Dog fighting. GOP rep defends it

[Osiris]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/31/615951/steve-king-dogfighting/

Curious what everyone's thoughts are on this. I think it wrong personally. A human being choosing to go in a ring and fight is totally different than an owner taking a dog into a pit and encouraging it to fight.

[skidmark]

Is Steve King a joo? I think it is evil, I hate animal abuse. I wish joo King's face got chewed like that, see how much he likes it, since he is willing to impose it on a dog, mans' best friend. Steve King, joo, proudly serving satan.

[General of Darkness]

I'm against dog fighting, especially in the Kwa since the vast majority is done by low IQ morons. However, one of the ladies in our club use to be into Tosas, a Japanese fighting dog. In Japan they have vets at the events and it's a real deal. As soon as there's blood, the fight is stopped and the dog is attended to it's wounds. So if we can get back yard Leroys and Mestizos to do it the same way as the Japanese, I'm all for it.

Here's an example of a Tosa fight.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkbd7yMxSQc&feature=related

[sirgonzo420]

I am not a dogfighter, but I am a supporter of liberty and of property rights.

If I own a dog and choose to enter it into a fight against a dog with another consenting owner, that is our business, however distasteful.

[BrewTech]

Is Steve King a joo? I think it is evil, I hate animal abuse. I wish joo King's face got chewed like that, see how much he likes it, since he is willing to impose it on a dog, mans' best friend. Steve King, joo, proudly serving satan.

The Steve King you refer to is one of the worst excuses for a human being ever produced to breathe air on this planet.

IMO, of course.

[midnight rambler]

From my experience and observations, those who raise dogs/have dogs primarily to fight them (and of course they gamble on them, that's the big part of it) are the lowest of low lifes, true scum of the earth. These are not the sort of people you would want for neighbors or otherwise associate with.

[DMac]

From my experience and observations, those who raise dogs/have dogs primarily to fight them (and of course they gamble on them, that's the big part of it) are the lowest of low lifes, true scum of the earth. These are not the sort of people you would want for neighbors or otherwise associate with.


Serious trash pits their dogs to fight while gambling on win/loss life/death. I lived in and around NYC for years and saw several dog fights in parks over time. Mike Vick was an excellent example of these folks: take the hood out the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out the hood.

Human trash, the lot of em.

[iOWNme]

How do you guys veiw horse racing or dog racing?

They will push a horse past its physical limits. They will inject steroids and all kinds of other crap, to get them to continue to run hard, even if they are injured. Then the horse will fall and break its leg, and is then KILLED because it can no longer walk. The same stuff goes on in dog racing. These animals are USED in order for humans to make money. PERIOD.

[DMac]

How do you guys veiw horse racing or dog racing?

They will push a horse past its physical limits. They will inject steroids and all kinds of other crap, to get them to continue to run hard, even if they are injured. Then the horse will fall and break its leg, and is then KILLED because it can no longer walk. The same stuff goes on in dog racing. These animals are USED in order for humans to make money. PERIOD.

Not all owners of race horses are assholes like Romney's wife.

[PlatinumBlonde]

He, who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man--Schoepenhaur

[Osiris]

I am not a dogfighter, but I am a supporter of liberty and of property rights.

If I own a dog and choose to enter it into a fight against a dog with another consenting owner, that is our business, however distasteful.

I get it. However, is it not animal cruelty? Should there be no laws against the torture of an animal?
Technically there is a victim, although not human.

How do you guys veiw horse racing or dog racing?

They will push a horse past its physical limits. They will inject steroids and all kinds of other crap, to get them to continue to run hard, even if they are injured. Then the horse will fall and break its leg, and is then KILLED because it can no longer walk. The same stuff goes on in dog racing. These animals are USED in order for humans to make money. PERIOD.

I don't like that either. However, the point of a dog fight is to kill or severely injure the other dog, in the US anyway. When racing horses and/or dogs that is not the goal or always the result.

[sirgonzo420]

I get it. However, is it not animal cruelty? Should there be no laws against the torture of an animal?
Technically there is a victim, although not human.


I don't like that either. However, the point of a dog fight is to kill or severely injure the other dog, in the US anyway. When racing horses and/or dogs that is not the goal or always the result.

First off, I'm not a dog beater or anything.

But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope, and is dangerous for mankind, in my estimation. To have "animal rights" there has to be some "animal police" that enforces their rule. This is the stuff Cass Sunstein dreams about.

Freedom can be downright grisly, which is partly why it isn't tremendously difficult for TPTB to scare people away from it.

For good or ill, Man has dominion over the animals of the earth.

Long story short, it's a terrible shame for a man to hurt his own dog.... But the problem is: who has a higher claim on that animal than its owner?

I also feel like it is a bad idea to walk around with your shoes untied, but no one should be able to make YOUR choices but YOU.

[PlatinumBlonde]

But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope

Animal rights may be a slippery slope but animal cruelty is not..

[midnight rambler]

Animal rights may be a slippery slope but animal cruelty is not..

Yep, animal cruelty is pretty clear cut.

[iOWNme]

First off, I'm not a dog beater or anything.

But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope, and is dangerous for mankind, in my estimation. To have "animal rights" there has to be some "animal police" that enforces their rule. This is the stuff Cass Sunstein dreams about.

I agree 100%. And FUCK Cass Sunstein. (Just wanted to throw that in there)




Freedom can be downright grisly, which is partly why it isn't tremendously difficult for TPTB to scare people away from it.

Fantastic insight! This a crystal clear truth, yet seems to be so hard to actually see. Kudos my friend, you nailed it right there.


For good or ill, Man has dominion over the animals of the earth.

Long story short, it's a terrible shame for a man to hurt his own dog.... But the problem is: who has a higher claim on that animal than its owner?

I also feel like it is a bad idea to walk around with your shoes untied, but no one should be able to make YOUR choices but YOU.


Can a man beat or rape his child? I mean, who has a higher claim over them?

Although i agree that humans are above animals, this again can be a slippery slope. Obviously i wouldnt say that a 'Police' force is the answer, quite the opposite in fact. I just pictured a truly open and free society where there would be groups of people that liked dog fighting. But there would also groups of people who are fiercely against it. The people against it will think they are in the moral right, and will likely move to stop the others. What will happen next?

[Osiris]

First off, I'm not a dog beater or anything.

But the concept of "animal rights" is a slippery slope, and is dangerous for mankind, in my estimation. To have "animal rights" there has to be some "animal police" that enforces their rule. This is the stuff Cass Sunstein dreams about.

Freedom can be downright grisly, which is partly why it isn't tremendously difficult for TPTB to scare people away from it.

For good or ill, Man has dominion over the animals of the earth.

Long story short, it's a terrible shame for a man to hurt his own dog.... But the problem is: who has a higher claim on that animal than its owner?
I also feel like it is a bad idea to walk around with your shoes untied, but no one should be able to make YOUR choices but YOU.

I don't think you are for animal cruelty because of your stance, just so we are straight. I am no animal rights nut, I am not for animal rights and I see where the slope goes. If it was up to PETA or the HSUS we wouldn't be able to eat or even own an animal. However, I do think animal welfare is something that should be of concern. No animal should be tortured (and there are many forms of that IMHO). This is a very emotional subject for me which makes it very hard to distinguish between what someone should be able to do or not do with their own animal. My personal view is that a dog and a cow are different, I wouldn't eat my dog but I would eat my cow, I wouldn't torture either. Where is the line I guess?

SJ, I see what you are saying and would hope for that, I can even see it. Unfortunately, in today's society, if it were to become legal I see the torture of animals but it would still be illegal for me to shoot the SOB forcing the dog to do it.

[sirgonzo420]

I agree 100%. And FUCK Cass Sunstein. (Just wanted to throw that in there)





Fantastic insight! This a crystal clear truth, yet seems to be so hard to actually see. Kudos my friend, you nailed it right there.




Can a man beat or rape his child? I mean, who has a higher claim over them?

Although i agree that humans are above animals, this again can be a slippery slope. Obviously i wouldnt say that a 'Police' force is the answer, quite the opposite in fact. I just pictured a truly open and free society where there would be groups of people that liked dog fighting. But there would also groups of people who are fiercely against it. The people against it will think they are in the moral right, and will likely move to stop the others. What will happen next?

We seem to be pretty close to the same page.

As far as a man and his children go... I am, of course, no supporter of child abuse or rape or anything of the sort. Although "child abuse" can be very subjective. Some parents spank their children. I sure as hell was spanked. Some parents think parents that spank their kids should be locked up (at taxpayer expense).

The easiest, most simple, direct, and honest system is one wherein the parents have the highest claim over their children.

Think about it.

Which is a worse evil: one man mistreating/raping his kid, or a government systems that essentially rapes everyone?

If the parent is *not* the highest claimant of a child, then someone else is, likely the State. I trust a parent's interest in his own children more than the State's potential interest. That is to say, I would much prefer that property rights and privacy are respected than to have a hypothetical State/Daddy that monitors every household constantly for their definition of "abuse".

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Dammit... sometimes playing "devil's advocate" can be a pain in the ass. lol

(it is not my intention to "protect" child molesters.... but FREEDOM is more important than "think of the children". Freedom *is* thinking of the children and their future)

[LuckyStrike]

I have no desire to see animals fights. However I do see a difference in this than people who just beat animals, or torture them for no reason.

Life is a fight, animals fight in the wild that is just the way things are. I think it is distasteful to force them too if nothing else, but there is something wrong with a government who even has enough manpower to look into these things.

If I were in charge the government would be on such a shoestring budget, lights would be flickering in the buildings and keeping warm would be a higher priority than seeing what people do on their property with their property.

[singular_me]

I am not a dogfighter, but I am a supporter of liberty and of property rights.

If I own a dog and choose to enter it into a fight against a dog with another consenting owner, that is our business, however distasteful.

right, another senseless attempt at prohibiting something that cannot be prohibited

ps: would never have my dog fighting, if I had one.

[sirgonzo420]

I don't think you are for animal cruelty because of your stance, just so we are straight. I am no animal rights nut, I am not for animal rights and I see where the slope goes. If it was up to PETA or the HSUS we wouldn't be able to eat or even own an animal. However, I do think animal welfare is something that should be of concern. No animal should be tortured (and there are many forms of that IMHO). This is a very emotional subject for me which makes it very hard to distinguish between what someone should be able to do or not do with their own animal. My personal view is that a dog and a cow are different, I wouldn't eat my dog but I would eat my cow, I wouldn't torture either. Where is the line I guess?

SJ, I see what you are saying and would hope for that, I can even see it. Unfortunately, in today's society, if it were to become legal I see the torture of animals but it would still be illegal for me to shoot the SOB forcing the dog to do it.

I appreciate your honesty in realizing that your emotions play a part in this discussion.

Regarding cows and dogs, in some places they eat dogs and highly revere cows. Mankind is what counts on this planet, ultimately. People fuck a lot of shit up, but they are still my species. That's where the line is drawn. Men/women's rights reign supreme. There is no other reasonable place to draw the line.

Full disclosure: I own a parakeet named Smedley (after Gen. Smedley Butler), and I do not BEAT my bird, although I have been known to tap on his cage when he is being loud when he shouldn't be. The wife and I do not yet have children.

As an aside, it's a good thing nobody is going for "plant rights" of we'd really be fucked... imagine if you let a tomato plant die, or trod too heavily on your front yard....

[iOWNme]

We seem to be pretty close to the same page.


Which is a worse evil: one man mistreating/raping his kid, or a government systems that essentially rapes everyone?



Agree 100%.

And just to be clear here: I would rather live by the absolute laws of the jungle, if my other choice is to be ruled by the State.

[Twisted Titan]

I am not a dogfighter, but I am a supporter of liberty and of property rights.

If I own a dog and choose to enter it into a fight against a dog with another consenting owner, that is our business, however distasteful.



I may not approve of what you do ........but I will defend to the death your right to do it.


Voltaire

[PlatinumBlonde]

I may not approve of what you do ........but I will defend to the death your right to do it.


Voltaire


I don't think that's the Voltaire quote..

It's--I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it..

[DMac]

I don't think that's the Voltaire quote..

It's--I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it..

There is a big difference there.

[PlatinumBlonde]

There is a big difference there.

Huge difference and the correct quote is say not do..

And further to the point it was said in reference to freedom of speech.

[sirgonzo420]

Huge difference and the correct quote is say not do..

And further to the point it was said in reference to freedom of speech.

Here's a bit more on the Voltaire attribution from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/331.html:


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Voltaire/), (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)





Voltaire probably never said these exact words. They were written in 1906 by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (pseud. S. G. Tallentyre) in the biography "The Friends of Voltaire". The author did not attribute the words to Voltaire, but used them to sum up Voltaire's attitude:

" 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now. "

- Here is the correct quote from S. G. Tallentyre (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/35374.html).

Two actual quotations from Voltaire that embody the same attitude:
- Think for yourselves... (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/35375.html)
- I detest what you write... (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/35376.html)
[note by Michael Moncur, January 12, 2005]



Here is an actual Voltaire quote:

« Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire. »

It is actually "écrire"... which is to say that the quote concerns the written word.

So it isn't "to do" or "to say" but "to write".

:p

[mick silver]

most that are cruel to Animal are cruel to people ........... just saying . look around

[iOWNme]

most that are cruel to Animal are cruel to people ........... just saying . look around

Probably because they believe they came from an animal.