Bauke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Woah damn, those roosters look hella scary. Bauke have you EVER gotten into a Human fight? What does this have to do with anything? because you should know if your going to stand against this mere Animal Cruelty (Compaired to others), what about humans killing each other? murder, rape, victimazation? This crap goes on all the time but of course, were human. We can make more of ourselfs. Again, what does this have to do with anything? Do I really have to state my opinion on murder, rape, etc? What's the point in constantly comparing it to other bad things that are happening in the world? Just because other (perhaps worse) crap happens all the time, does not make letting two roosters kill each other for sheer entertainment a good thing. Fact of the matter is; animals get hurt because people like to watch that. I think that's sick. The fact that other sick things happen does not change anything about that. Point is, YOU have your Opinion on this, others have THEIR opinion. Yeah, that's quite... universal. ShadowFaxPZ isn't trying to force you to endorce it, and you shouldn't force your opinions to others to follow your lead. I'm not forcing anything, I'm stating what I think. Also, this is offtopic, again. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I have to say that I'm almost positive that I would enjoy watching a cockfight, or at least be interested. That said, deriving pleasure from suffering is sadistic at best. The difference between cockfighting and boxing is that boxers have a choice. Yeah, I'd probably like it, which isn't good at all. Kind of a [bleep] move to the chickens. I'll go ahead and take the low road and say, at least they went out in a (sport?) with a funny name. What does this have to do with anything? Heh. Mistaken identity. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Roosters are naturally aggressive as hell, right? A cockfight would pretty much be an organized duel. Similar to watching rhinos lance each other with their horns, elephants crossing tusks, and stags entangling antlers. Nature at work--quite a spectacle. Though when you introduce human elements like lethal knives and artificially streamlined fighters, some kind of line is definitely crossed. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sohkmj1 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Am I the only one that thinks that cockfighting is a weird name for such an awesome sport? :twss: But seriously, let nature take its place, if the roosters want to fight... then well... who are we to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... They still have rights to not be abused. This is some [bleep]ed up [cabbage] that so many people support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... They are perfectly able to feel pain. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... They still have rights to not be abused. This is some [bleep] up [cabbage] that so many people support this. Why? They aren't citizens of America, therefore they have no rights here, do they? Is there a "No hurting birds" amendment that I didn't hear about? Fyi, there's more than america in the world. I don't know about america, but here we are a bit more civilized and do think that animals have "rights". And that means senseless hurting of animals is prohibited here. Animal abuse is not allowed, and for good reason. They are living creatures aswell, and are able to feel. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... There is proof. They have the same pleasure centers, pain receptors, and other things that we do. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Am I the only one that thinks that cockfighting is a weird name for such an awesome sport? :twss: Because they are [roosters]...who are fighting? I don't quite see what's wrong with the name there. The word [rooster] has meant rooster for thousands of years in many languages. The reference to one's penis is a fairly recent (like 50 years) invention. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzle229 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ... Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... They still have rights to not be abused. This is some [bleep] up [cabbage] that so many people support this. Why? They aren't citizens of America, therefore they have no rights here, do they? Is there a "No hurting birds" amendment that I didn't hear about? So because they're not citizens of this country, they don't have rights and should be treated like crap? I hope you don't get an important job in government someday. Get back here so I can rub your butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bauke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 So because they're not citizens of this country, they don't have rights and should be treated like crap? I hope you don't get an important job in government someday. I actually think they're looking for these people in the US government. Twitter ||| Google+ ||| Facebook ||| LinkedIn ||| My very interesting weblog about science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 So because they're not citizens of this country, they don't have rights and should be treated like crap? I hope you don't get an important job in government someday. I actually think they're looking for these people in the US government. Ok, as sad as the reality of this statement was, I lol'd. :lol: Waterboarding was condemned today, so that's good. Still pissed that Afghan prisoners are not given Constitutional Rights, though. Back on topic: Animals can still feel pain, what the hell are you talking about? As they're an essential industry and food item, I wouldn't advocate for vegetarianism, but they still should be treated in a humane manner. We shouldn't test beauty products and shampoos on them, as research has shown that it's not needed. I do, however, think that we should be able to test medication on them. I do cringe at the idea of testing medication on any primates, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgedThesis Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Funny you should say that. I'm quite sure arguments are still raging about whether we should extend human rights upon the more advanced of our primate cousins. They are self-aware and have several higher thought functions as we do. I wonder how many more arguments will come up when we create artificial intelligence or discover extraterrestrial sentience. If we come to conclusions as slow as we are now, I'm guessing there will be an Alien-aided Machine War beating upon our indecisive hides some time in the future. But I don't want to go among mad people!Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Am I the only one that thinks that cockfighting is a weird name for such an awesome sport? :twss: Because they are [roosters]...who are fighting? I don't quite see what's wrong with the name there. The word [rooster] has meant rooster for thousands of years in many languages. The reference to one's penis is a fairly recent (like 50 years) invention. Man the censors just shot down your argument. :P (or, in a way, support it ;p) And no, sohk, you were only the 3rd person to make that connection! :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Don't they fight each other without human intervention anyway? As long as there's no artificial influences to the fight, such as adding knives to their claws or something, I see nothing wrong with watching it (and maybe put a bet on the side). ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Back on topic: Animals can still feel pain, what the hell are you talking about? As they're an essential industry and food item, I wouldn't advocate for vegetarianism, but they still should be treated in a humane manner. We shouldn't test beauty products and shampoos on them, as research has shown that it's not needed. I do, however, think that we should be able to test medication on them. I do cringe at the idea of testing medication on any primates, though. Lol, game[roosters] are probably treated better than the chickens in slaughterhouses. People won't believe it... but it's true. These roosters aren't confined to small spaces, force fed, etc. They are prizefighters. They have decent cages. Made sure to be healthy every single day through food, check ups, meds etc. There's nothing humane about this :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 ^^ I look at the intentions behind the treatment to see if it's humane or not. Caring for a chicken just for sadistic entertainment purposes is a lot different than caring for a chicken for survival. Human life is more important than a chicken life, but human entertainment (in this context) isn't more important than a chicken life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Hey, I don't exactly condone the treatment of chickens in cages, either. I only buy cage-free eggs. I also agree with Zierro. The intent is completely different. Again: do you condone dog fighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 ^^ I look at the intentions behind the treatment to see if it's humane or not. Caring for a chicken just for sadistic entertainment purposes is a lot different than caring for a chicken for survival. Human life is more important than a chicken life, but human entertainment (in this context) isn't more important than a chicken life. That's an opinion, not a fact. Most people have an "out of sight, out of mind" mantra that allows them to be against cockfights but can't care less about how the food on their plate came by. Unless you can prove to me that eating chicken is a life or death situation, relating it to "human life" is a load of [cabbage]. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Hey, I don't exactly condone the treatment of chickens in cages, either. I only buy cage-free eggs. I also agree with Zierro. The intent is completely different. Again: do you condone dog fighting? I don't know, I've never seen one nor do I have any experiences with dogfighting. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphi Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Wouldn't roosters fight in the wild anyways? Thats besides the point. Until roosters can develop sentience, they are merely a resource for humans to use. Harsh, maybe, but thats what I believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Unless you can prove to me that eating chicken is a life or death situation, relating it to "human life" is a load of [cabbage]. Well food is definitely a necessity so I guess you're arguing that we can just as easily eat something else - as to you can just as easily find different means for entertainment. Like I said, I look at the intentions behind the treatment and then weigh them out. If I had a choice to feed a person for a day or entertain a person for a day, I'd definitely go with feeding. Oh and it's also an "opinion" that food is necessary. But how much weight does that hold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Well food is definitely a necessity so I guess you're arguing that we can just as easily eat something else - as to you can just as easily find different means for entertainment. Like I said, I look at the intentions behind the treatment and then weigh them out. If I had a choice to feed a person for a day or entertain a person for a day, I'd definitely go with feeding. Oh and it's also an "opinion" that food is necessary. But how much weight does that hold? Food is a necessity. Eating chicken is a choice. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The statement, "Humans need to live," is technically an opinion, not a fact. That's my point. And saying that it's an opinion doesn't hold much weight because virtually everyone holds that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts