I think for the most part, we can all agree that dogfighting is pretty disgusting. But as mjd questioned in one of his first Debriefings, what makes the Preakness and other horse racing events such acceptable forms of entertainment, while dog fighting is considered so deplorable? I think that both can be considered animal abuse. The big difference however is that horses are intended to race each other, not maul each other, while the dogs are encouraged to fight til death. The reason I bring it back up is because of Jonathan Vilma’s comments to Chris Russo on WFAN (Francessa must have been out hehe) via Ben Maller:
When asked if he has a problem with dogfighting, Vilma replied, “To be honest with you, I never looked at it one way or another. What people do is …of course dog fighting is much more extreme, but you can equate it to horse racing. You have animal activists that (condemn) horse racing. They feel horses are being tested brutally, whatever the situation is. I’m not an animal activist. To each his own.”
So he doesn’t outright criticize the involvement. But is it so outrageous what Vilma said? I don’t think so. I think people are wrong if they can’t recognize that there’s something inherently bad about breeding dogs to tear each other’s faces off — which Vilma doesn’t acknowledge. On the other hand, I think its short sided to not see the animal abuse that exists in horse racing, once you strip away the millionaire owners and mint juleps that make it seem justified.
