Dog fighting (See initial argument)

Before I begin my summation and closing remarks, I would like to extend my thanks to Whiteflame for an excellent debate devoid of juvenile antics or trolling. In response to Whiteflame's last post, I believe his summary of my major and minor points is dead on. Because this conversation has taken a primarily philosophical course (which is fine), I will only respond to his direct challenges to my points, rather than trying to argue my points further. "just because you've committed one objectively immoral act and continue to do so doesn't mean that you should expand the practice." --Absolutely correct. But you are still beginning with the personal belief (not an absolute standard) that one or both acts is/are immoral. From a strictly humanist standpoint, if I want to live in the country and fight dogs, it's none of your business. If you, a neighbor, were to come and tell me you were going to call the cops, I would naturally be forced to ask you why you don't actively protest many "similar or worse by comparison" activities which are perfectly legal-- adamantly, that is, to the point of pursuing legislations and criminal sanctions against anyone who engages in sports which involve intense physical interaction. "The fact that they persist doesn't mean that dog fighting should be recognized as morally acceptable." --I am arguing that dog fighting is not immoral, not that we must all accept it as moral. I can accept that their are people who are into BDSM and Homosexuality and all kinds of other things, and I don't have to participate. Now, this naturally leads us into your next point regarding "consent". "A human being can consent to having their body ruined and putting themselves at physical risk." --So if I consent to using drugs, why do I and my dealer go to jail? Forget the illicit for a moment even-- A boxer who consents to fighting is still engaging in the activity you have compared to dog fighting as "blood-sport". Consent or not has no bearing on the general morality, only on your perceived morality in contrasting the two (against, say...football). "We cannot possibly know whether a dog is consenting, and even if we could, we cannot know whether that is a result of their own desires. " --We have long considered ourselves above other animals on this planet, but I will not argue from this standpoint. As someone who values all life, I recognize that violence and death are a part of it. I will get in the ring and fight around with someone on the ground until one of us chokes the other into submission, and then go out for drinks with them afterwards. Does this make me violent? I have never assaulted anyone. To directly answer this point of yours: we can't talk to animals, and we never have their consent for anything we do to them ever. From displacement to use in entertainment, hunting, poaching, domestication, deforestation, and any other number of ways we have affected animals without their consent, I don't see how we can logically correlate consent with the morality of dog-fighting. "As such, subjecting them to objectively immoral acts by forcing them to fight is made less moral than allowing adult humans to decide." -- I have already made an argument that you are "begging the question" regarding your use of the term "immoral". I will add now that I don't see how comparable activities can be "more or less" immoral in relation to each other. If you are going to argue this though, I will concede to this one point (that it may be more or less moral than boxing), but add that you have just admitted that morality is completely subjective. "And just to tack this on, the comparison to drugs is a bad one. Legalization of alcohol and tobacco took it out of the criminal market, shutting down black markets entirely. Dog fighting legalization will only serve to empower them, and increase the involvement of crowds and gamblers. I'll get into why that is over the course of my arguments." -- OK, I re-read the arguments, and I agree that syndication might increase involvement SLIGHTLY. The increase would seem much larger because a lot of the people now doing it openly were already doing it and never got caught. Plus how do you define dog fighting? If my dog and my friend's dog fight each other in the yard, and then we separate them, was that a "dog fight" (no wounds, no deaths, because we care about the dogs). I don't see how you admit that prohibition of activities is a failure, but expect it to succeed with dog fighting. Furthermore, If the crowds and gamblers are being monitored by security and officials, how could their possibly be MORE violence and deaths? Dog's can be trained to fight with the understanding they are not fighting to the death. Domesticated animals do it all the time, even when domesticated after being feral. "As for nature being subjective, I think we are better than nature. We're human beings, and we can assess things in ways that aren't solely based on survival of the fittest." --I salute you for this statement. However, we all disagree so much, and there are so many selfish, greedy people, that I don't see a reason to single out dog fighters (or drug users, e.g.). Maybe if more people could debate like you and I are debating we could get further in society. "I'll repeat myself here: we would be accepting legalized animal abuse. " --I won't repast the whole paragraph, since it is basically an extension of this argument. My response to this, in short, is that this is entirely subjective. Furthermore, if it made dog fighting much safer for the animals (which much research has shown to be what happens whenever prohibitions are removed), then it actually is helping to end animal abuse. All of these dogs could be recognized celebrities like Joyce Gracie, and enjoy nice homes, good food, and medical care when needed. Not to mention fights could be called earlier, before any serious injuries occur. "he never fully addresses the issue of bait animals dying to prove viciousness" It is in our conversation in the comments section. I would say that this is not a common practice in dog fighting, and if dog fighting were legalized it wouldn't be happening at all. "nor does he ever address my point about racing horses from Round 2, a perfectly legal practice of killing animals once they are no longer able to perform well." --I think that is terrible. I have already expressed my disdain for euthanizing, and do not understand how this relates other than to make my point about baseline comparisons for moral evaluation. "I'm still not sure whether I buy this. Yes, some feral dogs get put down. Yes, some feral dogs attack people. Yes, some feral dogs get disease. But we're not comparing between finding these dogs a loving home and leaving them out in the streets. We're comparing between feral (as would be the case for many dogs, regardless of whether dog fighting is legalized) or being trained to fight other dogs. These are dogs that will be regularly injured by the teeth and claws of their opponent, increasing the chance for infection." --I did post links with statistics on ferals. My point was also there already aren't enough homes for all the strays. Furthermore, many dogs which are fought have normal homes and owners who care for them. Many "underground" fights, usually involving youth, are stopped well in advance of serious injury. Even cruel owners have a financial interest in preserving their fighters. "the vast majority of these dogs will not live beyond their younger years, as they will be beaten in the ring," --you are making a pretty big statement here. Can you verify this with a comment link? I think it would be impossible to gauge. You can't aggregate data on illicit activities. I have already addressed 3a., so moving on to 3b. "These dogs are bred to cause injury " at the very least " to every animal they see, small and large, essentially ensuring that either they have to be constantly locked up (great for their quality of life) or that they are incredibly likely to attack untrained dogs on their trips outside, dogs that are far likelier to die or receive permanent injuries in short confrontations. " --That depends entirely upon how they are trained, and who trained them. If you legalize and regulate dog fighting, it would always be licensed, trained (knowledgeable) people doing this. I believe you are correct on the increase in viewership. Could this be bad? Possible. But now we are getting into the realm of media and mass culture, which is an entirely separate debate I would love to have at some point. Many experts in the fields of communications and psychology are divided over the degree to which media inputs shape culture and vice-versa. This is not a clear enough issue to use as a debating point for this particular issue. I am out of space, so I will address the rest of your points in the comments section. Thanks for helping me out with this assignment!