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.

 

 

 

human survival is an instinct. not an opinion.

No, it's an opinion because it's impossible to verify the truth. Someone can just as easily say that humans don't need to eat because we don't need to survive - and you couldn't prove them wrong. Is it a "fact" that we need to survive? No. A fact would be how we need the colors blue and yellow to make green.

 

 

 

But we're getting off track here. My initial point is that just because something is an opinion that doesn't make the statement any less reasonable. You replied to how I said, "Using chickens for food is more justifiable than using chickens for entertainment," and you responded by saying, "That's an opinion." Yes, technically it is, but technically so is the example I've given.

No, it's an opinion because it's impossible to verify the truth. Someone can just as easily say that humans don't need to eat because we don't need to survive - and you couldn't prove them wrong. Is it a "fact" that we need to survive? No. A fact would be how we need the colors blue and yellow to make green.

 

 

 

But we're getting off track here. My initial point is that just because something is an opinion that doesn't make the statement any less reasonable. You replied to how I said, "Using chickens for food is more justifiable than using chickens for entertainment," and you responded by saying, "That's an opinion." Yes, technically it is, but technically so is the example I've given.

 

 

 

Human survival is not an opinion. We have to do it.

 

 

 

We eat chickens because we choose to. When someone is dying from starvation, he goes "ohh im dying i need food." Not "oh im dying i need chicken"

Human survival is not an opinion. We have to do it.

 

 

 

Okay without bringing up any type of religion, what suggests that we must survive?

 

 

 

We eat chickens because we choose to. When someone is dying from starvation, he goes "ohh im dying i need food." Not "oh im dying i need chicken"

 

 

 

I've responded to this. I guess you missed it:

 

 

 

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.

No, it's an opinion because it's impossible to verify the truth. Someone can just as easily say that humans don't need to eat because we don't need to survive - and you couldn't prove them wrong. Is it a "fact" that we need to survive? No. A fact would be how we need the colors blue and yellow to make green.

 

 

 

But we're getting off track here. My initial point is that just because something is an opinion that doesn't make the statement any less reasonable. You replied to how I said, "Using chickens for food is more justifiable than using chickens for entertainment," and you responded by saying, "That's an opinion." Yes, technically it is, but technically so is the example I've given.

 

 

 

Human survival is not an opinion. We have to do it.

 

 

 

We eat chickens because we choose to. When someone is dying from starvation, he goes "ohh im dying i need food." Not "oh im dying i need chicken"

 

 

 

Chicken is a food, so technically he does need chicken.

So what you're saying is that humans have some god-given right to use other animals to make entertainment?

 

 

 

Just my interpretation

If they are bred for entertainment, why not?

 

 

 

Honestly, do you think performing monkies are bad?

If they are bred for entertainment, why not?

 

 

 

Honestly, do you think performing monkies are bad?

 

 

 

If by performing you mean that the monkeys have to endure pain, yes that is bad.

If they are bred for entertainment, why not?

 

 

 

Honestly, do you think performing monkies are bad?

 

 

 

If they're going to be exploited in a violent manner then yes

So what you're saying is that humans have some god-given right to use other animals to make entertainment?

 

 

 

Just my interpretation

 

I'm not religious.

Human survival is not an opinion. We have to do it.

 

 

 

Okay without bringing up any type of religion, what suggests that we must survive?

 

 

 

We eat chickens because we choose to. When someone is dying from starvation, he goes "ohh im dying i need food." Not "oh im dying i need chicken"

 

 

 

I've responded to this. I guess you missed it:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Learn to differentiate then.

 

 

 

Humans don't have to survive.

 

Humans want to survive.

 

 

 

Figure out which one is fact and opinion.

Learn to differentiate then.

 

 

 

Humans don't have to survive.

 

Humans want to survive.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? That's been my point the whole time.

 

 

 

Fact: Humans need food to live.

 

Opinion: Humans need to live.

Chicken is a food, so technically he does need chicken.

 

 

 

Chicken is a food, but not all food is chicken. We eat chicken because we like it, because it's convenient, not because we have to.

Chicken is a food, so technically he does need chicken.

 

 

 

Chicken is a food, but not all food is chicken. We eat chicken because we like it, because it's convenient, not because we have to.

 

 

 

Not all entertainment is cockfighting.

When I saw the title I was like "Jesus!" and immediately had to go inside.

 

 

 

Well, this gains a big fat NAH from me. It is cruel, and [roosters] are living beings, too.

 

 

 

#-o :roll:

What are you talking about? That's been my point the whole time.

 

 

 

Fact: Humans need food to live.

 

Opinion: Humans need to live.

 

 

 

Bingo, that opinion has nothing to do with your argument. It's a fallacy to even bring it up.

Chicken is a food, so technically he does need chicken.

 

 

 

Chicken is a food, but not all food is chicken. We eat chicken because we like it, because it's convenient, not because we have to.

 

 

 

Not all entertainment is cockfighting.

 

 

 

Now are you just trolling me? You just made my point. If we can choose to eat chicken, we can choose to watch cockfighting.

If I would watch one of these I would.

Bingo, that opinion has nothing to do with your argument. It's a fallacy to even bring it up.

 

 

 

It does, because you said it was my opinion that chickens for food is more important than chickens for entertainment. Yeah technically it is an opinion, but saying it's an opinion has nothing to do with the argument.

 

 

 

Now are you just trolling me? You just made my point. If we can choose to eat chicken, we can choose to watch cockfighting.

 

 

 

Food > Entertainment

 

 

 

Yes, that's an "opinion" but it doesn't make it any less reasonable. I can't put it any simpler.

If they are bred for entertainment, why not?

 

 

 

Honestly, do you think performing monkies are bad?

 

 

 

If by performing you mean that the monkeys have to endure pain, yes that is bad.

 

 

 

So, if a creature had a natural tendency to ritually punch itself in the face, would you be against exploiting the view?

 

 

 

Cockfights happen no matter what, humans just make it structured and organized.

 

 

 

Though again, we should stop cutting off parts of their bodies we deem 'inconvenient' and adding blades to their limbs.

So, if a creature had a natural tendency to ritually punch itself in the face, would you be against exploiting the view?

 

 

 

Cockfights happen no matter what, humans just make it structured and organized.

 

 

 

Though again, we should stop cutting off parts of their bodies we deem 'inconvenient' and adding blades to their limbs.

 

 

 

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong. It's like instigating.

So, if a creature had a natural tendency to ritually punch itself in the face, would you be against exploiting the view?

 

 

 

Cockfights happen no matter what, humans just make it structured and organized.

 

 

 

Though again, we should stop cutting off parts of their bodies we deem 'inconvenient' and adding blades to their limbs.

 

 

 

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong.

 

 

 

Understood. But from what I see, you have a problem with the pain they endure?

 

 

 

From some of the replies I've read, unmodified cockfights are pretty harmless, the entertainment lying not in blood and gore but in the voluntary submission of one rooster or the other.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if this submission is made out of pain, or if the rooster simply acknowledges that it is weaker than it's opponent. The answer to this question will make your opinion more definite (or, less).

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong. It's like instigating.

 

 

 

Lol, so because you think it's wrong makes it absolute? Should everything that happens in the world depend on your definition of what is right or wrong?

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong. It's like instigating.

 

 

 

Lol, so because you think it's wrong makes it absolute? Should everything that happens in the world depend on your definition of what is right or wrong?

 

 

 

You asked him for his thoughts. He gave them to you.

 

 

 

Whether they are properly backed remains to be seen, but they are his thoughts and he did not label them as absolutes.

The organization is what I don't like. If two roosters are fighting in the wild then watch it all you like. But if you purposely put two together for the sole intention of watching them fight then I do think it's wrong. It's like instigating.

 

 

 

Lol, so because you think it's wrong makes it absolute? Should everything that happens in the world depend on your definition of what is right or wrong?

 

 

 

You asked him for his thoughts. He gave them to you.

 

 

 

Whether they are properly backed remains to be seen, but they are his thoughts and he did not label them as absolutes.

 

 

 

I already said a few pages back that I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just doing this for the sake of discussion.