Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[BamaAla]

That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.

 

[dannno]

That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.

Ok, so you're for putting people in jail for torturing slugs?

nm.. but ya that's what charrob was doin i think.

 

[charrob]

What if the baby is old enough to feel, has more feeling than most animals, but isn't old enough to survive on it's own?

At what month would this be? I personally don't believe fetus' are fully aware or sentient until the last couple of months at the earliest. Not in comparison to life-forms actually walking around the earth (or swimming in the seas such as whales).

But the discussion is about sentient life-forms that exist on their own, walking around the earth, that are being tortured for no other reason then entertainment. Discussion of life-forms inside wombs is for another thread because then you get into issues of rape, incest, mother's health- and what to do in these cases, and the whole can of worms, etc. imho this is like comparing apples and oranges. Better to compare the human fetus to the dolphin fetus and discuss the rights of both these pre-life forms.

But ya if you're gonna go there I'd also consider if you let the chickens out into the wild they would probably have a more excruciating death via coyote or something. I think in cock fights they just end up bleeding to death which isn't that bad as far as deaths go, better than being chomped up.

i understand what you're saying here that nature is cruel. But the coyote is doing this for survival, these humans are doing this for 'entertainment'. As humans, it would be nice to recognize that these life-forms also have rights in our relationship with them. Here's a video on the cockfighting:

 

[charrob]

I'm not going to partake in the name calling that you directed at me, but all of this is a WTF.

I don't believe i called you any names, nor showed any amount of disrespect to you whatsoever despite your really nasty initial post???

On one hand, you have no problem with all manner of hunting, livestock farming, and chicken fights being outlawed because, according to you, animals have natural rights;

Do you even know how to read? In my actual posts i stated that when animals are put down for human consumption (ie. food) it should be done compassionately with the least pain possible. Ideally, eventually, it might be nice to strive for a society where killing other life-forms for human consumption is no longer required. But for now, compassion should be used in a civil society when putting down an animal.

It is not necessary, nor is it compassionate, to watch chickens mull each other to death. Every fully-functioning sentient life-form has a right not to be tortured.

meanwhile, on the other, you declare that a fetus has nothing. You even take it a step further by asserting that even if a month old fetus had only a small possession of neurological feeling it wouldn't matter as they would only amount to those found in slugs.

So you are saying that if a non-sentient, month-old fetus, has no more ability to feel pain than a slug, you would give this fetus rights over a sentient fully-functioning life-form walking the earth or swimming the seas (such as whales)?

Have these things ever caused even a hint of cognitive dissonance on your part?

The contradictions are in your logic, not mine.

 

[charrob]

That depends. Are we now justifying violence based on the pain threshold of a potential victim? It seems that the qualifications change with every post.

there's many characteristics that determine a fully-functioning sentient life-form: awareness, intelligence, experience to feel pain, etc.

 

[Imperial]

Damn, I misread the poll and actually meant to vote no, although that should be evident from my posts anyhow.

 

[Bman]

This one I think should be illegal. I just don't believe it is acceptable to torment a creature to get off your rocks.

 

[Sentient Void]

First off, it must be said that I am a (consequentialist) vegetarian - and would be a vegan if not for the fact that I *love* egg whites (I don't drink milk, nor eat cheese - I drink Almond Milk and have Vegan cheese actually).

That said, to re-assert my position - once again, animals do not have rights. As many including myself have shown, believing animals should have 'rights' leads to quite a slippery slope and often many either hypocritical and contradictory positions that end up completely arbitrary and illogical - or carried to it's logical conclusion, exposes one to be a tyrannical statist to impose veganism on everyone with the threat of violent force if necessary, and abandon things like pet ownership, animal labor and other things as well - all of which are extremely intertwined with our society and in many ways we are dependent upon.

Charrob, you say that you find no difference between animals and humans. Yes, both humans and animals have *sentience* - but sentience does not grant rights. If this were the case, even insects, worms, and some simple-celled organisms would have 'rights' - and apart from this absurdity - the animal kingdom clearly doesn't recognize such things.

The difference - is *SAPIENCE*. What sets human beings apart from animals, is our *sapience*. If an alien came down to us, clearly not a human - we would recognize his sapience and recognize him to have the same natural rights as humans. If an animal, or even a plant - hell, if a fucking cardboard box somehow was able to show that it had attained *sapience*, *then* we must recognize their rights.

Sentience is not a pre-requisite for rights - sapience is. This is the difference.

 

[BamaAla]

I don't believe i called you any names, nor showed any amount of disrespect to you whatsoever despite your really nasty initial post???

Sick, pathetic, immoral, perverted, and depraved are the terms you launched. Its no skin off my back, but you are passing judgement about a sport and a people that you know nothing about.

Do you even know how to read? In my actual posts i stated that when animals are put down for human consumption (ie. food) it should be done compassionately with the least pain possible. Ideally, eventually, it might be nice to strive for a society where killing other life-forms for human consumption is no longer required. But for now, compassion should be used in a civil society when putting down an animal.

I am indeed a competent reader. libertybrewcity made a comment about everyone having to become a vegetarian in your world to which you replied "would this be a bad thing." You then went on a tangent about the necessity of meat in the human diet and mislabeling a lacto-ovo vegetarian as a vegan. You then advocated the criminalization of bow hunting and "factory farming."

It is not necessary, nor is it compassionate, to watch chickens mull each other to death. Every fully-functioning sentient life-form has a right not to be tortured.

I agree 100%; however, neither necessity nor compassion have anything to do with it. Millions of people enjoy a plethora of activities that are neither; this sport happens to be one. As I posted earlier, Jefferson, Washington, and Andrew Jackson enjoyed chicken fights. Chicken fighting is part of the culture of the south east, Latin America, south east Asia, and many other parts of the world.

Torture is a subjective term. Frankly, I don't believe that fighting chickens fits the bill.

So you are saying that if a non-sentient, month-old fetus, has no more ability to feel pain than a slug, you would give this fetus rights over a sentient fully-functioning life-form walking the earth or swimming the seas (such as whales)?

I don't accept the notion that animals have any inherent rights. I do, however, believe that a fetus has some measure of rights just as a child short of adulthood possesses.

I have no problem with you trying to educate or sway people's opinions, but you throw around "outlaw" a lot. The thing is, though, it is illegal here; it simply isn't enforced. Quite frankly, the chances that it ever will be are slim to none, so I suppose the whole argument is moot.

 

[mport1]

Not going to read the whole thread but I assume that all you that think animals have rights are strict vegans and do not own pets? Should I (and probably 99% of the population) be aggressed against because I have somehow violated their rights by doing both?

 

[MRoCkEd]

I can't believe almost 50% of voters on Liberty Forest want the State to initiate violence against people who mistreat their property.

 

[YumYum]

So, are you for cockfighting?

 

[mport1]

So, are you for cockfighting?

You can be against cockfighting and still not think it should be illegal. There are a ton of things I am against that should not be illegal because there is no initiation of force involved. Threatening others at the point of a gun when no human has been harmed is wrong. NOTHING which has does not involve the initiation of force against a person should be illegal.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

Insanity Wolf says:

 

[pcosmar]

This thread is still going???

OK, How about racing animals. Horse Racing? Dog racing? Dog Sled racing?

What about hooking up horses to wagons. Isn't that slavery?


Or Police Dogs. Attack Dogs?
Why is it ok to force a dog to attack humans, but not other dogs?

 

[torchbearer]

IF an animal is considered a person property, then that person can do whatever they want to their property.

 

[agitator]

Or Police Dogs. Attack Dogs?
Why is it ok to force a dog to attack humans, but not other dogs?

I guess if the cops use dogs to attack humans that have attack dogs fight, then...

 

[Brett85]

Decriminalized, yes.

Animals don't have rights.

Animals don't have rights that are given to them by the Constitution. But they can have rights that are given to them by men.

 

[osan]

Animals don't have rights.

How is it that you are certain of this? On what basis do you assert this?

Assuming it is in fact so, does it therefore follow that we may treat non-human creatures any way we please? Would you object to someone tying a cat up in a public place and skinning it alive? Is there no act that is sufficiently brutal to prompt you to say "no"?

Just wondering.

 

[Sentient Void]

Animals don't have rights that are given to them by the Constitution. But they can have rights that are given to them by men.

The constitution doesn't give us our rights. It recognizes them and (is supposed to) chains the government so that it may not violate them. You can't give animals rights without threatening everyone with violent force to be a vegan and to not use animal labor, animal products, or have them as pets.