Should Cockfighting Be Legal?

[JK/SEA]

Karma making its presence known. All you who voted for cockfighting..YOU ARE NOW ON NOTICE..hahaha

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/115315954.html

 

[oyarde]

Karma making its presence known. All you who voted for cockfighting..YOU ARE NOW ON NOTICE..hahaha

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/115315954.html

Thats more like a Darwin Award.

 

[JK/SEA]

Oh for sure. Definite Darwin Award nominee. I found that by googling 'rooster kills man'...and found other stories of the same thing happening over the years...crqzy and dangerous sport it appears.

 

[oyarde]

Oh for sure. Definite Darwin Award nominee. I found that by googling 'rooster kills man'...and found other stories of the same thing happening over the years...crqzy and dangerous sport it appears.

Just between us , I question the sanity of the first guy who thought it was a good idea to put knives on a rooster's heals ...

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

apparently you don't have a definition of rights that is non-contradictory.

the definitions I included in my post seems to be the only way the rights chip can fall.... either it is something unalienable because it can not be taken away or it is something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party.

i say the concept of rights arises in the context of some sort of ethics. if you recognize from an ethical point of view for example that restricting somebody's freedom of speech is immoral, you can say that people have a right to free speech.

is there a disagreement here? aren't you defining rights as something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party and labeling that concept ethics?

in summary, saying that you have a right to free speech just means that nobody can restrict your freedom of speech without violating the mentioned ethical code.

Speech is not unalienable because it can be impaired with force. But I am willing to consider your claim speech is a right if you can articulate how violations ought to be measured.

protecting rights means punishing those who violates rights.

How do you measure a violation exactly? Non-Aggression Principle?

i don't think this definition is contradictory like other conceptions of rights.

that freedom of speech is inalienable means that every human has a right to freedom of speech, i.e., it is immoral to restrict the freedom of speech of any human.

What if someone yells bomb in a crowded theater? What about covert hypnosis?

there are exceptions for criminals. it is not immoral to restrict a criminals freedom of association. so rights are not inalienable in that sense.

The label criminal seems subjective if there is no tool being proposed to consistently measure "violations."

 

[low preference guy]

is there a disagreement here? aren't you defining rights as something that must be recognized because it requires more than one party and labeling that concept ethics

what's the definition of "must"? to talk about "must" you need ethics.

the way i see it is this: i want to live. that's requires a long term plan (i shouldn't overdose on meth tonight just because i really want to feel good for a moment). if the objective were to live well for a moment, there wouldn't be need for ethics. so the plan to be able to live in the long term is what i call ethics. what is conducive to that goal i call good and what isn't conducive to that goal i call evil.

we can benefit greatly when we can trade goods and exchange knowledge with others. the system of division of labor makes us all better off, and it works best when life and property are protected. thus, i choose to do what i can to protect the lives of others because 1. it's good for me, as there are more goods to exchange. 2. it's the only way others will accept some social rules (such as if someone kills he'll be punished), just like i will only accept social rules if they help me live well. there might be other reasons but 2 are enough to justify my decision.

so "must", as in X must respect the property of others (i.e., not steal) just means that disobeying the "must" in question is against the code of ethics (i.e., against my own life, directly or indirectly), and i'm going to do what i can to punish that action.

Speech is not unalienable because it can be impaired with force. But I am willing to consider your claim speech is a right if you can articulate how violations ought to be measured.

you're correct. speech is alienable if you define alienable that way.

i think the point people try to make when they say inalienable is a moral statement. they want to say that it is always immoral to stop people from speaking, and that action should be punished. even if someone does it, it is wrong. again, this is by definition, because we defined 'wrong' to mean that.

How do you measure a violation exactly? Non-Aggression Principle?

this topic is difficult, and to be honest i don't have an absolute answer. for example, if you commit a crime, and someone punishes you, and the punishment is "excessive" i don't know how to draw the line from proper punishment to excessive punishment, which can be seen as initiation of aggression. but i can measure the violation in common sense cases, like someone out of the blue shots somebody or somebody takes your property or somebody promises in a contract that he is going to pay you and then doesn't pay you. i'm worried about these big cases mostly, and i haven't thought much about the more difficult cases.

What if someone yells bomb in a crowded theater? What about covert hypnosis?

the owner of the theater sets the rules. if he allows others in a contract to yell fire, that's ok. this is one of those difficult cases because we use implicit contracts. we don't sign a paper for absolutely everything we can and cannot do in other people's property or in our interaction with others. so i guess the courts will determine if and how the person will be punished depending on what they consider the implicit contract to cover. that problem should be overcome if all the people that come to your theater sign an explicit contract rendering any implicit contract invalid and establishing whether yelling bomb is ok or not.

The label criminal seems subjective if there is no tool being proposed to consistently measure "violations."

sure, i illustrated the difficulty of the problem above. defining what is a violation precisely probably requires books, if you want an absolute definition that covers every case, including drawing the line between proper punishment and excessive punishment.

but i'm satisfied living in a society that broadly punishes violations... the common sense cases i mentioned above. most of the crimes fall under that category, i believe.

 

[libertarian4321]

Animals are not rational beings,

According to whom?

I suspect you would find many who believe animals are capable of rational thought. They may not be capable of complex thought, but that doesn't mean they aren't rational.

Also, if "rational thought" is required to have rights, what do we do with people, who, due to incapacitation or birth defect, are not capable of rational thought? Are we free to torture them or kill them for amusement and/or profit?

These issues ain't always as clear as some of you like to think they are.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

what's the definition of "must"? to talk about "must" you need ethics.

the definition of must according to my usage means if there are not two parties it doesn't exit.

aka... rights do not exist unless there are two parties

the way i see it is this: i want to live. that's requires a long term plan (i shouldn't overdose on meth tonight just because i really want to feel good for a moment). if the objective were to live well for a moment, there wouldn't be need for ethics. so the plan to be able to live in the long term is what i call ethics. what is conducive to that goal i call good and what isn't conducive to that goal i call evil.

the way i see it is this: choice is good. choice does not require a long term plan. choice only requires one party. however equal opportunity of choice does require two parties agreeing which choices will be respected by the parties.

we can benefit greatly when we can trade goods and exchange knowledge with others. the system of division of labor makes us all better off, and it works best when life and property are protected. thus, i choose to do what i can to protect the lives of others because 1. it's good for me, as there are more goods to exchange. 2. it's the only way others will accept some social rules (such as if someone kills he'll be punished), just like i will only accept social rules if they help me live well. there might be other reasons but 2 are enough to justify my decision.

I believe I benefit when I am free to make any choice that does not impede the choices of others. I believe I benefit competing in self defense. I believe I benefit when able to live among like minded piers who voluntarily agree on how to share land.

so "must", as in X must respect the property of others (i.e., not steal) just means that disobeying the "must" in question is against the code of ethics (i.e., against my own life, directly or indirectly), and i'm going to do what i can to punish that action.

so is the definition of rights choice or equal opportunity of choice? (this was the point of my first post)

you're correct. speech is alienable if you define alienable that way.

i think the point people try to make when they say inalienable is a moral statement. they want to say that it is always immoral to stop people from speaking, and that action should be punished. even if someone does it, it is wrong. again, this is by definition, because we defined 'wrong' to mean that.

this topic is difficult, and to be honest i don't have an absolute answer. for example, if you commit a crime, and someone punishes you, and the punishment is "excessive" i don't know how to draw the line from proper punishment to excessive punishment, which can be seen as initiation of aggression. but i can measure the violation in common sense cases, like someone out of the blue shots somebody or somebody takes your property or somebody promises in a contract that he is going to pay you and then doesn't pay you. i'm worried about these big cases mostly, and i haven't thought much about the more difficult cases.

the owner of the theater sets the rules. if he allows others in a contract to yell fire, that's ok. this is one of those difficult cases because we use implicit contracts. we don't sign a paper for absolutely everything we can and cannot do in other people's property or in our interaction with others. so i guess the courts will determine if and how the person will be punished depending on what they consider the implicit contract to cover. that problem should be overcome if all the people that come to your theater sign an explicit contract rendering any implicit contract invalid and establishing whether yelling bomb is ok or not.

sure, i illustrated the difficulty of the problem above. defining what is a violation precisely probably requires books, if you want an absolute definition that covers every case, including drawing the line between proper punishment and excessive punishment.

but i'm satisfied living in a society that broadly punishes violations... the common sense cases i mentioned above. most of the crimes fall under that category, i believe.

going back to my original point because the conversation is deviating... What are rights and what needs protected exactly?

choice or equal opportunity of choice?

if choice, why does choice require protection?

if equal opportunity of choice, who receives protection? Non Aggressor? NAP?

 

[trey4sports]

I had to read a book on this in college. Forget the name of it but it was by peter singer.

 

[Athena]

I'm pro-animal rights usually, but roosters are some assholes. I don't have a lot of pity there.

Then again, I've never seen a cockfight, so maybe I'd feel differently if I saw one.

 

[teacherone]

Rooster Kills Man Attending Cockfight
February 7, 2011 4:35 PM


DELANO (AP) — A California man attending a cockfight has died after being stabbed in the leg by a bird that had a knife attached to its own limb.

The Kern County coroner says 35-year-old Jose Luis Ochoa was declared dead at a hospital about two hours after he suffered the injury in neighboring Tulare County on

An autopsy concluded Ochoa died of an accidental “sharp force injury” to his right calf.

since animals have rights--should the accused rooster now stand trial?

 

[oyarde]

since animals have rights--should the accused rooster now stand trial?

Thats it , I have made my dinner choice . Fried Chicken !