Commanders apologize for Portis' remarks on dog fighting; Samuels says he was wrong

[Bob Sacamano]

The end does not justify the means. Stating Kant was not a good way to put it, since it wasn't really applicable (he stated that people were an end and should never be used as a means to reach an end), but I still don't find that a good moral code in any situation.

you can apply that quote to any situation really in which there is an end, or result

I find this quote applicable here since Fuzzy brought up slaughtering cows as being equatable w/ dog-fighting, but the end there is to sustain humans w/ their meat, while dog-fighting's only end is to fatten the pocket of greedy individuals

I was commenting on the reparations portion of that. Your asking for this thread to turn political, because there are a lot of people who don't agree with reparations, not just Fuzzy.

fair enough, but I also said "apology" which alot of states are starting to issue to African Americans, well at least Maryland made a formal apology just recently

but hey, for all I know that point is just as ridiculous as championing dog-fighting

 

[Crown Royal]

The "logic" of that argument escapes me... apparently you're incapable of grasping the subtlety of DEGREES of wrong...

Yes, what they do to put that veal on your table is wrong, but it's not being done for RECREATION, for AMUSEMENT... we have to eat, and man has long been a carnivore... we do NOT have to stand around betting money and cheering while two dogs rip each other to shreds... we do NOT then eat those dogs...

Perhaps if people were paying to watch while cattle are butchered, the two situations might be analagous, but until then, your argument is illogical...

Just for accuracy purposes, I feel I should point out that man has never been (physically) a carnivore. We are designed to be omnivorous.

 

[Crown Royal]

you can apply that quote to any situation really in which there is an end, or result

I find this quote applicable here since Fuzzy brought up slaughtering cows as being equatable w/ dog-fighting, but the end there is to sustain humans w/ their meat, while dog-fighting's only end is to fatten the pocket of greedy individuals

The cow thing is probably a bad example to cite to me, considering I am a vegetarian and completely healthy, which pretty much means I reached the same 'end' without using an animal as a 'means.'

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The cow thing is probably a bad example to cite to me, considering I am a vegetarian and completely healthy, which pretty much means I reached the same 'end' without using an animal as a 'means.'

fair enough, but no matter how inhumane slaughtering cows may seem, it's for a useful purpose

 

[Crown Royal]

fair enough, but no matter how inhumane slaughtering cows may seem, it's for a useful purpose

Utility does not justify immorality if reasonable alternative is available.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Utility does not justify immorality if reasonable alternative is available.

you ever read the Bible? slaughtering cows is not immoral

 

[Bob Sacamano]

<-------------THIS BUTTON IS STILL HERE WAITING TO BE PUSHED!!!!

I got love for you man, but you seem to be whining about everything nowadays, what's up?

 

[Zaxor]

The "logic" of that argument escapes me... apparently you're incapable of grasping the subtlety of DEGREES of wrong...

Yes, what they do to put that veal on your table is wrong, but it's not being done for RECREATION, for AMUSEMENT... we have to eat, and man has long been a carnivore... we do NOT have to stand around betting money and cheering while two dogs rip each other to shreds... we do NOT then eat those dogs...

Perhaps if people were paying to watch while cattle are butchered, the two situations might be analagous, but until then, your argument is illogical...

now by no means am I speaking for Fuzzy...with that understood...

What I gathered from my brief time in this thread is that Fuzzy see's this (dog fighting) as animal abuse but he also sees other legal forms (hunting, fishing, caging of animals etc...)as animal abuse and in his mind it would be hypocritical to call out one without also condemening the others...

It is understandable and perhaps even laudable but I don't think it is practical or plausable...

We can't fight every battle we have to pick and choose our targets.

Now should it enter into anyones mind... Let me make it perfectly clear...I am against cruelty to everything.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

just got home and am not sure where to start.

First of to Summer: it must be really old riding on otheres coattails all the time. i still have yet to see you propose a single idea in this whole discussion that you could call your own. Ive pointed this out to you before on other topics and perhaps it might be something for you to think on. There is a reason the word tool became known as an insult. Try taking notes from some of the others. They disagree with me and then give there own reasons as to why then we have a discussion. Your input is always 'youre wrong because they said so.'

Silverbear: i like how you embraced the DVS thing. I dig the sense of humor. However, I have pointed out in another post that if i were given the choice of being trained to fight to the death and then fighting to the death or being put into a box that rendered me unable to move for 6 months before being killed by electrocution to postierer i think i would go with the fighting chance. Heck if i had to fight or get just the electroshock i think i would still just go woth fighting. Both are totally and utterly inhumane.

But that is kind of my point. i dont apply human right and principles to animals. We kill pigs cows sheep goats all varieties of birds fish crustaceans and arthropods to eat. We kill anything with a fur skin or scale to wear it while we attend our rodeos, dog races, circuses and zoos. If we want to put our dog in the kennel because it jumped on the table and ate our dinner then we do it. if we want to ethanise our cats we do it. If any one of these things were to be done to a human everyone would be put in an uproar. Using the term humane in reference to animals is quite ironic.

But oh dog fighting is unecessary you say? Well so is all of the above. We dont need to eat meat. We eat meat because we like bacon better than tofu. We dont need to wear animal skins. We wear leather because it looks nicer than cotton. We dont need to incarcerate animals. We go to the zzoo because it is more entertaining than a picture book. Bottomline in all of this is animals bow to the juggernaught that is humanities appetites.

But for some reason dogs deserve some special treatment? Like I have said in the past it is a disgusting hypocrisy.

JackRussell: When i mentioned the aging draconian vigilante squad you were very not who i had in mind. Seeing how I coined the term i would be the founder of it. It was even Silverbears idea to embrace it and have a leader, but hey if your into taking other peoples ideas and taking credit for them then maybe you and summer should go compare notes. If anyone deserves the lead role its Silverbear. His venom is truly unmatched.

Oh, and if you want to stick your head in the sand because you just love your pack of dogs so be it. Hope you enjoy that next steak you have. I know your dogs would.

Iceberg: animals are not afforded the same rights as man. If you want to talk about absurd arguments then there you go or do you not have bacon in your freezer? At that point I really shouldnt have to go on as the two are completely different playing fields but i think there is an important point in alol of that.

The justification for slavery was to say that the enslaved people were animals or less than human. It was justification for the american and european slaver to the western africans just as it was for the Romans to the eastern europeans. Well that and the everpresent economic imperative. What you are trying to do is exactly the opposite. you are trying to say that dogs are human and are afforded the same rights because you have one in your 'family.' Sorry, Fido is just a dog.

As for the reparartions thing Im not going to touch it.

DallasEast: To the cannibal no and to the new guy yes. Unfortunately morals are a very subjective thing and not determined even by the law. I think thats an important thing: laws have no bearing on whether a thing is unherently right or wrong.

Crown Royal: A right is anything that an entity is entitled to. Its pretty apparent that you dont buy into a priori knowledge and i have the same problem. I refuse to give into despair with the lingering doubt and put faith in my understanding as it is. If i am right then all the better and if im worong then it doesnt matter what i do anyway.

But the important part is coming up with some sort of baseline to work with some sort of trend or system. I'm an American so obviously Im going to put stock into life liberty, free expression, equal protection and whatnot. i also like Plato through Socrates idea of morality based on virtue but then of course i have to define virtue. Then of course i think utilitarianism is important. Time does go on and I think the future is just as important as today.

Its the utilitarian standpoint that drives my no rights for animals view. Malthus was right and there is only so much resource and privelige to go around and as always something is going to give. For example I know now that if i had to choose between JackRussell and my cat jack would win no questions asked even though i am sure that Jack would choose one of his eighty dogs over me in a heartbeat.

All of this has gotten me thinking. instead of looking wholistically i should just do a bunch of test cases like dog fighting for example and then look for trends.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you ever read the Bible? slaughtering cows is not immoral

Dont even go there. If you want to base morality on deuteronomy or leveticus then lets just say you would be found very very lacking.

But once again I appreciate how you fail to think for yourself.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

now by no means am I speaking for Fuzzy...with that understood...

What I gathered from my brief time in this thread is that Fuzzy see's this (dog fighting) as animal abuse but he also sees other legal forms (hunting, fishing, caging of animals etc...)as animal abuse and in his mind it would be hypocritical to call out one without also condemening the others...

It is understandable and perhaps even laudable but I don't think it is practical or plausable...

We can't fight every battle we have to pick and choose our targets.

Now should it enter into anyones mind... Let me make it perfectly clear...I am against cruelty to everything.

Thats pretty much it Zaxor. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and Fido is in the same boat as Wilbur as far as im concerned.

 

[superpunk]

I got love for you man, but you seem to be whining about everything nowadays, what's up?

It's not whining - the button is there for a reason. If someone is reading through a thread, they shouldn't have to sift through 20 posts of the same person's thoughts over and over again (no matter how entertaining, or not entertaining), when those thoughts could be put succinctly into one summary post (see what peplaw did above), or one multi-quote post that addresses several different people.

It's not being whiny, or trying to be the forum police - it's just speaking out on something that annoys him, and several other people including myself. I can't speak for other people, but I am far more likely to read a post that summarizes someone's thoughts on the matter than 20 posts in a row that state almost the exact same thing in 20 different variations.

 

[Crown Royal]

you ever read the Bible? slaughtering cows is not immoral

Most of it, yes. I'm not a Christian. If we're going to use the Bible as our ethical grounds in this conversation, I would have to move to Fuzzy's conjecture, as, per the Bible, animals have no soul and therefore no rights.

 

[Crown Royal]

Fuzzy Lumpkins says a lot of stuff to everyone

I have a meeting and Denton and can't really respond to the post right now, but I will try to remember to do so this evening. But basically I gathered two arguments you laid forth

1) Utilitarianism, for you, defines the idea that animals have rights. You are therefore saying animals not having any rights serves more good (i assume to humanity, since it seems animals have no ethical consideration) without rights than with them.

2) Even if they were to have rights, the general 'hypocricy' of being disgusted by dog fighting but still eating meat, hunting, fishing, leather, etc., would be too much for you to allow, even if you were to consider any of these inhumane, because for some reason, hypocricy is worse than immorality (though you claim not to be in this dilemma, because for you, animal cruelty is not possible and therefore you don't have that problem).

I would love to respond to these now, alas, I have to go to work. But I think it's funny that you use utilitarianism to support your premise that animals lack rights, considering that the most widely read Utilitarian today, Peter Singer, is not known for his strict utilitarianism, but his activism in animal rights.

As a note - I am neither a utilitarian, nor a fan of Peter Singer or his arguments on animal rights. I just happen to come to some of the same conclusions.

But when I return, I will attempt to refute the above postulations, not using anything but your own Utilitarianism, because I'd rather play this in your playing field.

Good day.

 

[DallasEast]

DallasEast: To the cannibal no and to the new guy yes. Unfortunately morals are a very subjective thing and not determined even by the law. I think thats an important thing: laws have no bearing on whether a thing is unherently right or wrong.

'Morals are subjective and laws do not necessarily determine outcome'. Fair enough. Before I reply, let me re-phrase my scenario to this:

A cannibal was shipwrecked on a desert island. Another guy found himself shipwrecked on the same island shortly afterwards. Did the cannibal have the right to eat him?

I'm not posing this question to FuzzyLumpkins only. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.

 

[iceberg]

Iceberg: animals are not afforded the same rights as man. If you want to talk about absurd arguments then there you go or do you not have bacon in your freezer? At that point I really shouldnt have to go on as the two are completely different playing fields but i think there is an important point in alol of that.

The justification for slavery was to say that the enslaved people were animals or less than human. It was justification for the american and european slaver to the western africans just as it was for the Romans to the eastern europeans. Well that and the everpresent economic imperative. What you are trying to do is exactly the opposite. you are trying to say that dogs are human and are afforded the same rights because you have one in your 'family.' Sorry, Fido is just a dog.

yes. they are. why? because we as a society have given them to the animals we domesticate.

why do *you* have rights? because you're alive? sorry. depending on the government in power you have what you have and that's that. do those in n. korea have "rights" like you and i do? why not?

cause the government / society has deemed it otherwise.

if you think that simply because you're alive and "man" you have "rights" you're wrong.

meet a killer in an ally, even these USA rights are worthless if he chooses to put a bullet in your head, right? who's there to defend those rights? you can't do it on your own in this instance, so you depend on "the system" to be there for you.

now if this "system" can be put into place for man, it can be put into place for pretty much whatever we choose because it *is* a choice.

so you tell me - who "afforded" you these "rights" and just how do you define these "Rights"?

like crown said, no one has defined "rights" yet. if they're given to us by ourselves, we can give them to anyone or anything.

 

[iceberg]

'Morals are subjective and laws do not necessarily determine outcome'. Fair enough. Before I reply, let me re-phrase my scenario to this:

A cannibal was shipwrecked on a desert island. Another guy found himself shipwrecked on the same island shortly afterwards. Did the cannibal have the right to eat him?

I'm not posing this question to FuzzyLumpkins only. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free.

in this instance there are no "rights" but survival. the two could talk and work out a system that would afford them "rights" they agree upon themselves, but if one changes their mind, who's there to defend the agreement?

the rights we all have an enjoy are not native to simply being alive and "human". we have them because we fight for them - no other reason.

 

[iceberg]

I have a meeting and Denton and can't really respond to the post right now, but I will try to remember to do so this evening. But basically I gathered two arguments you laid forth

1) Utilitarianism, for you, defines the idea that animals have rights. You are therefore saying animals not having any rights serves more good (i assume to humanity, since it seems animals have no ethical consideration) without rights than with them.

2) Even if they were to have rights, the general 'hypocricy' of being disgusted by dog fighting but still eating meat, hunting, fishing, leather, etc., would be too much for you to allow, even if you were to consider any of these inhumane, because for some reason, hypocricy is worse than immorality (though you claim not to be in this dilemma, because for you, animal cruelty is not possible and therefore you don't have that problem).

I would love to respond to these now, alas, I have to go to work. But I think it's funny that you use utilitarianism to support your premise that animals lack rights, considering that the most widely read Utilitarian today, Peter Singer, is not known for his strict utilitarianism, but his activism in animal rights.

As a note - I am neither a utilitarian, nor a fan of Peter Singer or his arguments on animal rights. I just happen to come to some of the same conclusions.

But when I return, I will attempt to refute the above postulations, not using anything but your own Utilitarianism, because I'd rather play this in your playing field.

Good day.

you know, it may sound funny/strange, but i do learn an awful lot in these conversations about people and philosophy. i thought this thread got deleted and HOS set me straight on where it was - so i'm glad they let it ride and i hope we can keep it civil yet "spriited".

 

[Concord]

Everything you just said can be summed up by Hume:

"[SIZE=-1]The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster."[/SIZE]

That's true...but many humans think that just because we can or are more powerful that it's OK to kill animals or humans or lay waste to the planet...or whatever.

Many Humans have this thing that they are the most important things on this planet just because they rule it or are more powerful and that's just not the case.

and that's the ironic part - we have no rights except for what we take and "make" for ourselves as a society.

stronger society comes along, they can take 'em away and then what?

Look no further than the ****'s.

They came along and took all the Jews rights away and much worse.

 

[DallasEast]

in this instance there are no "rights" but survival. the two could talk and work out a system that would afford them "rights" they agree upon themselves, but if one changes their mind, who's there to defend the agreement?

the rights we all have an enjoy are not native to simply being alive and "human". we have them because we fight for them - no other reason.

Jerry, the guy is being digested. He was eaten. The cannibal didn't wait for a discussion. He did a Hannibal Lecter and is smacking his lips. Did he have the right to eat him?