Legalization of Dog Fighting

Angry Woman

Something which is reasonably prevalent in Irish culture, but certainly not in the public eye.

Also, no doubt something that there would be significant public outcry about, no doubt due to the hugely politically correct mentality that was introduced into the minds of Irish since the spawning of the Celtic Tiger.

However, we must consider that not only is this legal in some countries, but widely embraced.
Brazil, Porto Rico, Russia etc.

Generally game bred pitbulls are used.

One of the main oppositions to the sport, is that it promotes animal cruelty.
But what you have to remember is that pitbulls are bred specifically for this purpose, and trained from birth.
Game bred meaning, it's in their genetic design to fight.
It's what they're made to do, and pitbulls who don't show the correct inclination in this regard, are not used for fights.

One of my own personal issues with the ownership of pitbulls, is irresponsibility on behalf of said owner.

I'm sure some of us have heard of the horror story in Britain recently, concerning the death of an infant at the jaws of three pitbulls.

Ideally, with the legalization of the sport, pitbull ownership would be predicated on licensing and inspection of adequate kennel confines - as nine times out of ten, this seems to be the shortcoming as far as their liability is concerned.

Hopefully it's legalization would also serve to eradicate the "thug glamor" appeal in pitbull ownership, and highlight positive facets of correct pitbull breeding, training, ownership and fighting.

it's a stupid cruel idea

goose2005

People like horrific violence against animals to be hidden away in slaughterhouses and vets, they abhor the idea of people watching it and wanting to watch it; it's not the suffering itself they object to.

nozzferrahhtoo

By "people" you mean you are speaking for yourself I hope? Because I can tell you that you are not speaking for me.

Angry Woman

lol - just for those that are actually objecting to the animal cruelty aspect.

When a dog is clearly loosing, he's pulled out.

When all the fight is gone out of a dog, he's not used to fight any more.

Once again, they're GAME BRED.
Genetically, they like to fight.

If you really wanna see some cruelty toward k9's, check out the chinese fur industry.

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

lol - just for those that are actually objecting to the animal cruelty aspect.

When a dog is clearly loosing, he's pulled out.

Ah thats fine so. Tell you what, I will start attacking children. When they start clearly loosing you can pull me off them.

Angry Woman wrote: »

Once again, they're GAME BRED.

Ah good, so if we breed children specifically for sex, then it is not cruel to rape and have sex with them.

The analogies might seem harsh but you are justifying cruelty simply by saying they are bred for cruelty and when they simply can not take any more cruelty they are ditched from the sport.

This concept that cruelty is ok if it is premeditated far enough in advance simply is tosh.

moomooman

notsureiftrolling.jpg

Dog fighting is not a sport. It will never be legalised nor should it.

What do you think happens to dogs that lose or are severley injured? Do you think the caring folk who get a thrill from watching animals get savaged will nurse the losers back to health?

Zombrex

Angry Woman wrote: »

One of the main oppositions to the sport, is that it promotes animal cruelty.
But what you have to remember is that pitbulls are bred specifically for this purpose, and trained from birth.
Game bred meaning, it's in their genetic design to fight.
It's what they're made to do, and pitbulls who don't show the correct inclination in this regard, are not used for fights.

That doesn't nullify the animal cruelty argument. The animal cruelty argument comes from the fact that the animals suffer greatly during these fights.

Nothing in their genetics changes this, we have not bred these animals to not feel pain.

Sleepy

So, if we breed and train a dog to fight but it turns out he's not very good at it, what then? Put him down? Use him for the other dogs to "practice" on? Make him a family pet at the risk of his "nature" (both breeding and training) rearing it's head near children?

While I'm firmly in the 'no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner' camp when it comes to dogs, given the fact that pitbulls are purpose bred for fighting, it makes no sense to allow them into the country imho. Police the ban on the sport, arrest and jail those involved and humanely put down any of the dogs found here.

JustinDee

Angry Woman wrote: »

lol - just for those that are actually objecting to the animal cruelty aspect.
When a dog is clearly loosing, he's pulled out.
When all the fight is gone out of a dog, he's not used to fight any more.
Once again, they're GAME BRED.
Genetically, they like to fight.
If you really wanna see some cruelty toward k9's, check out the chinese fur industry.

Your ilk should never be let anywhere near a dog. Clearly no understanding on the welfare of such an animal.

The moral relativist slant about the "Chinese Fur Industry" doesn't cut it either nor does listing the likes of Russia or Puerto Rico as exemplary locales of legal dog-fighting.

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

While I'm firmly in the 'no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner' camp when it comes to dogs, given the fact that pitbulls are purpose bred for fighting, it makes no sense to allow them into the country imho.

Tbh, you could use that logic to ban a whole pile of breeds on the basis that they were bred to perform tasks that are now obsolete. Except in a minority of cases, most dogs in the country are pets and do not do any specific work, so I'm not sure why you'd single out pitbulls in this regard. They're bred to be strong fighters, but not to be especially agressive "out of the box".
There's also a strong argument that they're especially placid towards humans because they were bred to live in the family home so would need to show particular care towards children.

In any case, controlling the existence of pitbulls wouldn't affect the kind of people who are involved in dog fighting and doesn't result in any improvement in injury statistics.

As for the OP, well that's just nonsense really. You could argue that the first African taken from America were bred for slavery, which made it OK so long as they're "freed" when they get too old or injured to keep working.

On the one hand going on about animal cruelty but failing to see the inherent cruelty in forcing two dogs to fight in a ring. The dogs aren't fighting for fun.

Gee Bag

Hi OP,

I've read your post a couple of times and don't really get what your suggesting. Are you advocating the legalisation of dogfighting?

Angry Woman

Listen. I'm not stating my case such that I believe entirely humane and should be as accepted as horse racing or something.
I'll agree, there are aspects that are controversial.

However, there are several other activities and facets of society that fall into much the same category.

Gambling and casino's.
Boxing.
Human fight sports in general.
Prostitution.
Drug use.

They all cross the bounds of what we may deem to be politically correct, and all of them will inspire opposition from certain sects of society; mainly those raised and brought up with certain beliefs and a set mentality.

The point I'm making is, it's in human nature to compete, to enjoy the rush of certain experiences, the pleasure of victory.
To take risks.

I think as a sport, or whatever you may deem it to be, dog fighting is not as reprehensible and abhorrent as many make it out to be.

Well bred, well looked after, well trained dogs, fight each other for viewing pleasure and to facilitate gamblers.
It's exciting to watch, and I'll admit, there is some appeal of seeing that raw aggression collide.

Again, I do think there should be control measures in place, such as mandatory licensing, to ensure responsible ownership.

PS - yes, I do think my "chinese fur industry" point is valid.

If they're farming animals (cats and dogs) for the specific purpose of being skinned alive by the thousands on a daily basis, and often disposed of whilst still in a respiratory state - and it's entirely legal - then I believe the pain endured by game bred and trained dog in a controlled environment is something which could be acceptable to the majority of us.

Angry Woman

Gee Bag wrote: »

Hi OP,

I've read your post a couple of times and don't really get what your suggesting. Are you advocating the legalisation of dogfighting?

Yes, exactly.

Under strictly controlled measures, specifically regarding ownership and proper kenneling.

As I mentioned also, I believe that would (hopefully, with correct enforcement), serve to eradicate the apparent appeal of owning pitbulls as regular pets, and heighten safety measures concerning their ownership.

seamus

Angry Woman wrote: »

Gambling and casino's.
Boxing.
Human fight sports in general.

These are sports that people play to win. They have a choice to take part or withdraw without incident. There is usually a minimal or zero risk of death. The adrenaline rush comes from the fear of losing, not the fear of dying. If you've ever been in a near-death situation, you'll realise that the former is far more fun than the latter.

Dogs in a pit do not have a choice to withdraw. They don't even have the choice of whether they want to fight. They fight for their lives because they don't know that the handlers will stop it early. All they know is that the other guy wants to kill them.

Think of it in a gladatorial sense. Would it be OK to use prisoners for gladiator tournaments? We usually try to end the fight before someone dies, but that's not guaranteed, so each time a prisoner goes into the arena, he's fighting for his life, as far as he knows. He has no choice whether he enters the arena that day, and even if he thinks he's too tired to compete, it's up to his "handler" to decide if that's the case.

How is that OK in anyone's head, unless they're sick?

The idea that it would also discourage scum from owning dogs is also laughable. Like boxing, this kind of thing would be particularly appealing to the dregs of society, who would all compete between eachother to breed the biggest, strongest, most vicious dog they could and parade it around the streets for all to see. It would be a badge of honour to own a dog that killed a person as then it would be considered a serious badass.

Pit Bulls are great dogs, they have a wide variety of uses other than fighting each other for "sport".

The majority of PBT owners are responsible people who love and look after their dog, there's a small circle of people that partake in this sport and who give the dog a bad name.

Collie x's have attacked and maimed people just as much if not more than pit bulls but which one is in the papers every week?

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

However, there are several other activities and facets of society that fall into much the same category.

Firstly the things you list are already legal, they involve consenting adults and they do not involve breeding people with the express intention to inflict pain and violence upon them.

So no, nothing in your "list" is even remotely comparable to what you are advocating here.

Secondly these are tangents. Each thing on such a list should be considered in isolation on it's own merits or demerits. The argument of "My morally detestable thing should be legal because I can list other morally ambiguous things that are legal" just does not wash.

It would make as much sense as saying "Pedophilia should be legal because homosexual sex is!". That is to say: No sense at all.

Angry Woman wrote: »

The point I'm making is, it's in human nature to compete, to enjoy the rush of certain experiences, the pleasure of victory.

Then start a fight club and do your own fighting with other consenting adults, with the understanding that the audience will pull the other person off you if you start losing too badly.

Have the courage of your convictions to fight, compete, win and lose if such things actually are (which I doubt) of importance to you.

Do not breed defenseless animals to do it vicariously for you.

Triangla

Dogs should be allowed fight, providing they choose to do it themselves.

Just leave the boxing gloves and Rocky DVDs next to his kennel and I'm sure he'll decide to get into it.

MagicMarker

Surely this is a pisstake?

OP, are pitbulls the only dogs that should partake in dog fighting? What about a couple of chiwawas?

JustinDee

Angry Woman wrote: »

The point I'm making is, it's in human nature to compete, to enjoy the rush of certain experiences, the pleasure of victory

They're dogs. Not humans. They don't choose to become fighting animals.

Ffs...

Zombrex

Angry Woman wrote: »

Well bred, well looked after, well trained dogs
...
then I believe the pain endured by game bred and trained dog in a controlled environment is something which could be acceptable to the majority of us.

What is the difference between a "well looked after" dog that you use in fighting and a not well looked after dog that isn't used in fighting?

You seem to object to not looking after animals correctly, but isn't exposing an animal to consistent violence and injury the very definition of not looking after animals correctly.

What is the difference between bringing your dog to a dog fight every Monday and someone hitting a dog with a stick every Monday (which is the definition of animal abuse)

Gee Bag

Also, no doubt something that there would be significant public outcry about, no doubt due to the hugely politically correct mentality that was introduced into the minds of Irish since the spawning of the Celtic Tiger.

Dogfighting has been banned in Britain & Ireland since 1835. I think it's called the cruelty to animals act. You'll be diappointed to find out that it also bans bear-baiting and cock-fighting.

You claim in your first post that dog fighting is prevalent in Ireland. I would strongly disagree. While it does take place, it is in no way prevalent. As a matter of fact this is the first time I have ever heard anyone advocating such a move.

Your argument is very, very poorly reasoned and as a consequence is hard to take seriously even as an attempt at trolling

westies4ever

you signed up to Boards just to push your misguided and thoroughly reprehensible idea to legalise dog fighting? jesus wept (hugs her own two doggies very close). I really dont know what to say.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLnCVsa0O5c

yeah those dogs look like they are really enjoying it. i'm biting my tongue here as i dont want to get banned :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Angry Woman

Oh for Gods sakes.

That video outlines terrible animal abuse and negligence and pertains only slightly to actual pitbull fights.

For those who have grossly mis-construed my point, allow me to use an analogy.

I'm also for legalization of prostitution.

Does that mean I condone pimping, human trafficking, underage prostitution, child abuse etc?

No.
None of the above.

In fact, I'd be in support of regulations that ensure the "work" is carried out at registered designated locations, and in a civilized and acceptable manner - at least in terms of "supply".
And if I had my way, there'd be revenue collected off of their earnings also.

Now, when I say I think dog fighting should be legalized, does that mean that I support cruelty to animals, condone mistreatment and negligence?

No.

What I'm saying is, that dogs who are bred and raised with this purpose in mind should have mandatory license requirements as far as their owners are concerned, adequate and secure confines to eliminate public liability, and those who do not conform should have their animals confiscated/put down, whatever you want to call it.

That is to say, pitbulls should be owned by those who are have adequate responsibility to own a dog of that nature, and if they choose to fight him, so be it.

For those who are incapable of carrying that responsibility, the right to own a pitbull should be withdrawn.

westies4ever

Angry Woman wrote: »

Oh for Gods sakes

excuse me??

Angry Woman wrote: »

That video outlines terrible animal abuse and negligence and pertains only slightly to actual pitbull fights.

What's going to happen at your dog fights? Are they going to call each other names? Dogs will get hurt. End of.

Angry Woman wrote: »

I'm also for legalization of prostitution.

Does that mean I condone pimping, human trafficking, underage prostitution, child abuse etc? None of the above.

In fact, I'd be in support of regulations that ensure the "work" is carried out at registered designated locations, and in a civilized and acceptable manner - at least in terms of "supply".
And if I had my way, there'd be revenue collected off of their earnings also.

Compeletely irrelevant

Angry Woman wrote: »

What I'm saying is, that dogs who are bred and raised with this purpose in mind should have mandatory license requirements as far as their owners are concerned, adequate and secure confines to eliminate public liability, and those who do not conform should have their animals confiscated/put down, whatever you want to call it.

That is to say, pitbulls should be owned by those who are have adequate responsibility to own a dog of that nature, and if they choose to fight him, so be it.

For those who are incapable of carrying that responsibility, the right to own a pitbull should be withdrawn.

A dog should NOT be bred for fighting end of. You can dress it up anyway you like - its cruel and barbaric.

h2005

Pretty sick thinking

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gee Bag

I'm also for legalization of prostitution.

Does that mean I condone pimping, human trafficking, underage prostitution, child abuse etc?

Hate to be getting all legalistic again but here it goes, selling and buying of sex is not illegal in Ireland. However, operation of a brothel, pimping, human trafficking, underage prostitution and child abuse are.

Not only is the logic used to reason your entire argument thus far fundamentally flawed (as pointed out by other posters), it is also riddled with factual inaccuracies. A little less opinion and a bit more attention to detail is called for.

You could start by looking at the Control of Dogs Act (1986)

P.S. This side of the Atlantic legalisation is spelt with an 's' not a 'z'

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

I'm also for legalization of prostitution.

And I already outlined two reasons why that comparison is a bad one. Clearly reading and responding to posts on here is not your agenda. Ignoring them and then making the same debunked points again however... is.

Angry Woman

Okay, it's cruel and inhumane.

Two animals, who are well looked after, fred, and trained, are PUT (not by choice), in a position where they must fight each other, with the potential for serious injury and harm.
Sometimes the fights go to the death.

However, if we consider the scale, in terms of the number of dog fights that are likely to occur, and therefore the number of potentially injured, disabled or dead dogs that will result, on a comparative basis to - shall we say - (already mentioned) the entirely legal Chinese fur industry, I think it's fair to point out that the quantity and degree of suffering is pretty much negligible.

The counter argument would surely be, "does a massacre in one area justify a murder in another?".

Well, my retort would be, we're not talking about humans.
We're talking about animals.
Animals bred for a specific purpose, for which they are put to use.

We breed cows, so we can have beef.

We breed chickens, so we can eat them also.

And you can be sure, at least in reference to the later, that the conditions that these animals are raised in, has a suffering level magnified 100 fold, in comparison to the pain endured by a fighting dog during his time in the box.

Yet I bet some of you enjoyed a chicken roll at lunch time today.

Or are looking forward to a steak dinner this evening, while you sit down in the warm and comfortable environs of your home.

The act of dog fighting itself may not be a pleasing thought to many.
But examined on a larger scale, the degree of inhumanity is not quite so astounding.

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

Two animals, who are well looked after, fred, and trained, are PUT (not by choice), in a position where they must fight each other, with the potential for serious injury and harm.
Sometimes the fights go to the death.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up and harping on about how well they are looked after. What has this got to do with it?

Cruelty is not justified by being nice the rest of the time.

For example have you heard women who are beaten by their husbands come out with lines like "Well it only happens once every few months he is lovely the rest of the time"? Well I have and trust me that does not justify domestic violence.

Or what if I tried to justify kidnap and rape by saying that although I do those things to her once a day, for the rest of the day I make her lovely dinners, pipe satellite TV into her cage, and buy her the best clothes.

Drop this act that you can justify atrocities by being nicey nice the rest of the time. It simply doesn't wash any more than your penchant for ignoring all the replies and trotting out the same points those replies already debunked. You are soap boxing here, not conversing and I hope the mods are aware of it.

Angry Woman

Well, actually main counter argument to my initial assertion was the cruelty and inhumanity of the act, which I addressed in last post.

It's ironic that you would say I'm simply parroting the same verse, when you failed to offer any kind of counter argument to my most recent point of view.

So effectively you've taken to parroting the fact that I'm parroting, as a means of counter argument... lol
I hope the mods are aware of it.

Again, to re-outline my point of view as regards it's inhumanity:

Yes, I will agree a degree of that exists, but on the scale of inhumane exploitations, at least concerning animals, and humans use of them, dog fighting doesn't even rank.

So maybe consider that before you purchase tomorrows lunchtime chicken fillet role.

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

It's ironic that you would say I'm simply parroting the same verse, when you failed to offer any kind of counter argument to my most recent point of view.

Now you are just lying. My entire post above WAS the counter to your most recent points. Do you want to pretend the post actually is not there? Are you at that level really?

Angry Woman wrote: »

Yes, I will agree a degree of that exists, but on the scale of inhumane exploitations, at least concerning animals, and humans use of them, dog fighting doesn't even rank.

False. The food industry faces complicated and stringent rules on how it can treat animals. The comparison is not valid and certainly does not compare to breeding animals for agnoising blood sport.

As I said however, I might start to take you seriously when you yourself get into a ring and fight a blood sport with an opponent with the understanding people will try and pull your opponent off if you start losing too badly, and they will make it all up to you with a nice hot meal afterwards.

When YOU are willing to engage in that THEN you have the authority to speak on this subject at least on some level.

If your point is to compare free range chickens to blood sport dogs then you simply have no point. And as I said all the other points I countered you simply ignored my posts and moved on and repeated most of the same points again.

Angry Woman

And again, in reference to your point as regard kidnap etc. we're talking about animals, not humans.

Keeping a kidnapped confined in a cage? lol

Is that the way you consider humans should be kept in general?

Ironically, that is actually how most people would consider the correct confinement of a dangerous animal, however.

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

And again, in reference to your point as regard kidnap etc. we're talking about animals, not humans.

Irrelevant as my point was an analogy. It does not matter what species I am talking about. The analogy was to highlight the fact that cruelty can not be justified by being nice the rest of the time. It might make the person BEING cruel feel better, but that is all. Cruelty is not justified by being nice later, regardless of whether we are talking about animals or humans.

Angry Woman wrote: »

Is that the way you consider humans should be kept in general?

Don't be deliberately facetious. It is quite clear I do not, which is the whole point of the analogy. If you will not take others seriously then no one will take seriously, so do not ask questions you already know the answer to just to try and wind people up.

Angry Woman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. The food industry faces complicated and stringent rules on how it can treat animals.

Sure. The only catch is, them stringent rules permit the confines for the breeding of chickens to be cages so miniscul the spreading of their wings is impossible, the clipping of their beaks, and the force feeding of rapid growth nutrients - all before they ultimately get slaughtered and processed for human (that's you and me, condoning all the aforementioned) consumption, of course.

The comparison is not valid

lol - decreed by your good self, at least.

Can I see your animal treatment authority license?

and certainly does not compare to breeding animals for agnoising blood sport.

As I said however, I might start to take you seriously when you yourself get into a ring and fight a blood sport with an opponent with the understanding people will try and pull your opponent off if you start losing too badly, and they will make it all up to you with a nice hot meal afterwards.

When YOU are willing to engage in that THEN you have the authority to speak on this subject at least on some level.

If your point is to compare free range chickens to blood sport dogs then you simply have no point.

90% of consumed chicken is NOT free range, but bred and produced under the conditions that I have just outlined.

And my point was relative to the treatment of animals for human benefit, of whatever kind.
So yes, I do have a point.

nozzferrahhtoo

Then you have fallen into the obvious trap as I led you. You are not making a good argument FOR the legalisation of dog fighting here. You are making a good argument FOR more stringent regulation of the food industry.

In essence you are using wrongs to justify another wrong. Ever heard the old "Two wrongs do not make a right?". Everything you are saying is simply arguing for better treatment of other animals.

It makes as much sense as saying "Well if people can kill each other in war, then I should be allowed to kill who I want here". No, we should be trying to end war, not using one wrong to justify another. Similarly if animals are being treated badly in the food industry then we should be working to improve THAT, not using that to allow other cruelty elsewhere.

As an argument for legalising the bad treatment of some animals however, it fails entirely. So no you do not have a point.

Angry Woman wrote: »

Can I see your animal treatment authority license?

After you. Your thread. I doubt you are any more authoritative on these issues than I. So do not pretend you are.

Angry Woman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant as my point was an analogy.

Yes, an analogy.
And not a very apt or relevant one, as I have highlighted, as we don't use humans for consumption in general.
The reference is animals, so if you feel you must make your point, please do so within the relevant confines, and try and convince me that the suffering enduring during animal breeding for human consumption or use of whatever kind, is somehow more humane and generally acceptable than suffering endured by another type of animal (that initially referenced) for the purposes of it's breeding and use.

Laisurg

Wow... I mean.... Seriously? The only people who are involved with dog fights are scum of the earth.

Why would anyone in their right mind think it would be a good idea to set up any legislation for them to continue cruelty legally? And to get rid of the glamour of having a pitbull you think we should change a law and allow cruelty? A bit drastic for something that's not really a problem don't you think? Sure we may as well legalize child fighting at the same time.

Stupidest thing I've read on boards to be honest.

westies4ever

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4cBMHYpZbj4/TOOfHmOgjNI/AAAAAAAAGfo/yV8eTKme0ww/s1600/dont-feed-the-troll.jpeg

Angry Woman

The point is, whether you like it or not, humans use animals for their own benefit and 99% of the time, it's inhumane.

Only in this case, as it's "inhumanity" is so outright and apparent, it's been decreed illegal.
But that doesn't make it any more reprehensible than breeding and killing livestock for use and consumption, if your point of view is such.
In fact, as I've outlined, the degree of "humanity" in dog fighting, can be objectively seen as being significantly higher than treatment of most animals bred for human use.

Am I calling for better treatment of other livestock during growth and processing?
Well, if that would indeed happen, it'd make the world a better place.
But $$$ talks, so if you can go to thailand or china and convince them make a compromise in terms of the good old unit of currency in favor of correct and humane animal treatment, then you have my support and regard entirely.

But the fact of the matter still stands.

Animal use, for human benefit.

And I don't believe dog fighting, if it were regulated correctly, would carry such a degree of inhumanity as to justify it's illegality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bmcnamara02

Angry Woman wrote: »

One of my own personal issues with the ownership of pitbulls, is irresponsibility on behalf of said owner.

I'm sure some of us have heard of the horror story in Britain recently, concerning the death of an infant at the jaws of three pitbulls.

Ideally, with the legalization of the sport, pitbull ownership would be predicated on licensing and inspection of adequate kennel confines - as nine times out of ten, this seems to be the shortcoming as far as their liability is concerned.

Hopefully it's legalization would also serve to eradicate the "thug glamor" appeal in pitbull ownership, and highlight positive facets of correct pitbull breeding, training, ownership and fighting.

I own a pit bull. He is a pet and a companion. The thought of involving him in fights for the entertainment of morons is abhorrent.

Angry Woman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That necessity doesn't negate the horror of the conditions that some of those animals are bred and raised in.
You and I effectively condone that by eating that food day in day out.

And food isn't the only animal product....

Animals aside for a second, and let's address the issue of humanity in relation to entertainment.

Tell me about the humanity in droves of people hoarding themselves into licensed confines every weekend and inebriating themselves so badly they effectively turn them and their surrounds into a human zoo equivalent.

And you mean to tell me no one gets hurt in the process?

After hour street fights we're common place where I grew up.
Drunk driving? No one get's hurt?

I'm sure if I put my mind to it, I could come up with a very comprehensive list.

So we're talking about humanity and entertainment.

If we were to compare "acceptable" activities on a linear scale with dog fighting, in terms of the overall degree of damage, inhumanity, civility - I think we could come up with a very convincing product in favor of the issue being addressed.

Again, I think we all know that it's the outright and uncompromising nature to the act of dog fighting that we have a problem with.
The cruelty involved?
Not so much.

Gee Bag

Angry Woman wrote: »

Tell me about the humanity in droves of people hoarding themselves into licensed confines every weekend and inebriating themselves so badly they effectively turn them and their surrounds into a human zoo equivalent.

I think thats called 'socialising' AKA 'having fun'. Not much of a drinker myself but if other people enjoy it then whats the harm.

I know that I'm supposed to attack the post and not the poster, but your posts are very hard to follow and your arguments are very incoherent. You seem to just be ranting at the world.

Out of curiosity, have you ever owned a dog?

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

Yes, an analogy.
And not a very apt or relevant one, as I have highlighted, as we don't use humans for consumption in general.

Then it is lucky consumption was not the point of the analogy is it not? The point was to highlight examples of the fact that cruelty does not become justified simply because you are nicer to the victim the rest of the time. A point you clearly wish to avoid.

By the way, side point. Humans ARE animals.

Angry Woman wrote: »

convince me that the suffering enduring during animal breeding for human consumption or use of whatever kind, is somehow more humane and generally acceptable than suffering endured by another type of animal

I do not have to because the point I just made in the previous point and you by passed by asking me the same again... is that it is either cruel... or it is not.... pointing to something else you think is cruel and saying "If they can be cruel then so should I be" is not a point.

Angry Woman wrote: »

The point is, whether you like it or not, humans use animals for their own benefit and 99% of the time, it's inhumane

And the counter point is, where you like it or not, that cruelty in one area is not justified because cruelty may be happening in another.

IF you want improve the conditions of animals in the food industry then by all means go for it. If you want to use their conditions to justify your own cruelty then no dice, try again.

Angry Woman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And the counter point is, where you like it or not, that cruelty in one area is not justified because cruelty may be happening in another.

And my point is, humans are cruel in general when it's a means to an end.
No doubt we'll find some way to justify it, but it doesn't nullify it's nature.

Just because you don't agree with it, or because it doesn't happen behind the concealment of a livestock or slaughterhouse door, doesn't mean that it should be rid from society so that some folk don't have to face the reality of their own nature.

...humans ARE animals...

Precisely.

I say, regulate it, keep it within bounds, and from affecting those who wish to have no involvement.

But to rid it entirely is not justified.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Angry Woman wrote: »

And my point is, humans are cruel in general

You will get no argument from me there, but the point is irrelevant. You cannot use cruelty to logically justify cruelty. Pulling yourself up by the socks is not possible. You call down every time.

Angry Woman wrote: »

No doubt we'll find some way to justify it

Maybe, but you have not yet. So keep trying.