Michael Vick and dog fighting

[mrhnau]

I listen a good bit to a local sports radio station. One of the recent topics has been the possible connection of Michael Vick with dog fighting. Apparently his house was used to host a few fights. At first blush, this sounds pretty bad, especially since its a felony. The legal implications/NFL implications will be interesting.

I took a few minutes to write a note to the local radio host, and thought I'd share. I'm in no way a proponent of dog fighting, nor will I ever be, but I find a few things odd about the discussion...

Here is the text of what I sent.

First, I'll state I have no interest in dog fighting, and do find it disturbing. However, I want to point out some logical inconsistencies.

First, many animals are by nature violent. If they are a carnivore they stay alive by killing other animals. Go watch the Discovery channel long enough and you will see lions, hyenas, and other carnivores ripping off animal flesh to eat. It's part of how these animals have evolved and how they stay alive. Many species establish dominance among their own kind by combat in some form.

Second, even man is violent. I find it equally distrubing that man is so adapt at making war and has often had our own "dog fights" in the form of gladiators, boxing, No Hold Barred competitions, etc.. People bet on those events too, yet I don't hear an uproar over war attrocities or past violent human endevors. I don't hear the attrocities committed in Darfur or Rowanda making headlines lately.

Third, man participates in the slaughter of animals. Do you eat hamburgers? Chicken? Pork? Fish? You are participating, though not personally, in the murder of animals. Are you overly concerned when you set a mouse trap, or when you kill a possum that is eating your chickens in a coop? How about running over a possum or dog when driving?

Man in the past has trained animals for violence. Dogs in the past were trained for combat. Horses have been killed in wars in the past and some were trained to fight (stomping opponents). Falconry exploits birds to kill of other kinds of birds. Police train attack dogs to take down human criminals. Are you also going to complain about these types of animal violence?

I think the big deal here is that many people have dogs as pets, and everyone thinks theirs pets are cute, adorable animals. There was a big uproar in the 80's when video was shown of men clubbing cute little baby seals in the artic. The recent concern about dog-fighting has just been amplified due to the Vick connection and legality issues. Why not discuss cock fighting? I find it odd that we can sanction the killing of man (capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia, etc), but disallow fighting of dogs. I'm not in favor of dog fighting, but a bit of logical consistency would be nice.

 

[Makalakumu]

While I understand the point of your letter, I think alot of people are going to see this on a black and white dichotomous scale as far as ethics are concerned.

The type of reasoning that you are trying to fish for hints at some well reasoned moral code where things that you wrote in your letter fall into an over arching matrix that shapes the ethics we use.

IMHO, the lack of this philosophical soundness only makes it easier to do unethical things.

 

[mrhnau]

While I understand the point of your letter, I think alot of people are going to see this on a black and white dichotomous scale as far as ethics are concerned.

The type of reasoning that you are trying to fish for hints at some well reasoned moral code where things that you wrote in your letter fall into an over arching matrix that shapes the ethics we use.

IMHO, the lack of this philosophical soundness only makes it easier to do unethical things.

Yeah, its just aggrevating. Some people complaining about this type of activity are the same ones going out hunting, or eating hamburgers, etc... Just a little bit aggrevating, especially since they are talking less sports and more dog fighting.

 

[mrhnau]

A large portion of the email was just read on air. He skipped my third and fourth points, which I tend to think are the most poignant. However, glad to hear it read

 

[Makalakumu]

A large portion of the email was just read on air. He skipped my third and fourth points, which I tend to think are the most poignant. However, glad to hear it read

Are there call ins? How are people reacting? I'd love to hear that. I'm pretty sick right now and I could use a laugh.

It doesn't surprise me that the third and forth points were skipped. Typically, radio shows zero in on a particular type of listener. They don't have a lot of time for any amount of meat.

 

[mrhnau]

Are there call ins? How are people reacting? I'd love to hear that. I'm pretty sick right now and I could use a laugh.

It doesn't surprise me that the third and forth points were skipped. Typically, radio shows zero in on a particular type of listener. They don't have a lot of time for any amount of meat.

Yeah, they are.

I was laughing, because I was eating some chicken when he called me a vegeterian LOL

 

[mrhnau]

How are people reacting? I'd love to hear that.

Thats what is bothering me the most. People saying how absolutely horrible Vick is and how revolting... then they go out to eat some burgers and call their buddies to go hunting this weekend. It's kind of the same effect I see here on MartialTalk. Bring up some topic, call it "bad" and people get in a circle and beat it to death w/out seriously thinking about the topic..
:deadhorse

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I guess I'm kind of an odd duck. Not a veg, but I only eat chicken that's free-range grown, and humanely quick-killed; saw a Pamela Anderson PETA thing on KFC chicken growers, and it was pretty hideous. I'm the same way with the beef I eat.

I like dogs more than people, and have rescued abandoned "mean" pitbulls from shelters who were clearly scarred from dogfights. I bring out the goofy in them and place them in better homes. Been doing this for decades, and they have all come out with stellar report cards...silly boys & girls who just needed something different from what they initially got.

I'm also a bit of a closet tree-hugger, though. Went to an old camping spot over the weekend, and it had been logged out; heartbreaking, really.

Oh yeah; the purpose of my reply: Yes, we as a race are hideous monsters who are a blight on the earth, and should collectively be diminished, substantially. But our inhumanity towards ourselves and other species should not be used as a contrast to minimize the wrong being done here. Bigger wrongs do not make this right.

Dave

 

[tellner]

Mrhnau, you make the standard apology for bloodsports. You do the usual "We kill animals for food and leather, so it's not as if killing them is wrong. What's the problem with letting them give in to their own violent impulses" bit.

The only problem is that it doesn't wash.

First, there is the purpose. When you kill a steer for its skin and meat you are doing it to feed yourself, to satisfy a biological need. The leather is a byproduct of the "waste not, want not" variety. One could certainly make the case that one could eat vegetable protein instead, but we won't get into that too far. The principle of eating meat or using animals as guards and transportation is that you are doing something important for your health and survival.

The same can not be said of bloodsports. In that case the maiming or death of the animal is often slow and painful. And it is entirely to give the onlookers pleasure at watching something die in a bloody and agonizing fashion. That is not fulfilling any survival or health need. It is simply taking pleasure in cruelty. Animals fight in the wild. No doubt about it. But under normal circumstances they can and almost always do submit or run away in order to avoid serious injury when they are fighting another of their species. Cavalry horses and guard dogs die in order to help win battles and protect livestock. They aren't killed to give someone a badly cross-wired erection as is the case with dogfights.

Cocks are not born with three inch razor sharp gaffes, just normal spurs. While they can be vicious with one towards rivals the defeated rooster runs and flaps away. Dogs are not naturally forced to fight until one is terribly maimed. Even with aggressive breeds the raising and training of a fighting dog requires constant abuse and un-natural disinhibition to overcome the animal's normal social behavior which would dictate fighting until it was All Sorted Out(tm).

Humans fight, certainly. But we have the choice to leave. When we don't it's called self defense and is another matter entirely. The boxer is not forced to step into the ring. When he does he can stay in his corner at the bell. And the fight isn't designed to continue until he is crippled or dead.

This isn't about being "cute" or "adorable" vs. "realistic" and "manly". That's a not terribly subtle way of insulting the masculinity - and incidentally dismissing the concerns of any women in your audience - as a rhetorical trick. It's a stupid, transparent and unworthy one. This is about an apologia for calculated viciousness and cruelty for pleasure at the sight of blood. It has no place whatsoever in civilized society. It is bad.

I eat meat. I wear (and work) leather. I even hunt although not very well. But I eat and hunt for food. I use a byproduct of that killing (leather) because it is useful, the animal is already dead, and it is a sin to waste any part of the animal. When I can afford it it's free-range chicken, certified Oregon Country Beef and cage-free eggs. When I slaughter animals I do it humanely and never kill one in the sight of the next. They are given water and a last treat and dispatched quickly and painlessly after invoking the blessings of the Powers That Be. The idea of forcing them to fight each other to the death first is disgusting.

Some bloodsports had a purpose at one time. Ratting was used to train dogs who would be employed in vermin control. In the distant past bear baiting was used to teach dogs who would be employed bringing down dangerous game. But that was a hell of a long time ago. It is completely irrelevant and has been for centuries. Now it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty practiced by those who get a pseudo-sexual charge out of pain, injury and death. Such people are at best mentally ill and at worst a menace to those around them. Those who justify their depravity deserve a bit of scrutiny.

 

[Makalakumu]

Folks, I don't think that mrhnau is trying to justify bloodsports. In fact, I think he would agree with everything you are saying and approve of the way you arrange your lives. The things you describe, regarding animals, are philosophically sound. What you believe in in one area regarding the treatment of animals, transfers into what you believe in another.

My take on what mrhnau was getting at is that people who are against dogfighting are often tacitly or overtly supporting animal cruelty in other areas of their lives. This sort of psychologic and philosophic disconnect the topic that I was trying to talk about.

For example, I'd love to call into that radio program and say, "so, ya'll are against dogfighting, but did you know that this and this and this happens in regards to animal cruelty. If you want to be against dogfighting, why do you be consistant and be against these other things?"

Tellner - I loved your post. This, IMHO, is a good example of someone who is consistent with their ethics in regards to animals.

 

[tellner]

Possibly, possibly. But it's precisely the tack, tenor and talking points that always get brought up when people are defending bloodsports. The same arguments demand the usual counter-arguments.