Aramis Tied To Cockfighting

[Tyrant]

I wanted to talk more about this.

[Old Style]

nm Edited February 15, 2008 by Old Style

[Tyrant]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

[ctcf]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

[David]

Greg Couch is a douchebag.

[Sammy Sofa]

Elephannnnnnnnnnt fiiiiiiiiiights.

 

Come on people, get behind me on this.

 

Then we'll get creative, like, a gorilla with a bat vs. a polar bear with a grudge.

[CubinNY]

I just sent him an email asking what he was having for lunch. I also asked if his quest against Aaramis was tiring.

[David]

I haven't looked yet, but I'm going to guess that Rozner either already has something written, or has something in the works.

[DenverCubs]

Elephannnnnnnnnnt fiiiiiiiiiights.

 

Come on people, get behind me on this.

 

Then we'll get creative, like, a gorilla with a bat vs. a polar bear with a grudge.

How about a chimp with like steel fists vs. a 5 point buck with laser eyes.

[MemphisVol]

I'm certainly not a liberal animal rights advocate, but I think I have to agree with him if this is true. Any kind of animal fighting is inexcusable.

[frostwyrm]

I don't see anything outrageous about Couch's column. I pretty much agree with all of it, and I don't mind admitting that my opinion of Aramis Ramirez as a person has dropped quite a bit because of this business.

[Banedon]

So far so good with this replacement thread, but a warning for everyone.

 

If all the immature jokes start again, some people are going to get some breaks from NSBB.

[Sammy Sofa]

Elephannnnnnnnnnt fiiiiiiiiiights.

 

Come on people, get behind me on this.

 

Then we'll get creative, like, a gorilla with a bat vs. a polar bear with a grudge.

How about a chimp with like steel fists vs. a 5 point buck with laser eyes.

 

NOW we're talking.

 

Ancient Rome shouldn't have 'ess on us, what with our modern technologies and all. SHOULD WE NOT BE ENTERTAINED?!?

[Tyrant]

So far so good with this replacement thread, but a warning for everyone.

 

If all the immature jokes start again, some people are going to get some breaks from NSBB.

 

Like I said, I hope it's OK I started another one. I do think it's an interesting discussion if done properly.

[OleMissCub]

 

Ancient Rome shouldn't have 'ess on us, what with our modern technologies and all. SHOULD WE NOT BE ENTERTAINED?!?

 

Yeti with a trident and net vs. an Orangutan with a ball and chain.

[DenverCubs]

 

Ancient Rome shouldn't have 'ess on us, what with our modern technologies and all. SHOULD WE NOT BE ENTERTAINED?!?

 

Yeti with a trident and net vs. an Orangutan with a ball and chain.

Maybe if you cut the Yeti's left Achilles tendon it would be fair.

I hope these aren't the immature jokes banedon was talking about.

[Electron Blue]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

[Sammy Sofa]

A badger with a machete taped to its head vs. a wolverine with a buzzsaw tied to its tail.

 

FIGHT!!!!

[ctcf]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

 

I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine.

[Z38Cubs]

Well, maybe this will stop all the Aramis doesn't hustle, and Aramis doesn't care crap that we have to endure from Couch and Sullivan all year.

[Electron Blue]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

 

I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine.

 

Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral?

 

And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering.

 

A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain).

 

A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake.

 

My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence.

[CubinNY]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

 

I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine.

 

Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral?

 

And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering.

 

A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain).

 

A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake.

 

My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence.

So your problem is that people get enjoyment out of it?

[Electron Blue]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

 

I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine.

 

Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral?

 

And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering.

 

A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain).

 

A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake.

 

My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence.

So your problem is that people get enjoyment out of it?

 

I'm not an idiot, so I know this issue doesn't actually affect me. But, yes, I'm personally annoyed that violence between animals, which is organized and instigated by humans, is seen as entertainment. That watching pain/destruction/death can be fun for someone. Kind of like hearing that a serial killer used to burn insects and kill small animals. Not all violence-enjoyers are on that level, of course, but that's generally what the "enjoyment" of such a thing is, isn't it? Not to sound rude, but isn't that a pretty clear issue someone could have with it?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not an idiot, so I know this issue doesn't actually affect me. But, yes, I'm personally annoyed that violence between animals, which is organized and instigated by humans, is seen as entertainment. That watching pain/destruction/death can be fun for someone. Kind of like hearing that a serial killer used to burn insects and kill small animals. Not all violence-enjoyers are on that level, of course, but that's generally what the "enjoyment" of such a thing is, isn't it? Not to sound rude, but isn't that a pretty clear issue someone could have with it?

 

No. The psychological impact of asomeone themselves killing animals simply for the pleasure/sadism of it stems from they themselves actually doing the killing. They're getting the charge out of killing something themselves. That is significanly different psychologically than people who get a charge out of seeing other things kill each other, to which you have varying degrees. Boxing, ultimate fighting, people getting killed in films, animal fighting...all along that spectrum, but all VERY different than someone getting a thrill or sensation from actually killing something themselves.

[ctcf]

No, but I do think it's interesting discussion if it can be kept mature.

 

Sorry if it's bad policy to try and create a new thread after one has been locked.

 

But Greg Couch's article about how awful of a human Aramis is really ticked me off

 

Link

 

I'd like him to also write an article about how horrible and sadistic meat companies are that he most likely buys his food from. On the subject of Chickens (and steer), pretty much all meat eating Americans have no moral high ground. God I sound like a PETa person.

 

I've never understood this. Is there really a connection between eating animals and enjoying their pain and death? That would be like Ultimate Fighting fans being okay with cannibalism . . . okay, now I'm using extreme example. But do you see that point?

 

Honestly, there's a disconnect between animal death and meat-eating -- I know this. It's a neccesity that has evolved. We feel better about it having not seen the death or presided over it. I can see the problem with that. But you're bringing morals into it. I think it's nothing more than squeamishness. Saying people who disagree with you are going off on some "moral high ground" can be a pretty easy way to seem like you're right. (not saying you aren't; i just want debate -- and that's a bad argument tactic.)

 

And the "pretty much all meat-eating americans" . . . what's that mean? How are you qualifying those who are logically reconciling this paradox and those who aren't?

 

I'm not even talking about eating them. The point I'm getting at is that before they are killed in whichever manner they are, many live in deplorable, pain and suffering inducing conditions. I honestly don't see the real disconnect between that and cockfighting. Hell, I'd even venture to guess some of those roosters live way better lives (up until the fight at least) than the majority of animals that get to wander through our meat processing industry. So to judge the situation from the American cultural view ends up seeming a bit asinine.

 

Why is it asinine to judge it from a cultural view? You brought morals into it . . . how are we to judge what's moral and immoral?

 

And you may be right that the eating isn's the important part. It's the enjoyment of the suffering.

 

A chicken that suffers is just that . . . an animal whose life sucks a bit more than the average animal, which lacks reason and any semblence of a meaningful existance (other than being eaten by an animal that is superior, a la food chain).

 

A person that enjoys said suffering is far worse, and thus the point of the matter. It's irrelevant how enjoyable the lives of the roosters are in regards to other chickens unless your argument favors cockfighting for the animal's sake.

 

My point has been that one animal dying versus another animal dying is not an equal outcome, if one served bloodlust and the other violence.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure the articles brought morals into it, which is what I was criticizing in the first place.

 

Also, judging one culture by another's standards is usually a bad idea (at least in my experience).

Edited February 15, 2008 by ctcf