Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[denison]

Torture of any form is immoral. Whether or not it should be legal depends on if the State should exist or not.

The state shouldn't exist at all, so you have your answer.

 

[Dr.3D]

Yes, as long as it is voluntary and both men consent, it should be legal.

Yeah, I'm sure the cops are gunna arrest a couple of kids playing sword fight.

 

[charrob]

I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life.

No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly. For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering. Factory farms need to become a thing of the past. Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.

A society that looks the other way because of some idealistic vision of what government "should" be, is just as sick, perverted, depraved, and pathetic as those who participate in the activity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBgCh3Of90&feature=player_embedded

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-issues/gaminggambling/loopholes-allow-cockfighting-to-thrive/

 

[MRoCkEd]

What if someone goes further than you and says animals have a right to life and liberty, and therefore it should be illegal to keep them in cages or kill them for food?

Where does an animal's "right not to suffer" come from?

It seems like arbitrary assignation of (made-up) rights based on emotional reactions.

 

[pcosmar]

I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life.

No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly. For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering. Factory farms need to become a thing of the past. Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.

A society that looks the other way because of some idealistic vision of what government "should" be, is just as sick, perverted, depraved, and pathetic as those who participate in the activity.

What about farmers observing a fight and then choosing which one breeds and which one is stew?

(Chickens fight with or without human intervention)

 

[Heimdallr]

Animals don't have rights, but they DO deserve to be protected from cruelty. I voted NO.

EDIT: Well, I dunno about the "no rights" thing; I suppose it could be said that your rights extend as far as your intelligence, or ability to suffer, so perhaps animals do have some rights. The thing is, they lack the capacity to put real value in their life, so they don't really have a right to life, but they do understand physical pain. They don't have property, so that's off the table, and since, again, they don't really put value in their lives, they don't really have a right to liberty.

Ehh, either way, there should be at least some protection against needless cruelty imposed by humans.

 

[charrob]

"Where does an animal's "right not to suffer" come from?"

Where does a human's "right not to suffer" come from? I would say common sense. Decency. Respect for all of life. As far as food, it should be illegal for animals to suffer (as in factory farms) before they are put down. Personally, for people who need to eat meat, there should be ongoing stem cell research to make chicken legs, etc., so someday (hopefully) animals will no longer have to die for this.

 

[dannno]

I personally think any human participating in cockfighting or any other animal cruelty whether through raising the animals for that "sport", organizing the events, or being a spectator should either be mulled to death themselves with knives and spears and whatever else these sick, perverted, depraved, pathetic bastards use, or they should be put away for life.

No animal should be used for "entertainment" or suffer needlessly. For people who eat meat, animals raised for food should be put down without suffering. Factory farms need to become a thing of the past. Animals have a right not to suffer at the hands of humans.
[/url]

Would you destroy an indigenous community for participating in traditional cock fighting that has been going on for generations? When the losing chicken goes to market anyway? Who would be worse, the indigenous community for their traditions or the people who wiped out the indigenous community?

You should checkout the surf film "Morning of the Earth". It's a beautifully shot film from Australia in the early 70s. The Aussie surfers go visit an indigenous community in Bali that has cock fights and they shoot one of the fights, adding beautiful music to some rather intense imagery.

 

[charrob]

What about farmers observing a fight and then choosing which one breeds and which one is stew?

(Chickens fight with or without human intervention)

As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible. If no humans are around when animals fight naturally, then so be it. Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose. And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window. Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying. After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat. Needless to say, she did not like me. But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard. Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.

 

[Imperial]

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.

Right. I am not saying that animals are necessarily rational. I illustrated that they employ some degree of what we may consider to be reason. At the same time, the fact that we are not omniscient means that we can never act in a fully rational manner. And if we are not able to be fully rational, then at a certain point we must wonder if there is a limit to the utility of reason.

I agree that God is one solution to this problem. At the same time, God has left a significant amount of space for us to respond to this problem. This is an excellent illustration of it- the only precedent God really gives us towards animals is somewhat vague- act as their stewards. At the same time, we know He does not simply ban us from hunting or using animals as necessary. Thus, a policymaker is still left with significant space to act.

So let us look at this. The deontological aspects of the question are vague- God has given us a vague directive, some animals illustrate some degree of reason, and humans demonstrate imperfect reason. We cannot craft some clear policy based upon a philosophical principle without leading to absurd conclusions that lessen the value of any of the above. At this point, we should be enacting a policy which provides the greatest utility for our goals- undermining the least amount of human autonomy while also respecting the life of animals as well is what I prefer in this situation, although there is room for flexibility here.

 

[dannno]

Personally, for people who need to eat meat, there should be ongoing stem cell research to make chicken legs, etc., so someday (hopefully) animals will no longer have to die for this.

I would hope many people would make this decision and choose the more humane option, but I don't think the government should force people to choose that way. If it is cheaper, then poor people will buy it anyway. If it is better tasting and more expensive, then rich people might buy it, but forcing poor people to buy it could mean starvation. If it is about the same price and quality and there is enough availability, then I think most people would choose the more humane option. I guess one question is where do the stem cells come from, or do they generate and multiply on their own by feeding them something else?

 

[charrob]

Would you destroy an indigenous community for participating in traditional cock fighting that has been going on for generations? When the losing chicken goes to market anyway? Who would be worse, the indigenous community for their traditions or the people who wiped out the indigenous community?

How would stopping a sadistic custom destroy an indigenous community?

 

[dannno]

As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible. If no humans are around when animals fight naturally, then so be it. Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose. And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window. Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying. After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat. Needless to say, she did not like me. But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard. Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.

Hmmm, I see that as forcing her to keep the cat captive in her own home.. You can't train your cat to stay in your yard, cats are roaming creatures.. and they naturally eat birds in nature, why are you trying to stop nature?

 

[dannno]

How would stopping a sadistic custom destroy an indigenous community?

How do you stop sadistic customs in indigenous communities? You can try education, if it works then awesome, but if that doesn't work then you would have to use violence. Why are you policing indigenous communities anyway, what are you a European explorer out to destroy indigenous populations if they don't hold your same (Christian, in their case) values?

It's probably just going to end up going underground like drugs and other things, then it will become more profitable and they might even end up throwing away the chickens instead of eating them since you made it become so profitable (you can charge more for something if it is banned, if it is legal, then if you charge too much to hold cockfights, then the person next door will open one and charge less... in the case of the black market, it doesn't function properly and you end up with extraordinary profits in these types of ventures)

 

[charrob]

Hmmm, I see that as forcing her to keep the cat captive in her own home.. You can't train your cat to stay in your yard, cats are roaming creatures.. and they naturally eat birds in nature, why are you trying to stop nature?

Cats have the added advantage of a warm home in winter, and food/water etc. without hunting for it. They do not have to survive like animals in the wild. Also, they can be placed on a leash outside or, many, pretty much just stay indoors on their own. Many bird populations are becoming extinct; bobwhites are almost (if not totally) gone in the upper northeast of the U.S. (I can remember hearing them all the time as a child.) This is a result of overpopulation by human beings so that we are not living in harmony with nature.

 

[pcosmar]

As humans we're at the top of the chain; we should try to eliminate as much suffering as possible. If no humans are around when animals fight naturally, then so be it. Years ago when younger at the house i grew up in, the woman next door had a cat she would let loose. And every year the same bluebirds nested in a pine tree next to my bedroom window. Witnessing the cat eating the bluebirds the first time was horrifying. After that a large cat-trap was rented fee-free from the local SPCA and everytime her cat entered our yard, and got trapped in our trap, the SPCA was called and the woman was made to drive to the local SPCA and pay increasing fees each time she collected her cat. Needless to say, she did not like me. But eventually after paying fees over and over, she kept her cat inside her yard. Sometimes humans can intervene between animals to stop cruelty between them as well.

You know, I have several and varied predators in my immediate area. My cats are both Predator and prey. My dogs hunt and kill.
There is a large Snowy Owl that would love to get one. (close, but no joy so far)
There is a Bald Eagle, Several Hawks and Owls that hunt the area. As well as Wolves, Coyote, Badgers and weasels. etc.
Nature is violent. Fact of life.

 

[agitator]

Sound like too many cats killing those birds. We need cat fights to thin them out.

 

[Maximus]

Animals do have rights. You can't starve or torture your pets.

 

[charrob]

How do you stop sadistic customs in indigenous communities? You can try education, if it works then awesome, but if that doesn't work then you would have to use violence.

But the act the indigenous communites are engaging in itself is violent. Do we not use force (ie. the police) to stop the violence of a Charles Manson?

I'm talking about indigenous communities in the U.S. (ie. what goes on in the Australian backwoods or some tribal community in another country is for that country to determine). There's a indian tribe in southwest Washington State (i think) that hunts whales. Whales have equal and greater intelligence than humans; this hunting needs to stop. It's sick and is equal in every way to spearing live humans and eating them. If spearing live humans and eating them were the custom of this indigenous tribe in the U.S. northwest, would we let this continue?

 

[charrob]

You know, I have several and varied predators in my immediate area. My cats are both Predator and prey. My dogs hunt and kill.
There is a large Snowy Owl that would love to get one. (close, but no joy so far)
There is a Bald Eagle, Several Hawks and Owls that hunt the area. As well as Wolves, Coyote, Badgers and weasels. etc.
Nature is violent. Fact of life.

Very true; nature is violent. But humans don't have to be, and if violence is necessary for human food, then it should and can be done as painless as possible without suffering by the animal.