Monday, January 23, 2006

Cock fights in Utah

Cockfighting is the big news story today in the humble Beehive kingdom I inhabit and is the lead-in story on all four of the local Utah TV newscasts.

Near the small town of Lindon, Utah a large cockfighting event was occurring in a rural barn, when the local gendarme raided the event. We pick up the story from the Daily Herald of Provo:

Though a handful of suspects escaped, Pleasant Grove police arrested 19 adults participating in the rooster fights at 183 W. 40 South during the noon raid.

Several fights with roosters had already been completed and "many more" were to be held when officers ended the event early. It was organized with admission fees and gambling by an individual whose mother lives at the home next to the barn.

Though participants and organizers in cockfighting operations tend to be Hispanic, all of the suspects in Sunday's barn bust were white. He said several of the suspects were known drug dealers or substance abusers.

You'd think that the whole world had gone to hell in a hand basket and shockingly enough, GASP, children were there and saw the spectacle of a traditional blood sport enjoyed by rednecks and poor Mexicans.

I'll bet this is mostly about illegal gambling, but has been glazed over with a politically correct mock concern for "animal rights" and "cruelty", because the local government is not getting a cut of the action. Who gives a flying hoot about organized cockfighting? At least these people had a hobby.

Do I care about the suffering of a chicken? No, I don't have any empathy at all for the hapless cockfighting chicken. Would he be any happier as a broiler in my gas oven? He at least achieved some measure of fame and glory in his short tenure on this planet. Not something all of us will be able to say when it is our time to depart this veil.

It is legal in Mexico, Puerto Rico and New Mexico (the only U.S. state where it is allowed) and virtually the rest of the world.

Meanwhile there are fellow Utahns overseas murdering and maiming innocent civilians, as military occupiers, while being killed and savagely wounded themselves, for a set of fabricated lies told by their imperial warlords in Washington, DC. This, it seems, passes the moral smell test way better than cockfighting does. Why is that?

If the common rabble are getting riled up about the fate of a few chickens, while thousands are getting drenched in a needless bloodbath, the end days must surely be at hand.

Symbol of the U.S. 67th Fighter Squadron

14 comments:

Audie said...

beamis said: "Who gives a flying hoot about organized cockfighting?"

Uh, me.

beamis said...

I have a Mexican friend that trains one with his son and it is a wholesome father and son activity that affects me and the larger society not one wit.

Let's worry about victimless drug offenders getting sodomized in American prisons before we go after people organizing chicken fights.

Animals only have "rights" that we humans grant them. Period. Chickens are not high on my list of oppressed groups.

If Carlos and little Carlito want to raise a cockfighter in the backyard more power to 'em, and good luck when he fights his first match!

Audie said...

I didn't realize that worrying about victimless drug offenders getting sodomized in prison and giving a hoot about animal welfare were mutually exclusive activities.

I'm glad you and I are on the same page about the basis of rights, though.

And, don't take this personal or nothin', but it wasn't really cockfighting's effect on YOU I was concerned about.

Drug me with more pictures of the desert, and make it all better.

beamis said...

I think we have made too much about animal welfare and it has provided a diversion from the plight of our fellow humans as well as given the state more power to regulate further areas of our existence.

Nothing personal was taken.

Audie said...

You'll never convince me that a callous attitude taken toward the welfare of all but one sentient species doesn't affect the general attitude taken toward that excepted one. So, contrary to your belief, I believe that NOT caring about animal welfare has provided the diversion from the plight of our fellow humans.

Care to speculate, for instance, on what percentage of the Bush war machine is, say, vegetarian? Compared to say, the percentage of, oh I don't know, the Friends Service Committe? No connection there, you wanna say?

Compassion breeds compassion. Violence breeds violence.

beamis said...

I don't think Jesus Christ gave a hoot about the welfare of goats or chickens, nor did any of the saints including Mother Teresa ever worry about the welfare of a dog or piegon.

Yes cruelty in any form should be discouraged but I would say that the animal welfare movement, in general, is much like enviornmentalism, which is to say it is more about being anti-human than anything else. People in jail is a good thing. People are generally bad, especially for the enviornment, while our pets are simple and pure creatures which should endow them with rights and protections from government law enforcement. We are all equal as creatures, more or less, with the same set of rights for all.

The Nazis were famous vegetarians and animal lovers. Hitler adored his Alastian dogs and would get violently angry if he witnessed or heard about anyone abusing a pet. While he was busy gassing and bombing his fellow human beings by the score he was often posed with spotted fawns, dogs and very young white & pure Aryan children. He was the savior of all that was meek and defenseless. The propoganda worked.

I don't buy any of it.

Audie said...

Beamis said: "nor did any of the saints including Mother Teresa ever worry about the welfare of a dog or piegon."

Mother Teresa said, in a 1992 letter to Marlene Ryan, a member of the National Alliance for Animals:

"I am praying for you that God’s blessing may be with you in all that you are doing to create concern for the animals which are often subjected to much cruelty. They, too, are created by the same loving Hand of God which created us. As we humans are gifted with intelligence which the animals lack, it is our duty to protect them and to promote their well being.... A person who shows cruelty to these creatures cannot be kind to other humans also." ( http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-05.html )

Beamis said: "Do I care about the suffering of a chicken? No."

beamis said...

Well then Mother Teresa was a twit.

Little Jerry Seinfeld said...

I was never more alive than when I was fighting in NYC.

Audie said...

Beamis said: "the animal welfare movement, in general, is much like enviornmentalism, which is to say it is more about being anti-human than anything else."

I'm curious what your response would be to someone who, after reading through your blog, came to the (reasonable) conclusion that you were "anti-American." I presume you would either shrug your shoulders and say "Yeah, so?" or say something like, "Well, I'm not anti-American per se, but just look at what America has become today and what it is doing" (both responses I would agree with, by the way). It would, of course, be unfair and inaccurate to further conclude that you were "anti" all, or even most, or perhaps even any, Americans.

Similarly, as something of an animal welfarist and environmentalist, my response to those who would thusly accuse me of being "anti-human" would be exactly parallel to your (presumed) response to being called "anti-American." [shrug] Oh, really? And...? Not per se, but look around you.... And this, in a further parallel, would not lead to accurate conclusions about my feelings toward any particular humans, some of whom I love very much, including at least one who has "no empathy at all" for hapless, suffering creatures of God.

:-)

Audie said...

Oh, and, if you get to point to Hitler, then I get to point to all the animal-hating war-mongerers in history, giving me at least 99% of the evidence in my favor, in this dispute over whether compassion breeds compassion and violence breeds violence -- you know, that claim you don't buy any of.

Devastatin' Dave said...

Boys...BOYS!!!!

It's not a question of vegetarian vs. meat-eaters. As always, it's politicians vs. citizens.

Farmer Jones may raise animals and butcher them for his family, but he doesn't invade the farm next door, nor does he force someone to eat meat.

Likewise, Vera the Vegitarian may be happy in her animal-cruelty free commune, yet refrains from invading someone's home and destroying any animal products.

Short of friendly persuasion, the only way either of these two can iflict their agenda on the rest of society is by grabbing the reins of the State apparatus.

I am now going to enjoy a burrito from Chipotle. A company that serves natural and humanely raised meat products.

beamis said...

I agree with DD and also want everyone to know that I don't mistreat my cat or torture animals or get my jollys off of animal suffering. I just don't buy into a movement that places my humanity on the same level of importance with rats and lizards.

Audie said...

Let us take a moment to review our logical fallacies, shall we?

Part One, the Straw Man fallacy:

Beamis said: "I just don't buy into a movement that places my humanity on the same level of importance with rats and lizards."

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of 'reasoning' has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
[Then claims that] therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of 'reasoning' is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself."

(News flash: The so-called animal welfare "movement" does not place your humanity "on the same level of importance with rats and lizards.")


Part Two, the ad hominem fallacy:

Mother Teresa said: "It is our duty to protect [the animals] and to promote their well being."

Beamis said: "Mother Teresa was a twit." (Implied: Therefore her claim is false.)

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the ... person presenting the claim.... This type of 'argument' has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
[Then claims that] therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made."

Thank you for these fine real-life examples, Beamis!