posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:09 PM
My reaction, which i feel would be the only logical reaction for a true constitution reverent, would be to directly confront them about the situation.
I have always been good at reading people, if they are closed about the concept of dog fighting then they are probably doing it, which could mean they
already feel guilty but are overwhelmed with greed or similar emotions. Since dogs raised to fight are, in practicality, an unsafe weapon, the
owner(s) would have to be constantly dealing with a beast that could rip their faces off in heartbeat. And since the activity of dog fighting is
considered an underground activity, the owner's would have no protection from sore losers who seek reprimands. Based on these ideas, it can be said
that the owner of a fighting dog has already surrendered rights, and given up allot simply to make money, and personally i feel that a dog owner
imparts a large portion of him/herself onto the beast, if the dog is willing and ready to fight on a moments notice, then the owner is likely just as
unstable, psychologically, and has had his doom already decided (I.E. an individual who is fighting dogs for money is likely feeding a powerful
addiction with his proceeds, or is involved in some kind of gang activity, both of which are already a mental prison).
Since the setting is in a pet store of some kind, and most people do not like talking to strangers, talking about a frivilous idea that they may be
partaking in or not, could at the very least lead the to be dog owner to abandon his intent of purchasing that particular dog. However, if someone
wants to engage in an illegal activity, such as dog fighting, they will do it regardless, and likely seek to purchase another animal elsewhere,
ultimately rendering your efforts null. The only thing that can prevent this kind of behavior from occurring in the first place would be to instill as
much understanding about the subject matter as possible. Although slightly unrelated, i feel people in general wouldn't engage in the use of
methamphetamine if they understood what it does to the body and mind, or purchase coc aine if they knew the manufacturing process and how many
people shed blood and sweat so that the purchaser can get high. After all, when the concept of blood diamonds from Africa reached top level media
attention, many people and nations did what they socially could to curtail the purchase of them, but the activity still persists because certain
groups of African's are desperate to make money and can not make enough or get their money quick enough, to feel secure and safe (if a civil war
broke out in your region, and sanctions/turmoil prevented the 'legal' purchase of weapons or food would you not utilize your most liquid assets,
such as gold, diamonds, and vehicles, to acquire what you feel you need to survive).
An open discussion means that the individual in question, is feeding a fancy, or is/was joking about the idea, however this may not always be the
case. While people can be dark and disturbed, this individual has not broken the social contract of a fascist law, and therefore should not be
subjected to any cruel or unusual punishment. However, if you still feel that these comparatively benign would be dog owners should be subjected to
some kind of ridicule or punishment, whether by the law or yourself, could only be called fascism. If you feel that a fighting dog owner needs to
punished in any fashion that is not acceptable by the social laws, then you need to accept the consequences of striking down, or killing someone, and
carry out your justice (before staring a journey of revenge, you need to first dig two graves, one for your victim, and one for yourself).
While i feel that this is the realm for police/law enforcement, i would attempt to negate the behavior as much so as i am constitutionally entitled,
because i would prefer my police officers keeping drunks off the roads and detaining murderers. After all, if you are not capable of defending a
fascist or socialist ideology, or understanding even what your ideology is, then you have no business arguing politics, and this is moral politics,
and remember how would you want other people to react if they saw you doing something illegal? Would you rather be confronted directly by your accuser
and understand why he feels the way he does, or be thrown into a broken judiciary system where potentially more psychological damage could be
inflicted by your lack of understanding? If you were speeding would you prefer to understand why someone feels endangered by the fact you are
controlling a tonne of steel and aluminum in an unsafe manner because you are late to work, or would you rather take the police officer, who is not
going to show any sympathy because he has had to peel the spilled bodies of children of the street from a driver who was text messaging her friend the
phrase "lol," personally i'd take understanding and responsibility over mindless citation/internment.