the Vick/Young wildcat - 'dinger style

We are so evolved that we have learned to rationalize why we kill other beings. Not because we are hungry anymore, but because we are so civilized that we have to kill in any ways possible. That's why we kill as a sport, to convince other people that they are brute and don´t know what they're doing, to get back at one's parents for not being there the way one wanted it, or my personal favorite via war games (the only harmless way). Animals are so stupid that they don't know that if we're coming and take away their feeding grounds, they should go and find a huge rock and die behind it so we don't have the inconvenience of finding out. Who needs animals anyway some of us make up for a great number of them!

 

Gloat, you say that you're just arguing that people can't say killing animals is ok in one setting and not ok in another. Surely you don't believe that?

I don't hunt, but I'm not particularly against it. However, I do think that there is a huge difference between shooting something that has led a natural life and raising something for the specific purpose of causing it pain for entertainment. Vick was convicted of torturing and killing dogs. He electrocuted one that was a loser of a fight. The descriptions of training methods and the lives that these dogs lead are horrifying, do you not agree? I'd be just as against it if people did it with deer, cows, fish, bunnies, or sarcastic people from message boards that just like to rile people up with technicalities of argument.

There are a whole lot of other things going on in this thread, but that seems to be your argument, am I phrasing it wrong? Killing isn't killing in this case, it's the whole scope of the activity that has to be considered. If dogs lived in the wild, and people went out and shot them, it would be more accepted. If deer were raised to fight each other, and beaten and tortured in the process, more people would be against it.

Some people are against killing animals, some people are against eating animals, honestly, I'm neither. Far more people are against what goes on in the dog fighting industry, and not just because it's dogs.

 

Another point. People have been justifying this by saying that just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. That's very true. However, it does make it something that you shouldn't do unless you're willing to accept the punishment for it. Especially for an athlete, who has so much more to lose if caught.

 

Something that is WRONG and there is not a law against it, is the attempt against the preservation of our planet, thus its flora and fauna and in consequence ourselves. That´s why the lack of awarness of our planet and the way it works, and the failure to behave accordingly will eventually be penalized.

 

This is a really vague and strange statement to me. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. "The attempt against the preservation of our planet"... is there some group that's working on destroying it? The planet will still be here, even if we somehow were able to do something to make it uninhabitable. Preservation is a little silly, human beings have never really successfully attempted to preserve the planet, they've merely cultivated it to suit their needs. When the Indians came to North America, they changed the landscape into a vastly different place than it was before, what Europeans found when they settled here was a continent that had been vastly changed in the centuries before it. I'm someone who spends far more time than the average American outdoors and in truly isolated places, and even I don't think that we're capable of "preserving" the planet in the long run. "Awareness of our planet and the way it works"... What does that even mean? I don't really think that we have a very good understanding of how everything on the planet works together, and by that I mean that I don't think that anyone does. We can't predict the weather, we can find contradictory statistics for ANYTHING, what exactly do we know about how the world works? I'm not exactly sure what you're criticizing, or what you're advocating for here, but the general sentiment that you're expressing is a little silly without a context.

 

This thread is another great example of Gloat being all over something until someone actually answers his arguments. Then he lets the thread die as quickly as possible.

 

Actually Yes.

 

lmao

Actually, this was another example of Gloat thinking the tired patterned argument was done. As it should have been.

Please inform me: Who "answered my arguments"...

you don't have to answer. It's ok.
Eventually, it becomes annoying to realize that people can't understand logical thought. They can't take side 1 of an argument without trying to force side 2.

Killing is killing. Anyone can justify anything they want. No one is wrong in their own eyes. A dog fighter needed money for food and Pitt Bulls aren't good pets anyway. A deer hunter needed food and deer overpopulate anyway.

End of it. There's no argument to be answered. That's how it is. Whether you want to mold it to be ok or not- THAT'S WHAT IT IS.