Zierro, just thought I should point out that it was the Romans who used the Collisseum....before Someone decides to flame you about something as irrelevant as that!

 

 

 

See how naive you are? I've had a dog when I was 10. We didn't put a leash on him and we never kept him locked inside our house. He was free to roam wherever he wants. I've seen him fight other dogs. I've seen it get hurt. I've seen it limp. I've seen his ears get torn. But did I cry? No that's what dogs do. He's never attack a person but he won't go down without a fight against other dogs. It's in their nature, something I've learned up close.

 

 

 

Ok naive? I haven't been tricked easily by anything. However, let's continue this rather amusing argument. So you'd be willing to have a group of humans gather around your dog and force him to fight another dog..unnaturally. I don't give a damn about unorganised fights, what I do care about is that humans will go so low as to force them to fight. Yes, organising the fight counts as "forcing" in my book.

 

 

 

Little bit away from the debate: I realise I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I can express my opinion about cockfighting. You've entered that frame of mind where you hold something so close that you won't take in a word that's said against it, and that's normal....but that doesn't make it right

So now we should all be taking protein pills and be eating fruit salads for dinner because we won't let you have cockfights? You are the one who is being ignorant by still failing to see that eating a chicken is more natural than making two roosters fight in a ring.

 

 

 

Please, don't shove things in my mouth. I'm not saying people should stop eating meat. I'm justifying cockfighting by what we do in animal factories. There's a huge difference with what you're implying and what I've been saying this whole time.

 

 

 

This isn't about the treatment of fowl in factories though, something I am against too. I don't think anything that's living should be treated with any form of cruelty....even if it is a "stupid chicken"

So now we should all be taking protein pills and be eating fruit salads for dinner because we won't let you have cockfights? You are the one who is being ignorant by still failing to see that eating a chicken is more natural than making two roosters fight in a ring.

 

 

 

Please, don't shove things in my mouth. I'm not saying people should stop eating meat. I'm justifying cockfighting by what we do in animal factories. There's a huge difference with what you're implying and what I've been saying this whole time.

 

Fine then, instead of telling me why eating chicken is just as bad as cockfighting, tell me why cockfighting is just as good as eating chicken, and let me tell you cockfighting is not natural so don't even try bringing that up.

Ok naive? I haven't been tricked easily by anything. However, let's continue this rather amusing argument. So you'd be willing to have a group of humans gather around your dog and force him to fight another dog..unnaturally. I don't give a damn about unorganised fights, what I do care about is that humans will go so low as to force them to fight. Yes, organising the fight counts as "forcing" in my book.

 

 

 

Little bit away from the debate: I realise I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I can express my opinion about cockfighting. You've entered that frame of mind where you hold something so close that you won't take in a word that's said against it, and that's normal....but that doesn't make it right

 

 

 

I won't comment on dog fighting because I've never seen one in person. I don't know how it works and I have no idea how the dogs are treated. I can only say that dogs do fight fairly often outside a ring.

 

 

 

It doesn't make it wrong either. Don't put the "frame" on me, because there's one person between the two of us who isn't talking metaphorically and experienced the topic at hand in person. Maybe one day when you see one in person, you won't be so narrow minded.

There is a huge thing this topic is missing: Nature vs. Nurture.

 

 

 

Is it in most animal's nature to fight? Yes.

 

Is it in their nature to fight to the death for absolutely no reason? No.

 

 

 

In nature, fights are always done for territorial or resource gain, not out of pure randomness (Random to the creature, not to us).

 

 

 

Do Humans fight for out of randomness? Most of the time not. There is usually money involved (a resource). And even if it is random, play fighting (sparing for fun, kids wrestling, ect ect) is just a civil way to get out our lust for violence. Very very rarely do people fight, and kill, just because they felt like it.

 

 

 

As well, the meat eating argument is valid because we need meat to survive. Sure there are people who are vegetarians or vegans, but they still require proteins and other nutriants only found in meats, so they must go out of their way to intake these proteins and nutrients.

Fine then, instead of telling me why eating chicken is just as bad as cockfighting, tell me why cockfighting is just as good as eating chicken, and let me tell you cockfighting is not natural so don't even try bringing that up.

 

Cockfighting is more natural than chickens being mass produced and mass slaughtered.

I won't comment on dog fighting because I've never seen one in person. I don't know how it works and I have no idea how the dogs are treated. I can only say that dogs do fight fairly often outside a ring.

 

 

 

It doesn't make it wrong either. Don't put the "frame" on me, because there's one person between the two of us who isn't talking metaphorically and experienced the topic at hand in person. Maybe one day when you see one in person, you won't be so narrow minded.

 

 

 

Who says I haven't experienced a cockfight? I despise all those "entertainments" and in my mind at least I have a good reason.

 

 

 

Although, I'm glad you didn't try to argue back on the dog-fighting thing. I admit it is also not what the debate is about. Sorry for bringing it up

Fine then, instead of telling me why eating chicken is just as bad as cockfighting, tell me why cockfighting is just as good as eating chicken, and let me tell you cockfighting is not natural so don't even try bringing that up.

 

Cockfighting is more natural than chickens being mass produced and mass slaughtered.

 

Not when being forced by humans it isn't.

Please, don't shove things in my mouth. I'm not saying people should stop eating meat. I'm justifying cockfighting by what we do in animal factories. There's a huge difference with what you're implying and what I've been saying this whole time.

 

 

 

Okay, let's get some things straight here.

 

 

 

*The act of commencing a cockfight is sadistic.

 

*The act of mistreating chickens at the factory is negligence.

 

*The act of buying chicken nuggets from the store and eating them is not bad. If anything, that's good because it's preventing chickens from going to waste. Just because you buy a product from someone, that doesn't mean you endorse all of their values. I'm willing to bet that sometime in your life you've bought a product that was made through child labor - does that mean you agree with it?

 

 

 

Zierro, just thought I should point out that it was the Romans who used the Collisseum....before Someone decides to flame you about something as irrelevant as that!

 

 

 

Yeah I knew it was either Greece or Rome, but I get those two confused a lot. Thanks for that. :)

Quote:

 

Zierro, just thought I should point out that it was the Romans who used the Collisseum....before Someone decides to flame you about something as irrelevant as that!

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I knew it was either Greece or Rome, but I get those two confused a lot.

 

 

 

Ah well, I'm just a bit of a geek like that....

 

 

 

Oh yeah, nice points on the present topic. I agree with each of them.

There is a huge thing this topic is missing: Nature vs. Nurture.

 

 

 

Is it in most animal's nature to fight? Yes.

 

Is it in their nature to fight to the death for absolutely no reason? No.

 

 

 

In nature, fights are always done for territorial or resource gain, not out of pure randomness (Random to the creature, not to us).

 

 

 

Do Humans fight for out of randomness? Most of the time not. There is usually money involved (a resource). And even if it is random, play fighting (sparing for fun, kids wrestling, ect ect) is just a civil way to get out our lust for violence. Very very rarely do people fight, and kill, just because they felt like it.

 

 

 

As well, the meat eating argument is valid because we need meat to survive. Sure there are people who are vegetarians or vegans, but they still require proteins and other nutriants only found in meats, so they must go out of their way to intake these proteins and nutrients.

 

 

 

Your first point is horribly wrong, cockfighting doesn't end in death. It rarely ever does especially when it's a natural fight (no equipments which is what I'm arguing for).

 

 

 

And no, we really don't need to eat meat to survive. http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/ It's only considered "out of their way" because it's not considered the social norm.

Fine then, instead of telling me why eating chicken is just as bad as cockfighting, tell me why cockfighting is just as good as eating chicken, and let me tell you cockfighting is not natural so don't even try bringing that up.

 

Cockfighting is more natural than chickens being mass produced and mass slaughtered.

 

Not when being forced by humans it isn't.

 

Organized, yes. But it's not forced.

Fine then, instead of telling me why eating chicken is just as bad as cockfighting, tell me why cockfighting is just as good as eating chicken, and let me tell you cockfighting is not natural so don't even try bringing that up.

 

Cockfighting is more natural than chickens being mass produced and mass slaughtered.

 

Not when being forced by humans it isn't.

 

Organized, yes. But it's not forced.

 

In that case it's taking advantage of them which is still wrong.

But what stops them from fighting to the death? Do they just stop by themselves at some point and just walk away from each other. It is simply human intervention that stops them from fighting to the death. In nature they probably wouldn't stop, or they wouldn't even start (unless there was something to fight about).

 

 

 

And although your site makes sense, it is still out of the way not for the social norm, but for the fact that the amount of food needed to be ingested (non meat Vs. Meat) is extremely large. Imagine this was a world where there was no market you could go to. You had to forage for food on your own. The amount of time you would spend finding and obtaining plants that are high in protein and other nutrients found in meat would take up a large amount of time. It is just like large animals like giraffes or elephants who have to spend a great deal of their day eating plants and grass just to stay healthy.

 

 

 

Edit: There is an edit button for a reason people.

I feel there's a huge detail you are missing, Shadow: A wrong does not justify a different wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't need examples to realise this.

 

 

 

If you are defending cockfighting, you should do it on its own merits, not because chickens can bet get mistreated in farms, not because they sometimes fight naturally -even though you're missing they could simply flee in a natural fight-, and certainly not because some people like watching boxers fight.

 

 

 

Now tell us, how do you justify putting up insentient animals to fight in a ring, for the mere purposes of lucre and sadism?

I feel there's a huge detail you are missing, Shadow: A wrong does not justify a different wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't need examples to realise this.

 

 

 

If you are defending cockfighting, you should do it on its own merits, not because chickens can bet get mistreated in farms, not because they sometimes fight naturally -even though you're missing they could simply flee in a natural fight-, and certainly not because some people like watching boxers fight.

 

 

 

Now tell us, how do you justify putting up insentient animals to fight in a ring, for the mere purposes of lucre and sadism?

 

What if I don't consider them wrong in the first place?

Explain why you don't consider them wrong then, rather than just this thread's billionth comparison.

meol, did you miss the whole "natural" argument..? Chickens fight each other. It's in their blood.

 

 

 

Ever heard of the phrase "pecking order"?

Explain why you don't consider them wrong then, rather than just this thread's billionth comparison.

 

If you're not going to answer my question, I'd prefer if you wait until meol does.

meol, did you miss the whole "natural" argument..? Chickens fight each other. It's in their blood.

 

 

 

Ever heard of the phrase "pecking order"?

 

I've already said that putting them into a ring and making them fight isn't natural.

meol, did you miss the whole "natural" argument..? Chickens fight each other. It's in their blood.

 

 

 

Ever heard of the phrase "pecking order"?

 

I've already said that putting them into a ring and making them fight isn't natural.

 

 

 

Some people really need to read previous posts before they say anything

Shadow: Even if you didn't consider them (by "them", I understand you refer to the chickens being in farms, etc.) wrong, you should still stop using them as part as your argument because it's still irrelevant. You might lose credibility or moral authority in my eyes, but that's it.

 

 

 

Reb: Yeah, I've heard about that. I admit I still have to see a natural chicken fight, but I'd assume that -just like dogs in a fight- they can flee before they get too harmed and that the chickens have chosen to engage in the fight by themselves. So, the fact they fight each other does not justify setting up the fights, especially if the reason is sadism. Just like Lionheart said a while ago.

Shadow: Even if you didn't consider them (by "them", I understand you refer to the chickens being in farms, etc.) wrong, you should still stop using them as part as your argument. You'll either lose credibility or moral authority in my eyes, but that's it.

 

 

 

Reb: Yeah, I've heard about that. I admit I still have to see a natural chicken fight, but I'd assume that -just like dogs in a fight- they can flee before they get too harmed and that the chickens have chosen to engage in the fight by themselves. So, the fact they fight each other does not justify setting up the fights, especially if the reason is sadism. Just like Lionheart said a while ago.

 

 

 

Awesome, whose moral code are going by at this moment? Allah? Christian Bible? Your teachers? Your parents? Morality is defined by your own surroundings. Avoid using it as if its a law that covers the globe. Cockfighting isn't wrong to me because I view it just as a way of life. I've never raised a pet for money, but I don't have the moral authority or the arrogance to come up to people who participate in this and tell them it is wrong.

 

 

 

I use it freely as a reason because it's the easiest way to relate animal cruelty. How can I explain animal cruelty to people who have never seen one in person because they've been sheltered throughout their life?

 

 

 

When I was a kid, me and my friends used to have spiders that we'd use to fight. Is that morally wrong in your eyes as well because I enjoyed it when my spider wins? Keep your morality to yourself because it really has nothing to do with me.

I think I didn't explain myself. I'm saying that whether those other actions are wrong or not -and regardless of my position on that-, it's still irrelevant to the discussion of cockfighting. I'm not saying you should stop using them as arguments "because they're wrong", but because them being right or wrong don't speak for (or against) cockfighting. You were the one who said "I'm justifying cockfighting by what we do in animal factories."

 

 

 

I still find cockfighting cruel and sadistic, and you still haven't defended your position.

Why don't we just bet on things like flipping a coin?