robdawg right every time

Vick being attacked by dogs would have generated plenty of news. It would not have been spread as here, but that is due to the nature of the story, i.e., an attack is a singular occurence a criminal investigation, trial, etc., is not.
 
Chapdog said:
You do know these dogs were created for sporting to begin with.. Before the nineteenth century, bloodsports such as bull baiting, bear baiting and cock fighting were common. Bulls bought to market were set upon by dogs as a way of tenderizing the meat and providing entertainment for the spectators; and dog fights with bears, bulls and other animals were often organized as entertainment for both royalty and commoners.

The pitting of dogs against bear or bull tested the gameness, strength and skill of the dog. These early "proto-staffords" provided the ancestral foundation stock for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier with the exception of the American Staffordshire Terrier.

These bloodsports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. Since dogfights were cheaper to organise and far easier to conceal from the law than bull or bear baits, bloodsport proponents turned to pitting their dogs one against another instead. Dog fighting was used as both a bloodsport (often involving gambling) and as an effort to continue to test the quality of their stock. For decades afterwards, dog fighting clandestinely took place in pockets of working-class Britain and America. Dogs were released in a pit, and the last dog still fighting (or occasionally, the last dog surviving) was recognised as the winner. The quality of pluckiness or "gameness" was still highly prized, and dogs that gave up during a fight were reviled as "curs". As an important aside, fighting dogs were often handled in the pit during fights, by both their owners and the judge, so were bred to be as trustworthy with humans as they were aggressive towards other dogs.
Click to expand...

Humans also used to have giant collosuems where people fought to the death. It was great for spectators and all, but you know, it just wasn't ethical. Humans started realizing that watching someone die, may be fun to watch, but very cruel to the one person who is dead. Now, we just have people fight each other until the other is knocked out, and they choose that lifestyle. Dogs, well, they don't choose their lifestyle.. people train them to be fighting dogs. Then kill them if they can't win a fight. Pretty fuckin' cruel if you ask me. Hey, now what if we forced a child, starting from birth, to be an aggresive, pschopathic freak of nature that kills other human beings. I'm pretty damn sure the parents of that child would be in jail for abuse.
 
Hey, now what if we forced a child, starting from birth, to be an aggresive, pschopathic freak of nature that kills other human beings. I'm pretty damn sure the parents of that child would be in jail for abuse.
//
Or the proud parents of a football player ?
 
uscitizen said:
Hey, now what if we forced a child, starting from birth, to be an aggresive, pschopathic freak of nature that kills other human beings. I'm pretty damn sure the parents of that child would be in jail for abuse.
//
Or the proud parents of a football player ?
Click to expand...

I was a football player and played with many current NFL Pros. You consider a football player so aggresive and psychotic that they'd kill another human being? I'd like to hear your arguement for this one..
 
DigitalDave said:
Humans also used to have giant collosuems where people fought to the death. It was great for spectators and all, but you know, it just wasn't ethical. Humans started realizing that watching someone die, may be fun to watch, but very cruel to the one person who is dead. Now, we just have people fight each other until the other is knocked out, and they choose that lifestyle. Dogs, well, they don't choose their lifestyle.. people train them to be fighting dogs. Then kill them if they can't win a fight. Pretty fuckin' cruel if you ask me. Hey, now what if we forced a child, starting from birth, to be an aggresive, pschopathic freak of nature that kills other human beings. I'm pretty damn sure the parents of that child would be in jail for abuse.
Click to expand...


Your dog does not choose to be on a leash or have one of them stupid sweaters put on them either. Horses do not choose to be saddled and ridden. Animals do not have rights to choose their actions, so the point is irrelevant.

Children are not property or animals.
 
RStringfield said:
Your dog does not choose to be on a leash or have one of them stupid sweaters put on them either. Horses do not choose to be saddled and ridden. Animals do not have rights to choose their actions, so the point is irrelevant.

Children are not property or animals.
Click to expand...

So then humans should be able to do whatever they want to them?
 
DigitalDave said:
I was a football player and played with many current NFL Pros. You consider a football player so aggresive and psychotic that they'd kill another human being? I'd like to hear your arguement for this one..
Click to expand...

Umm vick and some others ? one or two other with mental problems in that directiion were mentioned in this thread. Or maybe in the other poor dog thread.
 
RStringfield said:
We already can and do, do whatever we want with them. The question is who should decide the limits, I have already stated my preference on that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for not hanging on your every word since you got here, I won't make that mistake again, but since I did make it today, can you repeat your "stated preference" on that?
 
DigitalDave said:
Humans also used to have giant collosuems where people fought to the death. It was great for spectators and all, but you know, it just wasn't ethical. Humans started realizing that watching someone die, may be fun to watch, but very cruel to the one person who is dead. Now, we just have people fight each other until the other is knocked out, and they choose that lifestyle. Dogs, well, they don't choose their lifestyle.. people train them to be fighting dogs. Then kill them if they can't win a fight. Pretty fuckin' cruel if you ask me. Hey, now what if we forced a child, starting from birth, to be an aggresive, pschopathic freak of nature that kills other human beings. I'm pretty damn sure the parents of that child would be in jail for abuse.
Click to expand...

Great post, Dave!

The state of Texas recently passed a law whereby the owner of a dog that attacks a person and causes bodily harm will be charged with a felony punishable up to three years. The proposed legislation was modified before passing so that the dog had to be identified before the incident as dangerous, but still it is illegal now not to have complete control over your dog at all times.

There's a very well thought out op-ed piece on MSNBC today about the Vick case. The writer made the point that after Mike Tyson served his time he was pretty much washed up as a fighter -- not only because he was that much older, but nobody took him seriously any more. (Then he chewed off Holyfield's ear in the ring, remember that?) The guy's a joke. Of course, I don't know anybody who really respected him much before his criminal charges, either, unlike Michael Vick.

The piece went on to suggest, correctly I feel, that it isn't the NFL but the fans who won't want Vick back, and most won't be interested in seeing him play and won't root for him or any team he might play for. This was a career-fatal error in judgment on his part. Too bad, it was his call to make and he can face the consequences. Personally I'd like him to face the same treatment he gave those dogs, but we don't do that. He'll almost certainly lose his career, but his career and income are, frankly, at the suffrance of the fans, aren't they! And if he's offended those fans to the extent that he has, then he loses what they give him. (Damo, his signing bonus was $37M).

As to training, my Australian Shepherd is currently in a Canine Good Citizen class and is doing very well; almost certainly will pass on his first try, which is great. Apparently Aussies are among the 75 breeds -- count 'em, 75! -- that are suggested at least somewhere in the country to be classified as "dangerous dogs". Well, he might lick you to death but that's all. :)

As nearly everyone here has said, it isn't the dogs themselves that are the problem, it's the people. Those pits were at the mercy of their owner(s) and handlers; they had no choice and were trained for only one thing. And were brutally killed if they weren't up to snuff. Anyone who participates in that should spend some good hard time.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Your dog does not choose to be on a leash or have one of them stupid sweaters put on them either. Horses do not choose to be saddled and ridden. Animals do not have rights to choose their actions, so the point is irrelevant.

Children are not property or animals.
Click to expand...

No... RString, my initial point was that what was done in the past does not necessarily make something legit now-a-days. I'm not trying to compare dogs to humans, but if we were to do that there still is no arguement for dog-fighting. You just picked out one part of what I said and focused on it too hard I guess.
 
Darla said:
I'm sorry for not hanging on your every word since you got here, I won't make that mistake again, but since I did make it today, can you repeat your "stated preference" on that?
Click to expand...


It is in this thread, twice, posted just this morning. Alright lazy ass...

I think this sort of thing should be decided by the vote of a supermajority. The limit suggested, on the way one may use their animals is cruelty. But what that is, is highly subjective and changes with the times. Therefore, I'd prefer it be decided by a supermajority at state and local levels.
 
RStringfield said:
It is in this thread, twice, posted just this morning. Alright lazy ass...

I think this sort of thing should be decided by the vote of a supermajority. The limit suggested, on the way one may use their animals is cruelty. But what that is, is highly subjective and changes with the times. Therefore, I'd prefer it be decided by a supermajority at state and local levels.
Click to expand...

Oh..well I don't prefer that.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, being a statist you have little qualms with the state aristocrats telling the people how they are permitted to use their property.
Click to expand...

Since an animal is a living being, I believe that the allegedly more advanced human race, has an obligation to guard and ensure they are not subject to cruel treatment.

I don't think that dogs should be hung from trees and set on fire. I'm fucked up that way and I guess that makes me a "statist" which is a word you Libertarians love to throw around as if it means something to anyone other than your very small circle jerk. You are so much better than mere mortals who don't identify as libertarians. Who could ever hope to ever look up and see anything but the soles of your feet, and only then, if they are very, very lucky.

Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
it's good enough for me.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the constitution requires a majority type of thing not a supermajority....
Or is this impeachment or something ?
Click to expand...

I know. It's a stupid statement on his part, but he's a Libertarian usc. So mere mortals cannot hope to understand the likes of himself.

Wonder when they will wake up and realize they are 12 year old boys enjoying a circle jerk, but my guess is never.

While we are waiting, I, the statist, can laugh at how fucking stupid they make themselves look.
 
Darla said:
Since an animal is a living being, I believe that the allegedly more advanced human race, has an obligation to guard and ensure they are not subject to cruel treatment.

I don't think that dogs should be hung from trees and set on fire. I'm fucked up that way and I guess that makes me a "statist" which is a word you Libertarians love to throw around as if it means something to anyone other than your very small circle jerk. You are so much better than mere mortals who don't identify as libertarians. Who could ever hope to ever look up and see anything but the soles of your feet, and only then, if they are very, very lucky.

Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
It will take us all to heaven.
And it's good enough for me.
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
it's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Now darla we are supposed to offer them as burnt sacrifices to gawd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top