1/23: Kabul dog fight

[hermit22]

I found this site a few months ago, and I check the IotD almost religiously, but never had a reason to post until now.

mulgorod, you are lumping any kind of death into the same category. That's really not how it works though. Dog fights are pretty damn awful for both the dogs and the people involved. I think it's obvious why they're bad for the dogs: the living conditions, the whole...dying thing.

As for the humans watching -- Jefferson said that slavery taints the owner's heart. His point was that cruelty hardens and corrupts a human being - and this cruelty, which is just shameless in its viciousness, is much the same thing as slavery. Of course, it's dogs that are enslaved, and not humans.

As for eating meat -- that's just the food chain at work. There is no direct corruption of the soul at play in a hamburger, even though some poor animal died for it. Instead of spiritual corruption, the body is enriched.

So both are bad, to an extent. Both involve the death of a living thing. The difference is that one is a part of nature (yes, I know, we were designed to be herbivores, but early man learned quickly to adapt to eating meat) while the other is nothing but simple brutality. I believe that's what jeni and dhamsaic were objecting to.

Just for reference, I'm one of those...I would be a vegetarian but beef and chicken taste too good... types.

Originally posted by mulgorod
Just a different animal? That is as ridiculous as stating that because you eat beef, you should be perfectly Ok with eating babies.

Man. You're really fucking this up now. Look. An animal is an animal. Humans are animals. Dogs are animals. Horses are animals. Cows are animals. Okay?

What type of meat do you eat? You said you did. The likely choices are chicken, fish, cow or pig. Okay. So it's likely that you consume, at least occasionally, one or more of those animals.

Now. Of course eating baby children is taboo. At least in our culture. But so is dog. It is all about our perception of the animal. We regard humans higher than we do dogs, and we regard dogs higher than we do cows. Is this making sense?

I sure hope so, because if it does, then maybe you're starting to realize that saying it's "just a different animal" is decidedly <b>not</b> as ridiculous as saying meat eaters should be okay with eating babies. Animals are animals, and our regard for different species undoubtedly differs, but the fact of the matter is, they are still animals. I seriously do not understand how you can be so obtuse on this issue. I don't mean to be insulting, but I seriously am having trouble comprehending how you can possibly make that argument in a serious mood. Are you just fucking around or what?

That's my point, that's the parallel I'm trying to draw. Who are human beings to say whether a cow lives or dies?

Okay. Again, not to be insulting at all, but you're not really making sense here.

As we have established, eating meat is not an entertainment-only activity. However, there is no practical usage of a dog fight. Consider that a dog fight is for purely entertainment value, whereas when one slaughters a cow, they actually get some <b>food</b>. Okay. Are we making this connection? Good. Now. Replace the dog fight, pure entertainment, with the action of just walking up to a cow and stabbing it to death - you know, for "entertainment". All we're doing here is a little switcharoo. Cow for dog, human for dog. Got the two situations in mind? Good.

Now. In one situation (this would be the <b>slaughter</b>), we are doing this for food so that our bellies can be full. The meat is being used. The cow is dying, yes, but it is dying for the very real benefit of another. Whether this is right or wrong is beyond classification by the human race - we cannot decide. However, the irrefutable facts are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is benefitting, in a very real way, from its death.

The second situation, which we will call <b>the cow fight</b>, is quite a bit different, however. A human being is fighting a cow. The human being has a knife, which makes up for its lack of anything else (remember, the human being's asset is its brain, which it uses to discover and make tools) with which it can fight. The cow has a pretty powerful kick. Now, the human being goes up to the cow, stabs the holy fuck out of it, eventually kills it, and walks off with a smile on their face, having just had a great time. He feels as though he's been "entertained". The irrefutable facts of this situation are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is just getting some jollies from its death.

Now, can you see a difference here? Because if I'm understanding you properly, you can't (hence your usage of the word "parallel"). One is an example of the <b>food chain</b>, and the other is an example of <b>the murder of a cow</b>. They are not the same. Do you believe that it's wrong for a rabbit to eat some grass? Is it wrong for a wolf to eat a rabbit? Is it wrong for a human to eat a cow? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, <b>who are you to decide</b>?

[hot_pastrami]

This thread, I think, is some of the most convincing evidence I've seen that presenting an analogy does nothing to strengthen one's argument. When was the last time anyone convinced you of ANYTHING using an analogy? Think about it. Using an analogy to illustrate a point is like using your turn signal to tell the drivers around you that you're going to accelerate... OK, bad analogy.

One more point to make... <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=978">IofD thread 978</a>

Hot Pastrami!

[hot_pastrami]

Oh, incidentally... if it weren't for the fact that I despise ASCII smiley emiticon whatever-they're-called things, that last message would be peppered with them. I was being facetious. Remarkably, unspeakably so.

Hot Pastrami!

[mulgorod]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

Man. You're really fucking this up now.

If you look at the context of the post from which I drew my quote, you'll notice that it was jeni, not I, who drew a parallel between the way we treat humans, and the way we treat animals. I thought it was invalid , and I was just calling her on it. It seems that you think I brought it up in the first place.

Hermit22:
Why do you think the living conditions and the whole... dying thing isn't as obviously bad for cows? Or rather, to clarify my position, why is it worse for dogs? I'll admit, that by magnitude, the treatment of fighting dogs and the cruelty of their deaths is probably, on the average, worse than cows. But not a whole lot worse.

Dham:
As far as the fact that the slaughter of cows serves some utility, I think that it's totally invalid, given that the same utility can be gained by other means. Easily. In fact, from an economic standpoint, more easily. Which leads me to beleive that 90% of what your paying for when you buy a steak is not it's nutritional value, but rather it's yummy factor.

Where do you draw the line? Moreover, who are you to decide?

I'm not drawing a line. What I _am_ saying, is humans have the ability to reason, and thinking about the issue as we now are enables us to draw a line for ourselves if we so choose. The very fact that we can reason means that we don't truly have a right to use our place in the food chain as an excuse to kill animals.

I'm convinced that slaughtering cows is somewhat more justifiable than raising dogs to fight. Barely, more justifiable. The utility of it is a very small factor, when you consider that we can remain just as healthy without it. The most convincing point is that people are hardened by taking enjoyment from the dog fights.

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

This thread, I think, is some of the most convincing evidence I've seen that presenting an analogy does nothing to strengthen one's argument. When was the last time anyone convinced you of ANYTHING using an analogy? Think about it. Using an analogy to illustrate a point is like using your turn signal to tell the drivers around you that you're going to accelerate... OK, bad analogy.

Best. Point. Ever.

You are STILL missing my point. I am amazed.

Are you saying that humans are not animals?

I'm convinced that slaughtering cows is somewhat more justifiable than raising dogs to fight. Barely, more justifiable. The utility of it is a very small factor, when you consider that we can remain just as healthy without it.

You are amazing. I am speechless.

Population control. Excess cows are eaten. Just the same as wolves keep the rabbit population in check. It is <b>the natural order of the world</b> that those that possess the ability to do so <b>eat the "lesser" animals</b>. Some day something may evolve and try to make its living by eating us, and we will fight back with whatever we have, much the same way animals fight back when they are being killed. You are arguing against <b>the natural order of the world</b>.

Please stop wasting your time on me and go try to get all the carnivores to switch to vegetarianism - I'm sure there are some wolves and lions that would be really interested in hearing your ideas.

[mulgorod]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You are STILL missing my point. I am amazed.

Are you saying that humans are not animals?

Biologically, humans are animals. But don't you think there's something that makes people somehow more... sacred, than other animals?

Jeni talked about the KKK and how they raised children, then claimed that it was the same thing (I presumed she meant as raising a dog to kill), just a different animal. SInce I can agree that the KKK is wrong to do what they do, she seems to be proposing that I must agree that dog fights are also wrong.

But I say that's bunk. I don't have the same special respect for dogs (or beef) that I do for humans, which is why I'm not getting terribly upset over seeing dog fights. That's also why I suggested that my special respect for human kind prevents me from killing and eating them, even though do I eat preciousss little cowses.

If that doesn't answer your question, I guess I don't get your point.

[warch]

Maybe I should get out the hose and break you guys up..?

[mulgorod]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

Population control. Excess cows are eaten. Just the same as

Uh uh. We control populations of cows to the extent that we raise as many as possible for the purpose of consuming them. And humans have been out of the natural order of things for a long time. We did it by choice - we have too much knowledge to argue that we still have a place in the natural order as simple as "we're on top, so we eat whatever we can".

When a lion or wolf kills, it does not know how it fits into the larger picture.

Are you saying that you have no more wits than a wild carnivore?

[mulgorod]

And by the way, I am aware of the irony that you now have me half arguing against my original point. I kind of slipped into it with all those analogies getting thrown around.

Originally posted by mulgorod
When a lion or wolf kills, it does not know how it fits into the larger picture.

You know this exactly <b>how</b>? Have many conversations with wild animals, do you?

[jaguar]

Biologically, humans are animals. But don't you think there's something that makes people somehow more... sacred, than other animals?

NO. Nono, nonononono.
Look at hte behaviour of animals, look at the behavious of humans, fuck we should be *below* them. Read Mark Twain - letters from earth.

I have a nasty feeling that comment is going ot keep the pot boiling for quite a while...ahwell.

[hot_pastrami]

It's "caption that thread" time... here are my entries:

1. An exercise in futility
2. Kicking a dead horse
3. Conversational masturbation

Pointless. Hopeless. When it comes to arguments regarding principles, there will never emerge a victor, so I would urge you to agree to disagree my friends. That is, of course, unless you enjoy the debate for its own sake, in which case, Bravo! Carry on.

Sometimes my grasp of the obvious is not so flimsy.

Hot Pastrami!

[Nic Name]

It's a Kabul dog fight ... and it's making as much sense.