even consider that criterion in using animals for food or sports that *our* culture finds acceptable.

Why don't we then skip the animals, and put two men into the ring, put razors on their knuckles, and have them fight until one is dead?

Why don't we then skip the animals, and put two men into the ring, put razors on their knuckles, and have them fight until one is dead?

Cool. Can I bet on it?

Why don't we then skip the animals, and put two men into the ring, put razors on their knuckles, and have them fight until one is dead?

Because very, very few people would do it willingly? :p

Really though, I didn't hear much complaint about the Running of the Bulls a week or so ago, or about the death of the racehorse Barbaro recently - that kind of thing is just sort of culturally normal to us. But then we see the crackdown on something like cockfighting, and it sort of begs the question: if we're happy to eat millions of chickens each year, why the fuss over trained fighting roosters? I dunno - it would be simpler to just yell "ban it" at every possibly offensive activity, but I like avoiding that judgment until I'm more sure about it.

Because very, very few people would do it willingly? :p

Really though, I didn't hear much complaint about the Running of the Bulls a week or so ago, or about the death of the racehorse Barbaro recently - that kind of thing is just sort of culturally normal to us. But then we see the crackdown on something like cockfighting, and it sort of begs the question: if we're happy to eat millions of chickens each year, why the fuss over trained fighting roosters? I dunno - it would be simpler to just yell "ban it" at every possibly offensive activity, but I like avoiding that judgment until I'm more sure about it.

But, generally, in racing, the horses are not meant to die.
The running of the bulls is in my opinion an exercise in human stupidity, and you would not catch me at a bullfight for love or money, even though it is traditionally culturally normal.

Note that I am NOT saying animals=humans, but what you say above is PRECISELY the reason it is wrong -- we are forcing creatures to savage each other in a way that is NOT natural to them, and in a way in which we ourselves would NOT willingly participate. We believe that we are not brutes for doing it because it's not another human we're treating this way.

I'm sure the Romans rationalized it when they threw their criminals to the lions in the same way... and that slave owners as they beat and raped their slaves rationalized that by saying, 'Oh, but it doesn't matter, they're only animals."

As much agony as it causes to the animals, what it does to the humans who participate in it is much more disgusting. Brutality is brutality, and for people to be involved in blood sports makes them brutal and undignified.

But, generally, in racing, the horses are not meant to die.
The running of the bulls is in my opinion an exercise in human stupidity, and you would not catch me at a bullfight for love or money, even though it is traditionally culturally normal.

Note that I am NOT saying animals=humans, but what you say above is PRECISELY the reason it is wrong -- we are forcing creatures to savage each other in a way that is NOT natural to them, and in a way in which we would NOT willingly participate.

As much agony as it causes to the animals, what it does to the humans who participate in it is much more disgusting.

My upbringing and environment tell me the same thing. Well, except about roosters - they're *naturally* vicious. :p It's more about the cultural drift and the immigrants that mean well but sometimes bring unpopular traditions to this country from outside. My point about the Running of the Bulls was that those animals are slaughtered for entertainment much like the rooster, but as a European tradition, it's usually accepted and even popular among tourists. I'm not sure what the best course is, but I wouldn't want us to be too heavy-handed in dealing with the immigrant community, given that some of the animal stuff is perfectly natural to them.

My upbringing and environment tell me the same thing. Well, except about roosters - they're *naturally* vicious.

Yes, but they generally don't shave themselves before a fight, nor slip into razor blades to better eviscerate their opponent.

Yes, but they generally don't shave themselves before a fight, nor slip into razor blades to better eviscerate their opponent.

They don't seem to have any concept of life or death, though, I don't think. They'll charge an oncoming car if it makes sense to them at the time. Kinda like geese, but possibly dumber, if that makes sense. Putting two roosters together in a confined space is going to = death, spurs or no spurs. I didn't mean to get on the topic of roosters in particular, though - it just seems like they're a good example of a situation where there's a definite cultural difference between us and them, and with in the country urban and rural.

It's a sad thing that Vick hasn't been convicted yet, but in most people's minds he's already on death row.

It's a sad thing that Vick hasn't been convicted yet, but in most people's minds he's already on death row.

It generally takes a little while to convict someone of a crime, I think. :p It's only been a few days, after all. ;) That said, *no one* should be abusing animals like he allegedly was - not for sport, not outside of sport, etc.

That's basically my feeling, too. It just gets a bit tougher when we have a dynamic immigrant population, who really do no harm but treat their animals differently in some cases. It's hard to judge everyone's culture with our lens sometimes, I think. We want to promote integration, but strongarming otherwise innocent people might be counterproductive.

"Treating their animals differently" and "drowning the losing dog" (as opposed to putting them down in a manner that doesn't involve brutality) are two very different things. They're not innocent if they're breaking the law. In Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, West Virginia and Wyoming, dogfighting is only a misdemeanor. Felony in the other 44 states.

Cockfighting (involving things like using chemicals to toughen the brids' skin...) is still legal in New Mexico and Louisiana.

ASPCA link (http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=kids_ri_dogcockfighting).

Because very, very few people would do it willingly? :p

Really though, I didn't hear much complaint about the Running of the Bulls a week or so ago, or about the death of the racehorse Barbaro recently - that kind of thing is just sort of culturally normal to us. But then we see the crackdown on something like cockfighting, and it sort of begs the question: if we're happy to eat millions of chickens each year, why the fuss over trained fighting roosters? I dunno - it would be simpler to just yell "ban it" at every possibly offensive activity, but I like avoiding that judgment until I'm more sure about it.

Few people would do it willingly, so it's okay to force an animal to do it?

The Running of the Bulls is just as bad, but with one key leveling component. Gorings. The animals there get a chance to fight back agains their human paraders. So if Mike Vick wants to hop in the pit with a dog or two to show off his manhood, then I'll be happy to allow him to do so.

The death of Barbaro was the result of an accident. Accidents happen in races all the time to humans, and some are even fatal (Dale Earnhardt). Nobody was tethering the horse to a stake and abusing the animal to prime it for those races like dogs are abused to get them "in the mood".

Consumption of animals for protein is a necessity -- it's food. Modern animal processing, and I've seen it, is mechanical and abusive in the name of speed, efficiency and profit. I buy free range whenever I can and have stopped eating at fast food joints (except when unavoidable) since reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser back in 2001. It's an imperfect world with regard to this issue, but the objectionable part to me is that we need to eat -- we don't need to put animals into intentionally abusive and cruel situations for entertainment. The line between the reports I've read about how Vick's animals were treated and the abuse of animals that is linked to abuse of people later on is gossamer thin. It isn't about the offensiveness of dogfighting, it's about the cruelty. Playing the libertarian card doesn't fly here.

As for the race question, I don't care if Vick is orange with blue polka-dots. Abuse is abuse, and a felony is a felony.

I agree that dog fighting is wrong, but I just dislike how fast people decide that he's gulity, I mean it's all allegations.

That's true. He should have his day. The NFL seems to want to decide before that day comes, which doesn't quite seem right, but they're another story.

It generally takes a little while to convict someone of a crime, I think. :p It's only been a few days, after all. ;) That said, *no one* should be abusing animals like he allegedly was - not for sport, not outside of sport, etc.

I agree that dog fighting is wrong, but I just dislike how fast people decide that he's gulity, I mean it's all allegations.

Can we drown, hang, or shoot Vick for not leading the Falcons to the playoffs?

That's true. He should have his day. The NFL seems to want to decide before that day comes, which doesn't quite seem right, but they're another story.

Yeah, all the sports leagues are crazy about their images. But if Vick does turn out to be innocent, I want a huge apology(and from those ESPN guys too), although of course the apology will probably never happen.

"Treating their animals differently" and "drowning the losing dog" (as opposed to putting them down in a manner that doesn't involve brutality) are two very different things. They're not innocent if they're breaking the law. In Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, West Virginia and Wyoming, dogfighting is only a misdemeanor. Felony in the other 44 states.

Cockfighting (involving things like using chemicals to toughen the brids' skin...) is still legal in New Mexico and Louisiana..

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't defending Michael Vick, at all. Drowning and hanging, and whatever else they say he did, is pretty disgusting. Dogfighting is a reality all around the L.A. area, and back East where I'm from as well. The kind of popularity it enjoys deserves to be studied in some way, I think. I'm not an expert at those things, but the question is interesting to me, since it goes on in my own town all the time.

Few people would do it willingly, so it's okay to force an animal to do it?

The Running of the Bulls is just as bad, but with one key leveling component. Gorings. The animals there get a chance to fight back agains their human paraders. So if Mike Vick wants to hop in the pit with a dog or two to show off his manhood, then I'll be happy to allow him to do so.

The death of Barbaro was the result of an accident. Accidents happen in races all the time to humans, and some are even fatal (Dale Earnhardt). Nobody was tethering the horse to a stake and abusing the animal to prime it for those races like dogs are abused to get them "in the mood".

Consumption of animals for protein is a necessity -- it's food. Modern animal processing, and I've seen it, is mechanical and abusive in the name of speed, efficiency and profit. I buy free range whenever I can and have stopped eating at fast food joints (except when unavoidable) since reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser back in 2001. It's an imperfect world with regard to this issue, but the objectionable part to me is that we need to eat -- we don't need to put animals into intentionally abusive and cruel situations for entertainment. The line between the reports I've read about how Vick's animals were treated and the abuse of animals that is linked to abuse of people later on is gossamer thin. It isn't about the offensiveness of dogfighting, it's about the cruelty. Playing the libertarian card doesn't fly here.

As for the race question, I don't care if Vick is orange with blue polka-dots. Abuse is abuse, and a felony is a felony.

The death of the animal is always the conclusion of the running of the bulls, that's all I meant by it. It's entertainment, and the animal dies. Horses are whipped, and in the past given electric shock (it's illegal now, though, but it's still out there). The way I see it, there's shades of gray, which vary by culture. My outlook isn't libertarian as much as favoring simple deliberation in crafting social policy. If we *really* outlawed this stuff, and really took it seriously, we'd be raiding a *lot* of houses, I would expect. :p I think we need clear policy that doesn't lean heavily on recent immigrants who might be unaware.

Can we drown, hang, or shoot Vick for not leading the Falcons to the playoffs?

:(

Yeah, all the sports leagues are crazy about their images. But if Vick does turn out to be innocent, I want a huge apology(and from those ESPN guys too), although of course the apology will probably never happen.

You aren't still holding your breath for the Duke lacrosse apology, are you?

*snip*
The death of the animal is always the conclusion of the running of the bulls, that's all I meant by it. It's entertainment, and the animal dies. Horses are whipped, and in the past given electric shock (it's illegal now, though, but it's still out there). The way I see it, there's shades of gray, which vary by culture. My outlook isn't libertarian as much as favoring simple deliberation in crafting social policy. If we *really* outlawed this stuff, and really took it seriously, we'd be raiding a *lot* of houses, I would expect. :p I think we need clear policy that doesn't lean heavily on recent immigrants who might be unaware.

On that, we agree. While "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a popular and largely legitimate axiom, it should certainly be a mitigating factor in significant reduction of penalties for first offenses where the laws are obscure (that is, don't involve obvious things like killing, rape, theft, etc.) or involve things that might be legal or even encouraged in other cultures.

No. This has been another installment of simple answers to easy questions.

To elaborate, dogfighting, cock fighting, and the like are all animal cruelty, being cruel to an animal for the sake of one's pleasure.

Now, horse racing, dog racing, and so on...those aren't anywhere near as cruel, though certain...practices...certainly are, like the killing of any horse injured. (I've never understood that. Why kill the damn horse when it makes more sense to GIVE IT A CHANCE TO HEAL SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON A NEW HORSE?!

And that goes for farm animals and pets, too. Ridiculous.)

As long as they aren't being hurt. Not just not intentionally hurt.. but also not running them to death (race horses .. dogs etc) .. or working them to death or injury.

I hope I never find myself around such a thing as this. I would seriously snap, see red and wind up in prison over an animal.

The only time I ever raised a hand to my dad was when he was beating my dog.. and I didn't even realize what I had done until he close hand smacked and back handed me. But I wasn't sorry .. he was in the wrong. He didn't hurt another one of my animals .. at least not when I was around.

There's no hard, fast rule. Vick belongs in prison, but at the same time I see no problem with horse racing... assuming, of course, they make sure that they don't mistreat the horses. Or Jockeys.

I would be quite happy to bet on Mr Vick losing if I put him in a pit with a couple of dogs...

Does this sort of thing sound a bit like selective enforcement, or at least racial profiling? Aren't these activities legitimate cultural pursuits?

In which ways do you find the use of animals in entertainment to be legitimate? Where do you draw the line? The Chinese have their cricket fights, Southeast Asians have their beetle fighting, and others do similar things with roosters and dogs.

1) No. If someone immigrates to our country from a culture where cannibalism or duels to the death are legal, that doesn't mean they can shoot people over matters of honor and then eat them. Our laws are there for a reason; if your culture is incompatible with them, then perhaps you should adopt a culture that doesn't consider having animals maul each other entertainment.

And racism? Ridiculous. You could say cocaine use has been a part of high-class 'white' culture going back to the 80s, but it's still illegal.

2) I find animals in entertainment acceptable only if the animals are well taken care of, unharmed by the act itself or the conditioning required to participate in that act, and that these factors are monitored and enforced by a regulating body.

I think we need clear policy that doesn't lean heavily on recent immigrants who might be unaware.

I think immigrants should make themselves aware of the laws of a country before they enter it.

Since vegetables are a far more efficient food source than meat, I would consider consuming animals no more than killing them for the sake of one's pleasure, unless you have some medical condition that forces you to have a meat diet.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a vegetarian.

Since vegetables are a far more efficient food source than meat, I would consider consuming animals no more than killing them for the sake of one's pleasure, unless you have some medical condition that forces you to have a meat diet.

I have that medical condition; it's called "taste buds."

I kid. I was actually a vegetarian for a while, but am not anymore.

*snip*

And racism? Ridiculous. You could say cocaine use has been a part of high-class 'white' culture going back to the 80s, but it's still illegal.
\

You could, but then you'd have to admit that the arrest and prosecutions for crack (derivative of cocaine and cheaper to "market" to low-income people, who are disproportionately minorities) are way out of line with arrests and prosecutions for cocaine. That's another thread, though.

Vick is indeed innocent until proven guilty. But if a grand jury found enough evidence to continue with a trial on something as cut-and-dried as this appears to be, it doesn't look good.

Since vegetables are a far more efficient food source than meat, I would consider consuming animals no more than killing them for the sake of one's pleasure, unless you have some medical condition that forces you to have a meat diet.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a vegetarian.

Nope. Meat is the best "delivery system" for protein there (currently) is. I love veggies, and for the sake of attempting to wean myself off of red meat, I've been using soy/gardenburger for recipes that call for ground beef. It works nicely, but there's no sub for animal protein. Especially yummy chicken and fish.

Let's just start with "gambling is a really stupid activity, unless you're the house".

The house always wins in the long run.

If animals are harmed by the "game", then I'm against it. Otherwise, if you like seeing which rat will make it through the maze first, and are willing to bet money on it, by all means.

To elaborate, dogfighting, cock fighting, and the like are all animal cruelty, being cruel to an animal for the sake of one's pleasure.

Now, horse racing, dog racing, and so on...those aren't anywhere near as cruel, though certain...practices...certainly are, like the killing of any horse injured. (I've never understood that. Why kill the damn horse when it makes more sense to GIVE IT A CHANCE TO HEAL SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON A NEW HORSE?!

And that goes for farm animals and pets, too. Ridiculous.)

Killing a horse with a severe injury is so that the animal doesn't suffer, and is considered humane. In Barbaro's case, his injury was extreme, and they still tried to save him (for stud purposes). Unfortunately, a single broken leg in a horse can lead to complications as the other legs attempt to bear the weight of the horse's body (according to Wiki). That's what happened to Barbaro, and the reason he was put down.

I'm sure the situation is similar with cows that break their leg(s).

Abusing animals for entertainment is wrong.. obviously anyone with any morality what so ever can't agree with dogfighting or cock-fighting.


Horse racing also.. that's immoral. They're often injured and some annoying little gimp slapping you with whip forcing you to race can't be much fun. I pretty much don't agree with using animals for human gain at all tbh.

there have been and still are cockfights and dogfights in my area, some of the people on my ghetto block even raise pits for fighting which is why my kids aren't allowed to play in the yard, one day one of those dogs is going to get loose and kill someone, I know it.

the police here are pretty steady at busts when they have enough evidence to go through with it.

the new thing (so I hear) is bum fighting where they pay the indigent to box for a while. :(

the new thing (so I hear) is bum fighting where they pay the indigent to box for a while. :(

I could kill the guys that got that started, I honestly could.

On topic: Once you can prove inhumane treatment of the animals in question, it's done. Dog fighting/Cock fighting-out completely. Horse racing, etc, if you can prove the horses aren't being treated humanely, we've got an issue.

I find the penalties for the deliberate abuse of animals are disgustingly light.
And as a child I was shocked that cockfighting was legal in Oklahoma (or anywhere) That was over twenty years ago, so I found it truly mindboggling that it was only outlawed a couple of years ago.

I find the penalties for the deliberate abuse of animals are disgustingly light.
And as a child I was shocked that cockfighting was legal in Oklahoma (or anywhere) That was over twenty years ago, so I found it truly mindboggling that it was only outlawed a couple of years ago.
Yeah the penalties are a joke.. it just shows even in countries that have animal rights, still how little cruelty to animals is regarded compared to the same thing happening to a human.


Humans and animals both feel pain.

I don't really mind if they aren't harmed or treated unfairly. Like horseracing is generally acceptable.