Horribleness

[TomJoe]

I hate Michael Vick (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/05/29/vick0604/index.html).

Here's to hoping one of your dogs turns on you, you fuck stick.

[Sock Puppet]

In addition the commissioner was compelled to address comments made by Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis, who excused dogfighting in an interview with Norfolk TV station WAVY. "It's [Vick's] property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it," Portis said. He added that if Vick were convicted of dogfighting, he would be "behind bars for no reason."Him too. Asshole.

[BDS]

I don’t think it’s surprising that football players are into dog fighting. The violence, the risk of injury, and the macho competitiveness inherent in football are not so very different from that in dog fighting. In addition, dog fighting and cock fighting are popular in southern, rural areas – which produce a lot of football players, including Vick.

From what I’ve read, fighting dogs are not particularly dangerous to humans. They tend to be aggressive and dangerous around other dogs, though. (Of course, if they do attack humans they are dangerous, because they are powerful and “game”.)

Dog fighting has a long history. Here’s the Wikipedia article:

Dog fighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fighting)

Note: The Taliban banned dog fighting in Afghanistan, but it is now making a comeback -- acc. the wiki article.

[Shelli]

I think they may have something with this..

"There exists a dogfighting subculture in the NFL and NBA," says Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS. "And to have an athlete of [Vick's] stature charged would be an enormous wake-up call to everyone in professional sports who has dabbled in or dived into the underworld of dogfighting."

[BDS]

Pit bulls vs. humans:

Human-baiting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-baiting)

[Shelli]

Jesus..

"You know that sound of a dog ripping into meat? That is what you hear, and it is horrible," Ward says. "And a true fighting dog doesn't just bite. It holds on and shakes."

[livius drusus]

Disgusting beyond description. I'm on page 3 of the article and I don't think I can keep reading.

[BDS]

Disgusting beyond description. I'm on page 3 of the article and I don't think I can keep reading.

It's disgusting to me, too. But isn't that due to cultural differences? Mightn't it be a reasonable opinion to think prize fighting (boxing, Ultimate Fighting, etc.) is disgusting, but dog fights are not? Are the Chinese disgusting because they eat dogs? Are we disgusting for eating cows and pigs?

From what I've read, prize fighting in the early U.S. often involved slaves, battling it out while their masters bet on them (just like dog fighting). Dog fighting was practiced by Southern African Americans, even during the days of slavery, as a sort of role reversal, where they were the masters and the dogs the slaves.

Also, haven't animal fights of various kinds been common throughout human history, from the Coliseum of Rome, to the cock fights of Southern America and the Carribean?

It's perfectly fair to think dog fighting is evil. But to think anyone who participates in dog fighting, or cock fighting, or attends the Games in Ancient Rome is disgusting for doing so would smack of ethnocentrism.

To the extent that modern gridiron football resembles the Games of Ancient Rome, we can expect dog fighting to attract people attracted to football (just as animal fights attracted crowds in the Coliseum).

[Shelli]

Disgusting beyond description. I'm on page 3 of the article and I don't think I can keep reading.
It doesn't so much get worse as stay just as disgusting. :puke:

[BDS]

One more thing: I've read a bit about dog fighting. From what I've read, although it seems cruel (and, in fact, is cruel) the people who are involved in it appear to be dog lovers -- at least, they love and care for their own dogs. In addition, the dogs involved appear to love it, in a bizarre way. They've been bred for it, and they long for it. At least that's the impression I got from reading -- and the authors of the books were no dog fighting proponents.

[Shelli]

That doesn't make it any less disgusting to me.

[BDS]

That doesn't make it any less disgusting to me.

There's no reason it should. But perhaps it will induce you to think that the people involved have complicated motives, influenced by their culture, and are not monsters (as you or I would be if we suddenly decided to go into dog fighting for a living).

[curses]

After having seen firsthand how a group of people raised dogs for dogfighting(and having helped rescue two pitbull puppies who had only started the training), I'm inclined to agree with Shelli. While some people may take good care of their dogs, many do not. It's along the same line as raising greyhounds, IMO. These particular dogs had been starved to make them mean, antagonized to make them aggressive, and generally mistreated and unloved. Many of the behaviors could not be corrected, but they ended up being very loving dogs to the immediate family. Just don't get them around other dogs.

[livius drusus]

It's disgusting to me, too. But isn't that due to cultural differences?
Perhaps. I'm not so sure my culture is all that different from the culture of the people who live a few miles away from me who fight animals, though. What is a culture exactly, according to you?

Mightn't it be a reasonable opinion to think prize fighting (boxing, Ultimate Fighting, etc.) is disgusting, but dog fights are not?
Yes.

Are the Chinese disgusting because they eat dogs? Are we disgusting for eating cows and pigs?
Just to take out the words you've put in my mouth, I never called people disgusting. I called the article disgusting.

My response to both these questions is perhaps. The subject has been on my mind a lot lately, and I have no answers.

From what I've read, prize fighting in the early U.S. often involved slaves, battling it out while their masters bet on them (just like dog fighting). Dog fighting was practiced by Southern African Americans, even during the days of slavery, as a sort of role reversal, where they were the masters and the dogs the slaves.
Okay.

Also, haven't animal fights of various kinds been common throughout human history, from the Coliseum of Rome, to the cock fights of Southern America and the Carribean?
Yup.

It's perfectly fair to think dog fighting is evil. But to think anyone who participates in dog fighting, or cock fighting, or attends the Games in Ancient Rome is disgusting for doing so would smack of ethnocentrism.
Again, I didn't say anyone who participates in animal fighting is disgusting. As for the ethocentrism claim, I think you'd have a difficult time establishing that, given that the boundaries between my ethnicity/culture and that of people fighting animals right now are not so clearly drawn.

To the extent that modern gridiron football resembles the Games of Ancient Rome, we can expect dog fighting to attract people attracted to football (just as animal fights attracted crowds in the Coliseum).
To what extent is that exactly in your opinion? People like to throw around that sort of comparison a lot, but from my perspective, Roman games and their audiences are not so easily analogized to anything we've got going on right now, especially not big money American sports.

[livius drusus]

After having seen firsthand how a group of people raised dogs for dogfighting(and having helped rescue two pitbull puppies who had only started the training), I'm inclined to agree with Shelli. While some people may take good care of their dogs, many do not. It's along the same line as raising greyhounds, IMO. These particular dogs had been starved to make them mean, antagonized to make them aggressive, and generally mistreated and unloved.
Indeed. And that's just the fighters. What about the bait dogs? Dog fighting as a practice requires that dogs be treated viciously, either by their handlers or by other dogs or both. There's no dodging that basic fact.

[BDS]

To what extent is that exactly in your opinion? People like to throw around that sort of comparison a lot, but from my perspective, Roman games and their audiences are not so easily analogized to anything we've got going on right now, especially not big money American sports.

Roman Games, dog fights, and American football all involve audiences that enjoy watching (and betting on) violence. They have that in common, at least.

Also, I wasn't putting "words in YOUR mouth". It was TomJoe (in his initial post) who said that Michael Vick was a "fuck stick", and that he "hated" him. I was just pointing out that there are probably dog fighters and cock fighters (and football fans and ancient Romans) who are decent, kind people, despite their deplorable practices.

[Shelli]

I realize that many people do deplorable things due to the influence of culture, society, upbringing, etc., and that they are only doing what they think is "normal" which certainly doesn't make them bad people.

The fact that so many people are on auto-pilot is in itself disturbing enough to give me nightmares let alone the deplorableness of some people's actions.

[livius drusus]

Roman Games, dog fights, and American football all involve audiences that enjoy watching (and betting on) violence. They have that in common, at least.
Not necessarily. My father enjoys watching football, for example, but he does not enjoy watching violence. He gets quite pissed off at the idea of the damage the sport does being a source of enjoyment for some people.

Also, I wasn't putting "words in YOUR mouth".
You quoted me and responded to my post.

It was TomJoe (in his initial post) who said that Michael Vick was a "fuck stick", and that he "hated" him.
I'm the one who called the article disgusting, however, and your response was all about finding dogfighters disgusting, not fuck sticks or hateful.

I was just pointing out that there are probably dog fighters and cock fighters (and football fans and ancient Romans) who are decent, kind people, despite their deplorable practices.
I don't see where TomJoe suggested otherwise.

[BDS]

Now you're nit picking, livius. My post responded to several people (sorry if it wasn't crystal clear). And writing that you "hate" someone and that he is a "fuck stick" certainly suggests to me that the writer thinks that person may not be a kind, decent person (in fact, I'd be willing to bet that is exactly what TomJoe was suggesting, and will be glad to admit it).

I like watching football occasionally, too. I even watch boxing. That doesn't mean I can't be mildly critical of myself for enjoying it. The violence is certainly a major part of the game. If your father or I were really disgusted by it, we would stop watching.

Also, "disgust" at the entertainments of different classes and cultures does smack of enthrocentrism. Our refined tastes find the vulgar entertainments of inferior subcultures "disgusting". But, somehow, we aren't so disgusted by our own practices, even when they are equally violent. Barbaric practices like dog fighting celebrate violence and death, but they also celebrate courage and strength and gameness -- attributes that we effete Americans may no longer find worthy of celebration. Barbarism involves life that is "nasty, brutish and short", and its entertainments have a certain primal attraction, as well as inducing cultured "disgust".

[livius drusus]

Now you're nit picking, livius. My post responded to several people (sorry if it wasn't crystal clear).
It wasn't clear at all. You replied to me and took issue with my word choice. It's not nitpicking to point that out.

And writing that you "hate" someone and that he is a "fuck stick" certainly suggests to me that the writer thinks that person may not be a kind, decent person (in fact, I'd be willing to bet that is exactly what TomJoe was suggesting, and will be glad to admit it).
Perhaps, but thinking someone is an asshole does not require that you think they don't have any positive qualities including being decent and kind to loved ones. It may indeed be that TomJoe think Vick is indecent and unkind to everyone at all times, but you can't conclude that from what he posted.

I like watching football occasionally, too. I even watch boxing. That doesn't mean I can't be mildly critical of myself for enjoying it. The violence is certainly a major part of the game. If your father or I were really disgusted by it, we would stop watching.
Sure, but that doesn't mean you watch football because of the violence, which would have to be the case in order for the Roman games analogy to be appropriate.

Also, "disgust" at the entertainments of different classes and cultures does smack of enthrocentrism. Our refined tastes find the vulgar entertainments of inferior subcultures "disgusting". But, somehow, we aren't so disgusted by our own practices, even when they are equally violent.
Well, you have yet to make an argument in defense of your claim that my "culture" is different from the culture of people who fight animals. I consider animal fighting entirely part of my "culture". As you noted, it's been an element in a wide variety of human societies for thousands of years, so I don't know how you determine who is us and who is them. It is you who are calling animal fighters members of an "inferior subculture", different in class and culture from yourself. Again I ask, by what standard do you draw these boundaries?

Barbaric practices like dog fighting celebrate violence and death, but they also celebrate courage and strength and gameness -- attributes that we effete Americans may no longer find worthy of celebration.
So the culture you consider me to be a part of is "American", defined as finding strength and gameness negative attributes? I don't see that as remotely applicable to me, and certainly not to the country at large. We live in a post-Geneva era. Violence, death, even straight-up cruelty is celebrated far and wide in this country.

Barbarism involves life that is "nasty, brutish and short", and its entertainments have a certain primal attraction, as well as inducing cultured "disgust".
You consider animal fighting to be a primal, barbaric drive, then? I thought it was a cultural celebration of strength and gameness.

[TomJoe]

Also, I wasn't putting "words in YOUR mouth". It was TomJoe (in his initial post) who said that Michael Vick was a "fuck stick", and that he "hated" him. I was just pointing out that there are probably dog fighters and cock fighters (and football fans and ancient Romans) who are decent, kind people, despite their deplorable practices.
Wow, you're really floundering here, ain'tcha?

[BDS]

In “A Snapshot of Rex”, James Thurber describes his beloved Bull Terrier’s joy in combat.

Rex never started fights. I don’t believe he liked to get into them, despite the fact that he came from a long line of fighters. He never went for another dog’s throat but for one of its ears (that teaches a dog a lesson), and he would get his grip, close his eyes and hold on. He could hold on for hours. His longest fight lasted from dusk until almost pitch-dark, one Sunday. It was fought in East Main Street in Columbus with a large, snarly nondescript that belonged to a big colored man. When Rex finally got his ear grip, the brief whirlwind of snarling turned into screeching. It was frightening to listen and watch. The Negro boldly picked the dogs up somehow and began swinging them about his head, and finally let them fly like a hammer in the hammer throw, but although they landed ten feet away with a great plump, Rex still held on…….

Rex’s joy of battle, when battle was joined, was almost tranquil. He had a pleasant expression on his face, not a vicious one, his eyes closed in what would have seemed to be sleep had it not been for the turmoil of the struggle….”

Simply slamming dog fighters for their “disgusting” practices does not help us understand them or their dogs. I’ve never been to a dog fight, but I bet it’s thrilling. Yes… because we Americans DO find gameness and courage and strength admirable. And the “culture” of dog fighting (like the culture of pro-football and dozens of other sub-cultures in America) is a sub-culture within America. That’s obvious (to me, anyway). It’s so obvious I don’t need to make an “argument” for it, let alone a point by point cut and paste argument, nor do I intend to.

Yes, I consider dog fighting to be a demonstration of primal urges for survival and domination. Again, that seems so obvious that it barely needs repeating.

I remember when I was a kid, we caught a craw-dad, and kept it in an aquarium. Twice, we put a couple of guppies in the aquarium and watched the craw-dad stalk them, and rip them to shreds with its pinchers. It was “disgusting”, but terrifying and fascinating. It was so disgusting, we only did it twice, despite our fascination. When I watch nature shows on TV, when the hyenas catch and disembowel the wildebeests, I put down my newspaper and pay attention. Again, it’s disgusting, but fascinating. I’ll bet dog fights (cruel as they are) attract the attention in the same way. They appeal to some of the same sensibilities that football appeals to; they appeal to some of the same sensibilities that watching lions hunt and kill zebras appeal to; they appeal to some of the same sensibilities gladiators appealed to; they appeal to our love of violence, and our attraction to issues of life and death. Let’s face it: life and death are dramatic, and we like drama.

Rex, James Thurber’s Bull Terrier, showed the same “gameness” he showed in battle in other ways. Once, the Thurber family awoke to a racket on their front porch. It was Rex, dragging a dresser up on the porch. The Thurbers never discovered where he got it. He had, presumably, set himself the task of dragging it home from blocks away.

Rex had heart and gameness. His last battle, when, injured in a fight he was dying, is recounted like this:

One of his three masters was not home. He did not get home for an hour. During that hour the bull terrier fought against death as he had fought against the cold, strong current of Alum Creek, as he had fought to climb twelve-foot walls. When the person he was waiting for did come throught the gate whistling, ceasing to whistle, Rx walked a few wobbly paces toward him, touched his hand with his muzzle, and fell down again. This time he did not get up.

Rex was not involved in dog fighting – other than as a committed amateur. But some of his qualities – courage, strength, stick-to-it-iveness – are inextricably tied to his breeding as a fighter. The war and death of the Dark Ages gave birth to Lancelot and Roland. The dog fight pits gave birth to Rex (and other great dogs). We would eliminate war and death, if we could, but we still recognize that Lancelot and Roland are impossible without them. We would eliminate dog fights, if we could, but can still admire the qualities they breed, and can try to understand (without accepting) why they might appeal to Michael Vick and others.

[Sock Puppet]

It seems to me that watching violent sports played by consenting adults, or even watching violent acts of predation in nature, is fundamentally distinct from breeding animals for the express purpose of watching them kill each other. This distinction seems qualitative, not just quantitative. I don't see what's so contradictory about being disgusted by the practice while condoning football and nature shows.

[BDS]

I don’t deny the moral distinction. Nevertheless, the APPEAL is similar. In fact, I think we often ARE disgusted by nature shows, and attracted to them at the same time. How about breeding animals so we can kill them (instead of letting them kill each other)? Is that OK?

p.s. I'm not trying to defend dog fighting, but to understand its appeal.

[TomJoe]

I'm not trying to defend dog fighting, but to understand its appeal.*cough* Bullshit *cough*

Oh, and for Christ's sake quit anthropomorphising. They're dogs. They're not displaying courage, or gameness, or joy ... they're displaying instinct and the characteristics that were bred into them. Bred into them by sick fucks who get off on an animals pain.

[wei yau]

p.s. I'm not trying to defend dog fighting, but to understand its appeal.

I wonder how much of its appeal would be lost if there was no gambling involved. Specifically, with regards to the "culture" of dog-fighting here in the US.

My gut tells me that if there were no money to be made, then there would be far fewer dog-fighting pits.

[quiet bear]

My gut tells me that if there were no money to be made, then there would be far fewer dog-fighting pits.

you could say the same for horse racing.

[BDS]

I wonder how much of its appeal would be lost if there was no gambling involved. Specifically, with regards to the "culture" of dog-fighting here in the US.

My gut tells me that if there were no money to be made, then there would be far fewer dog-fighting pits.

You could say the same for football and boxing, too (to a lesser extent).

Oh, and for Christ's sake quit anthropomorphising. They're dogs. They're not displaying courage, or gameness, or joy ... they're displaying instinct and the characteristics that were bred into them. Bred into them by sick fucks who get off on an animals pain.

The extent to which courage or gameness is "bred into" anyone (man or beast) is irrelvant to the extent to which the qualities are demonstrated. We can admire courage regardless of whether it is innate or acquired. In fact, dog fighters DO admire it, and talk about it often. Also, why do you think dogs can't show courage?

I'm sure many people who like dog fighting ARE sick fucks who get off on "animals (sic) pain." Others aren't. Oh, for Christ sake quit universalizing and projecting.

[BDS]

Whatever the evils of dogfighting, it is illegal. Experts say Vick may be indicted.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2888085

[Shelli]

I'm sure many people who like dog fighting ARE sick fucks who get off on "animals (sic) pain." Others aren't. Oh, for Christ sake quit universalizing and projecting.Those that don't get off on the forced violence and pain inflicted on the animals are apathetic regarding it or they wouldn't be able to bet on and/or watch it. IMO, that's no better than the twisted individuals that get off on it.

[BDS]

Those that don't get off on the forced violence and pain inflicted on the animals are apathetic regarding it or they wouldn't be able to bet on and/or watch it. IMO, that's no better than the twisted individuals that get off on it.

True. However, the same could be said of bullfighting fans or boxing fans.

[TomJoe]

I'd say my comments about dog fighting could easily be applied to bullfighting.

As for boxing, if two consenting adults (animals cannot consent) want to beat themselves into pulps, I say let them.

ETA: Mexico allows children to be matadors, and Spain allows 16 years old to face bulls. This kid didn't fare so well (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1668286.ece).

[BDS]

I'd say my comments about dog fighting could easily be applied to bullfighting.

Fair enough. As could mine about how cultural differences influence how these activities are viewed. I’m relatively ignorant about the culture of both (although I’ve read “Death in the Afternoon”, Hemmingway’s non-fiction book about bullfighting, which is very good).


As for boxing, if two consenting adults (animals cannot consent) want to beat themselves into pulps, I say let them. .


Again, I recognize the moral difference. But the extent to which FANS are bloodthirsty, violence-loving sadists isn’t so different. Also, poverty influences the extent to which paying people to perform dangerous activities can be construed as coercive.

[livius drusus]

In related news, New Mexico outlawed cockfighting in March and there are two bills currently in the Louisiana leg that would outlaw it in the last remaining state where it's legal. Word is one of them is sure to pass.

[LadyShea]

I saw a cockfighting demonstration in Mexico. The birds were not spurred, nor allowed to fight to a blood draw. The handlers were proactively defensive of their culture and the practice and we got a big lecture about it before the demonstration. Even that was unpleasant to watch. I have had many dogs and broken up many fights...they are horrible things to witness.

No, I just don't see a good justification for humans to purposely fight animals for entertainment purposes.

[BDS]

Here's a Newsweek article:

Inside the Grisly World of Dog Fighting - Newsweek Pets - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19028969/site/newsweek/)