UnderGround Forums
 

What if ... >> honest opinion on dogfighting?


7/25/07 9:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jul-07
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 5968
BigBopper, your answer is found by noting who participates in dogfighting.
7/25/07 6:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2141
"Lol, you have the debate skills of an 8 year old." The extent of Canuck34's self-ownage is remarkable. Wow. This should be fun. "Sorry, we are OMNIVORES. Look it up." How is that relevant? No one has to eat meat. It's like saying that humans have the capacity to lie, therefore lying is morally acceptable. "Also, if we slaughtered pigs by making them fight for our entertainment first then you might have a point." We do FAR WORSE to pigs than making them fight for us. Read page eight of this thread. Most fighting dogs live better lives, with less cruelty overall, than most factory-farmed livestock.
7/25/07 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2142
"BigBopper, your answer is found by noting who participates in dogfighting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy
7/25/07 8:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DJLastCall
26 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jul-07
Member Since: 07/21/2003
Posts: 2438
As long as they are in the same weight class, are wearing groin protectors and a mouthpiece...any fights are okay.
7/26/07 3:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jul-07
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 5973
B-Bop, not even a remotely analogous concept even if I am 100% wrong.
7/26/07 2:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2151
"B-Bop, not even a remotely analogous concept even if I am 100% wrong." Apparently there's some sort of disconnect here... could you please explain your argument?
7/26/07 8:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jul-07 08:33 PM
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 5974
People are deemed guilty by association. An activity is not unfairly tainted by being associated with those who organize and patronize it. But, maybe I misunderstood you. What I'm really interested in is whether there is still anyone stupid enough to think dogfighting is centered in "redneck" areas(that means a working area by the way)as opposed to being an inner city spectator and gambling event.
7/26/07 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
supersonic
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jul-07
Member Since: 11/27/2002
Posts: 8993

"Also, if we slaughtered pigs by making them fight for our entertainment first then you might have a point. We do not, so you do not."


They may not fight, but many are treated like shit and im sure would welcome a fighting life.  Fighting isnt the be all end all of mistreatment

 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_S4dHhid3fM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>
7/27/07 6:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2158
"People are deemed guilty by association. An activity is not unfairly tainted by being associated with those who organize and patronize it." Ummm... no. People are NOT deemed guilty by association. That's why it's a logical fallacy. Here's the structure of your argument: 1. Dogfighting is done mostly by people in street gangs (or whatever group you have in mind). 2. Street gangs are immoral. 3. Therefore dogfighting is immoral. This is pure guilt by association; there's no claim about the INHERENT morality of dogfighting. It's exactly the same structure as the following argument: 1. Wearing baggy pants is done mostly by people in street gangs. 2. Street gangs are immoral. 3. Therefore wearing baggy pants is immoral. Of course, that conclusion is logically flawed... for exactly the same reason that your argument about dogfighting is logically flawed. "Guilt by association" simply isn't a valid basis for an argument. It's even in the Bible, if you care about that: (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
7/27/07 7:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-07 07:11 PM
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2159
^^^ Yup. Thanks to supersonic for bringing some reality to all of the meat-eating hypocrites on this thread.
7/27/07 7:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Winston Wolf
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-07 07:12 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 21313
that pigs video was dsiturbing I feel bad for the pigs
7/27/07 7:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2160
"What I'm really interested in is whether there is still anyone stupid enough to think dogfighting is centered in "redneck" areas(that means a working area by the way)as opposed to being an inner city spectator and gambling event." StretchPlum, you're mistaken about this, too. Your image of dogfighting is based entirely on the US, whereas different cultures around the world have different views of dogs. Consider, for example, that some Koreans eat dog meat regularly and treat them as livestock animals. Or look into dogfighting among "rednecks" in Russia: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/09/europe/web.0209dogs.php PS. On the other hand, I do agree with much of what you've written on the "racism" thread.
7/28/07 1:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-07 02:51 AM
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 5999
BigBopper, I was just speaking about the US in terms of the dogfighting devotees. As far as the rest, I think you're setting up arguments I'm not using, and then debunking them. I did not mean that people are properly deemed guilty by association, but rather that the concept has no relevance to an activity as opposed to a person. Guilt by association is bad, but has nothing to do with the discussion. I was thinking of something more along the lines of: Bad people murder. Murder is the byproduct of the type of person,like dogfighting is the byproduct of lowlifes. Dogfighting is not simply an incidental accoutrement,like baggy pants to a gang member,it reveals the person. Burglars break into houses. They're not giving breaking into houses an unfairly bad name by association. Incidentally, guilt by association is firmly entrenched in the law. For example, one's parole can be revoked simply by associating with known felons.
7/28/07 9:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2164
"BigBopper, I was just speaking about the US in terms of the dogfighting devotees." I know. That's why I said, "Your image of dogfighting is based entirely on the US." Why do you think "guilt by association" should apply only to the US? Are you arguing that dogfighting is immoral in the US but moral in Russia? "As far as the rest, I think you're setting up arguments I'm not using, and then debunking them." Until this post, you've barely described what your argument is, so I've been forced to do some guessing. Don't blame me for not asking, because I did; blame yourself for being unclear. "I was thinking of something more along the lines of: Bad people murder. Murder is the byproduct of the type of person,like dogfighting is the byproduct of lowlifes. Dogfighting is not simply an incidental accoutrement,like baggy pants to a gang member,it reveals the person." Once again, you're not making sense. First, the assumption behind your example is wrong. Lots of people commit murder who aren't "lowlifes"; have you ever heard of a "crime of passion"? Second, it's true that dogfighting in the US is dominated by criminals, but that's because dogfighting is illegal, and therefore risky. If it were legal, its audience would expand to different demographics. If MMA had been banned for much longer than it was, it would have attracted a criminal element as well -- consider the "felony fights" phenomenon -- and it would have the same "guilt by association" stigma as dogfighting. Third, "dogfighting is the byproduct of lowlife" is an assertion, not an explanation. You need to explain WHY this is true -- which, by the way, it's not. "Burglars break into houses. They're not giving breaking into houses an unfairly bad name by association." There are good reasons why breaking into houses is immoral IN ITSELF, not by its "association" with "lowlifes." So this example doesn't help your argument. "Incidentally, guilt by association is firmly entrenched in the law. For example, one's parole can be revoked simply by associating with known felons." Parole conditions have a different legal status than the normal criminal code, because you're still serving out your sentence. This is an exception, not the rule.
7/29/07 2:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 6016
Your logic: 1.I say dogfighting is not a redneck activity. 2.You say they do it in Russia (rednecks went there to work in the fields?). I pass on the non sequitur. 3.I say I was talking about the US. 4.You speculate that I must think dogfighting is immoral in the US but okay in Russia. The reason you were confused is because I am pointing out reality, not trying to set up silly tautological games. I'm sure many normally adjusted,solid citizens are waiting for the floodgates to open on dogfighting. It is an event of and for stupid, cruel people----standard traits for most criminals. Take a good shot, I'm out.
7/29/07 8:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2167
StretchPlum, I guess you wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, because this is the most nonsensical post you've made so far. This entire discussion started when you wrote, "BigBopper, your answer is found by noting who participates in dogfighting." Then, to explain yourself, you said, "People are deemed guilty by association. An activity is not unfairly tainted by being associated with those who organize and patronize it." What we've been disagreeing about since then is the validity of "guilt by association." So why your obsession with rednecks? I have no idea. My only point is that the Russian equivalent of US rednecks -- poor, rural, but generally law-abiding people -- engage in dogfighting. This means that dogfighting isn't subject to "guilt by association" in Russia. So why should it be seen as inherently immoral in the US? If you don't see the connection, then you're an idiot. Seriously. "I'm sure many normally adjusted,solid citizens are waiting for the floodgates to open on dogfighting. It is an event of and for stupid, cruel people----standard traits for most criminals." Wow. Just wow. Do you not realize how contradictory these two sentences are? You just bent over and grabbed your ankles. Anyway, I don't expect a response, because you said you're "out." Congratulations, that's the most intelligent thing you've said by far.
7/29/07 8:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
smileythai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 4648
This thread is *still* going? LOL
7/29/07 9:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BzGrappla
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07
Member Since: 02/27/2004
Posts: 22371
yes dogfighting is illegal, but trained pits, i could see why someone would want to see them go at it. just like mma. but yes they dont fight to the death. In gladiator they did though
7/29/07 10:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shootfightermike
700 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 47939
mike vicks boys are gonna testify against him!
7/29/07 10:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-07 10:42 PM
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 6032
BigBopper, you are a young kid. As I explained a number of posts ago,"People are guilty by association" obviously meant that only people can be considered to have been deemed guilty by association, but the concept is not meant to apply to an activity. I was not crediting the unfair practice of guilt by association, as you know. Thus, we have NOT been arguing about the validity of guilt by association. Because you have gone on as if we were, you have made a fool of yourself. Your post in general shows that you have a certain conceptual disconnect. Whoever does this in Russia is cruel and stupid, criminal or not. Get it? You don't have to be a criminal to be cruel and stupid. Are you wasted? You became personally insulting because: a. You are a coward and did not expect a response and b. You couldn't think of anything new to say. You did not realize that the "floodgates" sentence was sarcastic???? Have you ever been out?
7/30/07 12:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
shootfightermike
700 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 47974
go stretchplum!
7/30/07 12:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2168
"BigBopper, you are a young kid." Wrong as usual. But not a surprising statement, since you have a habit of making false claims about things you know nothing about. "As I explained a number of posts ago,"People are guilty by association" obviously meant that only people can be considered to have been deemed guilty by association, but the concept is not meant to apply to an activity. I was not crediting the unfair practice of guilt by association, as you know. Thus, we have NOT been arguing about the validity of guilt by association." Ah, now I see what you were saying. You're right, I misinterpreted that. Partly your unclear phrasing, partly my misreading. Mea culpa. But it doesn't change anything: it was a distraction, not the main issue. Your argument still is, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN, based on the logic of guilt by association. Here's what you wrote: "Bad people murder. Murder is the byproduct of the type of person,like dogfighting is the byproduct of lowlifes. Dogfighting is not simply an incidental accoutrement,like baggy pants to a gang member,it reveals the person." How, exactly, does dogfighting "reveal the person"? You're pretending that you've got some new argument, but you don't. There are only two answers to my question: 1. guilt by association, and 2. cruelty. The first is invalid, and the second is hypocritical for meat eaters. "Whoever does this in Russia is cruel and stupid, criminal or not. Get it?" Wow, another dumb statement. Got proof? Let me drop some knowledge on you. Until the 1930s, dogfighting was culturally acceptable in the United States. The United Kennel Club sanctioned an official set of rules for it. Was the UKC "cruel and stupid"? Were all the upper-class, well-educated fans of dogfighting "cruel and stupid"? Here's a hint: no. "You became personally insulting because: a. You are a coward and did not expect a response and b. You couldn't think of anything new to say." No, I became personally insulting because it became clear that I was dealing with an idiot. "You did not realize that the "floodgates" sentence was sarcastic????" LOL, I didn't realize you had the mental capacity for sarcasm. Then again, if you had a substantive counterpoint to my argument, you wouldn't have had to resort to sarcasm.
7/30/07 1:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigBopper
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-07
Member Since: 05/27/2006
Posts: 2169
"i just dont know why some people like to watch animals fight to the death?" shootfightermike, why do people watch mma? almost all of the same reasons apply to dogfighting.
7/30/07 1:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-07 01:39 AM
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 6046
B-Bop, you gotta drop the guilt by association,man. It's starting to take over your whole life. Anyway, I think it's cruel to use animals who trust and love humans as gambling tools. (Proceed with carnivore argument) The fact that it was cool in the 30's, or in postcommunism Russia, doesn't sway me. I think it's inherently monstrous. Actually, the UKC was FORMED to register and regulate fighting dogs, and sanctioned it into the 40's. No hard feelings. I retract the personal stuff said in the heat of battle.
7/30/07 1:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
StretchPlum
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jul-07
Member Since: 11/20/2005
Posts: 6049
Many serial killers and the Dahmer types tortured animals as children---a gateway drug as it were.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.