Check this out. I thought this was bs posted by a fruitcake when someone mentioned it (isn't organized animal fighting illegal?), but it's true. How could that be? Also read the related article. Here's another one (thanks to Barbara).
Here's another one: The Feathered Warrior.
Here's another one: Grit and Steel
Thanks to Barbara for the links.
Thanks to the 'fruitcake' who posted this comment. That's the risks you take: first, people will think you're a fruitcake; then it turns out it's all true.
Oops, there's more. Dog fighting. The "Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed" thing.
And more.
22 comments:
Malleus, thank you for posting these links. This is a subject I find very upsetting. It's just one more reason to despise Amazon. Anyone who could traffic in this kind of crap that encourages this horrific cruelty to animals is not deserving of our consumer dollars.
I know some people find the animal rights group Peta a little too strict for their taste but the Humane Society is as mainstream an animal rights group as anyone could encounter.
Jeff Bezos shows such disdain to the people who are concerned with animal cruelty. The more consumers educate themselves about Amazon's policies the less likely I think they will want to do business with them.
I can't believe this is being sold on Amazon. Thanks for letting me know. I tried to "get the word out" on the discussion board, but I got a message saying:
"Sorry, you may not post at this time. This forum has a waiting period before new members can post a message. Please return in 24 hours to post."
Would anyone else be willing to get this thread started on the board? I know there would be many people who would want to stop supporting Amazon.
I wrote to Amazon telling them to cancel my account.
They don't cancel accounts, but they may disable your password. So, if it comes to that, make sure to wipe out what you can, which is your address, credit card, and so on.
Btw, why post it on the board? It's astroturfing grounds, no point posting anything there. Better post it on unrelated, independent blogs and boards you know of.
Stephanie,
Way to go! Amazon needs to feel it in the pocketbook. With all the attention being focused on the NFL player Michael Vick's case this is a good time for animal protection societies to take the fight to Amazon. There are currently half a dozen discussions going on at Amazon about this issue.
Here's a common cretin's voice:
***** Kudos to Amazon!, August 10, 2007 By Gregory J. Sadler:
Keep up the good work! Although I don't get into animal fighting, I like to see the PETA nut jobs put in check. These are ANIMALS people!!! Do you think they don't kill in the wild? The whole world isn't a Disney movie! Enough about animal rights, I've got a steak to eat.
No one denies you your steak, moron. But your steak wasn't torn to pieces alive. If someone tried to do that, they'd go to prison. As far as in the wild, well, in the wild animals aren't forced to fight each other, and actually, they don't tend to mangle and exterminate their own species. Most intraspecies fights in the wild consist in scaring away one of the challengers, and if it does come to fight, the fight usually ends with the loser simply running away. No running away in the pit! If chickens or dogs fought in the wild as they do in the pit (I'm saying nothing about arming them -- for better spectacle! -- with weapons that nature itself denied them), these species would have disappeared long ago.
Interspecies fights are fights to kill, not to provide an extended spectacle for a pack of masturbating degenerates via prolonged butchery. In other words, there's simply no comparison.
But even more important is the question about specatators. What kind of retarded savages can enjoy infliciting a completely gratuitous torment on a living creature? Hell, these people scare me. Would they like human fights like that, were they not illegal? People who get they rocks off in such a barbarous way are a threat to society -- human society, not chickens.
As one of those "PETA nut jobs" it's always amazing to me to witness the depths of stupidity people can display, like this jerk. Animals in the wild, (some), kill to eat, not for "sport". Has he seen wild birds with razor blades attached to their feet to make the fighting bloodier? At least comments like this are so far in the minority, but who knows. We've seen the underbelly of Amazon in the past and it's not a pretty sight.
I too hope is not a lot of people. One good thing I've noticed when perusing reviews there, is that almost invariably the five-star reviewers are single-review ones (to me that looks like a sock-puppet). And whoever reviewed more than one item, usually has reviewed a number of similar magazines and nothing more. I'm also glad to see that many of the one-star reviews are well-written and eloquent.
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/NoticeofIntenttoSueAmazon-FINAL.pdf
Here's about what I think, expressed better than I probably would (slightly edited for readability):
Myrrh404 says:
This is ILLEGAL! That's the difference. [...]
The reason there is a difference is that there is a vast difference between kill-to-eat (necessary or not) and joy-in-torture.
Your average dog (depending on breed and individual) has the intelligence of a 2 year old human. Any parties exploiting our companion animals and hunting pals in this fashion probably wouldn't sneer at doing the same to other helpless dependants. So what's next? "Pedophilia for Dummies"? "Vivisection for fun and profit"?.
I am not and never will be a vegetarian or a so-called "bambi-lover", but I do have a basic respect for our fellow predators. I am shocked at what turned up when I was tipped off on some the garbage being sold here, and ashamed that I've spent so much money here, where the despicable is apparently acceptable. I am now taking my 200+$ a month book habit somewhere else.
It's incredible what Amazon has offered in their defense;
"In recent court filings, Amazon.com and other animal fighting proponents have claimed:
Animal fighting is only "allege[dly]…cruelty to animals."
Advertisements for animals sold to fight and die in the ring -- including one whose seller bragged that he impaled his opponent "through [the] neck and kill[ed] [him] outright" -- are, in Amazon.com's own words, "at worst, ambiguous…[and] innocuous."
Amazon.com should be permitted to sell animal fighting materials because "cockfighting existed long before the dawn of the Internet."
Ice pick-like gaffs, razor-sharp knives, and spurs offered for sale in the magazines "could be used for lawful purposes."
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/amazon_lawsuit_expanded.html
So according to the geniuses at Amazon it is only "allegedly" cruel to train animals to fight each other to the death. And how about the defense that the equipment sold "could be used for lawful purposes". Like those razors they attach to the fighting bird's feet? What could those be lawfully used for, a bird with annoying stubble or persistent five o' clock shadow?
Plenty of evil existed "long before the dawn of the internet" but does that mean Amazon must continue to perpetuate it?
That's all playing stupid. But it wouldn't go far in court though, so I'm wondering what happened there. According to that HSUS (?) document, they took Amazon to court about a year ago. What happened? I would also like to take a peek at an issue or two: I've never seen printed matter of this nature.
Here is one source about the outcome of the Humane Society's lawsuit against Amazon:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18120
I think there is still an ongoing legal challenge, I'll try to find out additional information.
Thanks. I'll add the link to the post itself.
Amazon spokeswoman Patty Smith is quoted as saying, " The customer is the best judge of what is and isn't appropriate for their reading habits."
What about pedophiles? I'm sure Ms. Smith would say that's different, it's illegal. But so is this type of animal abuse.
Amazon continued to sell a DVD called Hood Fights2 which showed not only dog fights but people engaged in street fighting as well. What customer would judge that type of DVD as "appropriate" entertainment? Whoever they are I guess they're fortunate to have Amazon and Patty Smith safeguarding their rights to read and view this garbage.
Amazon is a private company: they're not required to sell everything there is -- free speech has nothing to do with any of it. They simply chose to sell this stuff, that's all.
Like someone said, you can't stop birds from flying over your head, but you can prevent them from building a nest in your hair. There's a nest in their hair, and it's only because they don't mind.
I got a repsonse from Amazon. And it is like you said, they don't see it as an illegal practice.
Response from Amazon:
"Thank you for writing to Amazon.com with your concerns.
I understand that you feel very strongly about this issue.
Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred
or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to
choose his or her own reading material or entertainment.
As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy
any item they might be seeking.
That selection includes some items which many people may find
objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on our web site
represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of topics.
Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable. Therefore, we will continue to make controversial works available in the United States and everywhere else, except where
they are prohibited by law.
We also allow readers, authors, and publishers to express their
views freely about these titles and other products we offer on our
web site. However, Amazon.com does not endorse any opinions
expressed by individual authors, musical artists, or filmmakers."
What a bunch of bullshit.
Stephanie,
Bullshit is exactly what it is. And self-serving bullshit at that. They're posturing as guardians of free speech instead of the greedy bastards they in fact are.
In the past year alone the cock fighting magazines sold on Amazon have featured more than 1,600 advertisements for the sale of fighting birds. One of the magazines even carried an ad for the sale of an arena where these fights are held in rural Kentucky.
Amazon frames this as a free speech issue but consider the facts; each of those ads was a solicitation to commit a crime. The sale and shipping of those birds across state lines is a criminal offense. Why is Amazon supporting a criminal enterprise? Not only that but law enforcement officials say that the subcultures that engage in cockfighting and dog fighting are also engaged in illegal gambling, drug trade and other criminal activity. What the hell is Jeff Bezos thinking?
Jeff Bezos is laughing all the way to the bank. But Bezos aside, even if these mags are printed where it's legal, should it not be illegal to sell them elsewhere, where they're not? I must be missing something...
Now that Michael Vick has pleaded guilty to charges of dogfighting perhaps more attention will be brought to bear on Amazon's sale of these disgusting rags.
Check out some of the Vick related merchandise that's been springing up:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/Vick/-/fpt_eX_____B___C__a__b0H_PE__aah__lS?CMP=KNC-G-PR-tkvick
Please take a look at Vick's site August 21st at the Dayton Daily News for more on this story:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/booknook/index.html
Addendum on Amazon's Bullshit:
Amazon professes to be on the side of free speech and against censorship in any of its guises while it seeks to defend the indefensible, the selling of such outrageous magazines. At the same time, how would the website justify its word check robot which routinely and mindlessly censors words thought to be too "dirty" for human ears? These include among others many expressions found nowadays in such bastions of style and propriety as, say, the "New Yorker" magazine. A telling instance: in a reader's submitted review of a DVD of "King Lear," Amazon refused to allow Gloucester's bastard son to be identified by Shakespeare's chosen designation, altering the villain's name instead to the unwittingly ludicrous Edmund the [...]! Apparently, Amazon, like a garden snail, emerges from its routine shell of absurd timidity and fear of offending only if the chance of losing sales is involved - as in the current instance of these manifestly cruel and inhumane magazines. Otherwise, it practices a verbal censorship that even the stereotypical maiden aunt would think priggish. What wholly explains the website's clearly contradictory nature? Does it fear lawsuits from the outraged parents of pre-teens for allowing words to appear such as pre-teens themselves these days use as a matter of course?
Post a Comment