Bullfighting

[myu]

Oh, this is open again.

Anyway, apparently it's not just the bulls and humans that are at risk during this. Traditionally, the matador rides in on horseback and horses can be killed during this stage. They used to just send them in without any sort of protection, but now they put some padding on the horses to lower the chance that they're disemboweled :l It seems the only reason they ride in on horseback to begin with is so they can gauge the bulls manner of attack.

[Vy'drach]

From what I read, it's actually the man that lances the bull in the muscle behind the neck initially that comes in on horseback, while the Matador enters on foot two acts later.

And before the padding, more horses died due to bullfighting than bulls. Literally.

And I know counter point doesn't generally like random images, but I thought some lawls would help with this rather morbid discussion. Plus it's somewhat relevant.

[Thu'um]

I disagree. It'd be a bit like if the allies under WW2 telling Hitler that he could only exterminate 10.000 jews a year, and only on holidays. It's still not right by any means. Culture and tradition is all good, but it should never be allowed to interfere with human and animal rights.

very good point, but the bull fights i propose we give the bull a chance to win, to win his freedom. Then it would be more like give 60 Jews guns and 60 Germans guns and and say let them fight! I Guess i see that this is still a bad thing, but at least we give the bull a chance to win.

Some bulls will die but they were going to die anyway. i would much rather die and a stadium like a gladiator. Which would you rather be the Bull that lives dying, or dies living?

i know my ideas here are a little extreme but i am playing devil's advocate.

[myu]

Honestly, yes, I would rather live a pleasant life going about my own business and being free rather than being tossed into a ring with some guy who prances around me while I bleed to death trying to find a way out. The life of a gladiator probably wasn't much better.

[unoservix]

How about you not let the Nazis/bullfighters try to kill the Jews/bulls in the first place?

I mean, what the hell, the bull isn't going to care whether or not you're giving it an "honorable" fight, because bulls have no sense of honor because bulls do not have human intelligence and that you could be so tasteless as to compare this to the Holocaust and say that that would have been okay as long as the Jews had all had guns because then it would be "honorable" genocide is kind of shockingly disgusting.

The devil needs to get some better advocates.

[Harlow]

I don't think you can compare cattle killing to human genocide. For me, it isn't right.

But, the controlled fighting to a limit of bulls per month with no significant handicap seems a plausible and a very good option.

[Thu'um]

and that you could be so tasteless as to compare this to the Holocaust and say that that would have been okay as long as the Jews had all had guns

Guess i see that this is still a bad thing, but at least we give the bull a chance to win.

i NEVER said that was honorable ( so please don't falsely imply that i did) . BUT this is Undeniably fairer. If the jews and germans had both had guns it would have been a battle not genocide, but thats off topic. Point is if bull fighting is to continue BY GOD lets give the bull a chance, or maybe not? would you be so rude to disagree and imply that we should just kill the bull no matter what. I doubt it. And if the bull wins set him free!

Also you are going to try and end a tradition dating back 2000 thousand years ago. Not Likely they are simply going to stop because cows are dying, if this is going to end it needs to be taken in steps. Much like a smoker quits smoking. Most can't drop the habit right off the bat. They must take small steps and eventually build a dependence from smoking. in much the same way we must stop bull fighting.

[unoservix]

i NEVER said that was honorable ( so please don't falsely imply that i did) .

Okay. I'll quote you.

Some bulls will die but they were going to die anyway. i would much rather die and a stadium like a gladiator. Which would you rather be the Bull that lives dying, or dies living?

Unless, of course, you'd like to arbitrarily redefine what "gladiator" means.

If the jews and germans had both had guns it would have been a battle not genocide, but thats off topic.

It's also just plain wrong, because in the Holocaust, the Germans in this equation were soldiers trained to use those weapons and endowed with resources to ensure their effectiveness, and the Jews were not. Go learn about the Holocaust before you go trying to cite it as an example, please.

But yes, your being historically wrong is off-topic.

Point is if bull fighting is to continue BY GOD lets give the bull a chance, or maybe not? would you be so rude to disagree and imply that we should just kill the bull no matter what. I doubt it.

Which is why I specifically asked why we don't just let the bulls go and not kill them in the first place!

You are contradicting yourself. You say that bullfighting is animal cruelty because of the abuse inflicted on the animal, which is wrong, and then you propose that the abuse be allowed to continue but in smaller numbers. If bullfighting is cruelty to animals and cruelty to animals is wrong--and I'm not arguing against either of those points--then bullfighting is cruelty to animals in all its instances, whether it happens once a year or a thousand times a year, and it is equally wrong in each instance. The Holocaust comparison is not very useful here, because while being able to fight back might have made some difference to and for the Jews, it makes absolutely no difference to the bull. It can already fight back. And whether or not you give it an "honorable" fight or let it "fight for its freedom" makes no difference to the bull because it does not have human intelligence and thus does not have any concepts of "honor" and "freedom."

In fact, "let's let it fight for its freedom" is even crueler. Who are you to decide that an animal should have to fight for its freedom? Who is this crowd to decide that? You wouldn't grab someone off the street, throw them into an arena, and tell them that they had to "fight for their freedom"--and then, no matter how the fight ends, go around saying that you chose the more humane option. Because you could have never made it have to "fight for its freedom" in the first place. Which is, you know, why I asked in the first place why we had to combat animal cruelty by allowing animal cruelty. It's like saying that beating your wife is wrong so now you're only allowed to beat your wife between the hours of 5pm and 8pm. It completely misses the point.

Human history is littered with traditions that have been broken or at least combated by respect for universal rights that outweigh the importance of those traditions. See "throwing a dead man's wife on his funeral pyre," see "female genital mutilation," see "honor killings," see "throwing acid in girls' faces when they try to go to school." Yes, those things continue anyways in some parts of the world--and they prompt international outcry and there are ongoing efforts to stamp them out, because sometimes, basic rights are more important than some medieval bullshit to which you've clung for hundreds of years. If you mean to say that cultural relativism overrides basic rights--in which case you have no right to even propose some "more honorable modification" to bullfighting in the first place--then you'll have to explain why we should stop worrying about FGM and honor killings and so on. And no, that we are talking about animals does not change the calculation in any way. Animals may not have all the same rights as humans--but they do have some rights, and "not being arbitrarily tortured to death for someone's amusement, even in what is billed as a 'fight for freedom'" is one of them.

So no, it is not "addiction," it is testament to the power of socialization and acculturation. That power can be broken, and basic respect for universal rights is one of the few causes for which doing so is worth it.

Ironically, the prime example of what's wrong with cultural relativism is, in fact, the Holocaust--because under the banner of cultural relativism, good people said it wasn't their place to judge what Nazi Germany was doing because virulent hatred of the Jews, Gypsies, gays, disabled, and whoever else was just "part of their culture." And we all know how that turned out. So I guess the Holocaust is a useful historical example for this thread, just not in the way you thought it was.

History. Go learn it.

Seriously. Satan, my homie. I know how it is in this business but these advocates of yours. Seriously. You gotta do somethin' about them, man. They're not making you look good.

[Harlow]

But all of those issues are concerning humans. They won't be equal to those of animals, harly someone will consider it similar. Right now, the only animals I feel that should be in the matter of basic rights are those either engangered or truly wild. It's a reality we can't give rights and welfare to EVERY critter...

[unoservix]

You missed my point. Throughout history, we've overridden local traditions for the sake of respecting universal rights when those things conflict--and the right of animals not to be subjected to wanton cruelty is one of those basic rights. Often that overriding has come at significant cost to local cultures and often it was not really right to happen--but this is not really one of those cases. In many countries we specifically criminalize animal cruelty. Animals don't have all of the rights as humans, but unless you're arguing that they have no rights whatsoever--in which case complaining about animal cruelty is groundless--then they do have some rights, and "not getting tortured to death for someone's amusement" is one of them.

The difference is, since we are the only species on Earth to which the concept of "rights" has any meaning, it's up to us to safeguard animals' rights, because they certainly can't. They don't have the same rights as us, but they do have some rights.

So the better question is, in this case, why should it be different?

[Drasiana]

But all of those issues are concerning humans. They won't be equal to those of animals, harly someone will consider it similar. Right now, the only animals I feel that should be in the matter of basic rights are those either engangered or truly wild. It's a reality we can't give rights and welfare to EVERY critter...

It's a living creature that feels pain that you torment to death for amusement. There is a difference between killing for food and killing for amusement. Intentionally inflicting pain on any living being is cruel, and cruelty should not be justified by its longevity. Yes, Uno used humans as an example, but replacing them with animals--the wife on the funeral pyre with a dog, or throwing acid at cats instead of girls--still sets a scene of needless cruelty. Just because it's an animal doesn't mean it's okay to use it as a punching bag, and even if it's not of human intelligence, it still feels some form of anguish.

[myu]

i NEVER said that was honorable ( so please don't falsely imply that i did) . BUT this is Undeniably fairer. If the jews and germans had both had guns it would have been a battle not genocide, but thats off topic. Point is if bull fighting is to continue BY GOD lets give the bull a chance, or maybe not? would you be so rude to disagree and imply that we should just kill the bull no matter what. I doubt it. And if the bull wins set him free!

Also you are going to try and end a tradition dating back 2000 thousand years ago. Not Likely they are simply going to stop because cows are dying, if this is going to end it needs to be taken in steps. Much like a smoker quits smoking. Most can't drop the habit right off the bat. They must take small steps and eventually build a dependence from smoking. in much the same way we must stop bull fighting.

You say that like they've never tried stopping this tradition before. Bullfighting has been banned several times before, but it always gets restored when someone new comes into power - usually at the request of someone with money, I'll bet. There are even cities where they don't allow this activity. You can't really compare this to smoking - there is no patch you slap on your arm to get the fix that watching a bull die gives you; you can lay on a couch and try to have someone hypnotize it out of you.

[Thu'um]

firstly i never said german troopers i was implying normal citizens or a group of germans who would do about the same as Jewish citizens in combat if i had meant german soldiers I would be contradicting my self since i want a fair fight. i excepted you to be able to use some common sense when interpreting my metaphor and actually trying to understand my points rather then being bent simply on countering them.

oh yes its equally wrong that i go out and murder ten kids and then maybe neighbor goes and kills one old man. Which do you think committed the worse crime or are the even like you propose then killing of 60 cattle and 2000 cattle to be.

Besides there you are again saying that i suggest that giving the bull a fair fight is pointless. But Do you think Weakening the bull before the event is fair? and what happens of the bull wins? we should let it go, why wouldn't we?

OH but on the contrary look at history. look at any time where a culture or a social community is changed to quickly. you suggest that we immediately stop bull fighting. however abolitionist wanted slavery to end immediately, the result? a five year war in which more american lives were lost then in any other war, and even after that ended racial prejudice continued on till today. Immediately ending bull fighting is the completely wrong way to go about it. want more examples? Look at most any other time in which change occurs. People always have resisted changes to their way and will always continue to do so. The best way to go about eliminating bull fighting is to slowly limit it more and more till it becomes little to nothing. Slowly is how you get people to willingly change. Not taking something they have enjoyed for years and and putting a giant NOPE sign in their face. i mean Imagine if we tried to make smoking illegal! what do you think the public's reaction would be?

[unoservix]

I should also add that factory farming is not a useful comparison, because factory farming is not done simply for entertainment; it's done to feed people. Whether or not that's worth the cost imposed on the animals being used for food is an entirely different debate, but that debate is not the one at hand.

[Thu'um]

I should also add that factory farming is not a useful comparison, because factory farming is not done simply for entertainment; it's done to feed people. Whether or not that's worth the cost imposed on the animals being used for food is an entirely different debate, but that debate is not the one at hand.

er, way to bring up the very thing that purged from this topic :/

[Xortberg]

oh yes its equally wrong that i go out and murder ten kids and then maybe neighbor goes and kills one old man. Which do you think committed the worse crime or are the even like you propose then killing of 60 cattle and 2000 cattle to be.

Yes, killing 2000 bulls is considerably worse than killing 60. But killing 60 for sport is still bad, and justifying an atrocity by comparing it to a greater one doesn't work. Try going out and killing someone, then telling the judge to let you off the hook because the Holocaust happened, and killing one person isn't nearly as bad as that. It won't fly.

Besides there you are again saying that i suggest that giving the bull a fair fight is pointless. But Do you think Weakening the bull before the event is fair? and what happens of the bull wins? we should let it go, why wouldn't we?

Where did he imply that torturing the bull was fair? He didn't. He said that whether the bull is handicapped or not, it's wrong for someone to decide that a living creature has to fight to survive. He's saying the bull shouldn't have to fight for its freedom. That should be a given.

i mean Imagine if we tried to make smoking illegal! what do you think the public's reaction would be?

The public reaction would be outrage, and justifiably so. Humans possess a higher intelligence than animals, and they are made painfully aware of just how dangerous smoking is. They understand the risk, decide the consequences are worth it, and choose for themselves that they want to smoke. The bull has no such chance.

[Harlow]

You missed my point. Throughout history, we've overridden local traditions for the sake of respecting universal rights when those things conflict--and the right of animals not to be subjected to wanton cruelty is one of those basic rights. Often that overriding has come at significant cost to local cultures and often it was not really right to happen--but this is not really one of those cases. In many countries we specifically criminalize animal cruelty. Animals don't have all of the rights as humans, but unless you're arguing that they have no rights whatsoever--in which case complaining about animal cruelty is groundless--then they do have some rights, and "not getting tortured to death for someone's amusement" is one of them.

The difference is, since we are the only species on Earth to which the concept of "rights" has any meaning, it's up to us to safeguard animals' rights, because they certainly can't. They don't have the same rights as us, but they do have some rights.

So the better question is, in this case, why should it be different?

No, no. I understood what you said, but look at all the traditions you listed. They are all concerning humans, and human-to-human cruelty is relatively understood and the rules concerning it are easy to apply.

Now, onto the animals. Eg: I don't believe that killing or torturing a cat or a dog is right, but that doesn't mean that I should go and protest for roaches' rights. It's perfectly understandable that Tiger and Elephant hunting should be banned, since it's population is declining, but what about other animals that have been historically used by humans for food and service? Unless they're going extinct, I don't see a problem to keep using them.

And what's 5% due to bullfighting compared to 87% due to breeding for food? (Not real numbers, just comparing)

[unoservix]

firstly i never said german troopers i was implying normal citizens or a group of germans who would do about the same as Jewish citizens in combat if i had meant german soldiers I would be contradicting my self since i want a fair fight. i excepted you to be able to use some common sense when interpreting my metaphor and actually trying to understand my points rather then being bent simply on countering them.

German soldiers were the ones who conducted the Holocaust. Handing out guns to a bunch of Jewish citizens and a bunch of German citizens would have amounted to a lot of innocent people being killed, because while it was German society's complicity with the Nazis that let them get as far as they did, it was the Nazis who actually went to the lengths of trying to destroy the Jews. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read some history before you try to bring up history in a debate about something that is at best related by only the most tenuous of threads.

Suffice it to say as well that the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism which put the Jews of Germany and Eastern Europe at an automatic disadvantage in any sort of open conflict with the power of the German government and military. So you're wrong on that score too. It would not have been a "fair fight" even if you'd handed out guns to the entire Jewish population of Europe.

And, really, the fact that there was a fight at all is the problem. Genocide isn't any less bad because the targeted people can fight back. It's still genocide and if you're captured and sent to The Hague, you still have to answer for it, because it's wrong whether or not you succeeded. You are acting like it is a given that the Germans should have tried to destroy the Jews, just as you're arguing here that bullfighting should continue to be done, while holding that both are wrong. Maybe you should sit down and plot these points out for yourself because they are logically impossible.

oh yes its equally wrong that i go out and murder ten kids and then maybe neighbor goes and kills one old man. Which do you think committed the worse crime or are the even like you propose then killing of 60 cattle and 2000 cattle to be.

...the hell does this mean?

If you're trying to say that murdering ten people is worse than murdering one person...no. You're wrong. Murder is murder. If you murder someone, get convicted, and get sent to prison for life, and the guy in the cell next to you murdered ten people and got ten life sentences, you both did an equally monstrous act; he just did it more times than you did.

So, you say bullfighting is cruelty to the bull, so you propose reducing the number of bullfights. What does that solve? It solves absolutely nothing, because the bullfights continue and bulls are still abused. This is a remarkably simple proposition you're not grasping here.

Besides there you are again saying that i suggest that giving the bull a fair fight is pointless. But Do you think Weakening the bull before the event is fair? and what happens of the bull wins? we should let it go, why wouldn't we?

That...is what I asked you. You're the one saying that bullfighting should continue, after all.

OH but on the contrary look at history. look at any time where a culture or a social community is changed to quickly. you suggest that we immediately stop bull fighting. however abolitionist wanted slavery to end immediately, the result? a five year war in which more american lives were lost then in any other war, and even after that ended racial prejudice continued on till today.

And yet slavery ended.

I can't believe you're seriously comparing ending bullfighting to the American Civil War.

Unless, of course, you're seriously trying to say that the rights of people not to be enslaved are worth less than the cost of the war--a war that was essentially written into the American political system anyways, so it was going to happen no matter what.

Immediately ending bull fighting is the completely wrong way to go about it. want more examples? Look at most any other time in which change occurs. People always have resisted changes to their way and will always continue to do so.

...so?

You're acting like this is some kind of deeply ingrained part of Spain without which the entire Spanish society would collapse. It's not. There is significant opposition to bullfighting within Spain, and several communities have already banned it--and yet Spain still stands. Your histrionics on this issue are completely misplaced.

Simply put, rights are more important.

[Vy'drach]

Hunting does not imply torturing, however. Barring sick individuals, someone going out into the woods to shoot a deer to consume will want to do it as cleanly and painlessly for the deer as possible, and aim for vital areas to ensure it's speedy demise.

[Drasiana]

Smoking is also a choice, and something you inflict upon yourself. It is not someone tying you to a chair and pumping carcinogens into your lungs.

There were more reasons behind the civil war than slavery, and slavery was not based on entertainment. The primary function of bullfighting is amusement.

Now, what about this. It's a bull. What if it was a different animal? Would you take so kindly to a sport in which a man had to torture a dolphin to death? What about a wolf? Circus animals are banned in many parts of the world because of the often seedy methods of taming the animals, yet they are usually trained for non-fatal entertainment, so why the double-standard concerning bulls? In fact, thanks for posting as I typed this Harlow, because you're helping prove my point.

I don't believe that killing or torturing a cat or a dog is right, but that doesn't mean that I should go and protest for roaches' rights.

Your reason for not empathizing with the bulls is that they are not cute and cuddly.

That does not mean they are not a living being, that does not mean that they do not feel pain, and "well it isn't cute" does not justify its torture death for entertainment.

[unoservix]

[quote=

No, no. I understood what you said, but look at all the traditions you listed. They are all concerning humans, and human-to-human cruelty is relatively understood and the rules concerning it are easy to apply.

Now, onto the animals. Eg: I don't believe that killing or torturing a cat or a dog is right, but that doesn't mean that I should go and protest for roaches' rights. It's perfectly understandable that Tiger and Elephant hunting should be banned, since it's population is declining, but what about other animals that have been historically used by humans for food and service? Unless they're going extinct, I don't see a problem to keep using them.

And what's 5% due to bullfighting compared to 87% due to breeding for food? (Not real numbers, just comparing)

This objection makes no sense. Bullfighting isn't the use of an animal for service, like pack animals or seeing-eye dogs or whatever, it's the use of an animal for entertainment, and the entertainment comes from inflicting pain on the animal. Service animals are not relevant to the discussion of bullfighting, because it is not the suffering of the service animal that is the purpose of its use.

As I said, there is an economic argument to be made for factory farming, although whether or not the economic benefit of factory farming outweighs the suffering inflicted in the animals therein is a completely different question. Bullfighting is not a question of economics. Surely it has some economic impact, but not nearly of the same scale as factory farming, so factory farming is not relevant.

[Harlow]

It's a living creature that feels pain that you torment to death for amusement. There is a difference between killing for food and killing for amusement. Intentionally inflicting pain on any living being is cruel, and cruelty should not be justified by its longevity. Yes, Uno used humans as an example, but replacing them with animals--the wife on the funeral pyre with a dog, or throwing acid at cats instead of girls--still sets a scene of needless cruelty. Just because it's an animal doesn't mean it's okay to use it as a punching bag, and even if it's not of human intelligence, it still feels some form of anguish.

I'm perfectly aware of the cruelty, but, when you put it on the traditional POV, there's never been "Throwing dogs on fire" or "Cat acid" contests that have been accepted by any society, so it obvious those go instantly on cruelty. Bull fighting has been celebrated and lauded for centuries, so any restriction or ban will be, at least, difficult...

[Drasiana]

I'm perfectly aware of the cruelty, but, when you put it on the traditional POV, there's never been "Throwing dogs on fire" or "Cat acid" contests that have been accepted by any society, so it obvious those go instantly on cruelty. Bull fighting has been celebrated and lauded for centuries, so any restriction or ban will be, at least, difficult...

But would you care about stopping dog-burning contests, because dogs are cuter than bulls, no matter how "celebrated" the act is?

[Vy'drach]

But the debate is not about the difficulty of doing it or getting it removed, but the morality of it.

Also, just because people are apathetic to fight it does not mean it is just.

[unoservix]

"Throwing your wife on the funeral pyre" or "your women should be uneducated and stay in the house" are celebrated traditions lauded for centuries in their respective places. That doesn't mean we put up our hands and say "there's nothing we can do." You're still misunderstanding my point. It is a list of traditions opposed in many quarters of the world on the grounds of their violation of basic rights; in that regard, bullfighting is no different, because unless you'd like to argue that bulls don't have the right not to be tortured to death, bullfighting violates a pretty basic right of a living thing.

That it is difficult to be on the side of right is insufficient reason not to be on the side of right.

I should add as well that stomping on local customs and cultures in the name of your enlightened values is not necessarily the right thing to do. See, for example, the Native Americans, who had their entire way of life systematically destroyed. But bullfighting is something that involves the unquestionable torture of a living thing and the undeniable violation of its most basic right (perhaps the only right we're willing to concede to animals). So there is a line past which this "stomping out local customs in the name of enlightened values" thing is wrong, but we are nice and safe on the proper side of it.