^^ word.. I say thats fair enough lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ERICHWV
Printable View
^^ word.. I say thats fair enough lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ERICHWV
it has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with what i can stomach. seeing a dog get its eye bitten out is just gross. i dont wanna see that. just like i wouldnt want to go to an animal slaughterhouse to see a cow get killed to make hamburger meat. my conscience doesnt bother me at all because there's no reason for it to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Complex
you continue to talk about morals but you have not been able to tell me throughout this thread how dogfighting is immoral other than you dont like it.
im sorry pal, thats a subjective view and thats not good enough.
Not good enough for what? Is your veiw not subjective?Quote:
Originally Posted by B O T
^^it is most definately subjective.
im not telling him that his feelings about it are wrong, other than declaring it immoral which he has no moral authority to do such a thing.
i'll ask you again. dogfighting is immoral according to what moral authority?
you have to set a line. is just outright animal torture and wrong? ok so is pouring gasoline on a dog and lighting it on fire and taking bets on how long it takes them to burn alive before they die, is that wrong? whats the difference between dog fighting? your logic is faulty.
you can do whatever you want with your property.
i like dogs and cats, i also like gamecube and plush recliners.
you set the line for yourself, not everyone else.
and i bring up the slavery thing. they were property. "property" is a subjective term in itself.
and i bring up the point of them being "human beings". treating human beings like that is immoral and there IS a moral authority that can back that up.
but to your point, if you think there's nothing wrong with humans being treated like property than you should have no problem with dogfighting.
So what is the moral authority that backs up human treatment? Why does this not apply to animal treatment?Quote:
Originally Posted by B O T
im playing devils advocate. i think both are wrong. but we are indeed both animals. just because we are humans, with more brain power than other animals does not change what we are.
like complex said, what makes it immoral to treat a human like that?
take it up with God. he made the rules on how animals and humans are to be treated. its all in the bible. "thou shall not kill" is one of the 10 commandments. in the new testament it says "love your neighbor as yourself. this is talking about humans. it couldnt be talking about animals here because as in the old testament God rained down quail for the israelites to eat when he was leading out of egypt. if you actually take the time to study the scriptures you'll that there is nothing said that directly or indiectly prohibits dogfighting.
but you guys disreguard the bible so then there is no such thing as morality(if you're gonna take an atheistic view of the issue). whats considered right and wrong will differ from person to person, from society to society.
and since neither of you have answered my question as to what moral authority is dogfighting considered immoral im gonna asume that you understand there is none.
I never said I disreguard the Bible.. I only said it is not on me to determine its absolute truth in its teachings.. I have read the Bible and I dont recall reading anything that makes animal cruelty acceptable.. When animals were sacraficed in those scriptures, they were given as gifts to God or killed to feed people.. Sure there is no specific mention of dogfighting, but do you think any moral authority, especially God would accept animal cruelty, simply for the purpose of one's entertainment? I think not....That goes against every ethical lesson in the Bible...Quote:
Originally Posted by B O T
Youre right that what is morally right and wrong differs from person to person, but your saying the only moral authority to abide by is God? In that case surely God wouldnt accept torturing an animal would he? The Law obviously doesn't, do you think the laws are wrong for prohibiting dogfighting?
I almost find it imposible for people who torture animals to have any moral authority because if they are capable of doing it, who knows what else they are capable of.. I would assume those people are very selfish and don't even consider the horrible asspects of this bloodsport, if they do I can imagine how guilty they must feel.
so now you're gonna say God said something he didnt? if its not in there directly or indirectly then God didnt say it. you cant say you "suspect" god thinks this is wrong, why, because you think its wrong? pfft. you're now trying to add to the scriptures and thats a 'no no'.
i already told you. legality and morality are not synonymous. the law isnt wrong for prohibiting dogfighting. it wouldnt be wrong if it didnt either.
what horrible aspects?
If you take any religious value seriously, u would agree torturing animals is a sin.. Its not something written in stone, its something that should be instilled at a young age ( what is right and wrong ) .. What did I add to the scriptures? Scriptures are written as parables to teach lessons, the way I learned is that it is open for interpretation.. I really wasnt even trying to go there but whatever.. The law doesnt always act according to morals, right, but without that law there would be animals tortured and killed... I think that is one of the few fair laws in our country..Quote:
Originally Posted by B O T
What horrible aspects? How about the torture that the dogs go through to be trained to fight to the death.. Often times the dogs are starved, beaten, and exercised until they are nearly dead.. Thats not even including the fight itself where the possibilities of injury and death are endless.. While these fights occur, people are celebrating the dog's suffering and arent satisfied until one of the dogs is dead.. Is that horrible enough?
I would say its blasphemous to even suggest the Bible or God would allow or accept such behavior..
BOT you take your moral authority from the bible. while others the koran, the tripeka, ect. ect., or no religious book at all. why does yours supercede theirs?