Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:13:30 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@io.com{StopSpam}
|
Viewed:
|
1380 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > > The cartoon basically simulates cockfighting, which is an image that I would
> > > prefer not to idealize for the kids.
> > Why not? I mean, what makes cockfighting more violent than, say, Star Wars?
> Good question. I don't have a definitive answer but I do have some further
> thought starters...
> In Star Wars, is there a good side and a bad side?
Debatable -- the "good guys" essentially were armed terrorists until they won
and re-wrote the history books.
> Is the simulated violence there as part of the story line?
The story line for Pokemon includes perhaps the same abount of violence.
> Or is the violence there merely to entertain?
Another gray area. Certainly, the aspect of Star Wars that replays a portion
of popular history (various revolutionary wars, also island hopping during
WWII) needs to include the violence, but a certain amount of it really is
gratuitious. Same for Pokemon -- harkening back to gladiatorial combat in
Rome, while keeping quite a bit of needless violence.
> In cockfighting, is one side the good guys? Or are both sides equally amoral?
It really depends upon your point of view, doesn't it? I mean, the guy who
just cleaned you out and killed off your best rooster might be a bad guy in
your eyes.
As for amoral (or immoral) activities, armed combat is in about the same
category as bloodsport, IMO.
> Also, is it moral to force animals to fight in the first place?
> How is fighting different than eating animals, which lots of people do?
Let me reverse the order of these questions: Is it immoral to eat animals?
Is it immoral to force an animal to kill another animal?
I certainly don't think it's immoral to eat animals -- that's what they're
there for. Therefore, killing animals (purely in and of itself) is not
immoral IMO. Likewise, I don't think it's immoral to force another animal to
kill another animal. I can take this from two angles:
If taken from the point of view that animals are dumb, then what's the worry?
If taken from the point of view that animals are intelligent, then why reserve
killing to the human arena? These animals were designed, in some fashion, to
kill. It happens in nature. Perhaps they even enjoy it, perhaps not.
> Is it OK to be avoidably cruel?
> Is it OK to cause hurt to an animal if it's unavoidable?
This is what hit my button. Of course it's not OK to be avoidably cruel.
It's less of an issue of what's OK for the animal, and more of what's OK for
one's psyche. And if you believe in karma (or some power that lets the world
pay you back for all the dumb stuff you do), then it's extremely not OK to be
avoidably cruel.
As for causing pain, I could quote _Princess Bride_, but I'll refrain...
> Do we have a responsibility to property that is innate because of the
> characteristics of the property?
I dunno if the responsibility is innate (an integral part of us) but rather
something that is artificially assumed. Otherwise, yes.
> Do the ends justify the means?
Ultimately, no. Or yes. It really depends upon the scale of the question,
and your motivation, doesn't it?
> How is cockfighting different than boxing? Contrast a rooster with a boxer.
That's easy. Roosters don't bite your ears off.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Uh, two. Including this one.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
