Interesting distinctions.Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
Just to clarify, the old man was a very calculated gambler, extremely calculated, but (for the most part) he didn't care about the dog's life if there was serious money riding.
My brother is a calculated gambler in his own way, but he would never put his family's savings at risk or do anything irresponsible in his betting. He sets aside his "gambling money" and keeps this reserve totally separate from his other money.
There are irresponsible/compulsive gamblers, true, but there are also calculated gamblers who don't care about anything but winning. Hell, I think pretty much everyone wants to win, but where the subject of "ethics" and gambling comes in to play is how far a person is willing to go to win. I would say the definition of a "good sport" is someone who will do anything within the rules to win, while a cheater will do anything to win, period, whether it's within the rules or not. In fact, some people become experts at cheating and have all manner of tricks up their sleeves. You might even call them "calculated, professional cheats."
Regarding the specific subject of dog deals, another point where "ethics" comes in to play is when the dog's life is sacrificed to gain a win. I believe this would fall under most people's definition of "unethical" or "poor sportsmanship." Consider the same thing in human boxing: everyone can appreciate an epic battle (like Ali and Frazier in 'The Thrilla in Manilla'), where two DG men fight their hearts out, displaying awesome skill till the bitter end, but at some point the greater value has to be placed on the fighters themselves when any fight gets to the point one (or both) will die. It is precisely here where a person's true value system can be seen.
In the Ali/Frazier deal, any intelligent person could see that both Ali and Frazier were World Class, truly great fighters by that 13th round ... when the fight was stopped, even though the fight was not yet totally over. IMO, it was correct for the fight to be stopped by the ref, and Ali given the nod, and it would have been a crime to just let it go until the bitter end ... to where Frazier (or both) couldn't be salvaged. This is what separates a civilized mentality, which values life over the trivial minutia of 'what would have happened ultimately' ... versus a barbaric mentality, that has no regard for life, but just wants to see 'the final end' with one man a lifeless bloody pulp while another man stands over him (or maybe both are lost).
This same mentality goes to the dogs. When you have two great dogs go to the bitter end, to me the DOGman values his charge's life and will pick up before all is lost, which is in alignment with the concept of "good sportsmanship" in every other kind of sport or human combat, and it shows that the dog is this man's greatest value, not the bet. By contrast, the gambler will let the deal play out to the bitter end ... because "winning" is the supreme value to him, not the dog. This is just basic logic. For when the dog becomes secondary to a bet, then at that point it logically follows that the person with this value system cannot properly be called a "dog" man. Instead he properly is called a "gambler," a betting man, whose primary value is the bet/money, not his animal.
Jack
.