Excellent points, all of them.Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
As someone with a degree in ethical theory, the key to defining "cruelty" is not based on my opinion, or your opinion, but in fact the perspective of the participant.
For example, an actual dogfight is neutral, and there are only two perspectives that matter: those of the individual dogs. One dog may enjoy it, and one dog may be terrified of it, and thus there is both cruelty and enjoyment in the same neutral dogfight. The whole idea behind the Cajun Rules is actually to eliminate cruelty and to reward gameness (fighting enjoyment). The first "sign" of a dog not wanting to be there is called a turn. The first sign of a dog not wanting to continue (standing the line) and the fight is OVER. Thus, again, the entire point of our sport is to prevent cruelty, by stopping the contest when one dog no longer wants to be there, and by rewarding gameness, in cherishing and awarding the win to those dogs who never stop WANTING to fight.
I do agree, some people are so irrational that they cannot see this in our sport, and will hate it regardless of the facts as I stated them. But it also swings the other way, namely that some people have absolutely no regard for life at all, and do not place any value on the actual dogs involved, only the win/lose aspect, which (instead of being an excess of emotion over "poor doggies") is an utter lack of emotional attachment to the dogs at all. And IMO, excess in either direction is undesirable.
______________________________
______________________________
I think being a hardcore gambler is always a character disorder, and most psychologists see it as such. Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance, and which (especially when lives are on the line) almost always yields detrimental results. Now, my own brother is a professional poker player, and has studied it mathematically, and actually can calculate his odds and count cards, because of his incredible intellect, but he does it for purely academic reasons and never bets "his whole earnings" on any bet. He just does it as an intellectual game, a pastime, but never to excess--even though statistically he wins FAR mare than he loses, and that is at a very high level of play.
Regarding labels, I think they are important, but I agree they can be misused. For example, if someone stole a dog from you, and took your money also, I am pretty sure you would label them "a thief," and I also am pretty sure you wouldn't detach yourself emotionally and just call him "a man who wanted my money." Labels can be either praise, neutral, or pejorative in nature ... and generating these sentiments can be important for perspective: warning people of bad natures and encouraging people of good natures.
And, to my way of thinking, any man who values a win more than life itself cannot entirely be trusted, because his values are upside-down according to the way I see the world. Because most of the people I know who have values like this have other questionable value systems as well, as almost invariably they will "cross the line" in other key and ways that show a disregard for others, to get what they want, if you study their behavior closely.
Jack
Reply With Quote
