Interesting point of view!!

Please take a few minutes and read this article, I am eager to hear your input or opinions! I am not the author nor can I take credit for writing it.

http://briandunne.org/2007/08/01/de...ng-dog-fights.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsCha

 

I read this a couple days ago and I applaud the writer..I think I am a libertarian now..He makes some very good points, and if this is how the whole party feels I know which party I will be voting for...

 

What more can I say, it makes sense. Why can't there be people like him in office?

 

This is a well written and thought provoking article and nails down some VERY good points. I enjoyed reading it. Tx for posting it.


kinda brings back that whole "dogs are property" issue....

 

I don't know about yall,but that was a sweet savior to read,...shows that his understanding of life,is way beyond their thinking or ............................

 

i dont feel anyone or anything should be forced to do something they dont want to do..but i respect nature and know ..fish will swim..birds will fly...dogs will bark..and APBT'S will fight...its natural not forced..game birds will fight the next day after leaving the egg.i get people that tell me pitbulls would be ok if people didnt teach them to fight..im more concerned with people teaching them to be people aggressive.

 

You don’t like seeing dogs get beaten and killed, I don’t like seeing dogs being beaten and killed. The best way to save as many dogs as possible is to take dog fighting off the black market by legalizing dog fighting. Hey, that was my Idea first.

Only what you legalises you can control. Many boxers, or wrestlers would die in the ring if these sports last illegally.

 

Personally, I think y'all are giving the author too much credit. Nothing in his argument is logical, realistic, or demonstrates that he has any knowledge regarding the subject about which he is writing. This is actually one of the weakest arguments I've ever read in relation to the legalization of dogfighting.

 

Rockstar, thanks for replying, but can you please expand a little more? I thought the author came from a very common sense, fair, rational point of view. I would like to hear your opinion as to why it isnt relevant. Thank You!!!

 

Really? Then please tell me about the strong arguments for the legalization of dogfighting.

 

I already posted my feelings on the subject of legalized dogfighting both on the page hosting the article and here: http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showpost.php?p=210004&postcount=35

I have yet to hear a strong argument for the legalization of dogfighting.

 

I think Brian Dunne makes a really good point that it's hypocritical that dogfighting is illegal when animal exploitation is something our society depends on and takes for granted. It's merely something that legislatures decided (many years back) based on the lobbying of special interest groups. He's also right that a good libertarian would have to go along with his argument based on the fact that dogs are currently only property under the law.

But all this being said, it doesn't get very far toward legalizing dogfighting in the US. The vast majority of Americans are not libertarian. Many Americans now don't believe dogs should be classified as property. So his argument is based on a series of "ifs" that only apply to like 2% of people in the US, and is not likely to change popular opinion.

I also wish he was more familiar with the actual rules and realities of dogfighting - that scratch-and-turn rules are just the sort of "regulation" he's calling for, most matches don't result in deaths, etc. I don't personally think legalizing and govt. regulation dogfighting would result in less deaths - but only more red tape, bureacracy and mess than we have now - but who knows.

Still, you gotta give the guy credit for thinking outside the box!

 

Here is a quote from the article:
The word “hypocrisy” gets thrown around a lot – mainly by me – but I believe it applies in this instance. It is hypocritical to condemn Michael Vick for participating in dog fights when we, consumers of the NFL, pay him to put himself in harm’s way week after week. Along with boxing and ultimate fighting, the NFL involves violence between humans, potentially resulting in death, and most times leading to long-term, permanent disabilities of participants.

Most times? Give me a break. After a running back or quarterback gets hurt or loses, do the owners take him out back and shoot him for not being worthy like Vick (is accused of) to the dogs that did not perform?

I somewhat liked the article up until he started comparing football/UFC/boxing to dogfighting.

When Vick is getting paid a $hitload of money to play for the Falcons, he has on pads to protect EVERY part of his body except his shins and his forearms. Everything else is covered.

If dogs were able to wear headgear, boxing gloves, cups, and shoes while in the pit, I guess the comparision would be more legit with me.

Another quote from the article
If you need to get your jollies out watching living beings beat up on each other, I much prefer it to be animals than humans.

If he really means that, then I think he's a sick person.

 

I somewhat agree with you here....
Here is why:
I am not fond of the Hypocricy paragraph of it all.
He states here this:

Then turns and says this:

Now pardon me, but humans DO HAVE RIGHTS...they have CHOICES....as to where dogs do not...
but yet he compares the two? NO, I am sorry....not logical!

Then there is this right here, which makes me wonder:

Once again, they are humans that have that right, NOT MERE ANIMALS.....
As far as I am concerned, he choking on his foot....

He is right there.....that would (according to him) make him a hypocrite!

There is so much more that I do not like about this article...I do not feel like getting further into.....
I think it is enough to make my point....
Sorry for the ones that do agree with article...
Just putting my 2 cents in there, about how I feel about it.

 

I see.

I thought it was a pretty bland article. Had a few good points here but most of it wasnt that good. In my opinion

 

i think so, too.
still an intersting read, imo...

 

This is an excellent article and we could use more thought like this in our country...with many other topics and issues as well.

 

It seems to me that people don't realize dogfighting has been illegal in the US since around 1860, and the ASPCA has been seizing dogs and throwing people in jail since it was given charter in 1866. And that means much to long.
I think this the situation before 1860 was better. After 1860 it became worse and worse, till this day.

The legalization of dogfighting would certainly bring about change; some good, but some, potentially catastrophic.
I do not believe it can become more worse than today.

Armchair fatass megalomaniacal animal rights fanatics would scream ever the more loudly. They wouldn't take such a thing lying down. And we had a chance to defend us better. We could expect them to step up efforts to ban fighting breeds, and it's very likely they'd have much more ammunition to do so, as puppy peddlers would be breeding the hell out of anything with teeth, promising the next great canine equivalent of Rocky Marciano. Think there's an overpopulation issue with pit bulls today? Think there are too many unstable man-biting mutts being bred by the greedy, careless, and ignorant? It's difficult to imagine the scope of these problems should dogfighting become legal.
OK paints the devil to the wall. Fact is all this passed today without dog fights legally are grasped and are adjusted. To say by a legalisation and regulation everything becomes even more worse is pure speculation.

The fights would have to be tightly regulated, for the sake of tax revenue, if nothing else.Why not? Sanctioning organizations would take control of everything.Yes that is clear, accept it, Don King would maybe promote your dog You'd have to be "licensed" to fight a dog, and you'd have to pay your dues to the organization.If you love your hobby pay for it. There would be a huge demand for professional handlers, conditioners, and managers, all of which would require high dollars.Yea, g r e a t Owners and breeders of winning dogs would conceivably become quite wealthy, as multimillion-dollar matches would be a thing of the norm. G R E A T...what is bad in it? I would be with pleasure a manager or well paid-up trainer. You not?

Meanwhile, those who couldn't afford to compete in the sanctioned "fastlane" would continue to do just what dogfighters are doing now and remain outside the law.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->_____It is always a matter of coming upwards. If the dog fight is permitted there are of course different leagues. But many from completely below would come upwards. Consider the possibilities if the dog fight worldwide permissibly lasts....
_____________

 

Read this sentence again: The legalization of dogfighting would certainly bring about change; some good, but some, potentially catastrophic.

To say by a legalisation and regulation everything becomes even more worse is pure speculation.

I wasn't claiming to be doing anything more than speculating.
*************
I didn't write that post in response to Dunne's article. I wrote it weeks ago.

My response to Dunne's essay is found at the link originally provided by DED_GAME.