So... Dog fighting

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Why do people think it's so bad. If you have ever seen two dogs chances are that they wanted to kill each other. Dog fighting is really just a way to let your dogs do what they want. And most dogs probably see it as more fun than threatening or scary

I've never seen a dog happy to have his throat ripped out by another dog. And the things people do to the dogs to train the for the fights is cruel.

Because it hurts the dogs, it's the same reason we don't have gladiators fighting to the death. You don't have your family members fighting and potentially killing each other for money, that's just evil.

demonjazz:
If you have ever seen two dogs chances are that they wanted to kill each other.

Never seen that once in my life.
I've seen some dogs act aggressive but never seen any dog attempt to kill another, nevermind wish to be killed.

You train your pet to be a killer. It's disturbing... Some dogs are born to fight and others aren't. Over the years we've bred a shitload of different kinds of dogs.

Is it bad? I think it isn't. Trouble is that this is illegal.

Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

dmase:
I've never seen a dog happy to have his throat ripped out by another dog. And the things people do to the dogs to train the for the fights is cruel.

While some of the things are cruel it's still in the dog's nature to fight

Knight Templar:

I've seen some dogs act aggressive but never seen any dog attempt to kill another, nevermind wish to be killed.

Not wish to be killed but to have the fun of fighting. and I must just live in a weird neighborhood than

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

And rugby is the same thing except with people

demonjazz:

dmase:
I've never seen a dog happy to have his throat ripped out by another dog. And the things people do to the dogs to train the for the fights is cruel.

While some of the things are cruel it's still in the dog's nature to fight

Knight Templar:

I've seen some dogs act aggressive but never seen any dog attempt to kill another, nevermind wish to be killed.

Not wish to be killed but to have the fun of fighting. and I have all the time

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

And rugby is the same thing except with people

ok you get some friends together, divide yourself into team and play a game. the loser gets executed and the winners get to play again next week to avoid being killed as well. yep just like rugby

demonjazz:

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

And rugby is the same thing except with people

Sure, if by "the same" you mean "completely different".

People consent to play rugby, in which they aren't allowed to deliberately maim and kill each otehr.

Dogs are forced to fight, in which they are supposed to maim and kill each other.

demonjazz:

Not wish to be killed but to have the fun of fighting.

So where you live most dogs kill each other for fun?
I can safely say that that has never happened near me, and you're ignoring the fact that a dog is still dying, as if that's less important than the joy of killing you seem to imagine is in every dog.

demonjazz:

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

And rugby is the same thing except with people

Now I don't watch the sport all that much, but my sister does let me check this with her...
Yep, turns out they are not trying to murder each other, the idea isn't even to cause harm.

Knight Templar:

demonjazz:

Not wish to be killed but to have the fun of fighting.

So where you live most dogs kill each other for fun?
I can safely say that that has never happened near me, and you're ignoring the fact that a dog is still dying, as if that's less important than the joy of killing you seem to imagine is in every dog.

Not all dogs but some dogs want to fight. Why should we deny them that

demonjazz:

Knight Templar:

demonjazz:

Not wish to be killed but to have the fun of fighting.

So where you live most dogs kill each other for fun?
I can safely say that that has never happened near me, and you're ignoring the fact that a dog is still dying, as if that's less important than the joy of killing you seem to imagine is in every dog.

Not all dogs but some dogs want to fight. Why should we deny them that

Because it causes harm to do so and is not something we should encourage in pets. Furthermore dog fights are not about just letting a dog fight because it wants to, it's about training them to do so and forcing them to fight until one is dead.

Do you have a dog?

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

So it's like eating meat every day, then? Unless you think taste is substantially different from entertainment...

Well, dogs don't fight for amusement. Dogs liked to have their bellies rubbed and ears scratched, not having their throat ripped out.

Sure, dogs play fight. But they don't draw blood, they don't go out of their way to hurt you. If you've ever play fought with a dog, you know a dog won't draw your limb to the back of their mouth where they could crush it.

Also, I'd say dog fighting is more about human enjoyment than animal enjoyment. The dogs are made aggressive, probably injected with drugs, and god knows what else.

demonjazz:
Why do people think it's so bad. If you have ever seen two dogs chances are that they wanted to kill each other. Dog fighting is really just a way to let your dogs do what they want. And most dogs probably see it as more fun than threatening or scary

...Let me just go ahead and link you to wikipedia for this. Dogs actually have to be trained for dog fights, and the training is such that it is widely considered abuse and/or neglect. Quoting the ASPCA's Dog Fighting FAQ

Q. How Are Fighting Dogs Raised and Trained?
Fighting dogs must be kept isolated from other dogs, so they spend most of their lives on short, heavy chains, often just out of reach of other dogs. They are usually unsocialized to any other dogs and to most people. However, many professional fighters invest much time and money in conditioning their animals. They are often given quality nutrition and basic veterinary care. The dogs are exercised under controlled conditions, such as on a treadmill or "jenny."

The conditioning of fighting dogs may also make use of a variety of legal and illegal drugs, including anabolic steroids to enhance muscle mass and encourage aggressiveness. Narcotic drugs may also be used to increase the dogs' aggression, increase reactivity and mask pain or fear during a fight. Young animals are often trained or tested by allowing them to fight with other dogs in well-controlled "rolls." Those who show little inclination to fight may be discarded or killed. Some fighters will use stolen pets as "bait dogs," or sparring partners.

There are many other common techniques used in the training and testing of dogs, but these methods vary widely among different fighters and may range from systematic to haphazard. "Street" fighters usually make little investment in conditioning or training their animals. Instead, they rely on cruel methods to encourage their dogs to fight, including starvation, physical abuse, isolation and the use of stimulants or other drugs that excite the dogs

To give you an idea of how outside the norm the resulting dogs are, it actually becomes questionable whether a fighting dog can be rehabilitated enough to live in a decent home, and even if they are safe around people, the question of whether or not they'll be able to safely interact with other dogs is far more questionable.

Are you trying to troll or just really that ignorant? I'm dead serious.

You realize that human beings, if abused and neglected will fight just as readily for whatever sustenance they might believe they can get? Dogs (and people) brought up in a loving household with their needs met do not fight brutally or to the death. Yes, they will wrestle, but there's a world of difference.

Saying that they should be allowed to be mistreated so that they become mean enough to fight like that is like saying that murder should be legal because you can starve some hobos and get them to rip each other's throats out for a chicken leg too.

demonjazz:

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

And rugby is the same thing except with people

A closer comparison wouldn't be rugby. A closer comparison would be a gladiatorial fight with weapons.

Nobody starves you for weeks then pumps you up with steroids and beats you and isolates you in a cage for your whole life to get you mean enough to play rugby.

And here's the thing. Even if rugby was that dangerous, it still wouldn't be the same, because you get to generally choose if you want to play rugby.

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

.
I sure do love my chicken nuggets, and you can't take that away from me!
...
Not a grand argument.

Animals are more or less used as resources and property, right, so why is it anyone's business what I do with my animals?

This major objection against dog fights just shows the immense hypocricy and double standards of our ''civilized society''. You can't fight for animals rights while living in a modern society without being a hypocrite - take a good look at how we generally treat animals.

Torturing animals for fighting = reprehensible. Torturing animals to produce mass quantities of bacon = fine, as long as I don't think about it.

ive seen a german shepard rip a terrier in half so no its not fun and they are fighting for keeps. i also ended up in hospital during that attack too

al4674:
Animals are more or less used as resources and property, right, so why is it anyone's business what I do with my animals?

This major objection against dog fights just shows the immense hypocricy and double standards of our ''civilized society''. You can't fight for animals rights while living in a modern society without being a hypocrite - take a good look at how we generally treat animals.

Torturing animals for fighting = reprehensible. Torturing animals to produce mass quantities of bacon = fine, as long as I don't think about it.

It is against the law to torture any domesticated animal. There is a difference between torturing an animal and killing it for food. In most countries the way farmed animals are treated is regulated in order to protect them from abuse.

The whole 'we do this, therefore we should be allowed to do this' is quite frankly a ridiculous argument. The world is not black and white. Humans have a connection with domesticated animals and we acknowledge that connection by affording them legal protections. Since we have conscious thoughts and emotions we develop seemingly conflicting points of view and that is demonstrated in our legal and social systems. Nothing has ever been black and white and never will be, so arguing that it is remains as pointless as it will ever be.

The idea that you should be able to do what you want with them because they are your property is also flawed since there is clearly precedent that you cannot do what you want with your property with no limits. I cannot burn my own house down for example.

TheIronRuler:

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

.
I sure do love my chicken nuggets, and you can't take that away from me!
...
Not a grand argument.

al4674:
Animals are more or less used as resources and property, right, so why is it anyone's business what I do with my animals?

This major objection against dog fights just shows the immense hypocricy and double standards of our ''civilized society''. You can't fight for animals rights while living in a modern society without being a hypocrite - take a good look at how we generally treat animals.

Torturing animals for fighting = reprehensible. Torturing animals to produce mass quantities of bacon = fine, as long as I don't think about it.

Wow way to totally ignore the context of the meat industry over the last half century.

I mean seriously battery farms have been under fire for years and years. The cruel and sadistic treatment of animals just isnt ok with people anymore and they are being stamped out. And its definitely not ok with me either. I cant speak for others but it isnt hypocritical for me to say:

"I dont like dog fighting or battery farming. I think its ok to kill an animal, but not in an unnecessarily painful or grotesque way and that animal should be entitled to a normal and medium length life before slaughter to ensure they are not neglected."

I only buy free range from farms ive researched and know treat their animals fairly. Youve made an incredibly obvious fallacy in claiming that those who eat meat have no right to comment on the cruel treatment of animals in any way shape or form. They are totally different things the main basis being on suffering and "torture". Just because i buy free range meat doesnt mean i morally must be ok with sadistic brutal torture on animals. Thats just not how it works.

For me free range is the bare minimum we should afford all domestic animals. If you can come up with a form of dog fighting that never hurts the dog unnecessarily with training or fighting and where both animals survive count me in.

I think we can both agree that an enjoyment of eating an animal is different from watching someone vivisect it and laughing gleefully by viewing its immediate suffering happening before your eyes. One is enjoyment based on taste. The other is enjoyment based on sadism.

Come back, Danyal's threads about beastiality, all is forgiven.

BiscuitTrouser:

TheIronRuler:

thaluikhain:
Er, cause it's purposefeully injuring animals for no reason other than the entertainment of the spectators?

.
I sure do love my chicken nuggets, and you can't take that away from me!
...
Not a grand argument.

al4674:
Animals are more or less used as resources and property, right, so why is it anyone's business what I do with my animals?

This major objection against dog fights just shows the immense hypocricy and double standards of our ''civilized society''. You can't fight for animals rights while living in a modern society without being a hypocrite - take a good look at how we generally treat animals.

Torturing animals for fighting = reprehensible. Torturing animals to produce mass quantities of bacon = fine, as long as I don't think about it.

Wow way to totally ignore the context of the meat industry over the last half century.

I mean seriously battery farms have been under fire for years and years. The cruel and sadistic treatment of animals just isnt ok with people anymore and they are being stamped out. And its definitely not ok with me either. I cant speak for others but it isnt hypocritical for me to say:

"I dont like dog fighting or battery farming. I think its ok to kill an animal, but not in an unnecessarily painful or grotesque way and that animal should be entitled to a normal and medium length life before slaughter to ensure they are not neglected."

I only buy free range from farms ive researched and know treat their animals fairly. Youve made an incredibly obvious fallacy in claiming that those who eat meat have no right to comment on the cruel treatment of animals in any way shape or form. They are totally different things the main basis being on suffering and "torture". Just because i buy free range meat doesnt mean i morally must be ok with sadistic brutal torture on animals. Thats just not how it works.

For me free range is the bare minimum we should afford all domestic animals. If you can come up with a form of dog fighting that never hurts the dog unnecessarily with training or fighting and where both animals survive count me in.

I think we can both agree that an enjoyment of eating an animal is different from watching someone vivisect it and laughing gleefully by viewing its immediate suffering happening before your eyes. One is enjoyment based on taste. The other is enjoyment based on sadism.

.
You raise an animal so you can slaughter it. In my book this isn't too far away from dog fighting. However the line that is drawn between the two is the law. Dog Fighting is a form of blood-sport which always involves illegal gambling. If you can cement the practice into something akin to horse racing or the like, you won't hear any of my complaints. These animals are bred and trained to kill, no difference from breeding animals to be killed for their dead bodies.

TheIronRuler:

.
You raise an animal so you can slaughter it. In my book this isn't too far away from dog fighting. However the line that is drawn between the two is the law. Dog Fighting is a form of blood-sport which always involves illegal gambling. If you can cement the practice into something akin to horse racing or the like, you won't hear any of my complaints. These animals are bred and trained to kill, no difference from breeding animals to be killed for their dead bodies.

Sorry but no. Not at all.

"These animals are bred and trained to kill, no difference from breeding animals to be killed for their dead bodies."

So free range farms and battery farms have no difference at all then? The fact that they do and the demand for free range has increased shows clearly there is definitive variance between HOW you raise and animal and HOW that animal is going to die and that variance matters to people, including me.

The line is drawn on fair treatment to the animal. If you wanna go to a free range farm and then to a dog fighting pit and tell me conditions are the same you fucking go ahead, and bring pictures to prove it. But i doubt you can. Horse raising doesnt require abusing the horses as a condition to make them want to run. The horses dont always die a slow drawn out death from slashes and bites where they bleed out slowly after every race.

Thats just a blatant strawman. The difference isnt what they are bred to do or that they are both not bred for a purpose. The difference is that one is treated with respect and leads a normal life before being killed painlessly as nicely as possible.

The other is that the dog is beaten and abused to induce aggression, pumped with steroids and then forced to fight another dog in a pit until one rips enough skin off the other to let it bleed out slowly. This is comparable to the worst battery farms which i am STRONGLY morally opposed to.

The enjoyment they bring is different too. Am i allowed to purposefully torture my dog for my amusement as well? Like no other dogs involved. Under your logic is it legal for me, with sadistic glee to remove my dogs eyes and replace them with salt before kicking it around my house to death just for my own amusement. And then to do this with a new dog the next day. Under the idea that "All cruelty for fun is acceptable" should there be NO animal cruelty laws at all? Should any sadist be able to extract their sick desires, no matter HOW cruel, on any domestic animal they please as many times as they please?

THATS similar to dog fighting in my book.

BiscuitTrouser:
-snip-

Do you watch the animals die to make sure nothing went wrong and that they were killed painlessly? I'm inclined to think you're slightly deluded about how these things actually work. Being slaughtered isn't exactly a walk in the park for pigs and cows. They're enormous animals, making them hard to kill, and there's so much that can go wrong. I don't think there has ever been an independent investigation into an abattoir that has yielded positive results.

So yeah, you're a massive hypocrite, but if people's hypocrisy when it comes to pet animals means that slightly fewer animals have to suffer at the hands of man I guess I can tolerate it.

BiscuitTrouser:

TheIronRuler:

.
You raise an animal so you can slaughter it. In my book this isn't too far away from dog fighting. However the line that is drawn between the two is the law. Dog Fighting is a form of blood-sport which always involves illegal gambling. If you can cement the practice into something akin to horse racing or the like, you won't hear any of my complaints. These animals are bred and trained to kill, no difference from breeding animals to be killed for their dead bodies.

Sorry but no. Not at all.

"These animals are bred and trained to kill, no difference from breeding animals to be killed for their dead bodies."

So free range farms and battery farms have no difference at all then? The fact that they do and the demand for free range has increased shows clearly there is definitive variance between HOW you raise and animal and HOW that animal is going to die and that variance matters to people, including me.

The line is drawn on fair treatment to the animal. If you wanna go to a free range farm and then to a dog fighting pit and tell me conditions are the same you fucking go ahead, and bring pictures to prove it. But i doubt you can. Horse raising doesnt require abusing the horses as a condition to make them want to run. The horses dont always die a slow drawn out death from slashes and bites where they bleed out slowly after every race.

Thats just a blatant strawman. The difference isnt what they are bred to do or that they are both not bred for a purpose. The difference is that one is treated with respect and leads a normal life before being killed painlessly as nicely as possible.

The other is that the dog is beaten and abused to induce aggression, pumped with steroids and then forced to fight another dog in a pit until one rips enough skin off the other to let it bleed out slowly. This is comparable to the worst battery farms which i am STRONGLY morally opposed to.

The enjoyment they bring is different too. Am i allowed to purposefully torture my dog for my amusement as well? Like no other dogs involved. Under your logic is it legal for me, with sadistic glee to remove my dogs eyes and replace them with salt before kicking it around my house to death just for my own amusement. And then to do this with a new dog the next day. Under the idea that "All cruelty for fun is acceptable" should there be NO animal cruelty laws at all? Should any sadist be able to extract their sick desires, no matter HOW cruel, on any domestic animal they please as many times as they please?

THATS similar to dog fighting in my book.

.
These animals are bred for a purpose of death. It's industrialized slaughter, and accepting that is no different than accepting blood sports involving animals. The difference between different kinds of industrialized slaughter is its efficiency and harm caused to the animal. The subject of the health of the person consuming the product is also raised. In recent decades our animals destined to become our food were fed with cheaper, genetically altered food that is not natural to them. They were pumped with medicine to keep them healthy during their growth, which in turn affects the consumer's health greatly. Their slaughter was systematic, fast and without remorse. In my opinion, relaxing the animal before it gets slaughtered so that its meat will be more succulent is a strategy not made to benefit the animals, but to benefit the consumer. I dislike eating certain types of meats that are bred in farms where they are fed with artificial junk and pumped with antibiotics like there's no tomorrow. This is the reason why I would buy free range and not buy other kinds of meat.

Furthermore - we have been manipulating the animals that we grow via selective evolution. We have been maximizing the output of milk and meat from cows and the eggs and meat from chickens. They aren't supposed to lay so many eggs a year and they aren't supposed to grow this big. We are perverting nature to increase our "food supply", but in fact this is the result of the increase in the quality of life world-wide. This irks me, and my problems with this industry isn't that it's cruel to animals but it'll bring us to our doom.

With that said, I don't care much for the well-being of animals. For the purposes of respecting property ownership I will not harm an animal because it could belong to someone. If I own an animal its well-being is up to me. However I don't see the point of these laws that are in place to prevent animal cruelty. They aren't people, they aren't supposed to be protected by the state.

manic_depressive13:

Do you watch the animals die to make sure nothing went wrong and that they were killed painlessly? I'm inclined to think you're slightly deluded about how these things actually work. Being slaughtered isn't exactly a walk in the park for pigs and cows. They're enormous animals, making them hard to kill, and there's so much that can go wrong. I don't think there has ever been an independent investigation into an abattoir that has yielded positive results.

So yeah, you're a massive hypocrite, but if people's hypocrisy when it comes to pet animals means that slightly fewer animals have to suffer at the hands of man I guess I can tolerate it.

I know it isnt perfect. And i know mistakes are made. But just because the mistake sometimes results in accidental cruelty doesnt mean i support the cruelty. Ill support the system that deals with it best and removes it as much as possible. In the same way you dont support murder but use facilities that sometimes result in accidental death. The intent behind the act changes it in my eyes. The attempt to give the animals dignity is important to me. I cant possibly be called a hypocrit for supporting an agency that TRIES to kill them painlessly and occasionally fails anymore than you can be called a hypocrit for support a company that tries to ensure worker safety but sometimes has an accident and takes a life and still support murder laws. Maybe its a bad analogy. Sorry :c

I live near the farms. I go past them every day. And i see the animals happier than they are when in appalling conditions. Im not gonna say all free range farms are ideal. But that ill support them with my money to stamp out battery farms. Im also interested in synthetic meat and will be purchasing that alone as soon as it is available.

I look for advertisement on their website promising cruelty free slaughter. If it says they do it surely regulation would mean a massive lawsuit if this wasnt the case? Ive never seen the actual slaughter. I just see the animals live.

BiscuitTrouser:
I know it isnt perfect. And i know mistakes are made. But just because the mistake sometimes results in accidental cruelty doesnt mean i support the cruelty.

Ah, yeah, it does mean you support cruelty, because even though you know that there are animals that inevitably suffer you still choose to eat meat despite not needing to.

The difference between the way we slaughter animals and an honest "accident" in the workplace, for example, is that with our methods of slaughter "accidents" are inevitable. Generally, the more humane the method of slaughter, the more expensive it is. As such, we've found a sort of middle ground where we can pretend we are trying to minimise suffering while still keeping the cost down. It's hit and miss (quite literally), but hey, it's cheap.

If a family member died in a workplace related accident which could have been avoided if the business invested more in safety equipment, would you so readily forgive them?

Or rather, would you allow your dog to be euthanised using the same methods that we use to slaughter food animals?

manic_depressive13:

Ah, yeah, it does mean you support cruelty, because even though you know that there are animals that inevitably suffer you still choose to eat meat despite not needing to.

The difference between the way we slaughter animals and an honest "accident" in the workplace, for example, is that with our methods of slaughter "accidents" are inevitable. Generally, the more humane the method of slaughter, the more expensive it is. As such, we've found a sort of middle ground where we can pretend we are trying to minimise suffering while still keeping the cost down. It's hit and miss (quite literally), but hey, it's cheap.

If a family member died in a workplace related accident which could have been avoided if the business invested more in safety equipment, would you so readily forgive them?

Or rather, would you allow your dog to be euthanised using the same methods that we use to slaughter food animals?

The more often i have this argument the less i believe my own words. And the more i think i morally should be a vegetarian. Im willing to pay more for meat if it means its less cruel. Actually i just went and googled shmeat (in vitro synthetic meat) and its estimated to cost about double what regular meat costs if research continues into the area. Im willing to play that. Surely ONE company must be on the far side of that middle ground. Selling the expensive but VERY high standard of treatment meat. Surely? These people must exist, im the market for it. Or am i too small? Dammit i feel like im on the edge of becoming vegetarian. I take it you are?

And if animals were slaughtered like i imagine they are then yes. But im probably wrong in thinking companies do it like i think they do based on a PR statement. I can see myself morally eating meat were someone with total transparency to open a very stringent anti cruelty farm that focus's on making those accidents basically never happen. If such a place exists show me the way. If it doesnt then... is it hard being vegetarian?

demonjazz:
Why do people think it's so bad. If you have ever seen two dogs chances are that they wanted to kill each other. Dog fighting is really just a way to let your dogs do what they want. And most dogs probably see it as more fun than threatening or scary

This is a troll thread, right?

Young children from the age of three like playing with action figures, making "pew pew" gun noises and making their toy cars crash. Guess we should let them drive cars and shoot AK47s, it's clearly in their nature to do so.

BiscuitTrouser:
If it doesnt then... is it hard being vegetarian?

It's not that hard. If I may ask, how often do you eat meat? A lot of people eat it daily, when in reality the ideal quantity is one serving (about 100 grams) a week. Honestly, if people just cut down to a reasonable serving of meat it would make a massive difference, and less animals being slaughtered would likely lead to more humane slaughter.

demonjazz:

dmase:
I've never seen a dog happy to have his throat ripped out by another dog. And the things people do to the dogs to train the for the fights is cruel.

Dog fights often times make dogs into violent killers. They can't be kept as house animals, the only thing they can do is fight and they don't enjoy it.

One method of weeding out the week dogs is by throwing them into water with electrodes and if the dog doesn't die after about a half hour to an hour they are considered fit enough to be raised to fight. After which the handlers make sure the dog has the mentality to fight, most dogs born to a family have no inclination to fight other dogs. Then before fights they starved to make them extra vicious.

Look up a documentary on dog fighting, it isn't some dominance thing they enjoy. It's not like watching your two dogs go at it until one is on the ground and they stop, no blood or yelps of pain.

I always found it a pointlessly cruel way to treat a dog. Some of them don't fight, and saying it in their "nature" stupid.

If you put two dogs in a pen they rarely if ever start going for the jugular. Most of the time it's training from men. Most of which is cruel.

If you like dog fighting I would apply the principle that you can judge a man by how he treats those weaker than him. The conclusion? You're quite probably a bastard.

manic_depressive13:

BiscuitTrouser:
If it doesnt then... is it hard being vegetarian?

It's not that hard. If I may ask, how often do you eat meat? A lot of people eat it daily, when in reality the ideal quantity is one serving (about 100 grams) a week. Honestly, if people just cut down to a reasonable serving of meat it would make a massive difference, and less animals being slaughtered would likely lead to more humane slaughter.

I'll regret this, but...

Citation please?

demonjazz:
Why do people think it's so bad. If you have ever seen two dogs chances are that they wanted to kill each other.

Stop right there.

Dogs are social animals. They were bred from wolves, who are pack hunters. A wolf pack might kill a lone wolf if it invades their territory, but wolves will not square off and fight each other to the death mano et mano like in a dogfighting ring.

This is why dogs are such popular pets, because they naturally form relationships with other creatures. They are driven to interact socially. In fact, dogs are terrified of being alone (2 out of 3 suffer some form of separation anxiety) because those millions of years of social instinct are still driving them to seek security in a pack.

Unfamiliar dogs, when they meet, will often square off. Their hackles will go up, they will look very tense and they will approach each other cautiously. This is not because they want to kill each other, it's because they are worried about the other's intentions. Likewise, when they get a bit more friendly they will often play in a way which looks a lot like fighting. You can tell the difference by their body language, the noise they make and the fact that it lasts more than a few seconds (when dogs fight naturally, it's very quick and one side usually backs down almost instantly). Canine social behaviour is hierarchical, so there can definitely be a lot of bullying, but it is nothing to do with wanting to hurt or kill each other. Dogs, like most social animals, evolved in an environment where they were utterly dependent on each other and where even a minor injury could prove fatal, they do not want to seriously fight each other if at all possible.. certainly not one on one.

The difference between "fighting breeds" and breeds designed for other purposes is not aggression. Little terriers and other dogs designed to hunt vermin are often much more aggressive than many fighting breeds. Fighting dogs are bred for "game", that is the trait which makes them refuse to back down. This means you have to be very careful with fighting breeds because if another dog squares up to them or growls at them, or if a human ignores their body language or hurts them they may respond rather than automatically becoming submissive, which can lead to a fight. My old dog had a real problem with this, and we had to be very careful with introducing her to new dogs. But "game" doesn't mean you want to fight, aggression is still terrifying for dogs, even fighting dogs.

But the only way to make a dog aggressive, the only way to get it to the point where if you stick it in a ring with another dog they will tear each other apart without provocation is to torture it (or to very severely neglect it) and that's what dogfighting is. The standard thing in the UK, where relatively small dogs like Staffordshire Bull Terriers are the most common illegal fighting breeds is just to get some tape or rope and lash the dog's jaws to a tire swing, leaving it suspended for hours by its jaws. This is not only agonizing for the dog, but also strengthens the jaw muscles and doesn't risk injury like beating the dog would.

By the time the dog goes in the ring, it's insane. You can't rehabilitate fighting dogs, they have to be put down because in order to make them fight they need to have been tortured to the point where all traces of normal canine behaviour are gone. Moreover, as any pet ownership organization will warn you, the dogs used in fighting are often stolen to order by professional criminals. So basically, you've got family pets which have been stolen in order to torture them to madness so they can kill each other for the profit of criminal gangs.

That's what's wrong with dog fighting. Maybe you didn't know everything which was involved and I can forgive your ignorance, but I hope you have a clearer idea now.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked