roachboy

i dont understand that question.
if this is about trying to sort out the flap over michael vick really, then you have to factor in all the absurd associations between vast cash, sporting figures and projections as to who any given sporting figure is--most of which are about the money and nothing else, to my mind.

as to the question of "moral distinction"--doesn't this come down to a matter of associations with the animals involved? and if that's the case, isn't the "moral" question really an aesthetic question? what it at stake is whether you lke or can imagine liking one form of bloodsport as over against another.

and it seems to me that the situation of stag hunting--which side of the hunting divide the teams or packs of dogs are one--more or less answers the question in any event.
so that particular example seems to make the problem circular.

but i dont have a more neutral alternative in mind.
by neutral here i am an example the content of which doesnt cross directly with the question being posed through it and thereby effectively condition the thinking about the question in one way or another...

btw i do not approve at all of dog fighting. but i dont understand the hub bub about michael vick. to my mind, the situation points to all kinds of absurdities to do with the status of professional sports in the states more than anything else.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite