Originally Posted by
CA Jack
It is very simple: necessary vs. unnecessary. Positive vs. negative.
Courage is a GOOD thing.
Trying to capture, harness, and repeatedly PRODUCE dogs with courage is a GOOD thing.
Fighting, to determine superiority, courage, mettle, athleticism ... is a GOOD thing ... it is positive, and it PRODUCES EXCELLENCE.
Allowing perfectly healthy, game animals to die is NOT good, it's not constructive, it is DEstructive.
Beating a dog to death produces nothing good. No excellence is achieved.
Letting a dog die produces nothing good. No excellence is achieved, maintained, or preserved. It is WASTEFUL.
If anyone has a brain in their head, they should automatically be able to compute "good" from "bad" ... CONstructive versus DEstructive ... etc.
People who breed dogs to be outstanding warriors, who test/select, but destroy NOTHING are **builders of excellence**
People who buy dogs, leave them down, let them die, hang them from ropes/disembowel them are DESTROYERS of excellence.
This really shouldn't have to be explained.
It is necessary suffering versus unnecessary suffering.
If you want big muscles, you have to suffer through work to get them. It's good suffering, because it's necessary for the existence of a superior physique.
If you want to be a good fighter, you're going to have to suffer through some beatings, cuts, bruises, because it's necessary for the existence of acquired skill.
But to just get hacked-up for nothing is UNnecessary and destructive. To kill and abuse dogs is unnecessary and destructive.
They DO have to suffer a certain amount of abuse to be tested and proven, but they DON'T have to get totally mutilated and killed to see their quality.
This should all be common sense and require no explanation.
The big questions are ... is this suffering NECESSARY? Is the result of this producing something GOOD?
If the answer is NO, don't do it, and don't allow others to do it.
Reply With Quote