Should Animal Bloodsports be Legal?

[Ty-Ralyain]

Animal no, Human yes.
Bring back the gladiators!!
And anyone who says American Gladiators is getting slapped.

Perfect thing to use Detroit for!

[Imperializt Russia]

So when Michael Vick was caught dog fighting,the topic of dog fighting became very popular. Now my question is,what animal blood sports be legal? Now,the only one I think should be legal is Cockfighting (Fighting between to male chickens). The only reason I do support it s because it's all natural! When two male roosters see each other they will fight,forced or not. On the other hand dog fighting I disagree with. Dog fighting is not (from my knowledge, then again I'm fairly dumb) natural at all.

They fight for mates or territory.
In the cockpit, neither is a condition of victory.

[Cameroi]

if they're sapient enough to sign a liability waver, then they're people. if they're not, well i just have a problem with the idea of anyone owning any living organism that has a central nervous system. even imaginary ones like pokemon.

if people want to see blood, let them spill their own.

[Ferroria]

Such entertaining thread. The amount of feeble attempts to justify calling other posters mentally ill because they have different opinions is just ridiculous. Complete lack of actual understanding of hunting too, with the simplified "hunting == killing" ignoring everything else involved in the hobby...

Also the amount of hand waving over the whole "animals have rights". No, animals don't have any "rights" that haven't been written in laws and agreements. Same goes for humans. People can speak all they want about our "inviolable human rights" and stuff, but at the end of the day they are far from "inviolable", more like "violated daily, in every country".

For the question posed by the OP though... None of them should be legal in my opinion. In my eyes their entertainment value is non-existent. More importantly though, they serve no purpose but getting the animals killed. It's wasteful and somewhat barbaric.

[Agritum]

No.

[Agritum]

Such entertaining thread. The amount of feeble attempts to justify calling other posters mentally ill because they have different opinions is just ridiculous. Complete lack of actual understanding of hunting too, with the simplified "hunting == killing" ignoring everything else involved in the hobby...

Also the amount of hand waving over the whole "animals have rights". No, animals don't have any "rights" that haven't been written in laws and agreements. Same goes for humans. People can speak all they want about our "inviolable human rights" and stuff, but at the end of the day they are far from "inviolable", more like "violated daily, in every country".

For the question posed by the OP though... None of them should be legal in my opinion. In my eyes their entertainment value is non-existent. More importantly though, they serve no purpose but getting the animals killed. It's wasteful and somewhat barbaric.

Yet, civil rights NEED to exist and be protected by law.

You know, it's not like we legalize homicide because criminals will kill anyway.

[Saracenia]

wut, seeking entertainment by seeing blood of beasts? then why not shoot them all yourself than stand cowardly and laughing watch them fighting mindlessly?

it's ridiculous.

[Ty-Ralyain]

wut, seeking entertainment by seeing blood of beasts? then why not shoot them all yourself than stand cowardly and laughing watch them fighting mindlessly?

it's ridiculous.

Hunting and watching dogfighting is totally different. There's a much different thrill in tracking an animal, being able to spot and decipher all the particular little details in the world that relay its path then eventually finding it. Hunting is the thrill of the chase, the thrill of accomplishment, of touching your roots again, and in some instances incredbily necessary. I remember sitting in crisp November mornings knowing I had to kill the deer I had spent majority of my time trackign to feed my family with incredibly fondness.

[Zottistan]

None. Because aside from being pointlessly cruel, I question the mental stability of anybody who takes pleasure in watching animals kill eachother, or hunting them.

[Belauer]

A long time ago it was popular in some cultures to have stallions fight each other for entertainment, honestly I think it comes down to culture and how are the animals treated before and after the fight.

In Porto Rico for example cock fighting is still legal, but there are rules and traditions that are followed. For example no razors, and roosters who are injured beyond healing are put out of their miseries and then eaten. Roosters only have to fight once or twice during the fight schedule, and if the roosters win enough then they are retired. The roosters that are typically used are those who are aggressive to other roosters and/or people, meaning they can't use the roosters to protect the flock.

Also two roosters will not necessarily fight, I happen to have two roosters at my home right now who get along swimmingly. The younger one watches over out two cornish hens (who get beaten up by the other hens normally) and the older one holds most control of the flock. Roosters fighting has more to deal with the avalibility of hens and the aggressiveness of the roosters more than it does the fact that they are both male.

Dog fighting I personally don't agree with but I have heard of some countries where it is legal have made stirct regulations to protect the dogs. While i personally don't want it legal if it is safer for the animals to heavily regulate it and it saves more dogs then it kills then I may change my mind, but for now I'm still in the staunch 'no' camp.

[Cerberias]

A species of Dog was bred for killing rats during the plague i believe so i think Ratting is fine

So selective breeding makes everything right? If a breed of dogs was bred specifically to kill human infants, would it then become an acceptable sport?

i also think people should be allowed to fight animals one on one no weapons.

Why?

Throughout Human life we have used animals to kill other animals in sport and to decrease their numbers but with the Fox Terrier being used for Ratting i think it's ok. But i don't understand how you could get "Dogs bred for Ratting" and turn it into "If a breed of dogs was bred specifically to kill human infants", If we look at the Pitbull and the Canis Molossus they were trained for Fighting. Humans, Rabbits or Dogs, It doesn't matter they would kill it. After awhile the fighting was bred into them which i do not like, my last two dogs attacked each other due to one (Lou) being a pitbull and my other dog (Tessa) being a really calm American Staffy who i grew up with. Sometimes fighting is bred into animals and all it takes is one small little think to switch it on, unfortunately that small thing was my older dog walking into the kennel.

[Great-Bohemia]

I rather allow gladiator fights than any animal bloodsport. In the process we would get rid of prisoners.

[United Marxist Nations]

Sentient is an entirely artificial characteristic.

From Wikipedia: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity." Sentience is not "artificial." It is a very real characteristic possessed by most, if not all, animals.

I don't know of any insect that is sentient; therefore it is most certainly not "most, if not all, animals".

[Conscentia]

Bloodsports are an abomination. None should be legal.

[Conscentia]

None. Because aside from being pointlessly cruel, I question the mental stability of anybody who takes pleasure in watching animals kill eachother, or hunting them.

Hear, hear.

[Soviet Central]

If you let 2 people inside one room and they start to fight, is it your responsibility? Nope! Same applies to animals. If you let them in one room, and they decide to fight each other out of their own free will, you hold no responsibility about it. Look back 2 millions of years ago. Any animal out in wild had potential to run into other animal and potential fight could occur. Its natural. Even in wild animals have potential to run in each other which might or might not result in a fight. Just because you put 2 animals in one room, hence with 2m distance between each other, doesnt mean you hold any responsibility for theyr actions, since they could end up with 2m distance on their own in wild.

If unnatural actions are made on animals before shortening their distance (like beating them every hour or injecting with chemicals which make them aggresive) then it should be illegal. But just because I shortened distance between 2 animals and they decided to fight, I hold no responsibility since this distance can and will be shortened even between animals in wild. Logic

[Conscentia]

From Wikipedia: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity." Sentience is not "artificial." It is a very real characteristic possessed by most, if not all, animals.

I don't know of any insect that is sentient; therefore it is most certainly not "most, if not all, animals".

I'm almost certain all insects are capable of perception, sir.

[Cenetra]

If you let 2 people inside one room and they start to fight, is it your responsibility?

If you lock two people inside a room with the primary objective of causing them to get in a fight, then yes it's your responsibility.

Nope! Same applies to animals. If you let them in one room, and they decide to fight each other out of their own free will, you hold no responsibility about it.

Yes you do. If you are keeping an animal in captivity, you are responsible for its health and safety. Let me tell you a story. When I was a child, my family had pet rats. Because we also had cats, the rats could not be given the run of the house, and were kept in a cage unless supervised. This had the drawback that if one of the rats attacked another, the victim could not easily escape. Therefore, when we brought a new rat home, we took special precautions to introduce the new arrival to the others before allowing them to be in the same cage unsupervised, SPECIFICALLY TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF A FIGHT BREAKING OUT.

Here's another analogy. Let's say you are a teacher or other authority figure at a school, and a fight breaks out between two students. You refuse to take any action, because "the kids decided to fight each other of their own free will."
Guess what: the parents will sue the s*** out of you and the school, and you may face criminal charges for child neglect.

Look back 2 millions of years ago. Any animal out in wild had potential to run into other animal and potential fight could occur. Its natural. Even in wild animals have potential to run in each other which might or might not result in a fight. Just because you put 2 animals in one room, hence with 2m distance between each other, doesnt mean you hold any responsibility for theyr actions, since they could end up with 2m distance on their own in wild.

Animals in the wild almost always have the option of retreating. Animals in a room or pit don't.

Animals in the wild also have the potential to accidentally eat something poisonous. Does this mean if you give a captive animal poisoned food, you aren't responsible for any harm that comes to the animal as a result of eating it?


Intentionally taking actions with the primary purpose of causing harm to a creature you are in a position of authority over, for your own amusement, is abuse. End of story.

[Gallup]

None.

[German-Spanish Empire]

Yes you do. If you are keeping an animal in captivity, you are responsible for its health and safety. Let me tell you a story. When I was a child, my family had pet rats. Because we also had cats, the rats could not be given the run of the house, and were kept in a cage unless supervised. This had the drawback that if one of the rats attacked another, the victim could not easily escape. Therefore, when we brought a new rat home, we took special precautions to introduce the new arrival to the others before allowing them to be in the same cage unsupervised, SPECIFICALLY TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF A FIGHT BREAKING OUT.

I just created a new sport! Rat Fighting!

[German-Spanish Empire]

Such entertaining thread. The amount of feeble attempts to justify calling other posters mentally ill because they have different opinions is just ridiculous. Complete lack of actual understanding of hunting too, with the simplified "hunting == killing" ignoring everything else involved in the hobby...

Also the amount of hand waving over the whole "animals have rights". No, animals don't have any "rights" that haven't been written in laws and agreements. Same goes for humans. People can speak all they want about our "inviolable human rights" and stuff, but at the end of the day they are far from "inviolable", more like "violated daily, in every country".

For the question posed by the OP though... None of them should be legal in my opinion. In my eyes their entertainment value is non-existent. More importantly though, they serve no purpose but getting the animals killed. It's wasteful and somewhat barbaric.

I love you because of this:

The amount of feeble attempts to justify calling other posters mentally ill because they have different opinions is just ridiculous.

But aside from that I respectfully disagree with you,but then again opinions are like hearts,everyone has one.

[Densaner]

Only between humans.

[Geilinor]

Such entertaining thread. The amount of feeble attempts to justify calling other posters mentally ill because they have different opinions is just ridiculous. Complete lack of actual understanding of hunting too, with the simplified "hunting == killing" ignoring everything else involved in the hobby...

Only hunting purely for amusement was called animal cruelty. Hunting for food or skin was called justifiable.

[Schweizweld]

I don't think they should be legal, I love nature and animals. Animal fighting is cruel and appeals to the lowest common denominator in society.

[Northern Dominus]

So when Michael Vick was caught dog fighting,the topic of dog fighting became very popular. Now my question is,what animal blood sports be legal? Now,the only one I think should be legal is Cockfighting (Fighting between to male chickens). The only reason I do support it s because it's all natural! When two male roosters see each other they will fight,forced or not. On the other hand dog fighting I disagree with. Dog fighting is not (from my knowledge, then again I'm fairly dumb) natural at all.

...no. Just no. Every single supposition and assertion here is just flat-out wrong. Animals don't fight for sport, they fight for territory, mates, food, or to survive. Not even roosters deliberately pick fights out of spite despite your suggestion, and they certainly don't do it with razorblades attached to their legs.

If humans want to engage in bloodsport, then they can damn well pick up axes and knives themselves and start swinging away. Otherwise leave it the hell alone.