Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[akforme]

Do you not understand the difference between something being legal and something being advocated by society? Ron Paul is against the drug war, but I've never seen him advocating illicit drug use. As for my mother teaching me not to play with my food, she never suggested I should be prosecuted for doing so.

This was my take. It's the difference between having the right and it being right. We should have the right to do many things we can't, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

 

[jmdrake]

Really? I could certainly make the case that my German Shepherd has sapience. Like the fact that when his toy ends up on an end table that he gently pulls the toy off to make sure that he doesn't knock anything off the table. Or when playing with another dog he takes it easy on them. If you have not seen wisdom or intelligence in an animal it's because you have been far to ignorant to watch the animal behave.

Can your German Shepherd write poetry? You should read about Phillis Wheatley. During her lifetime some people assumed that negro slaves were not intelligent. She proved them wrong by becoming one of the best poets of her era. Animals have done some amazing things. The most amazing would be Koko the gorilla. But I've seen no suggestion that Koko, or any other animal could pass the Turing test.

 

[jmdrake]

Honestly, I'd be fine with seeing blatantly convicted serial killers / murderers being used as a form of entertainment to the masses a la the gladiatorial arena or like the movie 'Running Man'.

They've lost their rights to the extent that they've taken away their rights to others, and so if someone has maliciously murdered someone else, then they lose the right to their life - without rights, anything goes and IMO it's perfectly fine for them to be used as entertainment or slave labor. Like animals. Like cocks (no, not THOSE cocks you sicko).

I suppose if the criminal has already been condemned to death, being given the option to "fight for your life" would be a step up. That said I would be more concerned about the effect on the people "enjoying" this kind of entertainment.

 

[Sentient Void]

Really? I could certainly make the case that my German Shepherd has sapience. Like the fact that when his toy ends up on an end table that he gently pulls the toy off to make sure that he doesn't knock anything off the table. Or when playing with another dog he takes it easy on them. If you have not seen wisdom or intelligence in an animal it's because you have been far to ignorant to watch the animal behave.

Which is why I also said in a previous post in the thread that perhaps apart from sapience, Adam Smith was right that rights are dependent upon an entity's ability to voluntarily trade it's property. This could make sense, considering that *all* rights are ultimately property rights (all rights derive from the right of self-ownership which is a property right in the self), and this recognition shows a consistency in both Adam Smith's assertion and the concept of rights as property rights in general.

I've definitely heard of dogs recognizing property as a concept (bone, dog hosue, territory, etc), but have never heard of a dog voluntarily trading his property AFAIK.

 

[RyanRSheets]

It would be a totally legitimate prosecution! Using your analogy if you had me killed because you needed a heart and I was a perfect match that would not be murder.

No. Starvation is guaranteed without food and heart disease is abnormal. A sick man who needs a heart has either neglected his body or became sick natural. Initially, both men probably had the heart they need.

We naturally assign a higher priority to the lives of human beings, and I think that is right. Our needs will always come first, but I think we must recognize that animals are living, feeling things, and in that capacity, we should not mistreat them. If we must eat them, we should not kill them slowly. We should not put them in a ring and force them to brutally kill each other, because it does us no tangible good and causes them verifiable pain.

 

[RyanRSheets]

Honestly, I'd be fine with seeing blatantly convicted serial killers / murderers being used as a form of entertainment to the masses a la the gladiatorial arena or like the movie 'Running Man'.

They've lost their rights to the extent that they've taken away their rights to others, and so if someone has maliciously murdered someone else, then they lose the right to their life - without rights, anything goes and IMO it's perfectly fine for them to be used as entertainment or slave labor. Like animals. Like cocks (no, not THOSE cocks you sicko).

This is just one reason why I thoroughly oppose the state. Eventually, people come to believe that criminals are so bad, they deserve no dignity. If all their rights have been removed, execute them. Do it as quickly as possible. Bullets are cheap.

I'd be opposed to any type of death as entertainment. It would be a mockery of everything that is possibly moral.

 

[osan]

^This. I mean seriously folks. Those same two roosters that can't be put together to fight for entertainment can be legally tortured to death in a slaughterhouse.

The two are not comparable in principle. That some slaughterhouses sustain poor conditions shall be put aside for this argument. Assuming the most humane means of killing them, that is not torture. It is swift merciful death. To compare that with the ring of cockfighting cannot even be taken seriously. To live is to kill. We have yet to find a way of escaping this necessity that is not detrimental to our own lives. Killing with swift mercy is the best we can do and is, therefore, legitimate. What other choice have we but to starve? I live in accord with my limitations as flesh and blood, but I make no sport of the lives and deaths of others.

 

[Bman]

Which is why I also said in a previous post in the thread that perhaps apart from sapience, Adam Smith was right that rights are dependent upon an entity's ability to voluntarily trade it's property. This could make sense, considering that *all* rights are ultimately property rights (all rights derive from the right of self-ownership which is a property right in the self), and this recognition shows a consistency in both Adam Smith's assertion and the concept of rights as property rights in general.

I've definitely heard of dogs recognizing property as a concept (bone, dog hosue, territory, etc), but have never heard of a dog voluntarily trading his property AFAIK.

So where does this leave the mentally challenged?

 

[Bman]

Can your German Shepherd write poetry?

I will say at times he's poetry in motion. And since we are saying CAN. Hawkings cannot WRITE poetry.

 

[jmdrake]

No. Starvation is guaranteed without food and heart disease is abnormal. A sick man who needs a heart has either neglected his body or became sick natural. Initially, both men probably had the heart they need.

It takes weeks to die from starvation. If you have the strength to kill me then you probably aren't at deaths door yet. Also some people are born with heart defects. Regardless that has nothing to do with anything. Whether your about to die because of your own screwup doesn't change the basic facts. Why are you out in the wilderness starving? Is it because you didn't plan to bring enough food? Did you not read your compass right?

The only relevant question from a self defense point of view is if I caused you to be in danger. In other words you'd have to make the argument that I was the one starving you. And even then that would be a stretch. You are mistaking defense of self defense with the necessity defense.

See: http://www.mojolaw.com/info/cl055

We naturally assign a higher priority to the lives of human beings, and I think that is right. Our needs will always come first, but I think we must recognize that animals are living, feeling things, and in that capacity, we should not mistreat them. If we must eat them, we should not kill them slowly. We should not put them in a ring and force them to brutally kill each other, because it does us no tangible good and causes them verifiable pain.

Except there is no general necessity to kill animals at all for food. Not in the 21st century. People eat meat, in general, because they want to, not because they have to. Your whole "self defense" argument is off base from jump because there is no necessity. "We must"? No. Not true. "It would be better if we did"? Perhaps. But that's different from "we must".

 

[jmdrake]

The two are not comparable in principle. That some slaughterhouses sustain poor conditions shall be put aside for this argument. Assuming the most humane means of killing them, that is not torture. It is swift merciful death. To compare that with the ring of cockfighting cannot even be taken seriously. To live is to kill. We have yet to find a way of escaping this necessity that is not detrimental to our own lives. Killing with swift mercy is the best we can do and is, therefore, legitimate. What other choice have we but to starve? I live in accord with my limitations as flesh and blood, but I make no sport of the lives and deaths of others.

1) If I was given a choice between fighting for my life and being given a "merciful" death, I would choose to fight for my life. Wouldn't you?

2) What other choice have we but to starve? Don't be ridiculous! You don't have to eat meat to live! Really. Take a trip to Whole Foods. There are lots of tasty alternative to meat. And there have been healthy vegetarians for thousands of years before Whole Foods existed.

 

[jmdrake]

I will say at times he's poetry in motion. And since we are saying CAN. Hawkings cannot WRITE poetry.

That's nice. I think the dance of the bees is fascinating. Are bees now at the level of humans? Kung fu masters were inspired by the praying mantis. And? My point is that slaves accomplished feats in the arts and sciences indistinguishable from their masters. That's why I linked the Turing test. It's a test for machine intelligence. Basically a human converses with a machine and several other humans. If the human cannot tell the difference the the machine is deemed to be intelligent. The same thing could be done for animal intelligence. Find someway for the animal to communicate through a computer terminal, and if humans can't tell the difference I'm willing to concede human level intelligence.

 

[osan]

if we're talking about rights, it isn't madness because neither has any rights whatsoever.

The question of whether animals have rights is not really relevant to this discussion, whereas the propriety of human behavior is. Causing agony and torment to any living creature is questionable under even more liberal circumstances. To be sure there is a gray margin between the obvious extremes of what is right and what is not. Situations falling between those extremes are to be taken individually with the application of intelligence and thereby assessed for propriety. Some guy on a desert island, stranded and starving, may certainly be excused if his killing technique would not pass muster under more "normal" circumstances. OTOH, slowly torturing an alley cat to death IMO merits a very severe ass-beating at the very least, if not prison time. There is simply no possible justification for such heinous action. For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism. I will be waiting.

 

[Bman]

That's nice. I think the dance of the bees is fascinating. Are bees now at the level of humans? Kung fu masters were inspired by the praying mantis. And? My point is that slaves accomplished feats in the arts and sciences indistinguishable from their masters. That's why I linked the Turing test. It's a test for machine intelligence. Basically a human converses with a machine and several other humans. If the human cannot tell the difference the the machine is deemed to be intelligent. The same thing could be done for animal intelligence. Find someway for the animal to communicate through a computer terminal, and if humans can't tell the difference I'm willing to concede human level intelligence.

But you see intelligence is a horrible meter as to whether or not something should be killed for entertainment. It's when is killing acceptable. For mere pleasure is something I will never be on the side of, and that's not saying you are, but when in terms of the scope of government I find it acceptable for government to make killing for pleasure of bloodlust illegal.

 

[jmdrake]

But you see intelligence is a horrible meter as to whether or not something should be killed for entertainment. It's when is killing acceptable. For mere pleasure is something I will never be on the side of, and that's not saying you are, but when in terms of the scope of government I find it acceptable for government to make killing for pleasure of bloodlust illegal.

So trophy hunters should go to prison? How about the kid that uses a magnifying glass on an ant? I don't trophy hunt and I don't light burn ants, but I don't think either should be illegal. But maybe that's just me.

 

[jmdrake]

The question of whether animals have rights is not really relevant to this discussion, whereas the propriety of human behavior is. Causing agony and torment to any living creature is questionable under even more liberal circumstances. To be sure there is a gray margin between the obvious extremes of what is right and what is not. Situations falling between those extremes are to be taken individually with the application of intelligence and thereby assessed for propriety. Some guy on a desert island, stranded and starving, may certainly be excused if his killing technique would not pass muster under more "normal" circumstances. OTOH, slowly torturing an alley cat to death IMO merits a very severe ass-beating at the very least, if not prison time. There is simply no possible justification for such heinous action. For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism. I will be waiting.

Should this be illegal?

 

[low preference guy]

For those who disagree, I challenge you to produce the legitimate justification for such sadism. I will be waiting.

I don't need to produce any special justification, just like I don't need to justify that people who get drunk should be left alone. Getting drunk is a disgusting activity for many reasons I won't get into, but does it violate the life, liberty and property of other humans beings? No. Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal. You don't need to come up with an argument for every case, if you already have established a general principle. If no other human's property is stolen, no contract is broken, or no aggression against other human is taking place, then no legal punishment should occur. So yes, even if microwaving your cat or slicing it to little pieces is disgusting, you don't have and shouldn't have any legal punishment whatsoever.

 

[BamaAla]

This thread blew up since the last time I visited. Unfortunately, it seems that about half of the people that have voted believe that the sport should be criminal.

All I can say is that I will continue to make it to a couple of cockfights a year, continue bow hunting, continue killing vermin on my property, and I'll make it to a few bull fights every time I'm in Spain. Have fun folks.

 

[MelissaWV]

The way the question is phrased is screwy.

It asks if I'd like to see it legalized in my state. No, I wouldn't LIKE it; I wouldn't leap up and down joyfully and celebrate "Cockfighting Day" every year thereafter. I would love it if this nation saw fit to decriminalize things like this, but the question makes it seem like I support the fights themselves by clicking "yes."

 

[low preference guy]

The way the question is phrased is screwy.

It asks if I'd like to see it legalized in my state. No, I wouldn't LIKE it; I wouldn't leap up and down joyfully and celebrate "Cockfighting Day" every year thereafter. I would love it if this nation saw fit to decriminalize things like this, but the question makes it seem like I support the fights themselves by clicking "yes."

A better wording would probably be "Should cockfighting be illegal?".