Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[osan]

What say we just agree to disagree?

I wrote:

The Turing test posits that a person interacting with a computer through a terminal such that if the exchanges cannot be differentiated from those one would have with a human at the other end, the machine is effectively intelligent. So yes, it is using human intelligence as the standard. Sure, it could be used with, say, a chimpanzee but that wasn't how the original idea was formulated.

*facepalm* Oh quit being a blowhard. I said from jump that this wasn't the original Turing test. I know how the Turing test was "originally formulated". This is a modified test.

Facepalm till you knock yourself unconscious if it pleases you. As I gathered we were talking about the Turing test, not a modified version. The specific reference was whether the Turing test was valid and I pointed out that it was a matter of definitions. If we play fast and loose with them, then anything goes - sort of the way most professional politicians spend their existences as the mountebanks they are.

Then I wrote:

Not without making very broad and unsound assumptions about what constitutes intelligence. Just because we may not be able to extract principles of behavior that we deem "intelligent", it does not follow that intelligence is not present. To believe that intelligence holds but one flavor, the human one, is ridiculous. Besides, who says that intelligence is the deciding factor in determining whether animals should be treated with respect?

To which you responded with this:

...Back to the original point, slaves could prove their intelligence by accomplishing tasks that required human intelligence. Might there be a dog intelligence? Of course. In fact I would say for certainty that there is. There's also bee intelligence and ant intelligence. But none of those entities have rights. Trees may also have a kind of intelligence. They can communicate to each other through chemicals that they are under an insect infestation. But most people would agree that tree intelligence has not been shown to the level that trees have rights.

Slaves were human so of course they could potentially demonstrate human intelligence. If you are expecting a goldfish to display human intelligence you will be waiting perhaps a very long time. The term "intelligence" doesn't apply only to humans. The point you raise is therefore irrelevant to the discourse unless your thesis is that human intelligence is the only kind that counts.

And so I asked:

What does the level of debate have to do with the truth? Flat earth/spherical earth was perhaps hotly debated at one time as well. That did not alter the truth even a whit.

To which you responded:

And so who's the arbiter of "truth"? You? Don't make me laugh!

Are you suggesting the earth is flat?

Then to this:

Definition 3 fits best our context and I would say that life is so very heavily implied.

You reply in seemingly irratinal fashion:

I don't know who the "we" is here. I'm not interested in your dictionary definition nor do I find it relevant or helpful. Reasoning by analogy I gave you an example of how slaves were shown to have intelligence and thus be dserving of rights. If you want to be obtuse because deep down you know animals can't pass the same test then fine. Whatever.

Not only unrelated to any valid argumentation relevant to the topic at hand, copping s somewhat snide and disrespectful tone in the deal. What is up with that? I was attempting to have an adult exchange and it comes to this.

Over and out.

 

[osan]

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.

OK, so we are agreed on this point. Good. Let us continue...

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.

As stated, I would submit that you are contradicting yourself in a way - on the one hand you acknowledge that such people are acting unacceptably and on the other you say it's OK because no human has been hurt. Beyond being a bit contradictory, it seems more than a little self-serving. The question is not whether one may bring harm to an animal - we do that every time we stick our forks into a piece of meat on our plates - but the nature of the harm.

I will again clarify by restating that it is one thing to swiftly kill a living being with absolutely minimal pain and carrying out a campaign of torture and piecemeal destruction of their material reality. I believe this is the salient point for many and not whether killing happens, per sé.

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.

But protection against torture would seem eminently reasonable, all else equal.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Of course it should. So should dog fighting. So should bull fighting. As should horse racing and dog racing and so on.

Do I support it? NO. Infact, I don't even go to dog or horse tracks because I'm so personally against it. I would never go to a cock, dog or bull fight. I also don't have sex with men and find in very nasty but I don't think you should go to jail if you do.

It is crazy to see how many people here think cock fighting shouldn't be legal. I mean do you eat chickens? In the US, almost all commercial chickens are tortured throughout their life. But I bet the vast majority of folks here eat commercial chicken.

 

[denison]

Of course it should. So should dog fighting. So should bull fighting. As should horse racing and dog racing and so on.

Do I support it? NO. Infact, I don't even go to dog or horse tracks because I'm so personally against it. I would never go to a cock, dog or bull fight. I also don't have sex with men and find in very nasty but I don't think you should go to jail if you do.

It is crazy to see how many people here think cock fighting shouldn't be legal. I mean do you eat chickens? In the US, almost all commercial chickens are tortured throughout their life. But I bet the vast majority of folks here eat commercial chicken.

they do. it's total hypocrisy and stupidity. in a way only amerika can produce.

 

[jmdrake]

Facepalm till you knock yourself unconscious if it pleases you. As I gathered we were talking about the Turing test, not a modified version. The specific reference was whether the Turing test was valid and I pointed out that it was a matter of definitions. If we play fast and loose with them, then anything goes - sort of the way most professional politicians spend their existences as the mountebanks they are.

You're just being ridiculous and obtuse. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm actually conversing with an ELIZA program when I'm talking to you. Obviously if you use an animal on the other end instead of a computer that ITSELF IS A MODIFICATION!

So, one more time. One way to assess animal intelligence would be to have an animal on the other end, give it some way to communicate, and see if it can fool a human. If you have some other way to assess animal intelligence then fine MENTION IT SO WE CAN ALL BE ENLIGHTENED!

Your thesis that "It's alive and MIGHT be intelligent so we should grant it rights just to be on the safe side" is stupid.

 

[jmdrake]

In order to enjoy a free society, you must tolerate other people, even if you don't like what they are doing.
unless someone here is making the case that roosters have property rights, and thus should not be eaten.

+rep. It's so simple. Things that society allows to be killed and eaten clearly don't have rights.

 

[Sentient Void]

+rep. It's so simple. Things that society allows to be killed and eaten clearly don't have rights.

While I'm in complete agreement with both of you guys, I must play devil's advocate here and say that just because something is killed and eaten is not justification for it not having rights. People have (and still do in some places) killed and eaten people. But yet we all accept that people have natural rights, and in cases such as these and in government that these rights are being violated.

As mentioned above by torchbearer, if someone is saying that roosters and animals in general have natural rights - then it would follow that thsoe rights are in fact being violated when we kill and eat them, or coerce them to fight or race, etc.

I, personally, am of the opinion that they have no rights, though. I just think we should use the right tools to talk about when and what and why soemthing has rights, not simply because an act is committed upon them that is coercive.

Unless of course one is an 'egoist anarchist', then such claims are absolutely consistent and logical.

 

[osan]

Your thesis that "It's alive and MIGHT be intelligent so we should grant it rights just to be on the safe side" is stupid.

You should learn to pay attention and read what I wrote. I said NOTHING of rights in the sense you use here. And you accuse me of being obtuse? Get a mirror.

I specifically wrote that this is not an issue of animal rights but of what constitutes proper treatment of other living beings that clearly feel pain and can experience agony and over which we exercise the power of life and death. The two are not the same. They are not even in the same ballpark.

I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. There is no justification for it.

 

[torchbearer]

If we eat the vanquished, it is OK, right?

why not?

 

[pcosmar]

Sheesh

Birds fight.They do it in nature and they do it in barn yards. They have done so for thousands of years and are unlikely to quit because some "johnny come lately" law.

This is about opposition to people betting on the outcome.
It has nothing to do with animal rights or lack thereof.

dumb stuff.
There are far more important things to bunch up your panties.

 

[teacherone]

VENTURA, Calif. — About 1,000 roosters confiscated during the weekend bust of a Ventura County cockfighting ring have been euthanized.

The Ventura County Sheriff's Department says 16 men were arrested and cockfighting paraphernalia, including blades, were seized during the Saturday raid in an unincorporated area near Oxnard. A tip from an anonymous caller led to the bust.

Investigators say about 1,000 roosters had to be euthanized because of their aggressive nature.

The Ventura County Star says 43-year-old Michael Lim of Los Angeles and 29-year-old Luis Manzana of Oxnard were booked for investigation of felony animal cruelty. The other 14 men were booked for misdemeanors for being spectators at a cockfight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/1000-roosters-killed_n_817669.html

lol. isn't that just ironic.

 

[oyarde]

Why euthanize them ? Eat them . Wasteful Californians . Yes it should not be a crime ....

 

[JK/SEA]

Hell, legalize dog throat cutting. Make bets on how long it takes for the dog to die, then sell the carcass to dog meat eaters.

 

[oyarde]

Hell, legalize dog throat cutting. Make bets on how long it takes for the dog to die, then sell the carcass to dog meat eaters.

I have been places where dogs are treated about the same as chickens . While it is not something I would do myself . I do not believe people should be jailed for it ...

 

[JK/SEA]

I have been places where dogs are treated about the same as chickens . While it is not something I would do myself . I do not believe people should be jailed for it ...

I can only assume 'those' places you refer to are not in the U.S., so its not relevant here in this conversation as we don't have any control over other countries in what they do, but can only boycott/protest as a means to show disdain.

I have my lines in the sand, and ANY animal abuse, including the killing of dolphins and whales is where i get ....beyond angry. Jail for animal abusers?...no. Put them to work in animal shelters for a period of time. Thats what M. Vick should have done, for example.

I make no apologies for my belief in this.

 

[JK/SEA]

The statement has been made that animals don't have rights. Who says so?... therefore, I hereby grant rights to animals. As a human made in Gods image, i hereby assert my omnipotent stature as a rights giver to animals, to be free from abuse. For the definition of abuse, try Google.com

 

[oyarde]

Native Americans , Aztecs ate dogs , The Lewis and Clark expedition ate dog .....

 

[JK/SEA]

Native Americans , Aztecs ate dogs , The Lewis and Clark expedition ate dog .....

1. still?
2. they are i believe..extinct now?. They also had human sacrifice.
3. Yea, they couldn't find McDonalds, and this was what...200 years ago?

 

[oyarde]

Dog meat was made illegal in 1950 by British in Hong Kong . Sold in butcher shops in Paris as late as 1910 . Still being consumed in Hawaii in the 1970's . Still consumed in Nigeria & Switzerland . In Poland dog fat is rendered for lard . The Comanches did not eat dog , but the Sioux , Cheyenne , Piute etc did ...

 

[teacherone]

I can only assume 'those' places you refer to are not in the U.S., so its not relevant here in this conversation as we don't have any control over other countries in what they do, but can only boycott/protest as a means to show disdain.

I have my lines in the sand, and ANY animal abuse, including the killing of dolphins and whales is where i get ....beyond angry. Jail for animal abusers?...no. Put them to work in animal shelters for a period of time. Thats what M. Vick should have done, for example.

I make no apologies for my belief in this.

anybody who differentiates between different kinds of animals being ok to eat or not is tragically inconsistent.

if i can eat chicken, then i can eat whale, or dog.

or would you like to force me to not eat meat at all?