TheAgitator.com
Monday Morning Poll: Friday Morning Kentucky Derby Edition
Friday, April 30th, 2010Tomorrow I’m going to the Kentucky Derby. So let’s tap the wisdom of the Agitator crowd!
I will place a $6 trifecta bet on the top three vote getters from this week’s poll. Here are the current odds.
Those are horses, right?
And they race in Kentucky? Around some kind of track?
Well, I don’t know anything about that.
But there are 20 choices, so I opened the case and got out MERCILESS, the very 1d20 used by Gary Gygax himself! As I rolled the blessed artifact, the earth rumbled and lightning struck! MERCILESS came up 16.
So I voted for “American Lion”
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it.
Go with Desormeaux!!!!!!!!!!
I think I spelled that right…
Jackson Bend was second to Eskendereya in the Wood Memorial. He has never finished worse than second in nine starts, winning five times as a 2-year-old in Florida.
Well, at least I know that the Kentucky Derby is a horse race, but I don’t follow the ponies, so I have no idea of who is the favorite.
Since I like the name, I chose “Backtalk”, considering that I am a little inclined to backtalk myself.
Horses – they’re like really big dogs!
I was looking for my favorite horse, but “Turd Sandwitch” didn’t make it, apparently.
Horses – they’re like really big dogs!
Except you can get a good-sized steak from a horse.
:)
Just so everyone knows, my first choice was a longshot (Discretely Mine) but I went with Lookin At Lucky. Don’t ask why, I’m a woman and I have no clue!
What do I win? :)
Hey! What are the odds of getting the National ID Card?
Seems like people want the filly to win this year – go Devil May Care!
Devil May Care looks good. I’m heading to the Oaks in a few minutes and the Derby tomorrow. I strongly suggest sampling some of our fine bourbons including Elmer T. Lee (cheap), Blanton’s (moderately priced), and Pappy van Winkle 23 year (high falutin’). You’ll have a blast.
When I did play the horses, I bet on the Jockey, not so much the horse. I have no idea who is good an who isn’t these days. :-(
I’m with will. We used to go to the track when I was in grad school, because you could hang out for a few hours and spend under $5. Yes, we were that poor. The top jockey won over 40% of the time, regardless of horse. These were usually $3,000 claiming races, so not the best of stock. I usually got to go for free, just playing him to win for $2.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t the only one to spot that trend. So even when I’d bet a longshot at 19:1, by the time it hit the post it would be down to 2:1. I did hit the quinella a couple of times. Still, no single-race $2 bet is going to make you rich.
So are you going to stop by to say hi?!?
Also, I hope you brought waders and a rainslicker.
Welcome to Kentucky! I call this time of year the 2 weeks of craziness to prepare for 2 minutes of racing. I suggest the mint julip in order to get the derby glass, but then enjoy good old Kentucky bourbon either neat or on ice. Have a good time!
2 weeks of craziness to prepare for 2 minutes of racing.
Kinda like the wedding followed by consummation.
You can take everything I know about horse racing, put it in a thimble and still have room for your finger.
This did not stop me from voting based solely on what name struck my fancy – Backtalk for the win.
Looks like it’s going to be pretty rainy tomorrow. Time to do some research and find out which of these horses are mudders.
How could I not vote for Homeboykris?
Hopefully his pants are not on the ground.
My wife did the layout for the XpressBet wagering guide. She says Sidney’s Candy and has also got a good feeling about Stately Victor.
I think it is very clear from these results that we have no idea. I voted for “Stately Victor” because his name is awesome.
CC
Sorry to ruin an uncharacteristically lighthearted thread, but I have to ask if anyone has been following this. Is this really as big of a clusterfuck as it seems or am I missing something?
Best use for a horse, other than keeping teenage girls endlessly occupied would be sashimi or sausage, betting on them seems counter productive.
I vote for Rat’s Ass, as in…;)
I voted for Devil May Care because that’s about how I feel about horse racing.
I’m with Xenocles on horse racing. However the jockey for Devil May Care, John Velazquez, is 5lbs lighter than the others. If I am not mistaken size matters in horse racing.
The weight is standardized, so there’s no unfair advantage. I guess fillies don’t have to carry the same weight as geldings/stallions.
Umm… am I the only one who tried to vote for 3?
Devil May Care’s only winning in the poll because he has the coolest name.
Never bet against Calvin Borel, people!
Hmm.
Given that less than 5% of us picked “Super Saver” (and I was not one of those that did), I would suggest Radley look outside of the Agitatotisie for future tips on the ponies.
For the first time ever, I actually picked a derby winner! Too bad i didn’t bet on him:(
Also, i picked Super Saver because i like coupons:) Here’s hoping he takes the Triple Crown!
Horse racing doesn’t interest me, but I would like to point out Radley’s inconsistency.
http://www.theagitator.com/2007/07/18/michael-vick/
Disclaimer: Couldn’t locate an unbiased source – http://www.idausa.org/facts/racing.html
Radley is against dog fighting, but supports horse racing.
In both activities the dogs and horses are used for:
1. The entertainment of humans.
2. Profit.
3. Enhancing or improving a breed of animal to the users standards.
There is no difference between the use of dogs in fighting and the use of horses in racing. In both cases, it’s the use of animals by humans for entertainment and financial gain.
Generally in both cases, champions are retired (for the most part) and put out to stud while the losers are killed or sold off. But we need look no further than Ferdinand, who was retired, put out to stud, couldn’t produce a champion and ended up on somebody’s plate as a steak.
The only difference between dog fighting being illegal and horse racing being legal is one of state revenue. Can’t hold a horse race in your basement.
I hesitate to even respond to Cappy, as the arguments are so obviously false on their face. “There is no difference between the use of dogs in fighting and the use of horses in racing.”
Um, there is one rather clear distinction. A dog fight consists of dogs fighting to the death. A dead dog is the point of the sport. Horse racing tests the speed and competitiveness of a breed that wants to run and compete.
It would be like saying “there is no difference between Gladiator fights to the death and the 100 meter dash. In both, humans are used for the entertainment of other humans, and the promoters make money off of the spectacle.”
And of course, because of racing, the equine is considerably more valuable than it would be without racing, and because of that increased value, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on equine medical research, etc. Horses of all kinds (race breeds and non-race breeds alike) can survive injuries and illnesses that would have killed them a few years ago.
I’d dare say that a majority of race horses would happily do without being competitive.
Actually, the problem with off-the-track thoroughbreds is that they want to do nothing but run flat out. They have to be virtually retrained from scratch, starting with walking in hand, sacking out, backing and then gradually worked from walk to trot to canter. Even then, you can never be sure that they won’t bolt and gallop off without warning.
As a recreational horseman, I wouldn’t get on one of them without having watched it work several times in the hands of a rider of my own level.
Yes, but do they do it because they enjoy it or is just compulsive behavior?
Turned out in fields, most horses will run and play for a while, especially when turned out with others.
From watching them, I would say that thoroughbreds will keep it up much longer and play* much harder than other breeds.
*Before anyone accuses me of anthropomorphizing, I will say that “play” is the only word that seems to describe the behavior. They run, buck, chase each other, engage in mock fights(the difference between a mock fight and a real one is immediately obvious), rear up and otherwise roar around with complete abandonment.
CMO, and you couldn’t be more wrong. If you had an inkling of how a professional dog fight (Michael Vick was a professional) worked, then you would realize that most dog fights are not fought to the death.
“Horse racing tests the speed and competitiveness of a breed that wants to run and compete.” – CMO
Competitiveness = Game
Game is what is wanted in a dog when dog fighting.
Now what you’re saying is that the horse is being bred for gameness and speed to the standards of horse racing.
Exactly how a fighting dog is bred in accordance with the fighter’s breed standards.
The fact of the matter is, that the dog and the horse are at risk of being injured or dying due to the actions of humans in intentionally placing those animals in situations where injury and death are known to occur. Of course it’s for the entertainment and financial gain. If you race or bet on horse racing you are complicit in the animals injury or death as you are supporting the activity. Same as if you would fight or place a bet on a dog fight.
Another example. You purchase a steak at the local Piggly Wiggly you have commissioned the death of a cow. Same thing applies to vegans and vegetarians when they purchase their produce from a store that buys from farmers that engage in pest eradication or fail to protect all the animals in the field.
Now, I’ll ask, CMO, what is the difference between a dog fight and a horse race? Both are used to test the breed standards of the animals involved and the champions are used as stud for their bloodlines to promote those breed standards. Champion fighting dogs are worth thousands of dollars, by the way.
I’ll agree that there isn’t much in common between dog fighting and horse racing, but Cappy’s basic point that horse racing is abusive to horses is 100% true. The horse industry over breeds the hell out of thoroughbreds looking for the next triple crown winner. The 99% of foals that don’t look to have triple crown potential are dumped at auction, frequently malnourished and in poor health as the breeding farms don’t waste dollars taking care of obvious “losers.” Also horses are not fully developed until after age 3. They shouldn’t be ridden at all at age 2, let alone worked as hard as a race horse is worked. Over population is an ongoing problem with equines, and the racing industry dumping thousands and thousands of colts into the world every year only exacerbates the problem.
COD, I am happy to report, you are way off. “The 99% of foals that don’t look to have triple crown potential are dumped at auction, frequently malnourished and in poor health,” is completely inaccurate. Breeding outfits are in business to breed and sell racehorses, which are a valuable commodity. Farms have an incentive to care for young horses as they are prepared to enter the sales ring. Horses are not “dumped” at auction, but rather nurtured and developed with an eye toward the sales ring, so that the farm can turn a profit. So the seller has every incentive to protect and nurture young equines (and if you visit any breeding farm in Kentucky or elsewhere, you will see that is exactly what they do).
Most people are in the horse business because they love horses – there are certainly easier ways to make a living than raising and selling horses – but outside of the love of the horse, there are powerful financial incentives to take care of their equine charges.
There are powerful incentives to take care of the 1 in a 100 that has the conformation and mental makeup to maybe someday make somebody lots of money on a race track. The other 99% are a liability to the breeder. They are expenses with no hope of a positive ROI, and they are expenses that the breeder will eliminate as soon as they can, usually by dumping the horses at auction. I’ve seen the horses just after they get to a farm courtesy of a thoroughbred rescue group. Trust me, these horses were not loved by anybody.
Why don’t you just stop trying to force that failed analogy? If you want to criticize what actually happens to the horses, you may have a couple points to make. Otherwise, you’re coming across as hysterical and irrational.
If there are people involved in horse racing who mistreat the animals, any responsible organization ought to ban them from participating. But that’s just my opinion.
I’m disgusted by dog fighting (or cock fighting). Most people probably feel the same as I do and wouldn’t want to associate with anyone involved in animal fighting (or other cruelty). The NFL would have had every right to ban Michael Vick for life. Still, I don’t agree with imprisoning people over it. Dogs aren’t people.
I have no problem with killing animals for food. I’ve done it. I prefer that when others do it for me by proxy (look up “economic specialization”), they do so as humanely as possible. But it’s not easy to know how a steak or chicken got to my supermarket. Given a choice, I’d rather have free-range chickens and grass-fed beef, not just because those animals likely live more comfortably before they are killed, but because the meat and eggs are healthier for me.
I’m a grownup about these things. Life isn’t a goddamned cartoon.
Vegans and vegetarians who oppose eating meat on ethical grounds have a childish view of the world. And, they are pushing an unhealthy diet.
Our ancestors ate meat and seafood. If they didn’t, humans wouldn’t have evolved to have the brain capacity we have now. Before agriculture, hominids needed animal fat and protein to fuel their large brains. Had the early hominids not been carnivorous for a good part of their diet, we wouldn’t be having this exchange.
As for animals in the field dying because of agriculture, that’s just another reason why veganism is silly and childish. Billions of people can’t get enough food without wiping out forests or without using pesticides and genetically selected crops (a la Norman Borlaug).
The history of life is one of killing and eating, species competing for resources and habitat. Only in cartoons and environmentalist fantasy films are people and animals in harmony.
Life is violent and cutthroat. Grow up.
#44
It’s called the naturalistic fallacy. Look it up.
Elliot, the position continues to stand true.
Horse racing and dog fighting are the use of animals by humans for the humans interests with the full knowledge that death and injury can and will occur.
I would even venture to argue that dog fighting is more “pure” than horse racing as there isn’t a human physically encouraging a dog to perform.
Misapplication.
First, I was agreeing with Cappy that buying meat is morally the same as killing the animal. I simply confirmed his assertion and stated that doing so did not violate my personal values.
Second, Cappy’s statement, to which I responded, was not a moral argument against killing animals. Rather, Cappy was giving examples of how even being a vegan often involves harm to animals.
Again, I agreed with this observation, but gave my opinion that veganism is a childish outlook on nature, due to the inevitability of harming animals, no matter how we choose to survive.
Whether one chooses to eat meat is a matter of personal values, and any argument I make, naturalistic or not, is not going to convince someone like Cappy. That isn’t the point. It’s to point out the inherent contradictions in some of the vegan arguments.
Nice try.
Repeated assertions are no substitute for a rational argument.
People keep countering your argument, and you keep ignoring them. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not a proper debate technique:
You already wrote that. Why don’t you address the track runner with the gladiator example?
#47
It’s not a misapplication. The arguments for vegetarianism/veganism may be good, bad, strong, or weak. But the facts that early hominids ate meat and seafood, and in fact that animal protein may have been essential to the development of the modern brain, is not a moral argument or a moral justification. That’s the naturalistic fallacy. If you are now claiming that it was not your intent to make that kind of an argument, you are being dishonest. Even if, as you put it, “the history of life is one of killing and eating,” this fact has no moral significance.
Either you are guilty of the naturalistic fallacy (which is pretty obvious), or large portions of your post are flagrant non sequiturs.
*Not quite sure how to quote here*
Elliot, I can go along with the gladiator example under two conditions:
1. You find it acceptable for humans to be property.
2. You are placing humans and animals on the same value scale.
Why are you still thrashing away at that strawman?
Read this very slowly. Read it 3 times. I was agreeing with Cappy about the moral equivalence of butcher/farmer as proxy.
My comments about vegetarianism were that it is stupid, not immoral. If you want to go against your genetic makeup, as it relates to metabolism, you have every moral right to munch away on veggies and tofu. For that matter, if you want to eat donuts and potato chips, smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink a pint of whiskey, shoot up hard drugs, and juggle knives, you have that right, too.
I won’t stop you. In other words, there is no moral judgment here.
Now, if the discussion was about forcing someone else to be a vegetarian, that would have been a different case. But then, I would have simply referred to individual rights, as with innumerable other instances of prohibition.
Your inability to read and think logically has nothing to do with my honesty.
My words stand on their own and if you’re too stupid to get them, that’s a deficiency on your part. And, if you’re going to accuse me of being a liar, even after I try to correct you, then you need to work on your manners.
Or, you’re a rude, ignorant person who can’t understand what he’s read.
Since no one brought up the notion of prohibiting individuals of eating particular foods, the individual choice to be a vegetarian or not has no moral element in this discussion. It’s about personal values, not political ones.
Cappy, you need not “go along with” the gladiator example. You simply need to address the contrast between forcing dogs into mortal combat vs. riding horses around a track.
You’ve listed the similarities, but ignored the differences. That makes your argument lazy and incomplete.
Your two conditions are nōn sequuntor. The person making that analogy doesn’t intend to assert that the situations involving humans and animals are similar in every way. Rather, the person (I presume) intended to illustrate that the pairs have similarly contrasting conditions.
Furthermore, since I’m not enslaving people and forcing them to engage in gladiator combat, I fail to see how you think it’s necessary that I “find it acceptable for humans to be property.” Obviously, I don’t. But the people who set up gladiator combat did.
#51
“My comments about vegetarianism were that it is stupid, not immoral. If you want to go against your genetic makeup, as it relates to metabolism, you have every moral right to munch away on veggies and tofu. ”
The problem is that you don’t quite understand the terminology that you are using. When you say you have a “moral right” to do something, you are conflating two concepts. There is morality generally, and there is justice, which is a subset of morality dealing with when it is appropriate to use coercion against other moral actors. You have a _right_ to do lots of things that are _immoral_. For example, you have a perfect right to make fun of people that look differently than you – but it is still immoral to do so.
When you call vegetarianism “stupid” you are making a moral argument. Being stupid, or adhering to stupid positions, are moral vices. But, there are lots of things in the world that you have a right to be stupid about. It may be the case that you have a perfect right to be an omnivore, but that it is immoral to be such. I’m not saying I adhere to that position, but because you fail to distinguish between justice and morality generally, you can’t grasp the distinction.
In any case, it’s clear that even if you aren’t using the naturalistic fallacy to make an argument regarding vegetarianism rooted in justice (whether or not you have the “right” to be or to not be a vegetarain), you are making a general moral argument about vegetarianism based upon the naturalitic fallacy (“early hominids ate meat, and if you choose not to eat meat you have the ethos of a child and are stupid, even though you have the right to do so”).
You’re conflating vice or rudeness with immorality.
If you have a right to do something, it’s not immoral. It may be self-destructive, rude, racist, or gross to others, but until you cross the line of violating the rights of others, you have the moral authority to act as you please.
Your poor examples of what is “immoral” but for which you have a “right” to do, like making fun of how people look, is a matter of personal values. You may think it’s bad to do that and choose not to associate with people who make fun of how others look. Your neighbor might think it’s fun to roast other people and that everyone needs to lighten up and not make such a big deal of such things. You both have different personal values. That doesn’t make your neighbor immoral, nor make you morally superior. It may make you a nicer person whose company other people prefer.
Since I fully acknowledge that vegetarians have every right to eat rabbit food, whether it’s stupid or not, I am in no way making a value judgment.
A vice is not immoral. It’s self-destructive, but in and of itself, not immoral. The phrase “moral vices” makes no sense. I’m an atheist libertarian, so you’ll get no traction from me on prohibitions on victimless behavior (drugs, gambling, etc.).
Hey, we agree. Just so long as you keep your stupidity on your own side of the fence, there’s no problem.
Again, if I have a right to do something, then doing it is not immoral.
You may not approve, in which case it violates your personal values. But your personal values don’t establish what is moral or immoral.
If you thought meat-eating was bad, but went ahead and ate meat because you liked the taste, then you’d be abandoning your personal values. You may feel guilty. You may hate yourself. But that’s really none of my business and so I have no cause to make a moral judgment that you should be stopped from doing so, even if I think it would be “for your own good.” That would be me imposing my personal values on you, substituting my judgment for yours when it comes to your own personal business. That is immoral because it violates your right to choose your own values.
On the contrary, you’re the one who doesn’t distinguish between personal values and political values (i.e., the morality of interpersonal actions).
Check your premises. Your arguments are anything but clear, since you’re making an irrational distinction between rights and morality.
I wrote: “…I am in no way making a value judgment.”
I should have written: “…I am in no way making a moral judgment.”
It is my personal value judgment that vegetarianism is stupid. But I’m not going to force anyone to not be a vegetarian.
Even though this is your strawman creation, I’m going to demonstrate that you’re wrong even when you argue against yourself.
Start with the “Healthy School Meals Act of 2010” being pushed by Elizabeth Kucinich, who is a vegan, like her husband, Dennis, who recently ran for president. This amounts to spending our tax dollars to create incentives to schools to start selling vegetarian meals and brainwashing these children and their parents into believing that such a diet is the healthiest, and that meat and dairy are unhealthy.
The most obvious moral objection to such a law is that it denies individual choice. If allowed to, I would choose not to be a part of such crap. That, by itself, is sufficient to show that such laws are immoral. Period. Full stop.
But we all know that our governments don’t give a damn about violating individual rights to get what they want. Current political arguments ignore that and hinge on utilitarian arguments (i.e., abandonment of rational principles).
So, while I ought to be able to simply argue that the government should not take money from me to subsidize, penalize, incentivize, or propagandize things I firmly oppose, I realize that those in power (and most of the voters who put them there) are deaf to such reasoning.
I’m not going to abandon my principles and accept their baseline of utilitarianism, which is why I refuse to vote. Voting is just a way to subject moral questions to a popularity contest and I reject that outright. But I can attempt to subvert their attempts to claim moral authority by showing that they’re not even right on their own terms.
In other words, I can supplement my moral objections to government prohibitions and interference in the free market by making the case that their goals and their “official” dietary advice do not hold up to thorough scientific scrutiny. In that respect, it is quite relevant to point out the fact that humans have evolved so that they are healthiest eating meat and/or seafood, in addition to the whole foods typical of the Paleolithic diet, and that eating processed food and vegetable oils strongly correlates with the rise of “diseases of civilization” (CV disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity). If the utilitarians want to argue that they should be allowed to force me to pay for what they claim is most healthy, then providing a counter-argument lets the air out of their tires, even if they shouldn’t have been given the keys in the first place.
What I choose to eat is part of my personal values.
What other people force me to pay for is a matter of political values, thus subject to moral judgment.
I object to my tax dollars being used to subsidize farmers and impose tariffs on sugar imports (which is anti-freedom and provides a perverse incentive to put HFCS in a zillion food products). I also object to the government using my tax dollars to push their food pyramid and other bad health advice on other people. Most importantly, I object to the Health Care Deform which will make me responsible for all the people who eat unhealthy diets, full of HFCS and soy, thinking that being “low fat” is more important than avoiding the high glycemic load of many types of carbohydrates, and particularly processed foods.
Now, you can give what I just wrote to your little scarecrow so he can counter your silly arguments against him.
Okay, Elliot.
Cappy, you need not “go along with” the gladiator example. You simply need to address the contrast between forcing dogs into mortal combat vs. riding horses around a track.
There is no contrast between fighting dogs and “riding” horses around a track, because as we all know, it’s more than just “riding” horses around a track.
You familiar with dog fighting?
So you have a containment system, typically a squared off section on the ground with walls of a determined size. There is an imaginary line drawn from corner to corner between the two dogs in their respective corners. This line is known as a scratch line. Each dog has a handler and there is a referee or judge if you prefer. Upon the referee’s command the dogs are released by their handlers to engage in a fight. If a fails to engage in the fight or jumps the wall, the fight is over. If at some point during the fight one of the dog’s turns away from the fight, the referee calls a Turn. The dogs are separated by the handlers and returned to their respective corners. This is now where the scratch line comes into play. At the ref’s command, the handler of the dog that turned releases his dog. The other dog is restrained by his handler. If the dog released does not cross the scratch line within a specified time, generally 10 seconds, to engage the other dog, the fight is over.
Now granted, if a dog jumps the wall before the fight even starts odds are that dog will be destroyed. And yes, some dogs do die after the fight due to their injuries. But the winners, if they do not succumb to their injuries are allowed to continue onward. And not all losers are killed.
Generally speaking, once a dog wins anywhere from five to ten fights consecutively, that dog is declared a Grand Champion and put out to stud.
Now we come to the issue of game. Gameness is the drive of the dog, his competitiveness, the never give-in type of attitude. Every dog can fight, but not every dog has game. There is a difference. These dog fighters breed these dogs for game. It’s to their own breed standards.
The dogs are not forced to fight. The opportunity is provided to them to fight. You can’t make a dog fight who doesn’t want to fight.
Now we’ve gone over what the goal is in horse racing and dog fighting. I’ll reiterate.
1. Entertainment.
2. Financial gain (stud, offspring, gambling)
3. To develop an animal to a specific breed standard.
Now there is more.
In both cases the dog and the horse are lead by humans, one to the squared circle, the other to the starting gate.
Now here is where the paths diverge. The dog is released by the handler and allowed to fight on it’s own terms. The horse is not allowed to run on it’s own terms. It is controlled by a human throughout the race and this can be defined as “forced”.
And once again, in both cases, the dog and the horse are susceptible to injury and/or death. Injury is much more likely to occur in a dog fight, but that is stating the obvious. Yet this makes it no less cruel (cruelty is pretty subjective standard in and of itself) as it is well-known that injuries and death can occur on the track, and it is intentional and it is for financial gain. No forced race, no injuries or death.
Ya also don’t see a dog handler “encouraging” his dog to fight via a crop.
Your two conditions are nōn sequuntor. The person making that analogy doesn’t intend to assert that the situations involving humans and animals are similar in every way. Rather, the person (I presume) intended to illustrate that the pairs have similarly contrasting conditions.
Furthermore, since I’m not enslaving people and forcing them to engage in gladiator combat, I fail to see how you think it’s necessary that I “find it acceptable for humans to be property.” Obviously, I don’t. But the people who set up gladiator combat did.
If the person making that analogy does not intend to assert the situations involving humans and are similar in every way, then they are creating a fallacy.
If two people willingly and consensually agreed to mortal combat, then there is no issue. They entered into a contract at their own risk and with full knowledge.
Generally speaking, most gladiators were slaves. Hence, property of another person and were forced to engage in mortal combat under penalty of death. Certain death is a pretty compelling motivator to face uncertain death. Since you are speaking of gladiators who are not owned by persons, then there is no comparison to speak of when comparing the use of animals to the fighting of gladiators. Animals are owned, people are not.
Of course if the argument is that gladiators are owned, slaves, and a person draws that comparison in their argument towards dog fighting or horse racing then they placing the same value on a human as they would a dog or horse and the gladiator can be treated as such.
In the end, it involves use of animals by humans with the hypocritical notion that one type of “cruelty” is acceptable while the other is not.
Also, I believe every person has the right to use their property as they wish as long as said use does not cause harm to another person. But I also possess the right to freedom of association. I am not required to associate, assist or conduct business with a person who’s actions I find to be disagreeable.
#54
“If you have a right to do something, it’s not immoral. It may be self-destructive, rude, racist, or gross to others, but until you cross the line of violating the rights of others, you have the moral authority to act as you please.”
Again, you don’t understand the difference between morality generally and justice, which is the subset of morality that governs when it is legitimate to use force against another person to compel them or prevent them from doing something. You attempt to restrict issues of morality to just the latter, but you provide no legitimate basis for doing so. You have a perfect right to cheat on your spouse, because you own your own body and nobody has a right to use force against you to prevent it from happening. However, it’s still wrong. The things you list – vices like racism, and rudeness – are all moral failings. Just because you have a right to be a racist doesn’t make being a racist okay – it just means you have a right to be immoral.
“Even though this is your strawman creation, I’m going to demonstrate that you’re wrong even when you argue against yourself.”
The irony is enough to kill. What on earth are you talking about? Your entire post was an enormous non sequitur. What does acknowledging the naturalistic fallacy have to do with the “Healthy School Meals Act” ? I never made a case for supporting it (and don’t). What exactly was your point?
Perhaps the problem is that your subjective evaluation of cruelty doesn’t match up with what others think. I cannot understand how you could argue, with a straight face, that riding an animal around a track is “no less cruel” than deliberately putting animals in a far more dangerous situation (a “blood sport”).
Injuries and even death can occur at a track meet. People get sprains, broken bones, and in rare cases, they can die from heart defects, aneurysms, etc.. Does that make participation just as dangerous as in a “blood sport” match (extreme fighting, or a fight to the death)? Only a fool would make such an assertion. It’s extremely lazy, and perhaps intentionally misleading, to make no attempt to differentiate different levels of risk, not to mention how the very nature of the game/event revolves around defeating an opponent by harming him/it. That some dogs can run away, or that some “extreme fighters” can back out (gladiators couldn’t), doesn’t mean that the majority that engage in combat are somehow less dangerous.
You’re obviously not familiar with the concept of analogy. By your argument, the people drawing the analogies must assert that people run on four legs.
Please.
You’re not making any sense. I said, “Obviously, I don’t [find slavery acceptable]. But the people who set up gladiator combat did.” So, no, my references to gladiators are not to non-slave combatants. Not that it matters, anyway.
When one draws an analogy, one disregards irrelevant differences to focus on the commonality. What does it matter that animals are considered property by people? What’s crucial is the difference between a speed contest and a “blood sport” combat.
I don’t know the rules of dog fighting, so I’ll take your word for it. But you leave out some details. According to Wikipedia (which admittedly is not always accurate) many dog fighters use “bait animals” to train their dogs to kill, which means muzzling a dog or using a small animal as fodder, subjecting it to being chewed to death. Also, I question how well a dog is treated after retirement, in comparison to champion horses. A champion race horse can still be treated like other horses, but a fighting dog has been made into a monster. So, abandoned or rescued dogs are typically euthanized.
A better comparison for you might be greyhound racing. My brother has adopted a few greyhounds. As he explained it, owners who don’t want to pay to board a dog in the off season (I’m assuming after they have passed their prime), have an economic incentive to euthanize them. They don’t make very good pets, as far as I’m concerned, but some people do adopt them, in part to avoid seeing them put to death.
Not that sending a dog to run after a fake rabbit is in any way comparable to fighting dogs, mind you.
Perhaps because what you call “cruelty” and admit is a subjective judgment isn’t anything like the cruelty of dog fighting.
Are you familiar with libertarianism, or with individualist ethics in general?
I try to make my use of words like “rights”, “moral”, “values”, and “political” as consistent as possible with the authors I’ve read, as well as with the many individualist writers available in newspapers and blogs. Granted, I catch myself making errors here and there, and I don’t claim to be as elegant a writer as many.
But I’m amused at your curious choice of definitions. I can’t recall reading anyone using these words like you are.
I avoid the word “justice” because it is so often used in a legal context. I have no interest in the law when discussing morality, so I don’t care to venture too close to that spider’s web. Note your use of the word “legitimate”, i.e., according to what the legislators decide. I would have recommended you use the word “valid” or “rational” instead, if that was what you intended.
According to my personal values, cheating is wrong. But if my neighbor thinks it’s OK to cheat on his wife, then, to him, cheating is not wrong. We have different personal values.
The same doesn’t hold when an action violates the rights of another, like stealing. It doesn’t matter if my neighbor thinks it’s not wrong to keep a bag of money that falls out of the back of an armored car. The fact is that the money doesn’t belong to him and the rightful owners are harmed if he steals it. So, it’s not just a matter of his personal values. Then, it’s a matter of right and wrong, morality
If your boss doesn’t like Hispanics and rants and raves about them “invading” this country, then he’s a stupid bigot. Maybe he refuses to hire any Hispanics. By your personal values, being racist like that is not OK, so you can choose to work for someone else. It’s not OK with me, so I can choose to do business with some other company.
But the fact is that, as much as we may despise him for it, he has exclusive moral authority over his own mind–which means he can believe any stupid, bigoted, racist crap he wants to. It’s not immoral for him to do so. Also, if he’s the owner of the business, the jobs belong to him and he has the moral authority to decide who he will and will not hire. (Nobody is owed a job.) Despite the law and despite our personal values, it is not immoral for him to discriminate. (It’s a different story when the government imposes such racism, as with Jim Crow laws. That’s immoral because individual business owners who may want to serve people of all races have their rights denied.)
No one committed the Appeal to Nature fallacy (what you call the “naturalistic fallacy”), for the simple reason that there was no moral question to be settled. Nobody was asserting that anyone else ought to be a vegetarian or not.
But since you were so keen on trying to force there to be a question of morality, I decided to offer a hypothetical example, so I pulled something out of the news. (I heard Elizabeth Kucinich on Alan Colmes radio show a couple weeks ago. I called to try to correct their misinformation, but didn’t get to speak on air.) This was intended to demonstrate a situation where there was a question of morality to answer.
As I pointed out, it wasn’t necessary to argue that vegetarianism goes against our genetically determined metabolisms (which are necessarily shaped by the evolution of our ancestors). It was only necessary to stand on the principle that I shouldn’t be force to pay for something with which I disagree.
It’s too bad if you didn’t follow the argument.