[Shes Got Heart]

Some neutralization techniques dogmen use as they attempt to counter stigma, criminal identity, and criticisms in a world that has become increasingly intolerant of dog fighting.

Neutralization Techniques: The foundation for neutralization theory was set by Sykes and Matza (1957) when they distinguished five defense mechanisms through which individuals rationalize their deviant behavior. Techniques of neutralization counter the negative impact of deviant behavior.
Major Techniques - Sykes and Matza (1957) cited five major techniques of neutralization:
l. Denial of the victim, wherein the offender maintains that whoever is harmed by an action deserves the harm.
2. Denial of responsibility, wherein one contends acts are caused by forces beyond one's control.
3. Denial of injury, wherein one claims no one was harmed by the action; hence, there is no victim.
4. Appeal to higher loyalties, wherein attachment to smaller groups takes precedence over attachment to society.
5. Condemnation of the condemners, wherein those who denounce a certain form of behavior have, themselves, exhibited worse forms of behavior.
Dogmen were found to use three main neutralization techniques: denial of injury, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties. A fourth technique, �we are good people,�, was also detected. This fourth technique defends dogmen as good people and maintains their dog fighting is expunged by their good characters and/or good deeds.
1- Denial of injury: ... But old timers took good care of their dogs.
Reality - Taking an animal that has no freewill, taking it and training it simply for the purpose of fighting... These fights are very cruel affairs.... The object is for one animal to put the other out of combat. They fight in a pit. There is a lot of maiming, often dogs die as a result of their injuries.
2- Condemnation of the condemners.
- Dogmen claim that people who condemn dog fighting are hypocrites who are attending sporting events such as boxing. Boxing, the dogmen point out, is sadistic because the object of the event is to harm a human adversary. They see themselves as being no different from sport coaches. Dogmen claim they have been maligned by the press and the humane society. Dogfighters are not cruel people, they are no different than boxing trainers or football coaches. The press has slandered us.
Reality- People have free will, dog's do not.
3- Appeal to Higher Loyalties.
- The loyalty of dogmen to their sport is evident in the comments describing �old timers.� The old timers know all the champions and the great bloodlines. They have produced most of the champion dogs. If they don't like you, you are not going anywhere in dog fighting. You have got to show them the respect they deserve.
4- We are good people.
- We are respectable people who pay taxes and salute the flag. We work at honest jobs. If we are bending their rules a little, then that's okay if that's the way they want it. But 99% of our lives consists of following the rules and being good people. You don't penalize good respectable people for jay walking. ...but we are just ordinary folk who are different in some ways. While dogmen have attempted to neutralize their activity, this is the reality of dog fighting.

* Warning - The following is brutal!
His face is a mass of deep cuts, as are his shoulders and neck. Both of his front legs have been broken, but Billy Bear isn�t ready to quit. At the referee�s signal, his master releases him, and unable to support himself on his front legs, he slides on his chest across the blood and urine stained carpet, propelled by his good hind legs, toward the opponent who rushes to meet him. Driven by instinct, intensive training and love for the owner who has brought him to this moment, Billy Bear drives himself painfully into the other dog�s charge... Less than 20 minutes later, rendered useless by the other dog, Billy Bear lies spent beside his master, his stomach constricted with pain. He turns his head back toward the ring, his eyes glazed (sic) searching for a last look at the other dog as (sic) receives a bullet in his brain (Brown, 1982, p. 66).

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/neutra.html

[screamin'eagle]

...bump...

Any opinions on the info contained in this article?

[The Diesel]

Dont know much about how the fights go, but isnt the owner supposed to call the fight and pick up his dog once he saw that he was badly injured and was about to die? I mean, if he cared about is dog and all?

[screamin'eagle]

Originally Posted by The Diesel Dont know much about how the fights go, but isnt the owner supposed to call the fight and pick up his dog once he saw that he was badly injured and was about to die? I mean, if he cared about is dog and all?

To answer your question, and to be considered "sporting"

The owner should have conceded a fight long before the dog reached the point where it was about to die. Did they always...no. There are even cases where the winning side would urge the apparent losers to pick there dog up to save his life. The idea is that one dog could lose on that day, and still be called game. For a perspective on this see the match between Wallace's Searcy jeff and jeff Runyon's blue dogs in the 1930's Iits in our APBT history forum). The blue dogs lost, but at that time were still considered game. Some men concede that a game dog can win, and a cur dog could win.

[The Diesel]

Originally Posted by screamin'eagle To answer your question, and to be considered "sporting" The owner should have conceded a fight long before the dog reached the point where it was about to die. Did they always...no. There are even cases where the winning side would urge the apparent losers to pick there dog up to save his life. The idea is that one dog could lose on that day, and still be called game. For a perspective on this see the match between Wallace's Searcy jeff and jeff Runyon's blue dogs in the 1930's Iits in our APBT history forum). The blue dogs lost, but at that time were still considered game. Some men concede that a game dog can win, and a cur dog could win.

So because of this were fighters back then considered to be reputable and irreputable? Meaning they would take a loss to save his dog or wouldnt to have a chance at winning/ winning money with no regard to the dogs well being??

[screamin'eagle]

Originally Posted by The Diesel So because of this were fighters back then considered to be reputable and irreputable? Meaning they would take a loss to save his dog or wouldnt to have a chance at winning/ winning money with no regard to the dogs well being??

According to the historical record (because of course I wasn't there) the answer to that is yes. One story I can think of is a dogman that was matching a dog vs. another who was going for Gr. CH. When matching dogs the handlers paid a forfeit. If anything went wrong, and it was the others fault you could walk away with the money, and the other would forfeit the match. It just so happened that the side that was going to title their dog Gr Ch couldnt pay the bet on the match day. Instead of walking away with the cash the other side still give the guy a chance to title the dog, and ended up losing. That was considered soprting, and reputable. Money was obviously not eithers motivation. There are others that gained bad reputations for using rubs (cheating by using chemicals to harm the other dog), bringing mixed bred dogs to match, etc. If you read some of the letters from dogman to dogman posted in the APBT history forum alot of these issues will come apparent.

There existed rules, and what some would call honor amongst theives so to speak.

[The Diesel]

Originally Posted by screamin'eagle According to the historical record (because of course I wasn't there) the answer to that is yes. One story I can think of is a dogman that was matching a dog vs. another who was going for Gr. CH. When matching dogs the handlers paid a forfeit. If anything went wrong, and it was the others fault you could walk away with the money, and the other would forfeit the match. It just so happened that the side that was going to title their dog Gr Ch couldnt pay the bet on the match day. Instead of walking away with the cash the other side still give the guy a chance to title the dog, and ended up losing. That was considered soprting, and reputable. Money was obviously not eithers motivation. There are others that gained bad reputations for using rubs (cheating by using chemicals to harm the other dog), bringing mixed bred dogs to match, etc. If you read some of the letters from dogman to dogman posted in the APBT history forum alot of these issues will come apparent. There existed rules, and what some would call honor amongst theives so to speak.

Gotcha, i always wondered about that because i figured there were those that actually loved their dogs and theres always a few in it for money and "fame" and nothing more which is an insult to the real guys.
There existed rules, and what some would call honor amongst theives so to speak.[/