Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[dannno]

Do animals have the right to defend themselves against attack from humans? Or would the state sentence an animal to death for attacking a human?

 

[guitarlifter]

This is ridiculous. No person here who is arguing against cockfighting or for the idea that animals have some rights is giving any philosophical explanation whatsoever that could justify their position without being fallacious.

 

[Agorism]

This is ridiculous. No person here who is arguing against cockfighting or for the idea that animals have some rights is giving any philosophical explanation whatsoever that could justify their position without being fallacious.

No it's not. Animals do have limited rights depending on how large and intelligent they are.

For instance a mosquito or cockroach basically gets no rights at all. A rat would get very little rights although we don't want them to experience unnecessary pain. Larger animals like a cat or dog get more, and we don't want people harming them for pleasure etc. Then there is something like a chimpanzee that would be someone like George Bush we'd have to worry about.

 

[guitarlifter]

No it's not. Animals do have limited rights depending on how large and intelligent they are.

For instance a mosquito or cockroach basically gets no rights at all. A rat would get very little rights although we don't want them to experience unnecessary pain. Larger animals like a cat or dog get more, and we don't want people harming them for pleasure etc. Then there is something like a chimpanzee that would be someone like George Bush we'd have to worry about.

Size? How does size have to do with rights? Does a larger man get more rights than a smaller man? Does an elephant get more rights than a man? You have to be consistent here. We're not talking about giving rights based on simply the fact that we're homosapiens. And intelligence is a very broad term that needs to be defined. Does a man with an IQ of 160 get more rights than a man with an IQ of 90? What do you mean? What if you have an extremely intelligent mouse, but a not-so-smart blue whale? Who has more rights? Does a great dane get more rights than a chihuahua? No animal can reason by any means, which is the only kind of intelligence that can qualify an animal for rights. And the size argument is just ridiculous and could qualify an elephant for more rights than a human.

The only way an animal could have rights is if it could reason like a human can.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Do animals have the right to defend themselves against attack from humans? Or would the state sentence an animal to death for attacking a human?

The latter I think. A dog that mauls a kid is going to be 'put down.'

People do not have a right to torture or be unnecessarily cruel to animals; and doing that should be illegal. But cockfighting doesn't really fall under that.

 

[Agorism]

Size? How does size have to do with rights? Does a larger man get more rights than a smaller man? Does an elephant get more rights than a man? You have to be consistent here. We're not talking about giving rights based on simply the fact that we're homosapiens. We have to be consistent here. And intelligence is a very broad term that needs to be defined. Does a man with an IQ of 160 get more rights than a man with an IQ of 90? What do you mean? What if you have an extremely intelligent mouse, but a not-so-smart blue whale? Who has more rights? Does a great dane get more rights than a chihuahua? No animal can reason by any means, which is the only kind of intelligence that can qualify an animal for rights. And the size argument is just ridiculous and could qualify an elephant for more rights than a human.

You're just sorting out the details. Humans are humans so they all get the same rights. This is all common sense though so there is really no point in pointing such things out to you.

The argument that rights are a grey scale is nothing new with regard to animals. It's fairly obvious that a dog gets more rights than mosquito.

 

[cindy25]

I don't think the cock fight operators would want legality. it would be culturally unacceptable to be seen there. they would have to comply to the same local regulations as movie theaters, or adult entertainment places. children would not be allowed.

 

[Captain America]

my opinion is no locally. nationally it shouldn't matter.

 

[guitarlifter]

You're just sorting out the details. Humans are humans so they all get the same rights. This is all common sense though so there is really no point in pointing such things out to you.

The argument that rights are a grey scale is nothing new with regard to animals. It's fairly obvious that a dog gets more rights than mosquito.

I could just as easily say that mosquitoes are mosquitoes, so they get all the same rights, and my argument would be just as valid as yours, which is of no validity at all. And, although the argument that rights are a grey scale in regard to animals being nothing new is true, the age of the argument does not make it correct. To say that something is common sense is also fallacious. You can't say that something is right just because it is. You have still yet to provide an argument that is without fallacy.

 

[low preference guy]

The latter I think. A dog that mauls a kid is going to be 'put down.'

People do not have a right to torture or be unnecessarily cruel to animals; and doing that should be illegal. But cockfighting doesn't really fall under that.

what? so the government should protect people's life, liberty, and property... and also animals from pain! what the heck? are you serious? you just arbitrarily inserted an emotional pet issue to a well reasoned political philosophy.

no. animals don't have rights. someone who decides to torture their animals might have mental issues, so don't talk or don't trade with them if you don't want to, but the government should stay out.

 

[Kregisen]

There's no using logic to back up banning animal torture. Even still, locally, I would probably still want it banned, even though it doesn't fit in with the philosophy of private ownership and rights.

If you say animals have rights, you go down a slippery slope and you'll end up with tons of double standards, so that's out of the question. You also get into what rights are and where they come from, which has been discussed on these forums thousands of times.

Just for the hell of stimulating thought: does anyone here think animals don't have the right to life, but do have the right not to be tortured?

 

[agitator]

Does the lion regard the natural rights of the gazelle?

Does the shark regard the natural rights of the bluefish?

They outta!! We need to provide government law school for them!

 

[guitarlifter]

They outta!! We need to provide government law school for them!

We could provide political favoritism for the gazelles, but then the Lions would only become terrorist lions who would kill Americans in the name of Mufasa. They would swim across the Atlantic Ocean just to kill us.

 

[Imperial]

Animals have no rights. It is unfair and inconsistent to give different rights to one animal over another such as a dog over a chicken because dogs are "pets," and chickens are "food." I have had pet chickens before, and they lived in my very own room when I was a kid. I would drag them along in a cart behind me in the back yard, and the chickens would follow me like I was their parent. In oriental countries, cats and dogs are regularly eaten as well. It is silly to give one animal species rights over another. What, is one more rational than the other? Is it because one is cuter or more cuddly/fuzzy than the other? Cats and dogs get rights and people go nuts if others use them as fish bait, but worms and crickets can be used as fish bait? Is it because of size? Do whales have more rights than mice? What about the rights of ants? Don't they get any rights? Kids should be locked up and have the key thrown out because of the millions of ants that they kill daily. Wait, if certain animals have rights, isn't it our responsibility to intervene in the wild and punish animals for killing other animals? That must be it, right? This is all wrong. Any role that an animal takes in peoples' lives does not change the rights of an animal. It doesn't matter how big, cute or common an animal is. Just because you like a certain animal, doesn't mean that it magically gains rights. To do this is to believe in a neoconservative philosophy where, if they don't like something, they make it illegal. Animals are not rational beings, and they cannot grasp the concepts necessary to be rational, thus disqualifying all animals for rights. People try to give animals rights, but they only do this out of emotion and not out of any logical philosophy. Therefore, any kind of animal fight should be legal so long as the owners have consented to the fight. Humans are fully rational beings, thus qualifying for rights. This is why we have rights. It isn't because we are cute, fuzzy or larger than other animals. It's because of rationality.

As for the torturing of animals, this has to be legal as well in order for a consistent philosophy to take hold. Again, animals have no rights, so we owe them nothing in terms of rights. That doesn't mean that a person's life couldn't be drastically affected by torturing animals. In a free society, the torturer's community could deny any interaction with this person, which includes products, services or even entrance into facilities. Hell, private road and park owners could deny that person the convenience of driving on their roads or entering their parks. Flyers could be put up everywhere, letting people know about this animal abuser as long as the story is absolutely true. It would be completely legal to do all of these things in reaction to the torturing of animals, and this person would likely be quite bothered by it, possibly to the point of stopping because it's just not worth it.

Think rationally, and use consistency to create a philosophy. Don't let emotion come into play.

It is also irrational to always believe in reason, due to our lack of omniscience. The great paradigm shifts in history have been primarily led by two groups- those who are young and those who are working outside of their field of expertise. We get so wrapped up in the boundaries we place upon the world that we forget what may be beyond that. This is not to say reason is not useful; however, an excessive faith in reason can be irrational.

How can you say a human is fully rational but a chimpanzee is not? Chimpanzees have similar social structures as humans, with competing social groups much like we do. Or take dolphins, which are self-aware enough to have intercourse for pleasure. Where is the imaginary line we have drawn to decide what is reasonable?

 

[low preference guy]

Just for the hell of stimulating thought: does anyone here think animals don't have the right to life, but do have the right not to be tortured?

it's not really stimulating, because an animal has as many rights and deserves as much legal protection as a rock.

 

[Agorism]

I could just as easily say that mosquitoes are mosquitoes, so they get all the same rights, and my argument would be just as valid as yours, which is of no validity at all. And, although the argument that rights are a grey scale in regard to animals being nothing new is true, the age of the argument does not make it correct. To say that something is common sense is also fallacious. You can't say that something is right just because it is. You have still yet to provide an argument that is without fallacy.

I think you're one of those people who like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[guitarlifter]

I think you're one of those people who like to argue for the sake of arguing.

And you're one of those people who refuse to give a compelling argument.

 

[Agorism]

And you're one of those people who refuse to give a compelling argument.

That's because when people don't make sense, I prefer to nod my head and quit talking to them.

 

[guitarlifter]

It is also irrational to always believe in reason, due to our lack of omniscience. The great paradigm shifts in history have been primarily led by two groups- those who are young and those who are working outside of their field of expertise. We get so wrapped up in the boundaries we place upon the world that we forget what may be beyond that. This is not to say reason is not useful; however, an excessive faith in reason can be irrational.

How can you say a human is fully rational but a chimpanzee is not? Chimpanzees have similar social structures as humans, with competing social groups much like we do. Or take dolphins, which are self-aware enough to have intercourse for pleasure. Where is the imaginary line we have drawn to decide what is reasonable?

One could say that, due to a lack of omniscience, it is impossible to conclude anything, but then we're getting into Straussian concepts. My lack of omniscience makes me glad that I believe in God. He is an omniscient being who has laid out the groundwork for the perfect philosophy because of his omniscience, and all one has to do in order to live a good life is to deontologically follow His word.

As for animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins, one can externally state that an animal is acting rationally, but one has to assume that an animal can also make mistakes and not just assume that an animal, with whatever action they are performing, is considered rational.

 

[guitarlifter]

That's because when people don't make sense, I prefer to nod my head and quit talking to them.

I have made complete sense with well-thought out idea that are clearly explained. You give the "it is right just because it is" argument, which won't fly here. And perhaps it doesn't make sense because you refuse to decentralize and actually analyze the argument.