Originally posted by randomname
how is putting two animals bred to fight like pitbulls cruelty.
they were specifically bred with fighting traits and it is what they naturally do.
its a question of one group imposing its morality on other people.
who are any of you to judge whether dog fighting, bull fighting or cock fighting is wrong.
its hardly even worth arguing about. you don't like it, don't watch it.
but don't start nagging and condemning or even persecuting another human being because two dogs bite each in a ring.
i'm going to go out on a limb here and suppose you subscribe to
Conservative Southern Values
and believe that freedom is a zero-sum game [hint, it isn't].
Southern elites sank their money into ostentatious homes and clothing and the pursuit of pleasure -- including lavish parties, games of fortune,
predatory sexual conquests, and blood sports involving ritualized animal abuse spectacles.
But perhaps the most destructive piece of the Southern elites' worldview is the extremely anti-democratic way it defined the very idea of liberty.
In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The
higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right
to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the
authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the
freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or
enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.
When a Southern conservative talks about "losing his liberty," the loss of this absolute domination over the people and property under his control --
and, worse, the loss of status and the resulting risk of being held accountable for laws that he was once exempt from -- is what he's really talking
about. In this view, freedom is a zero-sum game. Anything that gives more freedom and rights to lower-status people can't help but put serious limits
on the freedom of the upper classes to use those people as they please. It cannot be any other way. So they find Yankee-style rights expansions
absolutely intolerable, to the point where they're willing to fight and die to preserve their divine right to rule. Once we understand the two
different definitions of "liberty" at work here, a lot of other things suddenly make much more sense. We can understand the traditional Southern
antipathy to education, progress, public investment, unionization, equal opportunity, and civil rights. The fervent belief among these elites that
they should completely escape any legal or social accountability for any harm they cause. Their obsessive attention to where they fall in the status
hierarchies. And, most of all -- the unremitting and unapologetic brutality with which they've defended these "liberties" across the length of their
When Southerners quote Patrick Henry -- "Give me liberty or give me death" -- what they're really demanding is the unquestioned, unrestrained right to
turn their fellow citizens into supplicants and subjects.
but even ignoring that, it's obvious you believe that any contracts can be made null and void when it's convenient, or when it gets in the way of your
"fun" and "enjoyment"
and what contract is that?
the one humans and canines made for mutual aid and protection in prehistory
dogs for the most part, except in cases of rabies], i.e.,have upheld their end
breeding dogs for fighting is a violation of that contract as is dog-fighting as well.
and get a clue, pit- bulls are bred for strength of frame and jaw, they become violent due to "training"/conditioning
often perpetrated by those whose souls are at a stage of development lower than beasts: that of Anti-Life.
sports, for the most part, are sublimated forms of war, boxing being no different than roman gladiators or the aztec ball games, and only bring out
the worst in those who participate and patronize such activities. one has only to pass by a bar with the big plasma screen on boxing night to observe
the inhumanity of those that enjoy these things.
you are in essence arguing for the "right" to be left alone, in your pursuit and enjoyment of criminal, psychopathic and Anti-life behaviors, using
the obscene "let's not judge" argument of post-modern moral relativism.
lol, and your playing the victim card is overruled: those dogs were set upon each other by "humans" and didn't just happen to start fighting at
edit on 22-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment