Bullfighting

[Harlow]

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

I'm not talking about "cute" factor. I'm just saying that; if historically, dog-burning was considered socially acceptable on various cprners of the globe and\or an older-than-life tradition, that would've been the one difficult to restrict.

Is the tradition a vital part of life that you can't live without? No. But when it comes to a phase that becomes/was a traditional heritage for a society, it would be a controversial move to do somethinf against it.

[Drasiana]

I'm not talking about "cute" factor.

Ah, but then, why would you say this?

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.

Roaches aren't cute and cuddly, cats and dogs are. So why would you be against the killing of cats and dogs, but not that of roaches?

I'm just saying that; if historically, dog-burning was considered socially acceptable on various cprners of the globe and\or an older-than-life tradition, that would've been the one difficult to restrict. Vitally necessary, no. But when it comes to a phase that becomes a traditional heritage for a society, it would be a controversial move to do somethinf against it.

There is something from every country and every culture from every corner of the globe that has simply naturally died out, or been banned/attempted to be banned because its infringement on rights. "Oooh I dun wanna cause controversy oooh" is not a justification for allowing a bloodsport to continue.

[unoservix]

It's difficult to restrict beating your wife too; doesn't mean we don't try to restrict it (unless we live in Topeka >>). The difficulty of doing the right thing is not sufficient cause for not doing the right thing.

Either way, the point here isn't killing an animal. There are plenty of justifiable reasons for which one might kill an animal. The point is the "torturing the animal to death for no other reason than entertainment" part. If you have to kill a dog, because it's rabid or terminally ill or threatening you or someone else, then that's one thing; but you don't have any justification to pull it apart bit by bit just for the pleasure of hearing it scream and watching it bleed and try to escape its inexorable fate. Similarly, there are plenty of justifiable reasons for which one might kill a person, but there is no justification for torturing someone to death for fun.

[Harlow]

Ah, but then, why would you say this?

Roaches aren't cute and cuddly, cats and dogs are. So why would you be against the killing of cats and dogs, but not that of roaches?

There is something from every country and every culture from every corner of the globe that has simply naturally died out, or been banned/attempted to be banned because its infringement on rights. "Oooh I dun wanna cause controversy oooh" is not a justification for allowing a bloodsport to continue.

It was an Example Given. I didn't give much thought about the animals I used for examples.

But why this particular one didn't die out earlier or became an universal taboo yet? There are still lots of people who like and appeal to this, regardless of being a bloodsport

[Drasiana]

On that note, saying that you don't want to criticize bullfighting because it might, god forbid, cause controversy, is irrelevent. Bullfighting already is a controversy, hence why we are in here debating its morality. The end point is, "is tradition a strong enough justification for the publicized torture death of an animal?" and the answer is no.

But why this particular one didn't die out earlier or became an universal taboo yet? There are still lots of people who like and appeal to this, regardless of being a bloodsport

How does that make it right? Lots of people like having sex with children and animals too, that doesn't make IT right.

[Harlow]

How does that make it right? Lots of people like having sex with children and animals too, that doesn't make IT right.

I don't think comparing this with illegal philias will work. The audience in favor of lascive acts with children and animals will never surpass that of bullfighting, even if put on a "this or that"

[unoservix]

You still haven't explained what the difficulty of completely eradicating bullfighting has to do with the question of whether or not it's right.

[Drasiana]

I don't think comparing this with illegal philias will work. The audience in favor of lascive acts with children and animals will never surpass that of bullfighting, even if put on a "this or that"

It's important enough for there to be laws against it, and the end result of boning a dog isn't even death, like the end result of a bullfight is. So, again, "all the cool kids are doing it" is not justification.

[Vy'drach]

Ahh, but mass belief does not denote truth. Just because a lot of people like it, does not make it right.

Also, there are places with regulations of beastiality. Heard tell of some countries where a man having relations with a female animal is perfectly legal, but if a man has relations with a male animal, he will be put to death. But that's a discussion for another time.

And generally why people don't mind the killing of roaches is that they come to you, are more than plentiful, and can actually damage your property and/or your health, and even then torturing bugs is generally frowned upon, where as you have to go out of your way to torture the bull. You invade his territory, take him from his home, thrust him in the middle of an arena with countless jeering and hollering "fans," then people impale him in various parts of the body, before a shiny man walks out and taunts the bull around the ring, before attempting to finish him off.

There is a big difference between smashing a roach with your shoe that's crawling around your kitchen, and drawing out the suffering of an animal that was taken from his home against his will for the sake of bleeding for the amusement of the masses.

[Asper Sarnoff]

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

Aww, we know that ain't true. How could anyone want to kill little Ferdinand here?

[Drasiana]

Well in his opinion, not cute and cuddly. Because that is adorable.

Rediculously adorable pig bonus, too!

[Faisul]

I know this is a bit late, but 'throwing dogs into a fire' and 'chucking acid in the faces of cats' have, in spirit, been traditionally viewed as acceptable pasttimes in Medieval Europe. Perhaps not exactly so, but as you may know, dogfights still carry on to this day, and tying two cats together by their tails and suspending them from a beam (which would cause them to tear each other, slowly, to shreds) was a favourite children's game in especially Germany and parts of Scandinavia during the thirteenth century, if I recall correctly. This was also in a time where killing a person for stealing a loaf of bread was considered perfectly acceptable if the bread belonged to someone of higher stature than the offender - somewhere in the world, all this is still going on, right now, probably.

It doesn't mean that we, who are in a position where we do consider ourselves at least to a degree more enlightened than the practitioners of these kinds of violence, and in our imagined cultural sophistication, are necessarily wrong to term it cruel and want to do something about it. If it offends us, morally and perhaps spiritually, that a neighbouring country, who also holds to maintain a similar cultural sophistication as us, tortures animals for entertainment - and the country itself is divided in this issue - why shouldn't we try to support the legislation or the movements that aim to abolish this kind of practice?

To return to what I see as the core of the issue, where you are either against bullfighting, indifferent to it, or for it, in the first instance arguing that there is no inherent justification to slowly torture a conscious animal to a protracted and terrible death simply for the fleeting pleasure it brings to the crowd, in the second seeing no difference in the degree of the suffering made by the animal as it would probably be processed into food later, and that the pain felt by a bull is not in any way comparable to the pain felt by a human, so who really cares, and finally, in the third instance, because bullfighting is basically the Superbowl with blood and guts flying everywhere, and by God the peasants must have something to enjoy or else they'd be at the gates like the Barbarian hordes - I can only see that the second or third stances on the issue must be held out of some inability to recognize that inflicting pain for pleasure's sake is, pardon my french, fucking barbaric and an affirmation that we are all, in fact, beasts, in both senses of the word. God damn that was a long sentence!

Sure, schadenfreude is a real thing. Something in us squeals with glee like a three-year-old given candied apples when idiots faceplant off of bikes or people get their balls kicked or hit by rocks or whatever. We feel suspense and are enthralled by violence, when it isn't being done to us, something perfectly understood by the entertainment industry. It's hard-wired into our brains that sometimes, banging a rock against another creature is fun. It's a part of our competitive instincts and has probably helped us survive our infancy as a species, because sometimes you have to be able to fight to survive and carry on your genes, be it against predators or fellow homo sapiens out to take whatever it is you have. The twist that makes this, one of our most primordial instincts, in part so fucking horrible, is that without years of societal programming to restrict our lust for carnage and further the understanding that other creatures have just as much a right to exist without intentionally inflicted pain as much as you do, we become indiscriminatingly indifferent to the suffering of others, and the suffering that we necessarily cause by acting without being careful not to cause unnecessary harm. It desensitizes and dehumanizes us - or depending on your opinion, makes us even more human - and turns us into monsters.

We've come a long way. With some exceptions, the food industry (at least in parts of the world) has become quite efficient at killing with a minimum of pain. Killing another human (again, in parts of the world and definitely not in Texas, who recently decided to abolish the Last Meal for prisoners on death row, the bastards) is no longer viewed as acceptable, for any reason other than national defense, and even then very hesitantly, period. Why? Because it is held that no one has the right to deny another's right to exist. Laws against wrongly causing physical or mental harm against another is evidence of a strongly felt opinion that denying another's right to live without undue pain is also horrible, AND that many nations today have abolished causing animals pain without sufficient reason - demonstrates that national or even global opinions can change drastically, sometimes within a single generation. Perhaps in another 50 years you will, by law, no longer be allowed to physically discipline your pets in most Western nations, much like beating your children can carry heavy punishments today. Then again, maybe in 50 years we will no longer be so squeamish about violence and pain and fully embrace dealing it out.

I realize that I've taken my argument into the extremes, and to spare you all a further massive dose of TL;DR: If you think hurting someone else or an animal or any kind of creature purely for entertainment purposes is acceptable, you are a hooting cave man, and shame on you.

[Vy'drach]

Wouldn't go so far as to say it's entirely wrong. As I said, consensual gladiatorial combat between two people wouldn't be something I'd mind. It's entirely their choice to compete in it. Saying it's wrong would be implying that your say in what they choose to do with their life is more valid than their choice, which is not the case.

And as for the denying death row inmates a last meal, I have no problem with that personally. If someone took the life of another for no justifiable reason, I say they shouldn't get any real rights anyway. Plus I wish they'd bring back the electric chair for such situations, and allowed the people affected by his actions to throw the switch, if any of them so choose. But that's just me, and another discussion.

[Faisul]

Wouldn't go so far as to say it's entirely wrong. As I said, consensual gladiatorial combat between two people wouldn't be something I'd mind..

Neither would I, the distinction being that you seem to be implying that you would show up and watch another human being gut another and derive some kind of pleasure from it, while I would prefer the two combatants to duke it out in private and not offend me by murdering each other on national television/in my back yard/wherever. I do not want to see people killing each other or any living creature, and I would not be entertained if I did see any such thing. Would you?

Plus I wish they'd bring back the electric chair for such situations, and allowed the people affected by his actions to throw the switch, if any of them so choose. But that's just me, and another discussion.

Hoo boy. I'm starting to see where you're coming from now. But neither here nor there, you're right about that.

[Vy'drach]

Neither would I, the distinction being that you seem to be implying that you would show up and watch another human being gut another and derive some kind of pleasure from it, while I would prefer the two combatants to duke it out in private and not offend me by murdering each other on national television/in my back yard/wherever. I do not want to see people killing each other or any living creature, and I would not be entertained if I did see any such thing. Would you?

Yes, I would. As I said, it's consensual gladiatorial combat. The competitors agreed to do it of their own volition, and if one or both loses their lives, then that was an outcome they'd be willing to accept. The person agreed to the battle for the sake of the fans' amusement (and probably riches, fame, and such things) knowing full well they could lose their life. When it's an outcome both parties are willing to accept, I fail to see what the problem is as it is their life and their choice how to spend it. At that point it becomes a matter of "Don't like it, don't watch it" as it violates no ones rights.

[Drasiana]

At that point it becomes a matter of "Don't like it, don't watch it" as it violates no ones rights.

Except for the part where killing people is generally illegal and frowned upon.

[Vy'drach]

I'm speaking hypothetically that consensual gladiatorial combat would be legal.

[Faisul]

Even in that very unlikely hypothetical scenario, the kind of societal attitude towards killing would have to be very lax to allow people to kill each other for sport. We don't allow that kind of behaviour in our society because it supports the notion that human life is worth very little, and to take it is a casual thing. Turning murder into sport would do just that - if those two gladiators can kill each other for money, why can't I kill my neighbour for letting his dog shit in my back yard? Or the guy who cheated me at cards the other night? Or any other trivial reason you could think of as being an excuse for murder?

You might say that it wouldn't be the same, because this kind of killing would be illegal. Why? If we allow two people to kill each other over money - turn it into a spectacle, even - why shouldn't killing for any other reason also be allowed? After all, people choose to do what they want with their lives. Why shouldn't they be given the right to end the life of another? If their victims were unable to defend themselves, it's their fault! They should've bootstrapped themselves some guns in the first place, turned their house into a fortress, and not been a weak target for folks just out for some fun. This scenario is entirely ridiculous, but so is the notion of allowing fights to the death for cash and I'm trying to illustrate a point, so bear with me.

Would the distinction between a just murder and an unjust one be the same as ours in this kind of society? I don't think so, because as soon as society accepts that murder is perfectly fine as long as you've got a reason for it (money and fame, in the case of a gladiatorial match), the above scenario might become a reality. It has to do with how cultural values change with the acceptance of certain truths. Today we largely accept the existence and normalcy of gay relationships, whereas fifty years ago it was very nearly a taboo subject, and same-gender sexual intercourse could land you in jail. It's the same with the concept of race, today there is widespread acceptance that skin colour does not dictate innate behaviours in humans, and that discrimination based on skin colour or ethnicity is unjust, while fifty years ago, the civil rights movements had barely taken off the ground.

We've developed into the progressive, enlightened society that we have today because we have refused to cheapen the value of human life, and one of the core philosophies of the Western World is that all people, regardless of race, creed or national origin, have a right to live. They also have the right to choose what they want to do with that life, but it has never, and will never, include the notion that baseless murder, this being ending another's existence for short-term material gain, is acceptable. People kill, yes, and many times entirely without reason (entertainment is not a valid reason), but allowing this sort of hypothetical scenario to become reality would only cheapen the value of human life and in turn increase the frequency of murders and make it much easier to commit other injustices, simply because in that society, human life wouldn't be worth more than the prize money from a murder match.

Extend that notion to the idea that a bull should have the right to live without being goaded into a circus enclosure and then tortured to death so that Spaniards can have another entertainment venue and you have a very comprehensive picture of my opinion on the matter. Killing for fun just doesn't make the killing acceptable, in my opinion.

[Vy'drach]

The difference being, however, is that going out and murdering someone for whatever reason is not the same as two people entering into a sanctioned competition where they both willingly agreed to it, are aware of the consequences, and are prepared for it. Where as the murdered person has no say in the matter whatsoever. It's like comparing the legal hunting of deer to shooting your neighbor's dog. They're so removed from each other that there is no comparison to be made. They're just lopped together... because.

Dunno why you brought up someone deserving to die because they were ill prepared for an attempt on their life, as that is out of left field, and very irrelevant.

As far as cheapening human life, we already have people killing for $2.00 (that's not an exaggeration, it has happened). Teenagers go out and get homeless men to fight in severe fights over various things, and I imagine some of those ended in fatalities, though I'm not sure what the pay-off is or whether there have been fatalities as I haven't watched them personally.

Personally, I think that a sanctioned, regulated, and consensual gladiatorial combat would actually lead to less of that happening. The kids wouldn't arrange "bum fights," as they're called, but instead just turn on the VS. network (and that is a real network), and watch that. And I'd imagine it would lessen murders a slight bit. Not much, as most murders happen for a particular reason, and those'd still continue, but if it's a matter of someone just wanting to shed some blood, doesn't matter who's, then there'd be a legal means to do so where they could potentially make some money doing it, potentially make a career of it, and potentially become a type of superstar. No innocents would be harmed, as the persons being harmed were going in full well with the knowledge of what they were getting in to and risking, and were willing to take those risks. Nothing happens against anyones' will.

[Faisul]

Ah, it was a long shot anyway. Just hoped I could appeal to your moral sense of right and wrong here. The whole 'bootstraps' thing was an off-hand comment on the way you seem to be implying that people should be fully able to understand, rationalize, and enjoy murder - very much a reptilian, Randian sort of thought. Ad hominem, I know, I know.

Your argument that gladiatorial bloodbaths could be a way to combat lethal crime is interesting, and a huge part of the gladiatorial matches of antiquity were intended as a way to pacify people's will to rebel in Ancient Rome. But my angle on it is that allowing such a thing is giving up to the very thing we've fought so hard to oppose, namely barbarism - and allowing people to rise through the ranks of superstardom solely on their ability to murder others - is nothing but.

You say no innocents would be harmed in such an arrangement, but think about this scenario: entering these matches might be one of the most profitable venues for people who have very little. Let's assume gladiator matches are a thing in America. There's a recession going on and jobs are scarce and people are on the dole or on the streets at an alarmingly increasing rate. Some of them sign up for the gladiator matches, some get killed, others move up the ranks. They literally make murder their profession and it grants them the material wealth to rise above their poverty. But prior to this they were people like you and me who most assuredly had no desire to kill anyone, they just needed the money. What kind of monster would join a gladiator fight for any other reason than the money anyway? By allowing people to join these games, innocents -ARE- harmed, it just happens indirectly and by their own volition, which is even more tragic than simply getting murdered on the street.

"You have nothing? Oh well, all you need to do is fight someone to the death! If you survive, you could get a house in Florida!" It's heartless.

[Drasiana]

I'm speaking hypothetically that consensual gladiatorial combat would be legal.

But it won't be, and for damn good reason.

Legalizing fatal gladatorial battle would not make humanity more peaceful. All it does is appeal to the same sadistic instinct that causes kids to make homeless people fight or push babies down stairs or whatever other obscure acts you think introducing this would solve. Faisul is right, in that allowing a sport where the goal is murder cheapens the crime. These fighters would become heroes to their audiences...role models, if you will. And you see where it'll go from there; you assume far too much from people not to invest themselves, try to mould themselves, around what they find entertaining. Cheapening human life because they think "it's cool" can only end disastrously. There is a reason this scenerio only exists in movies about barbaric history, or dystopian future.

If you really get your jollies at the thought of people fighting to the death, you have some options. A) Go play some video games, B) Watch pro wrestling, UFC, or American Gladiator or some shit and just pretend they die at the end.

[Vy'drach]

I believe you two are actually missing the point about what I was saying, and how it ties in to bullfighting. My point was that bullfighting is wrong because the bull offers no consent to the fight, and that I have no issue as long as it is consensual between the parties involved and doesn't negatively impact others beyond offending their sense of moral high ground.

An example is the case of Armin Meiwes: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Armin_Meiwes

Long story short, he put an ad up on what is essentially a cannibal hook-up site where he was looking for anyone interested in being killed and eaten. The site isn't actually meant for that, as it's meant more for fetish fantasy things, and several people responded but ultimately backed out (and it's stated that Meiwes did not attempt to force them to do anything against their will). Then Bernd Jürgen Brandes responded, and was serious. Barring a few grisly details, he was killed and over a long perioud of time, consumed voluntarily (there's no real question about it being voluntary if you read up a bit on it). He was originally charges with eight and a half years for manslaughter, but it was then changed to life imprisonment for murder. Do I think it's disgusting, yeah, a bit. Do I think Meiwes should really be punished for it, not really, no. As far anyone knows, he hasn't done anything like that against anyone unwilling. If he did, then that's another matter and he deserves to be punished severely. But Brandes was willing from the start, and was willing through the entire process. And as I said, as long as the people involved are willing and it doesn't negatively affect anyone else beyond offending them, I don't care. Sure it's a bit disturbing he had a room specifically built for that, but again, as far as anyone knows, it wasn't used without consent of the "victim."

That is why I say I wouldn't mind gladiatorial combat, as long as it is done with consent of the parties involved in it. People can look down on it all they want for any reason they want, but I say that the person has final choice in what becomes of their life (which is what I meant when saying what they do with it).

And Dras, I know it wouldn't happen. Hence why I said I wouldn't mind if it happened, implying the hypothetical scenario, and not when it happens, implying I think it will.

[Milkyway64]

I can see where Vydrach is coming from. I can't quite say I'm for extreme violence and all, that's a sadistic pleasure that only appeals to the animalistic jackass in our species, but his point about consent and how animals can't give it is clear enough.

[Vy'drach]

Thank you, Milky.

And something I should probably say is I wouldn't really watch a gladiatorial combat thing on T.V. but I would not mind it's existence.

However, if I heard of a halberd vs. battle axe or something match, I'd probably watch that as I love me a halberd. But that'd be me watching it for the weapon, not for the people being killed.

[unoservix]

This idea of legalized gladiatorial matches (or legalized cannibalism, if you prefer) is completely irrelevant to the question of bullfighting precisely because of the bull's inability to give consent. Certainly, bringing it up was unnecessary to illustrate that the animal in the bullfighting ring cannot give consent to what the bullfighters are doing to it; that's evident on its own without recourse to this gladiator crap. I don't know why you brought it up, unless you just wanted to go for the shock value or something.

To say nothing of how terrible an idea it is on its own merits, how it would accomplish none of what you claim it would, and how naive and oversimplified it is to boil all moral questions down to whether or not you have the other party's consent...

But since the topic at hand is bullfighting, and bulls are unable to consent to anything anyways, all this gladiator nonsense is irrelevant either way.