Sorry, I wasn’t aware that we were arguing. I thought you were asking me what I thought.
I wasn’t aware how the existence of the ASPCA prevents us from effectively lowering human suffering. Perhaps you can explain it?
Making an argument in support of a viewpoint is quite obviously a different sense of the word than having an argument. But you know this, so if you no longer want to engage we can let this go.
The ethical philosopher Peter Singer is the place to start if you want your views on this to be challenged. He’s a brilliant writer on a whole range of real-world ethical issues, not just animal rights.
Sounds like you need to talk this out with the poster named @Slash1972.
That’s true. But since this is the IMHO forum, I thought you were asking for my opinion. If you want cites and scholarly articles about why we should care about chickens, then I’m sorry I can’t provide any information on that. Because I don’t care about chickens, so I’ve never found the need to look them up.
I didn’t ask you for cites. You made arguments in support of your position. I pointed out that they were weak arguments and explained why. If you’re doubling down with pedantic nonsense about which forum we are in rather than responding to the substance of what I said, I take it you’re done with the discussion.
You say this jokingly as though it’s obviously silly to worry about chickens. But it’s really not a virtue to have never thought about or educated yourself about the unnecessary suffering of animals that you consume for food.
Luckily, I’ve never said it was a virtue.
Yet you flaunt your ignorance as though it is.
Do I? Please point out where I’ve flaunted my ignorance. On the one subject I was I ignorant on, I told you, and you provided a link and I read it.
If you actually want to fight ignorance and discuss substantive ethical issues surrounding animal welfare, I’m happy to engage. Otherwise, I’m done here.
Sure. I’m up for that. What substantive ethical issues surrounding animal welfare are you interested in discussing?
People who are cruel to animals tend to be cruel to humans.
Being cruel to animals, and being in an environment where that cruelty is encouraged, can desensitize someone towards cruelty towards humans, and children as well (even especially.).
This is IMHO, so I’m not looking to go cite for cite proving the argument, just providing the framework where your one highest priority can be affected by something you care as little about as chicken fights.
That’s fair. But there are people who hate the thought of animals tortured, but think nothing of seeing human beings kept in cages.
Banning cock fights is less about animal endangerment and more about stopping illegal gambling. Roosters are unpredictable, harder to handicap. Now betting on kinder fighting is where the real money can be made!
“Whatabout-ism” sort of fits the OP.
This. And not just illegal gambling. Illicit large gatherings for bloodsports where people get heated plus large amounts of money on the line leads to all kinds of violence.
Want to argue for the legalization of bloodsports? Have at it, though I disagree. But as long as cockfighting is illegal, it’s a good idea to actually, you know, stop illegal cockfights.
Man, I forgot I was actually in this conversation. But since I am, let’s explore this. Marijuana is illegal, do you think cops should waste resources to stop marijuana possession?
I think if my neighbor is dealing pot, leading to dozens or hundreds of people gathering at a time and fights and other disorderly behavior are breaking out on his yard, then yes.
There are hundreds of people gathering at your neighbor’s house just to buy pot?
No. But cockfights are big gatherings. Dozens of people, at least. Lots of money changing hands. People agitated. The point of bloodsports is to get agitated.
My point isn’t that all laws should be equally enforced. It’s that illegal cockfights are not innocuous events, and it’s reasonable to want them shut down.