I can't really get into dog fighting myself, but if others wish to do so, what concern is it of mine? The real issue to me is why there should be any federal regulation of such an activity. Where in the constitution is there even the most remote reference to this? If the states or other governmental entities want to regulate it, that's one thing, but the feds shouldn't have a role. I hope Vick takes that aspect to the Supreme Court.
Posted at 2007-08-23 05:22:28 [PermaLink]From a technical standpoint your argument is one of the worst I've ever seen. Who taught you to debate like this?
There is also a complete absence of empathy for animals in your post which reminds me of how serial killers often have a history of animal torture. Basically it points to psychopathy. Please see a psychiatrist.
I wrote a bit about this sort of thing here:
[External Link]
I think there's a very good reason that cruelty to dogs elicits more of an emotional response than common-or-garden cruelty to humans. It's because dogs are completely dependent upon us, and our moral intuition tells us that violating what is, in essence, a position of trust and responsibility, is reprehensible in the extreme.
But there's more. Many years ago I came across a quotation by Macaulay that resonated: "The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators." At the time I thought we were being invited to sneer at the puritan. Now I no longer think so. Not only violating our responsibility to animals that cannot defend themselves by inflicting deliberate suffering upon them, but deriving enjoyment from their suffering, is monstrously unethical, and one doesn't have to be a member of PETA to see that.
I am with Dr. Net...the very fact that you would spend this much time trying to find a convoluted argument to support the premise that the law should probably not ban dogfighting is rather scary.
There are so many things wrong with your arguments that it is probably a waste of time to point to the many flaws.
Suffice to say that one of the main roles of the law is to protect the weak and the innocent from predators and ruthless people. Clearly, these dogs who are bred to fight and kill, who are tortured and excited to make them more aggressive and who see nothing throughout their life other than violence, blood and pain need the law's protection.
If you can't see this, get help. Now.
I think you've answered your own question with this statement: "I suppose as well that my concerns are based as well upon the Biblical command to take responsibility for animals in my care, and upon Rabbinic commands to show animals only fairness and appropriate kindness."
I'm far from being a scholar of the bible or historical Christian literature, but I expect you will find the same moral concern (see Saint Francis of Assisi). My other thoughts on this topic are ably pointed out by Dr.'s Net and Dawg.
With respect to Damian's comment about spousal abuse by some players, at least their wives were in a position to do something about it. Not so animals.
"a quotation by Macaulay ... resonated: 'The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.'"
This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with Dr. Dawg, although I would argue that it's not so much a matter of ethics as the effect sadistic sport has on people and society. That's one reason executions are no longer public affairs in the west.
Re the point about domestic abuse: it's a fact that in houses where pets are abused there is very often abuse of spouses and children too. So much so that the Humane Society now routinely alerts the police in animal cruelty cases, knowing that there's often more going on than just the mistreatment of pets.
I would add that murderous psychopaths almost always start out by torturing animals before moving on to humans. And that countries where animals are treated worst usually have poor records on human rights too (not coincidentally, in my view).
There's a disturbing correlation between cruelty to animals and brutality towards other human beings. Neither should be accepted by society.
DV accusations are wildly tossed around these days. Leverage in financial settlements etc. Show me pictures from the police/emergency room or I'm not buying. Blackmailing athletes is big business. Additionally, I'm not sure a black eye to a person is worse than a tortured murder of an animal. He did not put these dogs to sleep.
Posted at 2007-08-23 09:06:35 [PermaLink]Beyond what Craig said, there's the matter of helplessness.
Adult women can call the police, flee the home, or take other actions.
Dogs? Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be loyal. Dogs famously don't abandon you for abusing them. Dogs can't call the police.
Dogs, unlike spouses or romantic partners, are entirely dependent, as well.
That, I think, is a large part of the emotional difference, much like abusing a child. It's bad to abuse an adult, but an adult can fight back or flee; children and dogs, for various reasons, are more or entirely helpless, and that gets them - quite properly - more sympathy and a greater emotional reaction.
(Both because they're helpless in itself, and because there's such a strong and proper taboo against harming the helpless specifically.)
MacAulay was making the point that the Puritans' concerns were serious. Nobody cares what happens to a bear, or a dog. But it matters a great deal if men develop a taste for sadism, and we ought to take seriously the threat posed by cultivating such tastes.
Posted at 2007-08-23 12:42:09 [PermaLink]Oh, and I'm actually quite cool with dogfighting, although I think it's only sporting if you barbeque and eat the losing dog. Otherwise it's mere wasteful killing.
Posted at 2007-08-23 12:44:54 [PermaLink]There's a practical reason for prosecuting dogfighting-only undesirable gutter scum engage in this activity. The lower classes are low for a reason, and periodically ought to be tromped on good and hard.
Posted at 2007-08-23 16:20:32 [PermaLink]Tom,
Joseph's arguments seem somewhat compressed. What Joseph didn't bring into his rather precious focus was the ancillary situation: Illegal betting and law breaking. If such a sport is the playground of organized crime, the Feds should be in there. Big time.
Note as well the attack yesterday by a pair of pit-bulls that had been "accidentally" set loose - they went into a woman's home through the doggie door and mauled her in her bed. If certain breeds are known to be unstable or vicious, then damn right one would demand Federal sanctions and regulations.
"Suffice to say that one of the main roles of the law is to protect the weak and the innocent from predators and ruthless people." Come on Andre, that's not sufficient, it's silly. The "weak" in your argument are now and had been intended to be people; not animals or fish or trees or any other life-form. To grant animals semi-human status is akin to what Joseph (mockingly) refers to as "neo-animal worship."
John B,
I hear ya, sort of. Part of it is "mission creep", as it were.
The Rabbinic laws concerning kindness and ritual slaughter were never intended to preclude or outlaw the killing and eating of animals. Death for a cow, for example, is probably never a pleasurable experience. Their point was that the cow's life was a gift from G-d and therefore to be respected. That's not to say worshipped or elevated to human status. Try telling that to some who claim that the rabbis were "ahead of their time" and that they "really wanted" to have everyone become vegan.
Worse, PETA and their wannabes are desperate to apply anti-cruelty laws to farming, processing, hunting and trapping, the same way that laws of all sorts are being morphed into areas the framers of said laws never intend.
I buy Mike's and Ran's argument that Fed Law where scum congregate make sense, but those arguments have to do with the circumstances, not the "cruelty" as such.
Sorry Dr. Net, but apparent lack of empathy is not to be conflated with psychosis. Psych 101. Besides, the question is about why animal cruelty should be proscribed by Law. Why should Federal Law be applied as a "solution" to a clear human failing that does not involve other humans?
Has nothing to do with psychosis, my hideously disingenuous friend. For greater certainty:
"Psychopathy is currently defined in psychiatry and clinical psychology as a condition characterized by lack of empathy"
[External Link]
See also
Encarta:
1. somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy
American Heritage Dictionary
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
[External Link]
The emotionalism and sheer hysteria that this topic gives rise to are nothing short of amazing. DR Net’s wild emotionalism comes across as dangerous. Dr Net should see what projection means, and stop dong it. But, some dog worshippers are beyond reason, and only operate on emotion, so I am not optimistic.
BTW, those two pit bulls that mauled the woman in Washington State also killed one of her pet dogs and mauled another one. She was trying to protect one of them when the Pit Bulls turned on her. They were a mother Pit Bull and one of her sons. Many neighbors said the dogs were known to be dangerous and not well controlled. But, they are blessed doggies, so can do what they want. The Pit Bull owner, or, to dog worshippers, “Pit Bull guardian” should be sued to Tuesday and back again.
Don't know what the big deal about dog fighting is. Most Spanish-speaking nations entertain themselves by having men in fruity outfits torment and slowly kill bulls using thin swords. I don't hear any of you complaining about that. I suspect that the anti-dog fighting crowd suffers from "cute animal syndrome" whereby cute animals are to be cherished while non-cute ones can be mass-executed and eaten with relish (pardon the lame pun). Fact is, people -- and men in particular -- have been using animals for entertainment since the dawn of time. I agree that animal fighting may not be a pretty sight. So what ? You don't have to watch it.
Posted at 2007-08-24 00:07:02 [PermaLink]There's a whole pile of non-relevant doggy doo being brought into this thread. Neither hunting nor the raising and slaughtering of animals for food have as their objective human enjoyment of their suffering. Dog fighting and bullfighting certainly do. At least in bullfighting there's a very small chance the bull will get revenge (after which he's slaughtered in any case).
Hunting, as either a sport or solely for food, requires a clean and quick kill. Same for slaughtering. The process of suffering and terror apparently causes the animals' adrenalin to unacceptably toughen muscle tissue, ie the meat.
There's also been some suggestions here that we folk that have a great admiration for canines are in some way mentally compromised (have a screw loose). If NOT taking pleasure in another creatures suffering is the criteria, then I happily admit to being a flake.
Net... Thanks. Wish you'd applied those standards before your disingenuous original statement.
The point being that remaining cool, i.e. failing to "empathize" with one's quarry, is not the same as lacking the capacity for empathy.
I'd put your original argument on its head like this: Anyone who feels "sorry" for the cow he serves at dinner needs to grow-up, and fast.
Having respect for and care for animals is not to be conflated with the sort of immature hyper-empathy and identification typically associated with bunny-huggers.