tonorator Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 What I said was that people who particapate in dogfighting have a different set of values. That does not make them heinous monsters. Just criminals. are you really this misguided? dog fighting is not on par with seat belt laws. dog fighting is on par with murder, torture, senseless violence and the like. it is not a difference in values, it is a sick activity indeed supported by heinous monsters. it absolutely is, no matter where it's done, or how often it is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 are you really this misguided? dog fighting is not on par with seat belt laws. dog fighting is on par with murder, torture, senseless violence and the like. it is not a difference in values, it is a sick activity indeed supported by heinous monsters. it absolutely is, no matter where it's done, or how often it is done. Well we just disagree on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) Actually, you should double check your history. The reason the founding fathers started a republic was to avoid "Tyranny of the Masses". That is why we are not a total democracy (popular vote does not decide the President for example). Re-pub-lics have politicians run the government that are meant to be representative of the people who voted them in office. Yes, some laws are passed by a majority of those representatives but don't get it twisted. Republics are by far the free-est nations in the world. So while its not perfect it is much better than other options. Churchill once said: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried." And simply saying things like "the type of society we are forced to live in today" makes people think your wearing a tin hat and slobbering on your cheetos. Nobody is forcing you to do sh!t. Jump ship and go to some other country. Nobody makes you stay here. I'll try to explain it one time: The cruel part about dog fighting is that you are taking a domesticated animal and purposely being cruel to it so that it wants to fight and attack. Basically, like abusing a child. You want to take something and turn it into a beast for sport and enjoyment. Taking any pleasure (which rational people must assume was at least an amusement by the numerous ways Vick was accused of killing the dogs) in murdering a creature that you have broken and turned cruel is a sign that you have serious issues. Basically, dogfighting is something that sociopaths and serial killers are known for (many psychological exams will ask you if you have ever wanted to hurt an animal). You trying to convince people that it is acceptable because some people consider it cultural or TO equating it to killing wild animals comes off as ridiculous. Like your Turkey theory… Equating a higher intelligence, domesticated animal to a Turkey that was raised for food simply shows that you don’t get it. Are we cruel for putting a fish in a bowl? Is it the same as taking a monkey and starving, abusing, or neglecting it to the point that it is machine of violence the same? You just need to come to the conclusion that you don’t get it and projecting your ignorance as the problem with those “do-gooders” is an issue you should work on. “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” ...and I'm out I agree, Republics are much better than Democracies. It is a shame the that our country has taken a turn towards that direction. And I never stated that it was acceptable. Its illegal. All I said is that dog fighters are not all sociopaths. There is a difference. Edited September 7, 2007 by DKF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Well we just disagree on that. you can disagree that the sun is hot, too if you want. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 are you really this misguided? dog fighting is not on par with seat belt laws. dog fighting is on par with murder, torture, senseless violence and the like. it is not a difference in values, it is a sick activity indeed supported by heinous monsters. it absolutely is, no matter where it's done, or how often it is done. He's not misguided. Using his logic, murderers, torturers, rapists, kidnappers, and other such misunderstood soles just have a different set of values and are not heinous monsters. Just criminals. Snap . . . maybe he is a little misguided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I personally do not approve of any of those actions or cultures. You, I, and 5 billion people on the planet have every right to find them heinous. The only point we do not agree on it that I do not feel that it is our right to inflict our (all 5 billion of us) values on other peoples. Whether it is child prostition, necrophelia, or jay-walking. We live in the US. We have a republican form of government where we elect people to made decisions on what behavior and actions we are allowed to take. Those cultures did not elect us to tell them how to behave and act. If we want to change their behavior, we need to do it in a contsructive engagement fashion (i.e. if you want to trade with us, you need to stop child prositution in your country). Where its their choice on how to act. To either continue their behavior or change their behavior. Not by us forcing it on them. And no, giving someone such choices not forcing it on them. Its our choice to try and change their behavior, and their choice to accept the carrot in order to do it. Free will. OK just for the record this is my last post on this topic becasue I have to go and If I continue to debate you I will only cause you further embarassment. We do not have a REPUBLICAN form of gov it's a REPUBLIC. Secondly I do not think I ever mentioned the word force. However, trade embargo's on countries that need you goods for their survival is essentially forcing them. Sometimes this works sometimes is does not. In the case of certain countries in the world, even our own during the civil war, allwoing them to choose how to act is just not acceptable. When innocent people are being mudered, exploited, etc, and don't make me define innocent, or the security or well being of our country or another are in jeaopardy force may be necessary. According to your logic if Iran decides not to accept our "Carrot" and they decide to continue to build nucleur weapons and they decide to point them at Isreal we should not force them to change their mind. And the reason they want to do this is because their values / culture are different then ours, do we call this freedom or religion because they want to establish an Islamic state all over the world and destroy Isreal? I think you are done here, you are clearly full of hot air and one could continue to pick apart every argument you present. I could gone on for hours but I came here for FF. Have a good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The Founding Fathers had a term for the type of society we are forced to live in today: 'Tyranny of the masses'. Just because some people believed that drinking is wrong, prohibition was passed. Someone gets killed in a car using a cell phone, so using cell phones in cars are illegal (since people have been killed changing the radio stations, should radios be pulled out of cars as well?). The 'do-gooders' refuse to understand, accept, or tolerate the fact that other people have different values than they do. Even though 90% of the country feels that soemthing is morally corrupt, they have no right to subject their will on the 10% of free Americans that do not share those values. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers fought against and were afraid of "Tyranny of the masses'. In the context of fighting dogs, this is the most egregious drivel I have read for months. Well done, sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 god made deer for use to eat and they are tasty creatures... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 He's not misguided. Using his logic, murderers, torturers, rapists, kidnappers, and other such misunderstood soles just have a different set of values and are not heinous monsters. Just criminals. Snap . . . maybe he is a little misguided. Yep, I do put crimes against other humans in a different category than crimes against animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 god made deer for use to eat and they are tasty creatures... that they are, but only if cooked right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 OK just for the record this is my last post on this topic becasue I have to go and If I continue to debate you I will only cause you further embarassment. We do not have a REPUBLICAN form of gov it's a REPUBLIC. Secondly I do not think I ever mentioned the word force. However, trade embargo's on countries that need you goods for their survival is essentially forcing them. Sometimes this works sometimes is does not. In the case of certain countries in the world, even our own during the civil war, allwoing them to choose how to act is just not acceptable. When innocent people are being mudered, exploited, etc, and don't make me define innocent, or the security or well being of our country or another are in jeaopardy force may be necessary. According to your logic if Iran decides not to accept our "Carrot" and they decide to continue to build nucleur weapons and they decide to point them at Isreal we should not force them to change their mind. And the reason they want to do this is because their values / culture are different then ours, do we call this freedom or religion because they want to establish an Islamic state all over the world and destroy Isreal? I think you are done here, you are clearly full of hot air and one could continue to pick apart every argument you present. I could gone on for hours but I came here for FF. Have a good day. Iran has every right to try and develop atomic weapons. Israel has them, we have them (as well as UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe South Africa). Who gave us the right to a monopoly? Whether or not Israel or we decide to do anything to prevent that is our choice. But they have every right to try to develop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Yep, I do put crimes against other humans in a different category than crimes against animals. so just how acceptable do you find the practice of torturing domesticated animals for human amusement and financial gain? how acceptable is the practice of electrocuting and drowning the weaker animals because they can not compete? how acceptable is the complete lack of sympathy and regard for these living creatures? sure, it's not murdering another person as you say, but i'd like to understand exactly how you feel about how much of this you are OK to look the other way about, should it not be illegal. it would also be interesting to get the list from you of the kinds of practices where you do not feel it is anyone's place to intervene, with force if necessary. none of the ones mentioned in this thread seem to resonate with you. are there any practices that if they were happening in another country you would want us to rally the troops and put a stop to it? anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Iran has every right to try and develop atomic weapons. Israel has them, we have them (as well as UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe South Africa). Who gave us the right to a monopoly? Whether or not Israel or we decide to do anything to prevent that is our choice. But they have every right to try to develop them. Does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ring any bells? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ring any bells? And what would you do about countries such as India and Israel who have not signed the treaty and thereby not bound to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF409ers Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) Iran has every right to try and develop atomic weapons. Israel has them, we have them (as well as UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe South Africa). Who gave us the right to a monopoly? Whether or not Israel or we decide to do anything to prevent that is our choice. But they have every right to try to develop them. OK I Iied that was not my last post - Suffering succotash! does that have to do with what I just posted??? You are sure one misguided individual. Your logic is about as twisted and murky as it comes. My father told me along time ago to - never argue with ignorance. So on that note this will truly be my last response. I will sit back and enjoy the show. Edited September 7, 2007 by m4m25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 OK I Iied that was not my last post - Suffering succotash! does that have to do with what I just posted??? You are sure one misguided individual. Your logic is about as twisted and murky as it comes. My father told me along time ago to - never argue with ignorance. So on that note this will truly be my last response. I will sit back and enjoy the show. +1 i'm done with this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I've seen a lot of bad comparisons being made to dog fighting... the one that I've seen that actually makes sense to me is Bull Fighting. Bull Fighting is indeed culturally accepted (at least in Spain). It is considered a sport (over there). It is extremely bloody, brutal, violent, etc.. And regardless of the outcome, the bull is put down at the end of the fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) so just how acceptable do you find the practice of torturing domesticated animals for human amusement and financial gain? how acceptable is the practice of electrocuting and drowning the weaker animals because they can not compete? how acceptable is the complete lack of sympathy and regard for these living creatures? sure, it's not murdering another person as you say, but i'd like to understand exactly how you feel about how much of this you are OK to look the other way about, should it not be illegal. it would also be interesting to get the list from you of the kinds of practices where you do not feel it is anyone's place to intervene, with force if necessary. none of the ones mentioned in this thread seem to resonate with you. are there any practices that if they were happening in another country you would want us to rally the troops and put a stop to it? anything? In the US, the following things are illegal. Dogfighting and any other mistreating of animals, including in my township, owning livestock in a residential area (no-farm), and a residence having no more than 3 adult dogs and cats. I support these laws. Although an avid meat eater, I would also support a law against killing farm animals for meat. Especially poultry, since they are the worst when it comes to cruel conditions. Hunting to me, is not as cruel as the above, but I cannot see making eating animals illegal without banning hunting. I also do not see people who stand around a kill and slice up animals day in and day out for financial gain, just so that I can eat them, as being heinous monsters either. On the other hand, I belive that other countries have their own laws and believes, and that its just not our place to militarily intervene just because we do not agree with their social mores. As stated, social changes should be made through positive engagement, such as the trade treaty that I posted a link to. Edited September 7, 2007 by DKF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I've seen a lot of bad comparisons being made to dog fighting... the one that I've seen that actually makes sense to me is Bull Fighting. Bull Fighting is indeed culturally accepted (at least in Spain). It is considered a sport (over there). It is extremely bloody, brutal, violent, etc.. And regardless of the outcome, the bull is put down at the end of the fight. Vey intelligent comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKF Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) OK I Iied that was not my last post - Suffering succotash! does that have to do with what I just posted??? You are sure one misguided individual. Your logic is about as twisted and murky as it comes. My father told me along time ago to - never argue with ignorance. So on that note this will truly be my last response. I will sit back and enjoy the show. Did you or did you not ask if Iran had the right to persue nuclear weapons? I responded that they did. I also responded that it was our choice on how we chose to respond to that. Its really not that complicated. Edited September 7, 2007 by DKF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 god made deer for use to eat and they are tasty creatures... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I've seen a lot of bad comparisons being made to dog fighting... the one that I've seen that actually makes sense to me is Bull Fighting. Bull Fighting is indeed culturally accepted (at least in Spain). It is considered a sport (over there). It is extremely bloody, brutal, violent, etc.. And regardless of the outcome, the bull is put down at the end of the fight. And just because someone else does it does not make it acceptable. It is only a matter of time before bullfighting is eliminated. That said, at least the bull has a chance of killing it's tormentor, which it quite often does. This is not true of dog fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 And just because someone else does it does not make it acceptable. It is only a matter of time before bullfighting is eliminated. Yep... I agree. Just because I think its a good comparison doesn't mean that I think it is acceptable (even in another culture). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 On the other hand, I belive that other countries have their own laws and believes, and that its just not our place to militarily intervene just because we do not agree with their social mores. As stated, social changes should be made through positive engagement, such as the trade treaty that I posted a link to. I agree with this, in it's limited extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 My father told me along time ago to - never argue with ignorance. read my sig and you'll see why I never argued Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.