Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[osan]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in the case of machines vis-a-vis, say, human beings. The two clearly are not the same. If I dress up like a black man, act like one, walk like one, talk like one, dance like one, screw like one, does that make me a black man?

I have heavy experience in AI. I have worked on systems that behaved with such convincing illusions of organic intelligence that it would frighten you, and I mean that most literally. But at the bottom of it all, there were just 1s and 0s assembled in fabulously complex and abstruse patterns. The intelligence of machines is nothing more than a simulation of the manifestations and methods of human thought processes.

As the "fit" of the homomorphic mapping to real, living intelligence approaches isomorphism in terms of capabilities such that the delta between them becomes sufficiently small, the illusion of actual living intelligence becomes very convincing. But there is no subject behind the eyes, so to speak - just a complex pattern of binary impulses. The intelligence is not alive, and life is the differentiating factor here between actual intelligence and that which is simulated, regardless of how convincingly that simulation may be. Machine intelligence as it currently exists is nothing more than the simulation of living intelligence. It is a simulation of life itself as we experience it though intelligent communication.

Could there be some threshold of complexity beyond which a machine becomes a living being? Impossible to say at this stage of the game, but I am sceptical, even doubtful. I am yet to be convinced that life is a simple matter of achieving a level of perceptual complexity - but who knows - it may one day be demonstrated as truth. But I point you to even single-celled life. Nowhere near the intellectual capacity of some of the AI systems out there, yet nobody will deny that such creatures are alive while the computers clearly are not.

 

[dannno]

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.

Ya I'm pretty surprised about the results as well (I voted yes, was mostly messing around with some of my comments in the thread)

 

[ivflight]

I think guitarlifter's posts are pretty much spot-on. The only change I would consider is that I think animals don't have human rights more because we can't communicate with them on the level necessary to have informed consent. Humans can be irrational, but we don't immediately take away their rights. If a turtle had the means to communicate and do business with me (maybe I give her an ipod and she collects pearls for me, she trades the ipod for a plot of land to lay eggs on) then I would be more open to acknowledging the turtle's equal rights. When we encounter things (alive or not) that have pretty much no ability to distinguish themselves as purposeful beings by doing things like engaging in contracts, those things end up being property, and therefor under human control. Trees, rocks, chicken eggs, dogs, houses, etc...

In the case of animal fights it is especially silly to make it illegal because animals do these things anyways. If cock fighting is illegal then dog breeding should be too because it's kind of like rape or prostitution.

 

[Bman]

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.

I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you. I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.

 

[MelissaWV]

I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you. I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.

I hear this argument often, but it just doesn't wash. Human beings use tools and have the mental capacity to work together; that's our advantage, and makes up for a lack of claws or fangs or naturally lethal poisons.

Trophy hunters that hunt an animal in its natural habitat (as opposed to people who trap them and then shoot them when the animal can't escape) are facing the creature on fair terms, imo.

 

[Bman]

In the case of animal fights it is especially silly to make it illegal because animals do these things anyways. If cock fighting is illegal then dog breeding should be too because it's kind of like rape or prostitution.

That's strange. I go to a dog park on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two dogs break out into a fight to the death.

 

[ivflight]

That's strange. I go to a dog park on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two dogs break out into a fight to the death.

That's strange. I go to a cock fight on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two cocks not break out into a fight to the death.

[some] Dogs have been bred to be very docile. Watch the discovery channel - then you'll see dogs eat each other.

 

[Bman]

I hear this argument often, but it just doesn't wash. Human beings use tools and have the mental capacity to work together; that's our advantage, and makes up for a lack of claws or fangs or naturally lethal poisons.

Trophy hunters that hunt an animal in its natural habitat (as opposed to people who trap them and then shoot them when the animal can't escape) are facing the creature on fair terms, imo.

Have you seen the video of Caribou Barbie shooting the Caribou? Fair terms? Hardly. You can kill anything with a high powered rifle. The only way the thing escapes is;

A. You didn't find one.

B. You're a shitty hunter and a lousy shot.

The reason I don't hunt for trophy or would ever consider it is because the animal has no chance. As a matter of fact the few times I was dragged on such adventures I intentionally shot near the animal to disturb its environment and scare it away.

 

[jmdrake]

Depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in the case of machines vis-a-vis, say, human beings. The two clearly are not the same. If I dress up like a black man, act like one, walk like one, talk like one, dance like one, screw like one, does that make me a black man?

Oh don't be ridiculous. The turning test isn't to prove whether or not something is human, but whether something is intelligent. Intelligence is an attribute just like dress, acting, walking, talking and (since you chose to be vulgar) "screwing". If you wanted to be accurate you would pick some attribute that people may have once assumed white people couldn't do (such a rapping), apply an analogous test and see if said white person could accomplish the same thing. Only that's already been done. After one failure (Vanilla Ice) we now have Eminem.

I have heavy experience in AI. I have worked on systems that behaved with such convincing illusions of organic intelligence that it would frighten you, and I mean that most literally. But at the bottom of it all, there were just 1s and 0s assembled in fabulously complex and abstruse patterns.

Good for you. Then you show know enough about logic to understand the straw man in your initial argument. Also at the bottom of it all we are just atoms that are activating in particular ways on synapses and dendrites. And I doubt anything you've done in AI would "frighten me". I've done a lot in AI myself and I don't frighten easily. Plus this really is a total red herring. Whether you feel the Turing test is valid or not for determining if a machine is really "intelligent" it would be perfectly valid as applied to another organic being such as a dog, gorilla or dolphin.

The intelligence of machines is nothing more than a simulation of the manifestations and methods of human thought processes.

Says you. I know enough about AI to know that your conclusion is hotly debated.

Could there be some threshold of complexity beyond which a machine becomes a living being? Impossible to say at this stage of the game, but I am sceptical, even doubtful. I am yet to be convinced that life is a simple matter of achieving a level of perceptual complexity - but who knows - it may one day be demonstrated as truth. But I point you to even single-celled life. Nowhere near the intellectual capacity of some of the AI systems out there, yet nobody will deny that such creatures are alive while the computers clearly are not.

That's nice. But there is nothing in the definition of intelligence that requires life. My AI professor would call you a "carbon chauvinist". But again that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making. We're not talking about whether or not machines have the level of intelligence needed to qualify for life. We're talking about animals! And I proposed a Turing test using animals instead of computers. Again back to the slavery analogy. Abolitionists were able to point to negro slaves such as Phillis Wheatly who were accomplishing the same feats as their white counterparts and saying "See? These people deserve rights because there are as intelligent as anyone else". By contrast we are continually given examples of animals doing interesting things, but nowhere near what humans do, as proof of "animal intelligence".

 

[Bman]

That's strange. I go to a cock fight on a pretty regular basis and have yet to see two cocks not break out into a fight to the death.

[some] Dogs have been bred to be very docile. Watch the discovery channel - then you'll see dogs eat each other.

No shit Sherlock. When you have no where to run you kind of have to fight or just submit to death, which is case and point that the animals want to survive and you are using them to get your rocks off. It is a disgusting quality for one to have.

 

[osan]

I don't need to produce any special justification

Your assertion by itself is insufficient - it constitutes no proof.

just like I don't need to justify that people who get drunk should be left alone.

Nonsequitur. People getting drunk are bringing harm to nobody, all else equal. We are talking about cases where people are bringing harm to other living beings who, as a general rule, do what is in their power to rebel against being damaged and killed - a clear indication of sufficient self-awareness and sentience to justify treating them with a minimal level of respect.

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.

Again, nonsequitur. The two activities are not even remotely similar in principle of action or structure. Mr. Apples, meet Mr. Oranges.

You don't need to come up with an argument for every case, if you already have established a general principle.

I am well familiar with conceptual generalization. The question here is whether the principle you cite applies to the case in question. It doesn't unless you accept assumptions about non-human life that are tortuously stretched for credibility on their absolutely finest days.

Stick a dog with a pin - does it not yelp and bleed? Does it not seek to avoid being so damaged yet again? Does it not seek to continue its own life? It should not take this much work to convince someone that there is life here and that it merits respect. This is so hopelessly obvious that any denial can only be the product of disingenuous intentions taken to epic heights.

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.

This statement equates a living being that feels pain and experiences the desire to continue living with an inanimate object. If you cannot see how unsound this is, I have no idea how to help you.

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.

Hopelessly wrong. Utter, catastrophic, cataclysmic FAIL. To assert that human beings are the only living creatures on the earth that humans are compelled to respect is ludicrous on its face.

 

[jmdrake]

I believe you accused me of going straw man, now I shall do to you. I'll allow trophy hunters, you just got to do it with your bare hands, same as the animal.

Ah. So you do think trophy hunters should go to prison. So I wasn't making up a straw man after all. Thanks for proving me right in your attempt to prove me wrong.

 

[ivflight]

It is a disgusting quality for one to have.

Agreed.

 

[Bman]

Ah. So you do think trophy hunters should go to prison. So I wasn't making up a straw man after all. Thanks for proving me right in your attempt to prove me wrong.

It was a strawman. I just humored you with a response as gay as your question.

 

[jmdrake]

It was a strawman. I just humored you with a response as gay as your question.

You don't know what a strawman is. You said that killing for pleasure or bloodlust should be illegal. I'm pretty sure that people who trophy hunt do so for pleasure. Why else would they do that? Because they need a moose head to cover that spot on the wall? By contrast when I said I didn't think cockfighting should be illegal you wrongly claimed I was advocating it. That's a strawman.

 

[Bman]

You don't know what a strawman is. You said that killing for pleasure or bloodlust should be illegal. I'm pretty sure that people who trophy hunt do so for pleasure. Why else would they do that? Because they need a moose head to cover that spot on the wall? By contrast when I said I didn't think cockfighting should be illegal you wrongly claimed I was advocating it. That's a strawman.

Lets totally forget about the second half of your post, not to mention making a trophy out of something you killed to eat is a possibility where as the food factor outweighs the pleasure of bloodlust factor.

 

[low preference guy]

I agree with many here that say that microwaving your cats for fun and things like that are disgusting and shows that the person who does it is sick. I just add that the people who want to put people in jail for an action that doesn't even hurt humans are even sicker and bigger psychos. There's no justification whatsoever for that, because many humans survive by eating animals. The logical consequence of those who say animals deserve legal protection is that any killing of an animal should be illegal. And if you put the well-being of animals above that of human beings, you are a plain psycho.

 

[klamath]

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.

My thoughts too. I don't have a problem with killing a KNOWN killer but playing with them for societies intertainment, no.

 

[jtstellar]

the problem is whether the FEDERAL government has anything to do with it.. just wtf are "rights" do you even know? there are no such private activities that violate "rights" as long as you don't touch anybody's life or property.. yes, a human's life, duh. don't tell me you support federally-sanctioned abortion now. that would really be something

where does it mention in the constitution about ANIMALS.. seriously, where the HELL did you guys come from. how many hours have you spent on politics and history? you just graduated high school or something? even some ppl that age aren't that stupid

That's what the argument is about. I don't see animals as property but rather as sentient life-forms that have inherent rights. I see no difference in using force against an animal or using force against a human being: they are both equal in my eyes.

btw: What is unequal in my eyes are human fetus': i do not see them as fully functioning life-forms, and as such, in my eyes they have no rights.

i think this might just about sum up what i suspect about animal-right'ers (ye it is collectivism, bite me)

in a nut shell: when i like something, it has a right. when it is unwanted to me, it does not. oh, only humbly "in my eyes", but it will be the law of the land nonetheless when up to me. oh cute little rabbit. it requires attention maybe couple times a day--life! rights!. a baby when i'm depressed or financially strained? hell no. giving it rights means i can't kill and get rid of it? oh well.. then i will formulate my response on this and say.. no rights!

no i'm not arguing in favor or against abortion if you must be so stupid to ask

tell you what, glad you're not in power. to be honest, you don't understand liberty at all. maintaining liberty is more about policy and techniques about how to manage a federal government especially for a large nation to minimize its power and to maintain the integrity of a representative republic.. it has nothing to do with philosophy, and it has nothing to do with morality. you would fit in better in the neo-con or liberal circle, but you're welcome to lose debates here.

btw you can certainly ban animal fighting in your towns and cities, but rest assured--they do not have rights, and they will never. even if people comply with the ban out of commonsensical decency, it is a display of self control on human's part. it has nothing to do with some active, imaginary "right" of animals. to have rights, the first premise is to talk about organisms relatively equal in physical prowess and wit that they can on some level pose threat to each other. "right" isn't a pretty word.. it requires actual defense. an animal is not of an equal specie and "right" is nothing but an empty word even if you apply it to them. if some technologically advanced alien were to come to earth with malicious intent, the same applies to us, but we can certainly fight back.

countries who fall so far as to grant animals "rights" will not sustain itself anyway. a society who has identity crisis about is members will compete itself out of existence just by simple natural selection. you're not going to win this argument.. it's the law of nature. there's a saying in chinese "吃裡扒外" perhaps someone can translate for you.. a society with enough people like you to pass such a law will not live long.

 

[klamath]

All I can say is I would hate to have been Charob's baby if there was a house fire and Fluffy was closer to her. Better learn to craw pretty damn fast. There are some weird people out there