Should Animal Bloodsports be Legal?

[Fartsniffage]

It kinda was. It wasn't explicit but it could be worked out fairly easily.

I guess if is spelled it out then I'd have to ask why would you be okay with people fighting to the death?

The person isn't supposed to be killed in a bullfight the bull is.

And? The bull doesn't know that.

[Des-Bal]

Why the difference? A sentient being that can feel pain is still being killed for no reason.

No a sentient being that can feel pain is being killed for people's amusement. You might not like it as a reason but it's a reason.

[Des-Bal]

And? The bull doesn't know that.

I'm not even sure what the hell you're getting at at this point.

[Vetalia]

I am referring to the Ancient Rome where gladiator fights were commonplace.

For the record, I am all in favor of gladiator fights.

[Geilinor]

Why the difference? A sentient being that can feel pain is still being killed for no reason.

No a sentient being that can feel pain is being killed for people's amusement. You might not like it as a reason but it's a reason.

Then what's your reason for opposing animal on animal fighting?

[Vareiln]

You kill things for amusement?
If you hunt for food, that's a somewhat different story, but for amusement?

I don't for practical reasons but I would. People hunt recreationally, they do it often. You can turn on the television and watch people hunt and kill an animal and derive amusement from that.

We call those people psychopaths.

[Napkiraly]

Fuck. No.

[Fartsniffage]

And? The bull doesn't know that.

I'm not even sure what the hell you're getting at at this point.

Simple. Should humans be able to fight to the death?

In a bullfight the human signs off on the fact that they may be killed by the bull. The bull is unaware that it should just lay down and die.

Therefore, logically you should support two humans signing off on a fight to the death.

[Des-Bal]

Then what's your reason for opposing animal on animal fighting?

They vary. The bull is ultimately going to die, I have as much sympathy for it's conditions prior as I do for bulls in slaughterhouses. Animals shouldn't be harmed unless they're being killed.

[Vareiln]

Then what's your reason for opposing animal on animal fighting?

They vary. The bull is ultimately going to die, I have as much sympathy for it's conditions prior as I do for bulls in slaughterhouses. Animals shouldn't be harmed unless they're being killed.

Why should they be killed in the first place?

[Des-Bal]

Simple. Should humans be able to fight to the death?

In a bullfight the human signs off on the fact that they may be killed by the bull. The bull is unaware that it should just lay down and die.

Therefore, logically you should support two humans signing off on a fight to the death.

That's not logical at all. Humans accept the potential risk of death for everything they do. Boxers know there's a chance they'll be killed but they don't enter the situation expecting to die.

[Des-Bal]

Why should they be killed in the first place?

Amusement. They're generally eaten anyway.

[Des-Bal]

We call those people psychopaths.

No we don't.

[Vareiln]

Why should they be killed in the first place?

Amusement. They're generally eaten anyway.

By this logic, if I had cannibalistic tendencies, it would be okay for me to kill, say, a random person on the street for fun.

[Threlizdun]

Why should they be killed in the first place?

Amusement. They're generally eaten anyway.

Humans generally die anyways. Do you have no issues with them being killed for amusement?

[Trollgaard]

No, but human bloodsport should be legal and encouraged.

[Des-Bal]

By this logic, if I had cannibalistic tendencies, it would be okay for me to kill, say, a random person on the street for fun.

Nope.

[Des-Bal]

Humans generally die anyways. Do you have no issues with them being killed for amusement?

Are you suggesting humans and animals deserve the same treatment?

[Threlizdun]

We call those people psychopaths.

No we don't.

Yes, someone who displays no empathy towards these beings and derives pleasure from killing them is most certainly exhibiting psychopathic behavior.

[Threlizdun]

Humans generally die anyways. Do you have no issues with them being killed for amusement?

Are you suggesting humans and animals deserve the same treatment?

I am saying that "kill them for shits and giggles" is a worthless argument.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, someone who displays no empathy towards these beings and derives pleasure from killing them is most certainly exhibiting psychopathic behavior.

No. Someone who dismembers a cat is exhibiting psychopathic behavior someone who hunts a deer is not.

[Vareiln]

We call those people psychopaths.

No we don't.

What part of 'killing animals for amusement is a sign of serious mental illness or abuse' do you not understand?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12108563
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12108563
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abu ... n_faq.html

[Vareiln]

By this logic, if I had cannibalistic tendencies, it would be okay for me to kill, say, a random person on the street for fun.

Nope.

Then don't use that logic.

[Geilinor]

Why should they be killed in the first place?

Amusement. They're generally eaten anyway.

1. That's a mental disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals#Psychological_disorders
2. Killing for food is very different than killing for the fun of making a sentient being suffer.

[Vareiln]

Yes, someone who displays no empathy towards these beings and derives pleasure from killing them is most certainly exhibiting psychopathic behavior.

No. Someone who dismembers a cat is exhibiting psychopathic behavior someone who hunts a deer is not.

If they're hunting that deer for little more than their own amusement, then there isn't really a difference.