Really? So it's worse to call something wrong than to do something wrong?

I thought you just said cockfighting wasn't wrong?

Actually, what I just said was that I didn't care. But my comment was directed at a statement which seemed to apply generally, not merely to cockfighting. That "moralizing" was worse than doing something wrong.

Moreover, no-one tries to defend (say) Guantanamo as a cultural phenomenon. "Well, you and I may think locking people up without trial and torturing them for years is wrong, but that's just part of American culture, and it's not our place to say anything." No-one says that!

But people do try to defend our loves of firearms as part of the American frontier culture. That may even apply to our love of capital punishment -- or maybe that's just in Texas

Btw, I would love to eat Fried chicken that was made from the loser of a cockfight one day.

I bet you could taste the fear.

I think you ignore the fact that one of the differences is that it is not just bulls being killed by other animals. There is a man in the ring, and he is taking some chances. Me, I root for the bull, and everyone once in a while, the bull gets in a good one.

I say make it more fair - take away the picadors. The fighter is facing an exhausted, wounded animal, and that bothers me a lot.

I don't like bullfighting one bit.

ALOU: "Of course, it does bring to mind Luke 6:42."

That's quite similar to Matthew 7:3. I'm not sure which of these guys came first*, but it's evident one copied off the other guy's paper.

Perhaps because I am not a Christian, I don't subscribe to to that "judge not, that ye be not judged" sentiment. Even though I am far from perfect, I feel it is right to make judgments on other people's behavior, not just on my own. And insofar as others find faults with me (and I keep an open mind to those judgments), both parties are better off being judged. So in this respect, Jesus came up short.

* I have read that Mark is the source book for the synoptic gospels, despite its placement as second in line.

But people do try to defend our loves of firearms as part of the American frontier culture.

Why does this need to be "defended"? While some uses of firearms could be criticized, why would firearms themselves?

I don't like bullfighting one bit.

Where do you stand in Pamplona?

Why does this need to be "defended"? While some uses of firearms could be criticized, why would firearms themselves?

I was going to ask the same question.

But people do try to defend our loves of firearms as part of the American frontier culture.

Good catch.

However, it's a really bad argument - I guess no-one has a monopoly on those. And what shows it's bad is that no-one uses the argument decisively. Does anyone say "Guns are really awful and dangerous and no-one should be allowed to have one, but Americans really like guns so I guess that's OK then."*

If cockfighting is wrong, then it's still wrong in Spanish.

*They might say "...but Americans really like guns and would massively disobey any prohibition so banning them would cause more harm than good" but that is a separate argument.

FWIW, equating animal cruelty with human cruelty is pretty much hopping on the PETA train. It just isn't.

In part, you and others miss the point here. The cockfighting may be bad for the birds. But the really bad part is humans getting together and taking enjoyment in watching an animal, essentially, be tortured to death.

I just think that is a bad thing for a person, or a society. It instills a value that I cannot agree with.

Factory farming is also wrong for a large variety of reasons. But it is largely done out of sight -- and if it wasn't, if more people were forced to come face to face with the actions and consequences of this method of food production, there might be economic repercussions.

I cannot equate either of these things to hunting or fishing for the purpose of getting food. But we evolved as a kind of predator, hunter-gatherers. We were hardly the only hunters out there either -- and at times, we were the hunted. Hunting for recreational purposes, yes, I think it is questionable (but which gets us back to the problem of culling herds, having killed off so many other predators). Now, maybe we all should turn into vegetarians, or Jains, and refrain from taking even insect life, but I don't think that is a likely result.

DN: Do you have any opinion on McNamee's lawyers moving the defamation lawsuit from state court in Texas to Federal Court in Houston? Does that make any difference which might affect who wins and who loses the case?

Btw, I would love to eat Fried chicken that was made from the loser of a cockfight one day.

I bet you could taste the fear.

Little Jim Rice must have been the opponent.

But there are quite a few people in this country that are totally fine with the idea of torture.

Too many "24" reruns.

Perhaps because I am not a Christian, I don't subscribe to to that "judge not, that ye be not judged" sentiment. Even though I am far from perfect, I feel it is right to make judgments on other people's behavior, not just on my own. And insofar as others find faults with me (and I keep an open mind to those judgments), both parties are better off being judged. So in this respect, Jesus came up short.

Ayn Rand said that the "judge not" line was an "abdication of moral responsibility," that the appropriate moral principle is "judge, and be prepared to be judged."

(There. If that doesn't boost the thread length...)

I don't like bullfighting one bit.

Agreed, but I love the running of the bulls in Pamplona. Seems a useful way of weeding out the gene pool a bit (among the runners, not the bulls).

Where do you stand in Pamplona?

Back and to the left.

"But the really bad part is humans getting together and taking enjoyment in watching an animal, essentially, be tortured to death."

I agree with this completely. That's part of the reason I have moral problems with boxing: the fact that the audience is there (at least in part) to "take enjoyment in watching" a person get pummeled.

If somehow the gloves were made of a very spungy material which caused no bruises or cuts or other bodily damage and the sole point of boxing as a sport was (kind of like fencing with plastic swords) to see if you could successfully get your glove on the other guy and stop him from doing that to you, I don't think there'd be an audience for that. My sense is that boxing (from a fan's point of you) is to enjoy seeing one man, using skill and athleticism, beat in another man's brains. This kind of blood-lust, while repugnant, is fairly universal (among men, as baseball chick pointed out). Yet I think it is only in recent times (say in the last 100 years) that some cultures have gotten to the point where we can at least see boxing with a critical eye.

Why does this need to be "defended"? While some uses of firearms could be criticized, why would firearms themselves?

The widespread availability of firearms in America is unique among Western industrialized nations. Some people point to it as one of the reasons for our high rate of murder compared to other nations where they are not so widespread. Where access to an advanced killing machine is so easy, minor disputes are more likely to escalate; people in emotional distress are more likely to have access to a killing device; with guns widespread and access easy, casual criminals have much more ready access to them, and so on.

Killing somebody with your bare hands takes hard work. Bludgeoning and stabbing is up close and personal. Pointing a small piece of metal and making a small gesture with your finger is easy and impersonal. It makes killing just so much easier and convenient. That is what guns are for -- they are killing devices. Rational Societies that do not romanticize the gun take steps to make them hard to get, for these reasons, among others.

Or so some people think. Me, I believe it is not because of guns; it is just a part of the American culture that we are savage, murderous barbarians, ready to settle any dispute with violence and death, or to kill anyone who stands between us and what we want. It is one of our better character traits. And, it serves the useful purpose of culling the population some. God Bless America

Really? So it's worse to call something wrong than to do something wrong?


It could be. Cockfighting in the Dominican is hardly a big problem in the big view. Whipping up a frenzy against Dominicans as some seem keen to do would be infinitely worse. The saved chickens are not worth it.

Ayn Rand said that the "judge not" line was an "abdication of moral responsibility," that the appropriate moral principle is "judge, and be prepared to be judged."

Blind hen. Acorn.

DN: Do you have any opinion on McNamee's lawyers moving the defamation lawsuit from state court in Texas to Federal Court in Houston? Does that make any difference which might affect who wins and who loses the case?

Routine. Any out of state defendant would remove a case like this to federal court. It likely levels the playing field a little bit, in the sense of not having some local elected judge handling the case, but it's not going to drastically affect the outcome in the sense of being more important than the merits, no.

Ayn Rand said that the "judge not" line was an "abdication of moral responsibility," that the appropriate moral principle is "judge, and be prepared to be judged."

Blind hen. Acorn.

**pops popcorn, fluffs couch, and prepares to enjoy**

My sense is that boxing (from a fan's point of you) is to enjoy seeing one man, using skill and athleticism, beat in another man's brains.

I don't know that I agree with you here. I'm not a fan of boxing generally but I have friends that are and I enjoy a good fight. But the best fights often don't end in knockouts, and sometimes, don't even have too many knockdowns. It's often more about technique and conditioning more than who is hurt more at the end.

I would enjoy a good fight no less with protective headgear, which would eliminate most of the serious damage of the sport.

Boxers do use gloves to reduce the effect of their blows on their opponents, otherwise they'd be using the much lighter ones originally designed to prevent broken hands and wrists from barehanded contests. It isn't nerf, but it is a safety device.

I'm just waiting to read how cultures where boxing is popular are inferior.

Blind hen. Acorn.

SPEAK IT, SRUL!

Anyhow, my only contribution is that I think that there is a valid argument that it speaks volumes to our treatment of each other in how we treat animals as far as the level of thoughtfulness, care, and respect.

That being said, if you're gonna concentrate on THIS issue (cockfighting) in your fight for animal's rights, you're really just making people dismiss you, sadly. I'd pick a better fight.

Bullfighting is both ridiculous AND pathetic, seriously. But, no more so than boxing.

Bullfighting is pretty grotesque. Rodeo is a lot more reasonable, if you must have a man vs. animal contest.

I'm just waiting to read how cultures where boxing is popular are inferior.

A bunch of White guys watching a Black dude and a Hispanic dude beat the krap out of each other?

Sign me up.

Me, I believe it is not because of guns; it is just a part of the American culture that we are savage, murderous barbarians, ready to settle any dispute with violence and death, or to kill anyone who stands between us and what we want.

This isn't an American trait, it's a human trait.

That being said, if you're gonna concentrate on THIS issue (cockfighting) in your fight for animal's rights, you're really just making people dismiss you, sadly. I'd pick a better fight.

Who's concentrating on it? Simply saying you disapprove of something means that it's more important to you than other issues?

Ayn Rand said that the "judge not" line was an "abdication of moral responsibility," that the appropriate moral principle is "judge, and be prepared to be judged."

My understanding of the principle to "judge not," from a Catholic perspective, is that it is intended to remind Christians that only God is capable of judging a person justly. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment on individuals, lest you be held to your own imperfect ability to judge.

However, pronouncing judgment on behaviors is entirely different. Many behaviors, in the abstract, can be judged to be morally wrong. It is in the application of moral principle to specific people and situations that a person is incapable of knowing all of the details that affect the culpability and responsibility of a person engaging in an otherwise immoral behavior.

"Boxers do use gloves to reduce the effect of their blows on their opponents, otherwise they'd be using the much lighter ones originally designed to prevent broken hands and wrists from barehanded contests. It isn't nerf, but it is a safety device."

True enough. However, the goal still seems to be to try to knock out the other guy, and I sense (perhaps incorrectly) that the audience gets a big thrill out of a knock out. I don't think it's just a knock out they want. They want skill and athleticism and so on, too. If they simply wanted one unskilled lout hitting another, there is something called Tough Man competition. I doubt that has a big audience.

Ultimate fighters -- the kind that mix boxing, kicking and wrestling -- have even smaller gloves with less protection (and of course no helmets). And that sport is growing more popular than boxing, perhaps because it better satisfies this testosteronial blood-lust for fight fans.

A bunch of White guys watching a Black dude and a Hispanic dude beat the krap out of each other?

That's only because we got tired of watching the Black dudes beat the living krap out of the useless white dudes that kept trying to get in the ring against them -- like Jerry Quarry or Tex Cobb -- or my all time favorite, Chuck Wepner, the Bayonne Bleeder.

Who's concentrating on it? Simply saying you disapprove of something means that it's more important to you than other issues?

IFFFFF you do, as I said. Someone somewhere is, trust me. I know, I'm a liberal. ;-) I also disapprove, but again, battles. To those people who are concentrating on this, I would simply say there are bigger and better battles in the same issue (many already mentioned), that's all.

I'm still unclear. If I set up a situation where I pay someone a whole bunch of money to agree to be hurt for my enjoyment, then that's better than hurting animals for enjoyment?

As you know, I'm not really interested in either. I don't like football, and I'm bothered that baseball players are sticking each other in the ass at risk of their health so that we can enjoy the ball going further.

But these justifications for delighting in human suffering because it's "voluntary" sound like the typical crap arguments used to defend animals and abuse people.

And remember, there's a reason they replay those nasty hits on TV over and over again. I imagine it's really quite similar to the allure to cockfighting beyond the gambling--humankind's love for demonstrating raw, brutal power. That's not exactly the same as delighting in suffering, but it's probably not much better. I really don't think too many cockfighting fans are getting orgasmic over the actual suffering--more like the brutality.

I also think the affection shown in this thread for killing out of greed over killing out of bloodthirsty delight is more an artifact of our social standards than a reflection of any universal standards of morality.

The latter seems crazy, the former seems evil.

And if the question gets reduced to less animal suffering = more expensive chicken (which in fact is what it all boils down to), then it's hard for me to accept that the resolution of that question in the direction of "screw the chickens, just keep em cheap" offers any particular evidence of a superior culture.

Let's say morally superior practice instead of morally superior culture to avoid getting off track.

Both cockfighting and factory farming are matters of placing profit (better entertainment vs. more dollars) over the suffering of a non-consenting animal. In that respect, they are morally equal. That isn't the basis of the "cockfighting worse" argument.

I suppose an analogy would be a person who kills a co-worker for the purpose of career advancement as opposed to a person who kills a person for the purpose of enjoying his suffering. Both are pretty serious evils. But the first person commits, in my opinion, a lesser moral sin.

I have to admit that this is an interesting take on the relative morality of murders, being as how both of the murder victims are equally innocent and equally dead.

I understand why some might disagree on the weighting, but there's a different moral state between actions performed out of enjoyment of suffering and actions performed in the pursuit of profit. Intent matters.

So a contract killing is a lesser sin than a revenge killing. What chapter and verse of the Mafia Bible did that come from?

----------------------------

Well, you have to make a value judgement here. Is cheap and abundant chicken meat worth [incrementally greater]animal suffering? Some people, including me, think so. Others may not. Just like we make a value judgement about cockfighting. Does the entertainment value justify the suffering? I'm not really sure how the anti-corporate talking points are germaine to the discussion about how we treat animals. Would inflicting suffering on animals be more acceptable if done by a non-profit?

It wouldn't make the animals feel any better, but then they also don't feel any worse because Pedro Martinez is watching them die. The fact that Tyson's is a profit-driven enterprise means nothing to the chickens, but the fact that Pedro enjoys cockfighting doesn't mean a damn thing, either. The only critical moral question to me is the degree of suffering by the chicken, which in the case of cockfighting vs. Tyson's is pretty much of a draw.

And to make a value judgment about Americans who don't mind eating Tyson's chicken in spite of its documented treatment of their birds is no more (or less) ridiculous than making a value judgment about people who enjoy watching cockfighting. I note the similarities between them, but I'm not making any personal judgment of either. Let people enjoy their Tyson's and let Pedro enjoy his cockfighting. Not too many chickens enjoy quality lives to begin with.

--------------------

It's really a larger issue, but factory farming IS necessary for the majority of Americans to continue with the type of diet they're accustomed to. That diet may not necessarily be a good thing, but most people would have to make huge changes in their diet (and lifestyle) without factory farming. The vast majority of "organic" meat and produce comes from factory farms, and it's still expensive and only marginally less cruel. Most free range chickens are neither free, nor do they range.

Factory farming may be necessary for what you say, but not the type of factory farming that Tyson's, Perdue and (to switch animals for a moment) Swift's practice. They cross the line of necessity and well into the line of excess.

And again, I'm not saying don't eat their products, though I don't myself. But it still seems a bit silly to defend those folks and condemn fans of cockfighting at the same time.

------------------------------

I'm saying that meat would become so expensive that the eating habits and lifestyles of most Americans would have to change. If you're a militant vegetarian or the sort of person who thinks they know what's best for other people, you might consider that a good thing. Otherwise, not so much.

I've been buying Coleman's for years, and the price difference is only marginally higher. I respect vegetarians but I also think they're a bit much.

----------------------

In part, you and others miss the point here. The cockfighting may be bad for the birds. But the really bad part is humans getting together and taking enjoyment in watching an animal, essentially, be tortured to death.

I just think that is a bad thing for a person, or a society. It instills a value that I cannot agree with.

Factory farming is also wrong for a large variety of reasons. But it is largely done out of sight -- and if it wasn't, if more people were forced to come face to face with the actions and consequences of this method of food production, there might be economic repercussions.

That last part is a bit muddled, but unless I'm reading you wrong, you've more or less agreed with the major line of defense of the German people during the Holocaust: "We didn't know. We never saw any of this. Can't blame us."

But a humane ethical value system doesn't rest on foundation of wilful ignorance. People don't get a pass for turning their heads at atrocities, even if in this case the victims are just chickens and not people. Americans can watch 60 Minutes with a lot less effort than it would have taken most Germans to pay a visit to Auschwitz.

Obviously this isn't to defend Germans who feigned ignorance of the Holocaust, or to condemn Americans who eat Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's only to note the disingenuousness of the idea that direct viewing of a butchering adds an extra moral dimension to an act of murder. You're not a better person because you look the other way.

Not too many chickens enjoy quality lives to begin with.

This reminds me of the DVD extras on John Waters' "Pink Flamingos," where Waters justifies the chicken-rape scene...

For the record, I like Waters' work generally, but that scene was appalling.

I'm still unclear. If I set up a situation where I pay someone a whole bunch of money to agree to be hurt for my enjoyment, then that's better than hurting animals for enjoyment?

As you know, I'm not really interested in either. I don't like football, and I'm bothered that baseball players are sticking each other in the ass at risk of their health so that we can enjoy the ball going further.

But these justifications for delighting in human suffering because it's "voluntary" sound like the typical crap arguments used to defend animals and abuse people.

Eraser-X, you know there are a lot of people who play football and box for no money at all, and in front of no spectators, simply because they enjoy it? I am not arguing that anyone should delight in human suffering, but I think that boxing is at least a more difficult question than dog/cockfighting because the boxers have a choice.

I also think the affection shown in this thread for killing out of greed over killing out of bloodthirsty delight is more an artifact of our social standards than a reflection of any universal standards of morality.

The latter seems crazy, the former seems evil.

I agree with you here. I wouldn't punish the guy who kills out of greed less than the guy who kills for no reason at all...doing so implies that there might sometimes be a justifiable (other than self-defense) reason to kill someone, which I think is a dangerous message for society to send.

Not too many chickens enjoy quality lives to begin with.

This reminds me of the DVD extras on John Waters' "Pink Flamingos," where Waters justifies the chicken-rape scene...

For the record, I like Waters' work generally, but that scene was appalling.

I loved Pink Flamingos and Female Trouble, but I have to admit that the final scene of Pink Flamingos made me glad I'd eaten dinner well before the movie ended at two in the morning.

And in terms of animal treatment, how Waters got the dog to "act" in that last scene wasn't exactly too humane itself.

I'm still unclear. If I set up a situation where I pay someone a whole bunch of money to agree to be hurt for my enjoyment, then that's better than hurting animals for enjoyment?

Depends on who.

baseball players are sticking each other in the ass at risk of their health so that we can enjoy the ball going further.

. . . . -- ah, skip it.

Eraser-X, you know there are a lot of people who play football and box for no money at all, and in front of no spectators, simply because they enjoy it? I am not arguing that anyone should delight in human suffering, but I think that boxing is at least a more difficult question than dog/cockfighting because the boxers have a choice.

Sure, and as brought up earlier in the thread, given agency, many chickens might love cockfighting and even if they didn't, to paraphrase Will Ferrell, "You're just a dumb chicken anyway!"

That doesn't mean I don't care about animal suffering, but to look at human beings faced with difficult decisions and say, "Since they chose, their suffering is less troubling than involuntary animal suffering" is really bizarre.

If we host a game show where young women can compete for a million dollars or female castration, is that better than animal fighting because the kids know what they are getting into?

Depends on who.

Nice.

unless I'm reading you wrong, you've more or less agreed with the major line of defense of the German people during the Holocaust: "We didn't know. We never saw any of this. Can't blame us."

If you believe a single German who ever said that, you are stupid or insane or both.

They knew. They all damn well knew. It was no great secret.

Your average American Joe has no clue where his food comes or how it got there. But the Germans damn well knew their neighbors were disappearing, and word of what was happening spread.

The Allies knew. Churchill and Roosevelt knew. All the deniers can burn in hell forever.

If we host a game show where young women can compete for a million dollars or female castration, is that better than animal fighting because the kids know what they are getting into?

E-X, Fox has enough ideas to begin with....

Sure, and as brought up earlier in the thread, given agency, many chickens might love cockfighting and even if they didn't, to paraphrase Will Ferrell, "You're just a dumb chicken anyway!"

I will admit that I have less problems with cockfighting than I do with dogfighting, mainly because I'm 99% positive that dogs are a lot more aware of what's happening to them than chickens are.

That doesn't mean I don't care about animal suffering, but to look at human beings faced with difficult decisions and say, "Since they chose, their suffering is less troubling than involuntary animal suffering" is really bizarre.

E-X, some people enjoy participating in the activities that you describe as suffering. I played high school football. I *liked* the physical contact. I *liked* giving and taking a good hit (giving more). I even liked waking up sore the next morning. People like to participate in physical sports. I wasn't suffering. When I sprained my ankle, I was "suffering" because I couldn't get back out on the field.

If you can think of an activity in which people are paid to endure pain for the sole sake of enduring pain, you might have a point. But football and boxing don't cut it.

I will admit that I have less problems with cockfighting than I do with dogfighting, mainly because I'm 99% positive that dogs are a lot more aware of what's happening to them than chickens are.

Don't be so sure. I've seen chickens that could kick your ### at Tic-Tac-Toe.

unless I'm reading you wrong, you've more or less agreed with the major line of defense of the German people during the Holocaust: "We didn't know. We never saw any of this. Can't blame us."

If you believe a single German who ever said that, you are stupid or insane or both.

They knew. They all damn well knew. It was no great secret.

Your average American Joe has no clue where his food comes or how it got there. But the Germans damn well knew their neighbors were disappearing, and word of what was happening spread.

The Allies new. Churchill and Roosevelt knew. All the deniers can burn in hell forever.

Tell me about it, Srul.

But the point remains that it's no more of a legitimate excuse for the average American to say that he doesn't know where his food is coming from than it was for a German to say he didn't know what was going on to his fellow citizens. Not because the American actually does know as much as the average German, but because finding out about the realities of factory farming is so ridiculously easy. Try 60 Minutes several times a year, try You Tube, read a good newspaper, etc. You seem to believe that ignorance equals innocence, which is a false equation IF the ignorance is so easily remedied, which it is in this case. People "don't know" about the realities of food production because they don't want to know. Period.

And again, that ignorance, and the fast food empire, is a relative flyspeck on any spectrum of evil. But for chrissakes, so is cockfighting. You enjoy your Kentucky Fried Chicken, and let Pedro enjoy watching his favored rooster do the slice 'n' dice on his unfortunate colleague. Neither of you are lesser moral creatures for your enjoyment.

America is always, always, always the worst country/culture/everything. Slavery. Imperialism. Big carbon footprints. Chuck Woolery.

We have always sucked worse than anything than has ever sucked in the whole history of sucking. (Well, except maybe Israel.)

America is always, always, always the worst country/culture/everything. Slavery. Imperialism. Big carbon footprints. Chuck Woolery.

We have always sucked worse than anything than has ever sucked in the whole history of sucking. (Well, except maybe Israel.)

Well, we are the Yankees, after all.

Slavery. Imperialism. Big carbon footprints. Chuck Woolery.

A real trail of tears.

I've seen chickens that could kick your ### at Tic-Tac-Toe.

Bullshit. If JOSHUA can't win at tic-tac-toe, nobody can.

How about a nice game of chess?

Are either of you a paleontologist? I desperately need a paleontologist.

I had Thai fightin' fish when I was a kid. They were aesthetically awesome to keep as pets, but you couldn't keep them in the same tank as other fish because they'd kill the other fish

Yes we fought them, and it was awesome.

So who won? Your famly or the fish?

Are either of you a paleontologist? I desperately need a paleontologist.

How long has Carl Everett been posting as "bunyon"?

Are either of you a paleontologist? I desperately need a paleontologist.

No, we're high school students!

Are we talking about torture, sport, or some kind of S&M;show? Because I think my answers are "no", "yes", and "yes", but I'm not positive.

Well, I agree that there's a line somewhere and lot of grey around it, but you've got people in this thread saying that "choice" is the main component, so I wanted to make sure that Mandel's new hit "Torture or No Torture" was not fair game.

I have to admit that this is an interesting take on the relative morality of murders, being as how both of the murder victims are equally innocent and equally dead.

Murder and manslaughter carry different penalties independent of the victim's innocence. Causing an innocent's death is merely part of the moral equation; the mental state of the actor is another important part.

So a contract killing is a lesser sin than a revenge killing. What chapter and verse of the Mafia Bible did that come from?

You're kidding, right? The revenge killing isn't for pleasure. It's for vengeance.

(I think revenge killing is morally repulsive as well, if less repulsive than killing for pleasure. That's the second reason I'm opposed to capital punishment.)

It's only to note the disingenuousness of the idea that direct viewing of a butchering adds an extra moral dimension to an act of murder. You're not a better person because you look the other way.

You're not a better person if you look the other way, but you're a sick person if you look because it makes you feel good.

I wouldn't punish the guy who kills out of greed less than the guy who kills for no reason at all...doing so implies that there might sometimes be a justifiable (other than self-defense) reason to kill someone, which I think is a dangerous message for society to send.

You are not making the appropriate comparison. Compare the person who kills for greed to the person who kills because the act of ending a weaker person's life makes them feel good.

I wouldn't punish the two differently although I'd say the second person is more "evil." It doesn't matter much for killing because any sort of non self-defense killing is pretty far over the evil threshold.

That doesn't mean I don't care about animal suffering, but to look at human beings faced with difficult decisions and say, "Since they chose, their suffering is less troubling than involuntary animal suffering" is really bizarre.

If the person is actually coerced (in the layperson sense, not the more strict legal sense) into choosing to suffer, it isn't really voluntary. I think there's something worse about an animal suffering from the perspective of the animal... a human has a sense of why it is suffering, and how long it will suffer, and the ability to end its suffering through surrender. An animal isn't aware of why it's being hurt, and its pleas will be ignored.

This is comparing boxing (voluntary) to cockfighting (involuntary). If you're speaking of watching humans forced to fight and hurt each other against their will, that is significantly more disturbing than pretty much anything you do to an animal.

the issue here is not whether or not c0ckfighting is legal/moral in the DR or any other country.

the issue here is NOT the color/race/sex of the person who goes to a c0ckfight

- i don't care whether it is the whitest of white females with golden blond hair or the blackest of gangstas or the macho-est of latinos or the inscrutable-est (or the closest word to that) of asians

there is an enormous difference between killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to eat it and getting pleasure from the suffering and painful death of another living creature.

i say that the enjoying of watching the torture of any living thing is sick. enjoying watching one creature rip another to bits is, as far as i'm concerned, is, shall we say, not exactly what i would expect from any decent human being

so do any of you who defend roosters ripping each other to shreds have any problems with someone who ties 2 cats by the tail and flings them over a closeline and watches themselves shred each other in terror? how about we watch 3 vicious dogs shred a pregnant cat? is that kewl? is that fun? how about we get a person with a red hot poker who burns a dog ties to a stake little by little and we bet on how long it takes for her to burn the dog to death? how about we waterboard "bad guys" and sell tickets and bet on how long it takes for a guy to crack?

- oh yeah

and as for "white meat" and c0ckfighting, well, if i wasn't so darn tired from taking care of 6 sick males, i just might could come UP with something to say about that

there is an enormous difference between killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to eat it and getting pleasure from the suffering and painful death of another living creature.

How killing an animal as painfully and cheaply as possible in order to eat it?

how about we waterboard "bad guys" and sell tickets and bet on how long it takes for a guy to crack?

If we're going to do it anyway, maybe we can help pay for the war...

I suppose an analogy would be a person who kills a co-worker for the purpose of career advancement as opposed to a person who kills a person for the purpose of enjoying his suffering. Both are pretty serious evils. But the first person commits, in my opinion, a lesser moral sin.

I have to admit that this is an interesting take on the relative morality of murders, being as how both of the murder victims are equally innocent and equally dead.

Murder and manslaughter carry different penalties independent of the victim's innocence. Causing an innocent's death is merely part of the moral equation; the mental state of the actor is another important part.

Since you stick to your guns there's no point in arguing, but I find it simply amazing that you can somehow rank the relative morality of killing for "pleasure" and killing for career advancement. As if a person who would kill to advance his career would never do it with any pleasant thoughts of how nicely his career would advance with that doggone chicken fellow worker out of the way.

I understand why some might disagree on the weighting, but there's a different moral state between actions performed out of enjoyment of suffering and actions performed in the pursuit of profit. Intent matters.

So a contract killing is a lesser sin than a revenge killing. What chapter and verse of the Mafia Bible did that come from?

You're kidding, right? The revenge killing isn't for pleasure. It's for vengeance.

And you think that there's no pleasure in vengeance? What planet do you inhabit? To quote one of history's more celebrated pleasure killers:

‘My greatest pleasure is to choose one’s victim, prepare one’s plans minutely, slake an implacable vengeance, and then go to bed. There’s nothing sweeter in the world.’

----Stalin

Factory farming is also wrong for a large variety of reasons. But it is largely done out of sight -- and if it wasn't, if more people were forced to come face to face with the actions and consequences of this method of food production, there might be economic repercussions.

That last part is a bit muddled, but unless I'm reading you wrong, you've more or less agreed with the major line of defense of the German people during the Holocaust: "We didn't know. We never saw any of this. Can't blame us."

But a humane ethical value system doesn't rest on foundation of wilful ignorance. People don't get a pass for turning their heads at atrocities, even if in this case the victims are just chickens and not people. Americans can watch 60 Minutes with a lot less effort than it would have taken most Germans to pay a visit to Auschwitz.

Obviously this isn't to defend Germans who feigned ignorance of the Holocaust, or to condemn Americans who eat Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's only to note the disingenuousness of the idea that direct viewing of a butchering adds an extra moral dimension to an act of murder. You're not a better person because you look the other way.

You're not a better person if you look the other way, but you're a sick person if you look because it makes you feel good.

You may be a sick person if you find pleasure in suffering, but you're a person suffering from an overdose of misplaced indignation if you apply that insight to a person who grew up with the sport without Peter Singer's cliff notes to edify him.

There are many practices that a few of us /some of us / most of us / all of us find abhorrent / barbaric or worse. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to persuade people to cease and desist those practices, whether it's within your country or theirs. They can listen if they please or scratch their heads and grin if they please. But forgive me if I find cockfighting to be on the level of going 26 in a 25 MPH zone compared to just about any other form of barbarism I can think of. This ain't genital mutilation, forced abortions, or separating families because one of its members got here by swimming instead of waiting ten years for the INS to give him his proper papers---THAT is barbarism of the highest order, made right here in the good old USA. And if you want to confine this to the crimes of the Chicken World, it's nowhere near factory farming in terms of its scale or just about anything else. Those chickens of Pedro's aren't any worse off than they'd be if they all graduated from Perdue University.

so I wanted to make sure that Mandel's new hit "Torture or No Torture" was not fair game.

Isn't anything that involves listening to Howie Mandel, by definition, torture?

Americans can watch 60 Minutes with a lot less effort than it would have taken most Germans to pay a visit to Auschwitz.

Two words: Andy Rooney.

Americans can watch 60 Minutes with a lot less effort than it would have taken most Germans to pay a visit to Auschwitz.

Two words: Andy Rooney.

I hear you, but can't you set your tivo to make it a 50 Minutes show?

In part, you and others miss the point here. The cockfighting may be bad for the birds. But the really bad part is humans getting together and taking enjoyment in watching an animal, essentially, be tortured to death.

I just think that is a bad thing for a person, or a society. It instills a value that I cannot agree with.

Factory farming is also wrong for a large variety of reasons. But it is largely done out of sight -- and if it wasn't, if more people were forced to come face to face with the actions and consequences of this method of food production, there might be economic repercussions.

I cannot equate either of these things to hunting or fishing for the purpose of getting food.

How do you feel about catch-and-release fishing tournaments?

Which is more inferior?
Enjoying watching people eat live animals on Fear Factor, or enjoying watching people gag and puke while trying to eat live animals on Fear Factor?

I cannot equate either of these things to hunting or fishing for the purpose of getting food.

How do you feel about catch-and-release fishing tournaments?

But don't most of those fishing guys speak English? That's gotta give them at least a few bonus humanitarian points.

You may be a sick person if you find pleasure in suffering, but you're a person suffering from an overdose of misplaced indignation if you apply that insight to a person who grew up with the sport without Peter Singer's cliff notes to edify him.

Well, first of all, let's put things in proper perspective. I didn't suddenly become a non-fan of Pedro Martinez. I mean, it's the offseason, and there's either this to care about or the seventeenth million steroids discussion.

I think cockfighting, and dogfighting, and bullfighting, and hunting for sport all to be ugly aspects of the human condition. I have friends that hunt and I accept it, primarily because people must hunt to cull the deer population. I can't imagine having a friend that went on safari to shoot an elephant or lion.

I'll teach my kids not to engage in those activities, and I'll teach them that it's wrong, but good people sometimes do things that are wrong.

I'm not a perfect moral creature. I know factory farming is wrong, and yet I eat meat that comes from a cruel system. And yes, I think there's something wrong with that. And no, I don't have trouble sleeping at night. I occasionally lie too, and not always for the good of the person I'm lying to.

I don't think Pedro Martinez should be locked in a cage and beaten. But I think it is a pretty disgusting event and I'm saddened a little bit by his appearance there. He's not Michael Vick for several reasons but he certainly evokes some of the same discomfort.

That's reasonable enough, c-bird. I guess that the way I look at this is that while I find cockfighting a bit on the gross side, and more or less indefensible in the sense that it's little more than one more form of organized sadism, I still can't get all that worked up about it, especially in the context of another country which for whatever reason is a bit anachronistic in its sporting pleasures. And if for whatever reason I felt compelled to judge athletes for their moral worth off the playing field in areas other than how they treat other human beings, this whole episode would barely even make it onto my radar field.

Of course I feel the same way about hunting and fishing. Don't do either of them myself, but I know way too many people who do hunt and fish who are far better people than I am. In terms of general morality, they're both way above steroids and knocking up single women. And so is cockfighting.

I wonder what happens to the winner of the cockfight.

He's probably showered in like good food and like female chickens to frak or something.

I had a roomate in college who had a Betta fish that he named Punk ### and bragged his fish would beat anybody else's fish. When one of our buddy's fish ate off most of his fish's fins he pulled it out. After this his fish was missing much of it's fins and limped around the tank for the rest of it's days. I found this pretty funny at the time, totally pointless and stupid. He would have been happy if his fish won. I see this as similar to the cockfighting issue. It's human nature that people like to feel they are better than other people in some measurable way and winning a bet or fight backs up this silly notion.

I've been to Bali where they enjoy their cockfighting. I tried to go find a cockfight while I was there but no taxi drivers new where one was when I asked. Another buddy of mine did find one and bet a guy 5$ or 10$ on a fight and won. The guy he bet against probably made 5$ a week if he was lucky, the guy didn't want to pay so my buddy let him off the hook but I think it's the same story.

The moral of the story is that people like gambling on stuff (myself included) and it doesn't really matter what it is (in terms of enjoyment). I at least try to acknowledge when I'm being an idiot and try myself out on it. Does that make me a better person (probably not)? What's the difference between betting on a cockfight versus roulette? A chicken dies I guess.

I've even gambled on 5 year old girls playing soccer through a church window while setting up for a wedding reception, mostly for the spectacle of it.

Also on the fishing / hunting issue I always felt like if you eat it then it's not so bad and not any worse than any other animal killing for food while shooting an elephant for it's ivory while the rest of the animal is left rotting is pretty messed up.

I have friends that hunt and I accept it, primarily because people must hunt to cull the deer population.

A minor point ... This isn't really true. You can do a very effective job of keeping the deer population under control by baiting food with fertility suppressants. Besides, a number of car-insurance actuarial studies show that the overwhelming majority of "deer hit by car" incidents occur during the deer season. In other words, deer incursions into our territory (e.g., deer on the highways) are a direct result of our incursions into their territory (e.g., hunters going into the woods).

Trophy hunters? Overcompensating pu$$ies. All of them.

there is an enormous difference between killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible in order to eat it and getting pleasure from the suffering and painful death of another living creature.

BBC, I agree with this.

However, is there a difference between raising an animal well, giving it good food, good living, and raising an animal in cramped, dirty conditions, pumping it full of growth hormones and antibiotics, before killing it?

Does the quality of life that the animal gets, matter?

The sense was that the original stories, told honestly by al-Arabia and al-Jazeera and the mainstream Egyptian newspapers, were not seen as that big of a deal. Every day in Egypt far worse indignities are perpetrated by that government against prisoners and detainees. So in order to get ordinary people angry, it was necessary to invent Abu Ghraib under Americans as being nearly as bad as Abu Ghraib was when Saddam ran it.

First, I don't think anything had to be made up for Muslims to think what happened in Abu Ghraib was "a big deal". Once those pictures were made available, Muslims were going to be upset.

That said, you bring up an interesting point. Muslims, especially Sunni Muslims, allowed their leaders to get away with so much, be it corruption, oppression, etc. during the 20th century and that is the most important factor, more than Western interference, that prevented the Muslim World from improving their position in the world.

It is true that Saddam, (presumably because he pretended to be a Muslim, even though he was anything but), committing atrocities against his own people is seen as less of sin than Americans committing atrocities against the Iraqi people. It's a paradox to me as a Muslim.

That's why the invasion of Iraq was such a bad risk by those who thought that the country would be pacified easily. They could have left things as they were and just have Saddam do their dirty work for them but I guess they felt they needed to have Iraq under control before an eventual war with Iran.

Besides, a number of car-insurance actuarial studies show that the overwhelming majority of "deer hit by car" incidents occur during the deer season. In other words, deer incursions into our territory (e.g., deer on the highways) are a direct result of our incursions into their territory (e.g., hunters going into the woods).

A number of studies show that the overwhelming majority of rain occurs when people carry umbrellas. In other words, rain is a direct result of people carrying umbrellas.

Does the quality of life that the animal gets, matter?

The argument here is yes, because it has to do with one's - or society's - view on the quality of existence for living beings.

A minor point ... This isn't really true. You can do a very effective job of keeping the deer population under control by baiting food with fertility suppressants. Besides, a number of car-insurance actuarial studies show that the overwhelming majority of "deer hit by car" incidents occur during the deer season. In other words, deer incursions into our territory (e.g., deer on the highways) are a direct result of our incursions into their territory (e.g., hunters going into the woods).

Please quote your sources, as this hunter (deermeat is far superior to beef) doubts both points.

Fertility supressants: Many suburban areas where hunting is not allowed have scads of nuisance deer decimating vegetation and denting fenders. If "remote birth control" works so well, why haven't those folks applied it. On Monhegan Island in Maine, a huge deer population was both causing severe damage to the forest ecosystem and harboring Lyme disease infected ticks such that human occurrence of the disease was skyrocketing. They paid big bucks for a sharpshooter to drastically reduce the deer herd (meat going to food banks at no cost to them) rather than use the drugged feed.

Insurance claims: So an "overwhelming majority" of deer-car incidents occur in the 2-4 weeks of deer season rather than the other 48-50? Pardon me for not believing this. Even though most hunting seasons for deer are set during the rut, when the animals move far more than at any other time of year (so your "direct result" idea would be, at best, only partially valid), my credibility as well as experience (mine and friends both) suggest this to be gross hyperbole. Ever drive on I-80 or I-81 in PA? I've never done it during deer season (usually done it in May or June) and the roadsides are littered with deer carcasses. Maybe they're still running scared from the previous November?

That doesn't mean I don't care about animal suffering, but to look at human beings faced with difficult decisions and say, "Since they chose, their suffering is less troubling than involuntary animal suffering" is really bizarre.


I don't think it's less troubling, but it's more complicated. I feel like I'm in less of a position to judge a practice that involves consenting adults. As someone else said, a situation where coercion is involved is different.

I've even gambled on 5 year old girls playing soccer through a church window while setting up for a wedding reception, mostly for the spectacle of it.

I sometimes would gamble on the coin toss or whether we'd see a beer commercial before a car commercial during the Super Bowl.

A number of studies show that the overwhelming majority of rain occurs when people carry umbrellas. In other words, rain is a direct result of people carrying umbrellas.

Are you joking or being obtuse?

Are you joking or being obtuse?

Yes.

The only argument you put forward was a correlation (and one that doesn't really make sense, as SandyRiver points out), and you treated that as causation.

Well, I guess it's not just those savage Dominicans that PETA has to worry about. This just got posted in News of the Weird. It even mentions steroids for crickets:

China's historical fascination with crickets has recently been exhibited in cricket beauty contests, singing competitions and prize fights, according to a January Los Angeles Times dispatch, and has led even to increasing vigilance about crickets cheating with performance-enhancing drugs. The fighters duel in terrarium-sized containers, and, according to the Times, "Overhead cameras (project) the action onto large screens," allowing spectators close-ups of crickets tossing each other around with their powerful jaws. The best fighters may sell for the equivalent of $10,000, are raised on vegetables and calcium supplements, and are sexually active before fights. The doping issue mostly involves the "singers"; slowing the vibration of the cricket's wings produces an attractively lower pitch. [Los Angeles Times, 1-13-08]

hunting for sport all to be ugly aspects of the human condition

So where do you stand on catch-and-release fishing?

How do you feel about catch-and-release fishing tournaments?

Besides the fact that I cannot imagine anything more boring (with the possible of exception of "Now pitching, Steve Trachsel")?

There comes a point down the evolutionary chain, where I do stop caring. I don't agonizing over killing cockroaches or eating lobsters.

Fish? I'm not as sure. Anecdote.

I was walking by a stream in a park, and I saw some people throwing bread in, which caused the tilapia in the stream to boil to the surface. They threw it closer and closer to the bank, and the fish came closer and closer to the bank -- until a mongoose rushed out of the grass and grabbed one of the fish.

The fish split. And then they started throwing the bread again -- and the scenario repeated.

I was not really bothered by it. The mongoose, as a predator, is acting naturally in grabbing the fish. And a fish is just a fish. Birds are a little higher on the evo scale, at least to me.

Still, sticking a piece of barbed metal through their mouth, releasing them, and doing it again, seems a bit fetishistic to me. Then again, I probably don't rate bass fishermen -- or people who watch bass fishing shows -- all that highly on the evo scale, either.

they're both way above steroids and knocking up single women. And so is cockfighting.

So let me understand this -- what you have in fact admitted is animal cruelty is, to you, is better than an adult taking a drug in order to make a better player in a sport?

Think maybe you're obsessing just a weeeeee bit about steroids, Andy?

China's historical fascination with crickets has recently been exhibited in cricket beauty contests, singing competitions and prize fights, according to a January Los Angeles Times dispatch, and has led even to increasing vigilance about crickets cheating with performance-enhancing drugs. The fighters duel in terrarium-sized containers, and, according to the Times, "Overhead cameras (project) the action onto large screens," allowing spectators close-ups of crickets tossing each other around with their powerful jaws. The best fighters may sell for the equivalent of $10,000, are raised on vegetables and calcium supplements, and are sexually active before fights. The doping issue mostly involves the "singers"; slowing the vibration of the cricket's wings produces an attractively lower pitch. [Los Angeles Times, 1-13-08]

That must have been lifted from an episode of "Wait, wait, don't tell me."

Think maybe you're obsessing just a weeeeee bit about steroids, Andy?

Think maybe you're reacting just a weeeeee bit to a throwaway line in a tongue-in-cheek post, Srul?

Oh, I see, you were referring to a post I made nearly two days ago, and not the one from News of the Weird two hours ago. So I guess you don't feel any compassion for crickets, only roosters.

OK, we can start again:

they're both way above steroids and knocking up single women. And so is cockfighting.

So let me understand this -- what you have in fact admitted is animal cruelty is, to you, is better than an adult taking a drug in order to make a better player in a sport?

Think maybe you're obsessing just a weeeeee bit about steroids, Andy?

IOW would I rather eliminate steroids from baseball than cockfighting from Santo Domingo?

Obviously, yes. I admit that I do care more about steroids in baseball than I do about this form vs. that form of chicken torture. You can now put razor blades on your fingernails and give me a dose of my own medicine. I'm sure I deserve it.

Oh, I see, you were referring to a post I made nearly two days ago,

Well, you have to understand, I operate on Hawaii Time. If I only just saw it, it was only just posted.

So how's the weather on the Mainland these days, folks? It's been brutal here -- low's in the 70's and rain in the evenings.

[That is, for me, a better form of torture than razor-blades]

So how's the weather on the Mainland these days, folks? It's been brutal here -- low's in the 70's and rain in the evenings.

The Maryland part of the Mainland was sunny and in the 50's today. And how much is that nice four bedroom house in Honolulu these days? (With the land included, of course.)

My condo has a lovely wrap-around view of the Pacific Ocean (complete with sunsets), the Waianae Mountains, and Punchbowl. It is less than a 30 minute walk to work, and is worth around $125,000 more than I paid for it.

I can live with that.

My condo has a lovely wrap-around view of the Pacific Ocean (complete with sunsets), the Waianae Mountains, and Punchbowl. It is less than a 30 minute walk to work, and is worth around $125,000 more than I paid for it.

I can live with that.

And all your baseball games are day games, too. F*ck you, Srul.

And with that, off to home.

So how's the weather on the Mainland these days, folks? It's been brutal here -- low's in the 70's and rain in the evenings.

[That is, for me, a better form of torture than razor-blades]

My condo has a lovely wrap-around view of the Pacific Ocean (complete with sunsets), the Waianae Mountains, and Punchbowl. It is less than a 30 minute walk to work, and is worth around $125,000 more than I paid for it.

I can live with that.

Oh good, a penis measuring contest?

High 70's during the day, high 60's at night. Light breeze. Florida Bay view (better sunsets than the Pacific) and 60' of dockage at my stand alone home, worth about $500K more than I paid for it.

Your move. Just don't drag it out till hurricane season : )

And all your baseball games are day games, too. F*ck you, Srul.

Wait, I though that was unconstitutional? How dare they start WS games when Hawaiians are still at work. 11PM EST starts I tell you.

Misir,
we're coming down for the Mets/Fish Opening Day, and we'll be through there on Thursday April 3 on our way to Cayo Hueso. Lunch?

Misir,
we're coming down for the Mets/Fish Opening Day, and we'll be through there on Thursday April 3 on our way to Cayo Hueso. Lunch?

Sure. Shoot me an e-mail.

Come down early, we'll go on the boat, pull my traps, and hopefully have some fresh stone crab for openers.

terrific!

Your move. Just don't drag it out till hurricane season : )

It's not Florida. What more could you ask for?