Clinton Portis defends dog fighting

[Turbodog 0]

You ignore all the arguments that counter your views and then act as if you're the only one thinking logically. Hunting does not equal dog fighting, for one thing. The animals in question have a chance to escape they are in their natural environmant. Hunting is also regulated by state agencies (they do control things like how many kills, size or age of the kills) and serves the prusose of controlling the animal population. So their are laws associated with hunting.

 

I have argued for the illegalization of dog fighting but you ignore and spout the old old diatribe about "happiness". You are infrigning on other's rights and happiness by allowing dog fighting to take place. Once again, there is danger inolved in both the breeding, training and keeping of dangerous animals on your property (Can you keep a tiger on your property, is that your right?) and the element the activity attracts to a neighbor hood. You answer people can move. So a whole neighborhood should be uprooted and forced move if people want to pusruse their happiness by dodg fighting? The happiness of those people is not improtant to you?

Laws are passed to protect the masses. Here the Commonwealth of Virginia has enacted such a lw prohibiting dog fighting to protect the masses.

 

Also you are failing to relaize that there are animal cruelty laws on the book. There are many reasons why these laws are passed. People don't get tp pick and choose laws because it infinges on their happiness, they live in a society.

 

There are methods under which laws can be found unconstitutional. That is a purpose of the upper-level courts, to insure the masses cannot institute laws that infringe on other people's rights. My argument is that this is a case, where all of us abhor poor treatment of animals, and in most places a majority would vote to illegalize it. The job of the courts is to decide whether these laws would infring on other's rights. My argument is that they do.

 

Do i have to answer every persons example and tell them why they are wrong? Considering I am the only one on my side of the fight, (thank you to those who have been reasonable) that would take too much time.

 

The root of the issues is dog fighting is illegal in this country because people love dogs and dont want to see them hurt. Some people don't have emotional ties to dogs and could earn a living training them to fight, and they are not allowed to do so.

 

Regulation, as in your hunting example, is another discussion. No one is offering to regulate dog fighting. Everyone simply wants it to be illegal.

 

Could a reasonable person not deem that hunting down an animal in its home, killing it, and ripping out its innard so that you can stuff it and hang it on your wall for decoration is cruel? I would believe that some reasonable people would say that is cruel. Would you want the organized masses to be able to take away hunting? I would not. However, because we all love dogs, dog fighting is illegal.

[The Next Generation 10]

He also said:

 

 

 

...Which as I said, is patently untrue. Any reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights tells us that is untrue. People cherry-pick the 3 word "pursuit of hapiness" bit and ignore that our country was built on rule of law.

 

Every jackass these days knows their "rights", but go flat out mute when quizzed on their "responsibilities".

 

If Vick (or Turbo) felt so strongly, they should've argued against the law. Not just break it because they feel it's 'bad law that never should have been passed in the first place'.

 

The constitution stuff was all good stuff. I didn't quote it for a reason. BUT, nowhere has he condoned breaking an established law, which you continue to insinuate even in your last post.

[famousb 11]

i ignored you the first time because becuase your argument didn't deserve consideration. but if you insist on repeating that drivel.

 

you conveniently left out the "pursuit" part. if you need well treated animals to be happy. pursue it. treat your animals well. start an organization, raise "awareness" and communication about the issue. whatever you think will help. maybe if you convince everyone, the market will die, and dog fighting will cease. congrats you win!

 

but for your happiness to be absolute you are forcing actions on other people, which you have no right to do.

 

i would say nice try, but it really wasn't a nice try.

no, you ignored my point because exactly what you said is exactly what has already happened in this country, and exactly why dog fighting is illegal...

the moral majority already won... but if you think it's ok to do dogfighting and other stupid, inhumane shiat, then you start your movement and groups and get it legalized...

 

good luck w/ that arsehat...

 

 

ps. 85 posts in your life on this bored, and probably half of them are trying to justify dogfighting... way to contribute intelligent dialogue on a fantasy football forum...

here's to hoping you don't make another 85 posts.

[swamp dog 0]

didn't you know, strippers and hookers aren't people... they're the property of their pimps... therefore you can treat them however you like.

 

that makes perfect sense to a couple of posters in this thread, given the stuff they've been spewing

[Vince44 205]

The U yet again produces a idiot with a disgraceful comment.

 

I hate Portis from all his overplayed NON FUNNY costumes to now his..."no big deal"...comment regarding dog fighting but his pathetic backtrack that his agent wrote for him makes me hate him more than I ever thought possible.

[MDC 7,470]

i have said many times in this thread, that i would never treat an animal in this way. never even consider it, nor will i raise my children to treat animals in this way. so quit trying to make me out to be some barbarian. you are letting your emotions cloud your thinking.

 

For your specific example, you drive on public property, so you are bound to public regulation. Would you want it to be illegal to drive 100mph if you owned a few hundred acres and built your own track? So no NASCAR then right?

 

There is a reason none of you can rationally argue for the illegalization of dog fighting, other then to push your morals on others. And that's because there isn't one. This country was founded on freedom to do as you wish.

 

Are there no game hunters? No one has a duck mounted on their wall? That could be considered cruel, to kill an animal for sport. Would you like a majority of people be able to tell you that was illegal when it impedes on none of their rights? No you wouldnt. The only reason you want this to be illegal is because it abhors you. As it does me. But it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. Neither is it yours our our governments.

 

The entire premise of your argument is wrong because dogs are not strictly property and they have some base minimum rights. That's why it's illegal to mistreat or torture a dog, even if it's your property.

 

Sure this country was founded on the freedom to do as you wish, except when your pursuit of happiness interferes with the wellbeing of others. It might make you happy to torture your children but it's illegal because they have rights. It might make you happy to host dogfights on your property but it's illegal because even a dog has some minimal rights. It might make you happy to use heroin or cocaine but it's illegal because we've decided that hard drug use has a negative affect on society at large. We've also decided that condoning the torture and abuse of animals has a negative affect on society; therefore it's illegal. There are hundreds of examples of laws that restrict your pursuit of happiness for the greater good of society; this example is the least of it.

 

Your example of hunting is a bad example. Sure you can kill a duck for sport and food. But I'm willing to bet you do not have the right to torture a duck for sadistic pleasure. Fair or not fair, as a society we've decided that animals have a scale of rights, probably based on their intelligence and ability to feel physical and psychological pain. That's why you won't get in trouble for pulling the legs off a spider, but you could serve jailtime for cutting the legs off a dog.

 

Your statement that it's "not my place to tell others how to live their lives" is laughable. If that's the case, why have laws at all? Why not let people rape, murder and steal all they want? After all, who are we to tell people how to live their lives...

 

You will probably argue that rape, murder, theft, etc. infringes on the rights of others and you are correct. My answer to that is even DOGS have some minimal rights - like the right to not be murdered indiscriminately or tortured for pleasure. Dog fighting is illegal because 1) the dog has a right to not being mistreated and 2) it's bad for society to condone the torture of animals, probably because that's not many steps removed from the torture of humans.

 

Finally, unless you're trying to say dogfighting should be legal why do you keep arguing about this? Seems to me this is just your soapbox to spout reductive libertarian dogma...

[Dr. Octopus 0]

There are methods under which laws can be found unconstitutional. That is a purpose of the upper-level courts, to insure the masses cannot institute laws that infringe on other people's rights. My argument is that this is a case, where all of us abhor poor treatment of animals, and in most places a majority would vote to illegalize it. The job of the courts is to decide whether these laws would infring on other's rights. My argument is that they do.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that "people who love dog fighting" are not a protected class and therefore the higher courts could not overturn the legislated law as long as there was a rational basis for enacting the law. I'm pretty sure the legislative history would show a rational basis, such as preventing the toture of animals and/or keeping neighbor hoods safe. You only know enough about the law to distort it. Bottom line is we are a nation of laws and we've done pretty well being such. Your "pursuit of happiness" is only a small part of what this country is based on. Many freedoms are restricted for the greater good of society. I'm pretty happy to live in a societ where they don't allow dogs to be mistreated. They are domesticated animals and have become a big part of culture and should be protected, and some one should not have to live in an area wherecriminal activity takes place.

[famousb 11]

The U yet again produces a idiot with a disgraceful comment.

 

I hate Portis from all his overplayed NON FUNNY costumes to now his..."no big deal"...comment regarding dog fighting but his pathetic backtrack that his agent wrote for him makes me hate him more than I ever thought possible.

 

actually i was just listening to an interview w/ Rosenhaus on 610 WFNZ in Charlotte, and he flat out said that he hasn't talked to Portis at all about the dumb-arse dogfighting comments Portis made... Rosenhaus also went on to make certain he said, and re-said, that he himself is a dog lover and in no way condones dog fighting, etc, etc, etc... and the tone in his voice really made it sound like he was kind of upset by the situation and the idea.

 

also, he noted that he doesn't do alot of PR for some of his vet clients that have strong PR depts. and he gave Portis and the Deadskins as an example... so that's probably where the backtrack came from - especially since Portis' image is one of the more prominent ones on their team, and they don't need/want any bad PR from a team perspective, especially w/ the whole Sean Taylor problems from a few back...

[lguero1 4]

i wonder how the better, not always injured, running back in Washington, Ladell Betts, feels about dog fighting.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

i wonder how the better, not always injured, running back in Washington, Ladell Betts, feels about dog fighting.

 

True, true. Portis = overrated since Denver.

[Turbodog 0]

The entire premise of your argument is wrong because dogs are not strictly property and they have some base minimum rights. That's why it's illegal to mistreat or torture a dog, even if it's your property.

 

Sure this country was founded on the freedom to do as you wish, except when your pursuit of happiness interferes with the wellbeing of others. It might make you happy to torture your children but it's illegal because they have rights. It might make you happy to host dogfights on your property but it's illegal because even a dog has some minimal rights. It might make you happy to use heroin or cocaine but it's illegal because we've decided that hard drug use has a negative affect on society at large. We've also decided that condoning the torture and abuse of animals has a negative affect on society; therefore it's illegal. There are hundreds of examples of laws that restrict your pursuit of happiness for the greater good of society; this example is the least of it.

 

Your example of hunting is a bad example. Sure you can kill a duck for sport and food. But I'm willing to bet you do not have the right to torture a duck for sadistic pleasure. Fair or not fair, as a society we've decided that animals have a scale of rights, probably based on their intelligence and ability to feel physical and psychological pain. That's why you won't get in trouble for pulling the legs off a spider, but you could serve jailtime for cutting the legs off a dog.

 

Your statement that it's "not my place to tell others how to live their lives" is laughable. If that's the case, why have laws at all? Why not let people rape, murder and steal all they want? After all, who are we to tell people how to live their lives...

 

You will probably argue that rape, murder, theft, etc. infringes on the rights of others and you are correct. My answer to that is even DOGS have some minimal rights - like the right to not be murdered indiscriminately or tortured for pleasure. Dog fighting is illegal because 1) the dog has a right to not being mistreated and 2) it's bad for society to condone the torture of animals, probably because that's not many steps removed from the torture of humans.

 

Finally, unless you're trying to say dogfighting should be legal why do you keep arguing about this? Seems to me this is just your soapbox to spout reductive libertarian dogma...

 

You don't get it. I AM trying to say it should be legal. And it's a sad day when arguing for someone's right to make a living in a way that harms no one is considered "reductive libertarian dogma"

 

So let me get your points straight:

 

Killing a duck which can feel pain = ok.

 

Killing a dog = not ok, because it can feel pain. Gotcha.

 

Animals should have rights. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Currently they are considered property, would you move to have them no longer considered property?

 

Now, about the one decent point you made, that does deserve some discusion. Whether treating animals poorly could lead to torturing people. I won't go as far as to say that someone who trains dogs or watches dog fighting would be very likely to torture his neighbor, but there could be something to be said about condoning the violence and blood lust and whether that has a harmful social or communal effect on the population. Obviously if someone's actions reach beyond their act alone, and begin to affect others, then there can be an argument made for government regulation. But to me, this is similar to people who want to ban video games, or contact sports, boxing, etc. Obivously there are some pretty blood lustful video games (Gears of War is pimptastic) and some that allow you be a criminal (GTA hollah!) but I don't see how these games aren't just as bad, if not worse. So should we remove everything that MAY encourage people to commit deviant acts? Or just the ones you dont like?

[MDC 7,470]

You don't get it. I AM trying to say it should be legal. And it's a sad day when arguing for someone's right to make a living in a way that harms no one is considered "reductive libertarian dogma"

 

The point you keep missing over and over and over again is that dogfighting hurts the dogs, and like it or not dogs have some base minimal rights. Your dog may be your property but it can be taken from you if you mistreat it. Your dog may be your property but you do not have the right to torture it. Ergo dogs have some minimal rights - the right to not be indiscriminately killed, mistreated or tortured by its owner.

 

So let me get your points straight:

 

Killing a duck which can feel pain = ok.

 

Killing a dog = not ok, because it can feel pain. Gotcha.

 

You are being deliberately dense. I suggested that dogs have more rights than other animals because they have a greater capacity to experience pain, not just in the moment but also psychological pain later on. And I outright said that while you may have a right to hunt for ducks under some controlled conditions, you probably do not have the right to torture one for the same reasons you don't have the right to torture a dog - it's cruel and inhumane.

 

Animals should have rights. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Currently they are considered property, would you move to have them no longer considered property?

 

Once again, dogs already do have some rights and they're not just property. If they were just property you wouldn't serve jailtime for torturing a dog. The entire premise of your argument is based on your misguided belief that animals have no rights whatsoever, when obviously in the eyes of the law and most sane people they do.

 

Now, about the one decent point you made, that does deserve some discusion. Whether treating animals poorly could lead to torturing people. I won't go as far as to say that someone who trains dogs or watches dog fighting would be very likely to torture his neighbor, but there could be something to be said about condoning the violence and blood lust and whether that has a harmful social or communal effect on the population. Obviously if someone's actions reach beyond their act alone, and begin to affect others, then there can be an argument made for government regulation. But to me, this is similar to people who want to ban video games, or contact sports, boxing, etc. Obivously there are some pretty blood lustful video games (Gears of War is pimptastic) and some that allow you be a criminal (GTA hollah!) but I don't see how these games aren't just as bad, if not worse. So should we remove everything that MAY encourage people to commit deviant acts? Or just the ones you dont like?

 

I did not say someone who tortures animals would torture people, but I do think condoning the torture of animals disgraces us as a society and makes us more likely to tolerate other barbaric behavior. It's an arbitrary line but you have to draw it somewhere. Right now we've decided that violent video games or boxing is not such a detriment to society that it's worth banning. Dogfighting is so patently sadistic and inhumane that we don't condone it.

 

HTH.

[famousb 11]

I did not say someone who tortures animals would torture people, but I do think condoning the torture of animals disgraces us as a society and makes us more likely to tolerate other barbaric behavior. It's an arbitrary line but you have to draw it somewhere. Right now we've decided that violent video games or boxing is not such a detriment to society that it's worth banning. Dogfighting is so patently sadistic and inhumane that we don't condone it.

don't overlook the fact that 99.9% of the time, dogfighting is also linked to illegal gambling rings and other "dregs of society" type behavior.

although i'm certain there are some, most instances of people playing even violent video games is not linked to gambling, illegal drugs, prostitution, etc...

 

so it's not just the direct and indirect violence of the activity, but the seedy activity that is associated with it.

[unckeyherb 2]

Killing a duck which can feel pain = ok.

 

Killing a dog = not ok, because it can feel pain. Gotcha.

 

Animals should have rights. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Currently they are considered property, would you move to have them no longer considered property?

 

 

dude you really are just arguing to argue. There are laws enacted against cruelty to any animal. Cockfighting is also illegal. It is illegal for numerous reasons, the main one being that it is cruel the animal in question. It also is illegal because it supports backalley gambling rings, which in turn support other illegal enterprises.

 

Your whole argument is based on the fact that animals should be considered property and the owners should be able to do what they want with them. Unfortunately the laws are in effect to not only protect the animals, but to also protect society. You can say what you want about an owners right to what they want with their property, however; if I treat my house with total disregard and it becomes a threat to the houses next to it, do you think I can just tell them that they should move, cause I'm pursuing my right to happiness? Of course not. There are basic safety issues and responsibilty involved with owning any property, and with being a citizen of this country. If you are too ignorant to accept that, than perhaps YOU should be the one that moves away. It IS a moral issue, but it is ASLO a safety issue. So take out the moral-majority high ground that you are trying to argue against, and you still are wrong.

 

You argue all you want that it should be ok to kill/torture a dog because its you're property, but then you argue that you would never ever think of doing something like that. So in essence, you are actually in agreement with the Moral Majority that you are arguing against. I refuse to believe that you are arguing this for any other reason than to argue.

 

Or you are somehow on the same intelligence level as Clinton Portis.

[ShaneFalco 0]

Turbodog isn't dumb, if he was he couldn't make the arguments listed in this thread. He's just a extreme believer in individual rights, a "libertarian" if you will, and doesn't think dogs have rights because they are property, so the insults are a little off base. Clinton Portis is dumb. He couldn't make these arguments. Agree to disagree.

 

Most of this argument centers around the rights of animals. Do animals have rights? It would seem as if most people would say that animals like dogs, cats, etc. do have certain basic rights, i.e. the right not to be tortured for human amusement. But most people would *probably* that animals like fish, snake, insects, etc. don't have these rights. *Not all of us are PETA crazy. Is the difference in mental faculty, or the ability to show pain/emotion? I don't know. If the determing factor is mental faculty, then there must be some intelligence level below which animals do not have rights, which is probably the argument slavemasters used for owning slaves. Is that morally right? I don't think so, but I'm just throwing out arguments. We can't have it both ways though.

 

P.S. I'm not touching Portis this year, not because of this interview, but becase he got used too much in Denver and now he can't handle the full load.

[MDC 7,470]

Turbodog isn't dumb, if he was he couldn't make the arguments listed in this thread. He's just a extreme believer in individual rights, a "libertarian" if you will, and doesn't think dogs have rights because they are property, so the insults are a little off base. Clinton Portis is dumb. He couldn't make these arguments. Agree to disagree.

 

Turbodog's argument is identical to Portis' -- the dogs were Vick's property so it's his business.

 

Most of this argument centers around the rights of animals. Do animals have rights? It would seem as if most people would say that animals like dogs, cats, etc. do have certain basic rights, i.e. the right not to be tortured for human amusement. But most people would *probably* that animals like fish, snake, insects, etc. don't have these rights. *Not all of us are PETA crazy. Is the difference in mental faculty, or the ability to show pain/emotion? I don't know. If the determing factor is mental faculty, then there must be some intelligence level below which animals do not have rights, which is probably the argument slavemasters used for owning slaves. Is that morally right? I don't think so, but I'm just throwing out arguments. We can't have it both ways though.

 

There are several reasons why dogfighting should be illegal:

 

1. Animals have a base min. right not to be tortured. That's why it's legal to kill a chicken for food but illegal to hold cackfights.

2. The torture of animals is simply wrong within itself. It is cruel and patently inhumane and should not be condoned by society.

3. Dogfighting is just bad for society. It attracts a criminal element and desensitizes people to torture and cruelty.

 

I apologize for throwing insults around before but it's frustrating that Turbodog keeps ignoring these points. He just keeps insisting that dogs are property and you can treat them however you want. That's simply his opinion - it's not backed up by the law or any logical argument.

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

This should drop Vick's value by draft day.

[ShaneFalco 0]

1. Animals have a base min. right not to be tortured. That's why it's legal to kill a chicken for food but illegal to hold cackfights.

2. The torture of animals is simply wrong within itself. It is cruel and patently inhumane and should not be condoned by society.

3. Dogfighting is just bad for society. It attracts a criminal element and desensitizes people to torture and cruelty.

 

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree

 

Animals, while they do not have the full rights that humans do, should not be tortured. period. I was just adressing the "property" issue.

[MDC 7,470]

1. Agree

2. Agree

3. Agree

 

Animals, while they do not have the full rights that humans do, should not be tortured. period. I was just adressing the "property" issue.

 

Gotcha. I think we're in agreement. I'm just saying, animals may technically be "property" but they are not the legal or moral equivolent of a piece of furniture, and there are several good reasons to ban their abuse.

[tt1010 0]

MDC hits the nail on the head with his interpretation of the situation.

 

The problem with Turbodog's viewpoint is that it is strictly black and white when the laws surrounding animals are not.

 

Turbodog has stated, ad nauseum, that dogs are property and are subject to the owner's whims. However, he conveniently ignores the contradicting laws that assign, by logical deduction, minimal rights to animals. For example, the fact that cruelty to animals is punishable implies that animals enjoy a certain amount of rights, unlike property.

 

Trouble arises when we try to force a grey society into black and white laws - it won't work.

[Turbodog 0]

Turbodog's argument is identical to Portis' -- the dogs were Vick's property so it's his business.

There are several reasons why dogfighting should be illegal:

 

1. Animals have a base min. right not to be tortured. That's why it's legal to kill a chicken for food but illegal to hold cackfights.

2. The torture of animals is simply wrong within itself. It is cruel and patently inhumane and should not be condoned by society.

3. Dogfighting is just bad for society. It attracts a criminal element and desensitizes people to torture and cruelty.

 

I apologize for throwing insults around before but it's frustrating that Turbodog keeps ignoring these points. He just keeps insisting that dogs are property and you can treat them however you want. That's simply his opinion - it's not backed up by the law or any logical argument.

 

I addressed all these points in my last post. You can disagree, your right, but you are lying by saying i didn't address them. One more time I guess.

 

1.I disagree, I believe I have the right to treat my property very well and others have the right to do what they will with their own property. And you contradict yourself in your 3rd statement where you say dogfighting should be illegal based on societal effects.

 

2.That is your opinion and your morals. And it doesnt have to be illegal for the masses to shun it. Maybe you could just choose not to associate or speak with those who treat animals badly. Your choice.

 

3.I actually gave this point some credence in my last post, if you even read it. My point is if you are going to use this argument, you better be ready to give up things you enjoy if people start to believe they are detrimental to a healthy and productive society. Things that come to mind are: contact sports, booz, guns, video games, pron etc. I think these things are much more prevelant in our society than dogfighting ever would be even if legal. Especially considering how few people could stand to watch a hurt dog (Myself included). I would also guess there are a lot more bad things happening because people are exposed to alcohol than ever would if people were exposed to dogfighting.

 

The fact is you, like most people including myself, love dogs, and you don't want to see them hurt. That's where all this comes from. I just can't find any reasonable reason why dogfighting of all things needs to be illegal over other things like those i listed above.

[MDC 7,470]

You are just arguing to argue now.

 

1.I disagree, I believe I have the right to treat my property very well and others have the right to do what they will with their own property.

 

Disagree all you want, but you are wrong. There are limits to your right to treat your property however you want when it infringes on the rights of others. In this case, your right to dogfighting would infringe on your neighbors rights by creating an unsafe atmosphere. Your right to abusing and mistreating your dog would infringe on the rights of the dog. You can claim you have the "right" to treat a dog any way you want but in the eyes of the law you don't.

 

2.That is your opinion and your morals. And it doesnt have to be illegal for the masses to shun it. Maybe you could just choose not to associate or speak with those who treat animals badly. Your choice.

 

Again, see #1. When it comes to dogfighting you are infringing on the rights of the community by creating a dangerous atmosphere. Animal abuse is illegal even when it does not endanger your neighbors because some animals have the bare minimal right to not be abused and it is just patently wrong. There are laws against animal cruelty and abuse in every state - it's a felony offense in most of them.

 

3.I actually gave this point some credence in my last post, if you even read it. My point is if you are going to use this argument, you better be ready to give up things you enjoy if people start to believe they are detrimental to a healthy and productive society.

 

And like I said, it's not a fine science but you have to draw the line somewhere. Gambling tends to attract violence and crime; therefore it's severely restricted. Violent music and video games have some loose correlation to violent actions, but not enough to ban them altogether; instead they are rated and prohibited from minors. In the case of dogfighting the courts have decided that it's cruel and dangerous enough that it's worth banning outright.

 

The fact is you, like most people including myself, love dogs, and you don't want to see them hurt. That's where all this comes from. I just can't find any reasonable reason why dogfighting of all things needs to be illegal over other things like those i listed above.

 

I'm not even particularly a dog love. I just think your arguments are really weak. You are basically telling me the way you want the world to be. I'm just telling you how it is. You are arguing for a "right" that you flat out don't have. That's tough, but you're not going to find a more permissive society than the United States. Ironically, the nations where you probably would have the "right" to torture and abuse an animal are often the ones where the rest of your rights are severely restricted. Probably because no enlightened society would condone animal torture.

[jbb1366 0]

OK everyone, let me sum up:

 

Turbodog likes dogs. He would never mistreat a dog. He would never enter a dog into a dogfight.

 

Turbodog is trying to take emotion out of the equation and discuss whether the law against dog fighting is constitutional. He says it isn't because people should be allowed to attempt to earn a living using their own property in whatever way they chose as long as it doesn't infringe on other PEOPLE's rights.

 

The argument about neighbors, etc is covered by laws against disturbing the peace if things were loud, if the dogs barked all the time, if the dregs of society that loved to watch dogfights brough drugs, the drugs are covered by laws already on the books, etc.

 

Everyone has a picture in their head about what a dogfight looks like. I bet it looks like this. A bunch of black guys are laughing their asses off watching a couple Pits kill each other. They're all holding money up in the air rooting for their bet to come through. The only argument that holds any water is that these men might end up being more violent than they would have been had they not watched a couple mean dogs kill each other. All other arguments are driven by the emotion of it being really sad to see two dogs killing each other, which TURBODOG AGREES WITH. It's sad. That doesn't mean it has to be illegal. A lot of people might think it's sad if I stomp on a rat's head as he runs by. That's not illegal. because rats don't pull at people's little heart strings.

 

All that being said, I still don't have the balls to say dog fighting should be legal, I'm going to let my emotions and morals talk and I'm going to use the "dog fighting might lead to more violent behavior" theory for why it should be illegal.

[Turbodog 0]

You are just arguing to argue now.

Disagree all you want, but you are wrong. There are limits to your right to treat your property however you want when it infringes on the rights of others. In this case, your right to dogfighting would infringe on your neighbors rights by creating an unsafe atmosphere. Your right to abusing and mistreating your dog would infringe on the rights of the dog. You can claim you have the "right" to treat a dog any way you want but in the eyes of the law you don't.

Again, see #1. When it comes to dogfighting you are infringing on the rights of the community by creating a dangerous atmosphere. Animal abuse is illegal even when it does not endanger your neighbors because some animals have the bare minimal right to not be abused and it is just patently wrong. There are laws against animal cruelty and abuse in every state - it's a felony offense in most of them.

And like I said, it's not a fine science but you have to draw the line somewhere. Gambling tends to attract violence and crime; therefore it's severely restricted. Violent music and video games have some loose correlation to violent actions, but not enough to ban them altogether; instead they are rated and prohibited from minors. In the case of dogfighting the courts have decided that it's cruel and dangerous enough that it's worth banning outright.

I'm not even particularly a dog love. I just think your arguments are really weak. You are basically telling me the way you want the world to be. I'm just telling you how it is. You are arguing for a "right" that you flat out don't have. That's tough, but you're not going to find a more permissive society than the United States. Ironically, the nations where you probably would have the "right" to torture and abuse an animal are often the ones where the rest of your rights are severely restricted. Probably because no enlightened society would condone animal torture.

 

Wow a whole lot of nothing that contradicts anything I stated. We should pretty much drop the animals should have rights portion of the argument. That is imbedded in your morality, and I will no longer attempt to sway you off it.

 

I conceded many posts ago their could be some societal effects to legalization of dog fighting. I also conceded that significant effects can justify governmental control. I do however believe that in thise case the effects would be minimal and be far outweighed by other things that are not illegal. I believe dogfighting has been scapegoated because of how we feel about our animals.

 

I again ask you if you would give up the things you enjoy just as you ask others to. I like my beer, although many people think it is immoral to drink. Many people argue there are many societal detriments to drinking, and you know what? They are correct. Alcohol was once prohibited in this country, should we revert to those days? I hope not.

 

You think it is dirty, backwoods and cruel. As do I, But we all have our vices. I know I do. For one I'm compelled to argue reason to the unreasonable.

[MDC 7,470]

Wow a whole lot of nothing that contradicts anything I stated.

 

How can I contradict what you're saying? The entire premise of your argument is flawed. 1) People do not have limitless rights to their own property, 2) dogs have some bare minimal rights to not be abused, and 3) dogfighting infringes on the rights of your neighbors by attracting gambling and other activities that negatively affect the community.

 

This may be my opinion, but it's also backed up by the law. Your opinion isn't backed up by anything. Maybe you should take your own advice and move to Libertarian Fantasyland, where everyone can do whatever they want to their property all the time? You'd like it there.

[wiffleball 4,790]

How can I contradict what you're saying? The entire premise of your argument is flawed. 1) People do not have limitless rights to their own property, 2) dogs have some bare minimal rights to not be abused, and 3) dogfighting infringes on the rights of your neighbors by attracting gambling and other activities that negatively affect the community. (Not to meantion attracting Negroes to the neighborhood! GoodBYE Property Values!)

 

This may be my opinion, but it's also backed up by the law. Your opinion isn't backed up by anything. Maybe you should take your own advice and move to Libertarian Fantasyland, where everyone can do whatever they want to their property all the time? You'd like it there.

 

 

ETA: Can I just say for the record who FotherMocking happy I am that the Broncos traded Portis for Champ? Best deal in a long long time. SO glad to have that jagoff off the team.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

How can I contradict what you're saying? The entire premise of your argument is flawed. 1) People do not have limitless rights to their own property, 2) dogs have some bare minimal rights to not be abused, and 3) dogfighting infringes on the rights of your neighbors by attracting gambling and other activities that negatively affect the community.

 

This may be my opinion, but it's also backed up by the law. Your opinion isn't backed up by anything. Maybe you should take your own advice and move to Libertarian Fantasyland, where everyone can do whatever they want to their property all the time? You'd like it there.

 

This is the point he can't seem to get. He argues that everyone has the "right to pursue hapiness" and we should not infringe on the rights/happiness of others ad nauseum, but Vick's [or insert any other dog fighting operator's name here] neighbors can just move if they don't like it per Turbodog. The victim's rights to their happiness or to protect their investment isn't important I guess.

[Jeremy 0]

This should drop Vick's value by draft day.

 

Yeah, NFL suspensions (and being in jail?) tend to have a negative impact on the player's fantasy value.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Yeah, NFL suspensions (and being in jail?) tend to have a negative impact on the player's fantasy value.

 

It'll be the best thing evah for him.

 

 

#1) Jail time can only increase his 'street cred' with his 'peeps'. "Yo KEEPING IT RAIL HOMEY!"

 

#2) All the guys who argue that Mike Vick is the best ever will now be able to fall back on "If Mike Vick hadn't been framed by the White Man and put in jail, he woulda won like ya know - 18 SuperBowls and shiit - ya know what I'm saying? Dayum."

[Yippie Skippy 0]

Wow a whole lot of nothing that contradicts anything I stated. We should pretty much drop the animals should have rights portion of the argument. That is imbedded in your morality, and I will no longer attempt to sway you off it.

 

Drop it because animals DO have rights?? Ever hear of the endangered species act??

 

Laws are imbedded in morality. It is impossible to sway most of us from that fact.

 

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Act was signed into law by Bush earlier this month.

We the people have spoken. Mob rules.

[The Next Generation 10]

Anyone see Portis on NFL Network last night? He was on to "clarify" his statements suppoorting Vick and condoning dogfighting.

 

Essentially, he said he doesn't condone dogfighting but stands by his support of Vick saying it's his property and he can do what he wants, why hassle a brother that is a good role model and positive influence in the community. WOW, is he dim. Not only does he say it once, but given the chance to recant he repeats himself. Good one!

[Toltec 0]

 

The fact is you, like most people including myself, love dogs, and you don't want to see them hurt. That's where all this comes from. I just can't find any reasonable reason why dogfighting of all things needs to be illegal over other things like those i listed above.

 

Just as a quick reference to refute your point that dog fighting is illegal because we all love dogs.

C-ock fighting (that's roosters for the lowbrow among us) is illegal in 48 states. Not because we all love chickens and find them to be great family friendly pets with emotions that are lovable. Chickens are probably the least intelligent domesticated creatures on earth, and I am fairly certain that fish have the same cognative reasoning skills as chickens... which is to say none. Chickens are purely instinct driven creatures with absolutely no observable emotions, and yet, it is illegal to strap blades to their feet and watch them slice each other to death. Why? Because it is cruel and barbaric and flies in the face of what civilized and industrialized peoples are supposed to do.

 

This is why dog fighting is illegal. Because it is at its roots are uncivilized, barbaric actions.

 

It is illegal because it is cruel and uncivilized. And no, it is not a person's right to do as they wish with their property when it is deemed illegal. Hell, as a left field example, most people in most states can't even build a deck without the county's permission (permits, fees, etc.), and that, by God is on your property and hurts no one.

[Savage Beast 1]

I think fighting any kind of animal is ok, because every male mammal animal species in the wild fights all of the time, it's natural behavior for them to fight. Some countries don't consider dogs to be pets, but food sources, but since little fluffy is a pet in the U.S., then it somehow is wrong for him to behave like a male dog behaves, which is to fight another male dog if provoked.

 

What a bunch of baby liberal pansies we have become in the U.S.

[The Next Generation 10]

What a bunch of baby liberal pansies we have become in the U.S.

 

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Act was signed into law by Bush earlier this month.

 

Yeah, he's REAL liberal.

[Savage Beast 1]

Yeah, he's REAL liberal.

 

He is however a dog loving pansie.

[The Next Generation 10]

He is however a dog loving pansie.

 

lol

[b.j. booker 0]

I think fighting any kind of animal is ok, because every male mammal animal species in the wild fights all of the time

 

This just in...domesticated pets aren't wild animals. They have been inbred for (sometimes) hundreds of years.

 

HTH

[Pocket Pair Professor 0]

I will be keeping McGahee instead of Portis this year, to many question marks and then this idiotic move!

[Bishop82 61]

 

1.I disagree, I believe I have the right to treat my property very well and others have the right to do what they will with their own property.

 

I believe the point everyone is making here, but Turbodog hasn't caught on yet is that. You can believe until your blue in the face that you can treat your "property" as you see fit, however you can't. If your lawn is filthy, you get a ticket for it being an "eye-soar." This country isn't as free as you would like it to be.

[swamp dog 0]

good to see goodell come out and slam portis publicly.

 

what a douche.

 

 

This just in...domesticated pets aren't wild animals. They have been inbred for (sometimes) hundreds of years.

 

HTH

 

*tries really, really hard to ignore the obvious joke....*