NEWS: Say Goodbye to Cockfighting

Because cocks in the wild totally strap on spurs to their little cock ankles and go three rounds with each other for the entertainment of watching humans.

It's, like, nature, man!

I care about your hurt feelings about as much as you care for the cocks you like to see tear each other to shreds.

Dayum, you is still dumb. Seriously, I don't give a leaping shit how smart you think you are. You're a cretin.

It affects the fucking birds. You fucking twerp.

It affects the fucking birds. You fucking twerp.

Do you know the definiton of spurious, sphincter boy? And you are a "fucking bird" PETArd?

Excellent grammar BTW. "Dayum, you is still dumb." Yes, I "is" dumb.

Do you know the definiton of spurious, sphincter boy? And you are a "fucking bird" PETArd?

Excellent grammar BTW. "Dayum, you is still dumb." Yes, I "is" dumb.

I don't really give a flying throw at a rolling donut what YOUR ignorant Aussie ass thinks about my intelligence, there are five certifying bodies in my field that say I am just fine. Go back to the penal colony with the rest of the peckers.

I'm glad you told me twice.

If you look carefully at what I typed, the sick fuck comment was in reference to making stallions fight with razors on their hooves.

Would making horses do that be ok? Or are roosters the only animal that should be used in such a way?

RudieCantFail said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

If I don't get rid of the troll food pretty soon, it's going to go bad. And you know that stuff stinks when it starts to go south.

DhD_PillowPants said:

RudieCantFail said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

If I don't get rid of the troll food pretty soon, it's going to go bad. And you know that stuff stinks when it starts to go south.

I've decided to start referring to internet trolls as gollums, because there are some trolls that are quite amiable, so I'd like to discontinue it's use as a derogatory.

*popcorn*

Charybdus said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I don't see my arguments as spurious.

1) We also have dog races and horse races and turtle and cockroach races. This is also entertainment. Should we ban this too? After all, retired greyhounds are often euthanized.

2) Obviously, you would rather go down mooing with a spike in your head from an airgun than fighting. Good for you. I personally would like to kick a little ass on my way out.

3) Being a vegetarian is super-duper. Less footprint and all that. I am not. "You" as a vegetarian have no right to force me to subsist on green leafy things. I have canines. I like meat. Do what you want, but DO NOT TRAMPLE ON MY RIGHTS.

I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN GAMECOCKS. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN ROCKS. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN ALL OTHER FORMS OF LIFE, EVEN CUTE FUZZY BUNNIES.

I guess that makes my argument spurious. Lah tee dah.

By the way, I think I could make arrangements to turn you in to chickenfeed if you'd like.

How you managed to get a four year degree without being able to reason your way out of a wet paper bag is a mystery.

Your arguments are faulty:

You argure that people should be able to treat animals as cruelly as they wish since they are property. The state of Louisiana disagrees with you. Following your logic, bestiality is equally defensible.

You argue that local custom should not be commented on by outsiders, simply because they are outsiders. Following your logic, lynching is OK too.

You can't grasp the implications of the points you're making nor follow your own flawed logic to conclusion. Other posters in this thread can and have done so here.

Stiles said:

Charybdus said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I don't see my arguments as spurious.

1) We also have dog races and horse races and turtle and cockroach races. This is also entertainment. Should we ban this too? After all, retired greyhounds are often euthanized.

2) Obviously, you would rather go down mooing with a spike in your head from an airgun than fighting. Good for you. I personally would like to kick a little ass on my way out.

3) Being a vegetarian is super-duper. Less footprint and all that. I am not. "You" as a vegetarian have no right to force me to subsist on green leafy things. I have canines. I like meat. Do what you want, but DO NOT TRAMPLE ON MY RIGHTS.

I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN GAMECOCKS. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN ROCKS. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE MORE VALUE THAN ALL OTHER FORMS OF LIFE, EVEN CUTE FUZZY BUNNIES.

I guess that makes my argument spurious. Lah tee dah.

By the way, I think I could make arrangements to turn you in to chickenfeed if you'd like.

How you managed to get a four year degree without being able to reason your way out of a wet paper bag is a mystery.

Your arguments are faulty:

You argure that people should be able to treat animals as cruelly as they wish since they are property. The state of Louisiana disagrees with you. Following your logic, bestiality is equally defensible.

You argue that local custom should not be commented on by outsiders, simply because they are outsiders. Following your logic, lynching is OK too.

You can't grasp the implications of the points you're making nor follow your own flawed logic to conclusion. Other posters in this thread can and have done so here.

*yawn* OK here we go again.

1) Placing an animal in a fighting pit and raping one ARE NOT equivalent. You cannot force an animal to fight. You can force your penis inside an animal. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

2) Chickens are not humans. Because I might like to go out and bet on a cockfight Friday night DOES NOT mean I am dragging people behind my pickup Saturday. This is so idiotic I don't know how to even respond.


The problem here is not my reasoning -- its people misquoting and misinterpreting what I post.

Regardless, I am sick of this. If this is all you have to fight for, consider your battle won.
Huzzah!

This post is so completely stupid that flagging it and having it removed would be letting you off the hook too easily.

Let's see: your arguments are:-

1. Animals are chattel.

This argument does not distinguish between abusing animals for sport and abusing animals for sex.

Ding ding ding! Stiles wins!

2. You're not from Louisiana, I am, so fuck off.

This argument uses local interest and "tradition" to trump all other arguments. If lynching and/or dragging people behind your car was local tradition, this argument would make no distinction between that and cockfighting

Ding ding ding! Stiles wins!

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. According to your line of reasoning, they are both equally permissible because both involve purposely inflicting pain on animals solely for your entertainment.

Again, you told other people repeatedly to stay out of long-accepted local pastimes, since we weren't from your area. Lynching was another cruel and inhuman local pastime widely accepted in the South for decades, even having some entertainment value for the crowds involved. Arguing that it is not a valid comparison because of the species involved misses the forest for the trees.

Again.

Nobody has misquoted nor misinterpreted you. We understand exactly what you're saying, as sickening and wrongheaded as it is.

Does this mean you'll stop posting? Huzzah, indeed.


Edit: damn you, TFOK!

Got your back, slowpoke.

Fixed.

WIN !

Actually, the Balinese definition of cruelty is more like yours. Cock fighting is acceptable behavior there. I'm not assuming they are cruel, I am stating those of them that participate in cock fighting are cruel. My definition of cruelty is not the Balinese definition or your definition. If you're having trouble understanding why enjoying cockfighting indicates that you are a cruel person(by the definition posted earlier that is the common one used in our society), I pity your educators.

I've talked to 12 year olds with no degree at all that have more adequate reasoning skills than yourself. Your sad attempts to justify your views using faulty logic are pathetic. Studying Latin with broken reasoning skills must have been especially challenging.

I noticed you were unable to answer the question.

I know, I know this forces you to think. It might be difficult at first, but you know so much more than all of us.
Please explain to us, how you enjoying the suffering of these animals is not a behavior that can be defined as cruelty?

Stop beating around the bush with semantics.

You can say your version of cruelty is "different" to every other persons version, but maybe you should start by redefining cruelty to us all?
Since a common definition isn't adequate for the special world that you appear to live in.

Well, I'm not so sure the others were flag-worthy. Just stupid.

I can't stand the sick fucks that abuse animals.

I understand that yes, animals in the wild kill each other, but why FORCE a situation on an animal? Why make two angry, enraged animals on each other knowing that they will kill each other and WHY be the person to do it?

People who get pleasure from that are deranged and should just die.
I'm not a PETA fan, but I know right from wrong.