Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like this thread, it seems to me that most of you are firmly against dog fighting for various reasons, the fact that the dogs "fight to the death," being paramount. Has anyone explored how viewpoints on this matter would change if dog fighting were as tightly controlled as boxing, MMA, etc. I mean since this is an illegal practice there are obviously very few regulations and therefore many egregious acts that take place, Vick is a case in point. But honestly if there were vets on hand and clearly defined rules preventing major injury to the dogs it sounds like many of the problems you people have with this "sport" would go away. The argument about choice to me seems kind've weak also since people and dogs are, by nature, violent species and when it comes right down to it both man and dog fight to resolve conflict. I own a pit bull and would never think about doing any of this with my dog, in fact I have tried hard to ingrain in her not to be aggressive towards other dogs but again (and many people with pits can attest to this) they are by nature animal aggressive. I really don't want people to think that I am advocating this but for the sake of the discussion I want to play devil's advocate and put it out there.
Well sure if dog fighting was regulated like that vs boxing you would have to stop the fight after the first puncture wound. No point in even debating that "what if" cause its never gonna happen.
If it's illegal for animanls to fight and kill each other shouldn't it also be illegal for our fellow human beings to fight and kill each other. Afterall, isn't a human life more valuable than a dogs? If charges are being levied against Vick, should charges be levied against promoters and owners when atheletes dies in the ring or suffer severe injuries. Isn't it the same thing?
It is illegal for animals to fight and that's all you have to know.
When the fight's over or one human gets over on the other, the fight can be stopped, the fighter can just fall down, or the bell can ring. It eventually does. The losing fighter isn't taken out and shot, drowned, electricuted, decapitated, tortured, etc. I hope you are starting to get the picture.
People have the choice of will to do this and this can be done legally. You can choose to watch the sport or not. Unfortunately, some athletes are the last ones to know when to retire. For example; Ali, Emmitt Smith, Bo Jackson, Bart Star, Insert your favorite 5+ year running back here, etc. See, the Broncos kind of figured it out when they started trading otherwise pretty good running backs away after 5 years. That's about all they're good for. Just ask Jim Brown and Barry Saunders.
I don't know who was the first to decide to domesticate Sparky and Scruffy, but now that they did, I don't want to see spot on my plate. I don't want to see Snuffles and Sparkles bleeding to death in a corner with a bunch of nasty disgusting and opportunistic scum yelling and cheering. I don't even want to see Brewster the Rooster suffer this fate either.
Sparkles goes and gets me the paper. He wags his tail and barks cheerfully when Jr. comes walking up the driveway. He was there to lick you on the cheek when you were puking your guts out and puking from the other end when you had to stay home from work with the flu. He barks at intruders while you're sleeping. He chases cats. He chases his tail. He is what we make of him and he becomes almost human. Why? Well, it kind of rubs off on him. If you feed him and give him a bit of shelter, he'll return the favor with unconditional love. So their ya go.
It's like this; serial killers and child rapists commonly wet the bed and abuse animals. It's a known fact. Some sick people get off on this and it's disgusting. Michael Vick got off on killing these losing puppies. He's not in good company. I would not like to be in his shoes for all his money.
Oh, PS: For people that think they know something about Pit Bulls because they own one, listen up! If you think that all APBT's are "aggressive", you're wrong. Only the improperly trained one's are. Some of them are "GAME". That's a whole nuther term that you ought to learn more about, especially if you own a Pit, aka APBT.
Quote:
What Sam said, only without as much tact.
This is without a doubt, the best quote on all of City-Data; and done by a non-member! Here's + Rep Karma to you buddy! And when it's from me, it's times 3!!!
Last edited by McGowdog; 12-18-2007 at 11:57 AM..
Reason: sp
Oh, PS: For people that think they know something about Pit Bulls because they own one, listen up! If you think that all APBT's are "aggressive", you're wrong. Only the improperly trained one's are. Some of them are "GAME". That's a whole nuther term that you ought to learn more about, especially if you own a Pit, aka APBT.
I really hope this wasn't aimed at me, but in case it was. The term "aggressive" by itself was never used in my post, however the term "animal aggressive" was, and for the people who think they know something about APBT's because they may or may not own one this is a true statement. Centuries of breeding have brought out this trait. Please don't lecture about the difference between game and aggressive when they are completely seperate traits. GAME - refers to the tenacity of the dog and it's willingness to keep fighting, pulling, etc. even under extreme discomfort or duress. AGGRESSIVE- refers to the predatory/territorial instincts of the dog which makes it more or less likely to attack certain animals, people, etc. In short, the reason why APBT's are the breed of choice for this sort of thing is precisely because of their animal aggressive tendencies and their gameness. And as with everything in life there are exceptions to the rule but on the whole this is how it is.
Well sure if dog fighting was regulated like that vs boxing you would have to stop the fight after the first puncture wound. No point in even debating that "what if" cause its never gonna happen.
Yes because we all know that as soon as a boxer or MMA fighter starts to bleed they stop the fight. Get real man, I'm not going to debate the rules of a nonexistant sport with anyone, but your "no point in debating because it's never going to happen" comment kinda states the obvious. The whole point of me putting that in there was to see if HYPOTHETICALLY people's attitudes about the subject would change at all, if you can't discuss the hypothetical then don't respond.
the simple fact is that we find forcing dogs to fight morally repugnant, but do not find allowing men to choose to fight to be equally repugnant.
The force is the issue. Humane societies can kill a dog and it is considered to be the right thing to do. Compelling dogs to fight to the death for entertainment is considered wrong. It is not the death of the dog that seems to be the problem it is either the way that they are killed or the fact that we use their death for entertainment.
Perhaps the difference is that in dog fighting the goal is to have the dogs maim or kill each other. In human fighting the goal is to demonstrate skills in fighting but not to cause any permanent harm. Thus, we use boxing gloves instead of bare knuckles.
Perhaps if the dogs were declawed and their teeth removed or covered, we would find it acceptable. Then they could only gum each other and not do any real damage.
Since Dogs have teeth and claws perhaps a better comparison would be to humans fighting in a ring with weapons like the gladiators did. Like dog fighting that is illegal.
This is an interesting question. It is really an issue of morals and ethics and where they come from than it is about sports.
I still wouldn't agree that all pit bulls are "aggressive". That is simply a myth. While there have always been those down the years who have bred them to do such, there have been just as many people who have taught them to be well tempered and obedient. I had a good friend who had a VERY friendly pit bull. Friendly to people, dogs, cats, and even ducks! He would chase the ducks down, tackle them, and lick them. I guess if you consider that aggressive, then yes, he was aggressive.
I still wouldn't agree that all pit bulls are "aggressive". That is simply a myth. While there have always been those down the years who have bred them to do such, there have been just as many people who have taught them to be well tempered and obedient. I had a good friend who had a VERY friendly pit bull. Friendly to people, dogs, cats, and even ducks! He would chase the ducks down, tackle them, and lick them. I guess if you consider that aggressive, then yes, he was aggressive.
If you go down the years you actually find out that there have always been those who have bred them to kill, it is actually a newer concept (the past 100 years or so) that people have NOT been fighting these dogs. Again I don't advocate this but I think some of you are very naive to the concept that these dogs were bred specifically to kill other animals. It was not some unintentional side effect it was the intention. Now as an owner I know that you can train a dog to be what you want it to be, but if you are an owner of an APBT then you are irresponsible if you don't know some of these simple facts. I am a firm believer that APBT's are one of the best breeds that are out there for a multitude of reasons but please don't make it seem like they are the same thing as a Poodle or a Golden Retriever, those dogs were bred for their own reasons, Pits were bred to kill.
If you go down the years you actually find out that there have always been those who have bred them to kill, it is actually a newer concept (the past 100 years or so) that people have NOT been fighting these dogs. Again I don't advocate this but I think some of you are very naive to the concept that these dogs were bred specifically to kill other animals. It was not some unintentional side effect it was the intention. Now as an owner I know that you can train a dog to be what you want it to be, but if you are an owner of an APBT then you are irresponsible if you don't know some of these simple facts. I am a firm believer that APBT's are one of the best breeds that are out there for a multitude of reasons but please don't make it seem like they are the same thing as a Poodle or a Golden Retriever, those dogs were bred for their own reasons, Pits were bred to kill.
Pit bulls were bred to OBEY. The ones that were bred to fight other dogs were bred to kill. Yet they had to be extremely reliable family dogs as well, so they typically had almost no aggression towards humans, with handlers at dogfights often handling their opponent's dog and washing them before the fight.
My point was simply that just because a dog is a pit bull doesn't automatically make it aggressive. Keep in mind that even today those involved in dog fighting frequently kill pit bulls that refuse to attack, or don't attack with enough aggressiveness.
So sure the breed in general has a naturally ingrained tendency to be aggressive, but that doesn't make it apply all the way across the board, and even most that have some aggressiveness can be properly trained to be gently because most of them have a higher desire to please their master than to attack other animals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Facts
