|
United States43821 Posts
On June 10 2010 06:24 SoManyDeadLings wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 06:21 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2010 06:12 SoManyDeadLings wrote:On June 10 2010 06:03 LuckyLuke43 wrote:On June 10 2010 05:50 Badjas wrote:
The guy getting injured is actually a positive results for the bull fighting culture. Bull fighting is about the chance of possibly lethal accidents. Without danger there's no fun. If in ten years time no single guy would get harmed in a bull fight, it'd be over. Wrong. Get edjucated before you join in on the discussion please. Bullfighting is not at all about 'the danger'. I'm not gonna rant another huge post, just go read up on the subject and come back when you have knowledge of it. You see how he doesn't even respond when you completely deny a valid argument with such bigotry? I'm well read on the subject and similar to racing, the thrill for spectating is least partially about the potential for bodily harm. Please attempt to crack a slight opening in your close-minded world before insulting someone like that again. You merely made a personal insult without contribution in any form to the thread content, come back in 5 years when you've hit puberty. I'm well read on the subject of refutations without content and I can assure you that you just did one. Please come back in 5 years with an actual refutation. I'm sick of people saying "I've have a lot of useful information about the subject and rather than share that with you I'm just going to offer my conclusions without any context and demand you accept them". By your logic, you too.
No, what I've done is ask you to actually share your knowledge gained from being well read on the subject. Doing so would be good for the topic.
|
All you haters are hopping on the bullfighting hate train because it's convenient, and there isn't a negative stigma related to it like there is to being a "save the tortured cows" animal rights, vegetarian activist. I doubt you are as quick to be a proponent of anti widespread factory cow torture, which effects countless more cows than bullfighting, and in a far more horrific way throughout their entire lives.
"At least factory cow torture killing produces something useful to society" - And bullfighting doesn't? It provides a sense of national culture and individuality, sport entertainment, and; i'm sure, many jobs.
It must be nice to have a face(the matador) which you can see clearly to wish your ignorance and hate upon.
|
so that wasn't as bad as i expected it to be. he got shit on, and i just don't understand how bull fighting can be entertaining to watch... honestly it'd seem really boring, it's like oh, so he didn't receive any injuries that's cool.. oh he died.. well i guess i'm gonna go home and play some starcraft gg.
edit: actually i just thought, what if he were to fight 2 bulls? that could be entertaining but much more dangerous or it could be safer in a way because the bulls could collide.
|
On June 10 2010 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 03:05 IntoTheWow wrote:On June 10 2010 03:04 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Wait why all the hate on him? None of you guys eat beef or what? =/ Killing to eat != killing for entertainment. Do you eat every part of the animal? If not then you're eating for pleasure. Killing more animals than you absolutely have to in order to eat the nicer parts. Killing for pleasure is killing for pleasure, I wouldn't enjoy watching a bullfight but equally I think it's horrible that a human suffered a horrible injury. I don't give a fuck what happens to animals.
Your argument seems to me to be very black and white. Life tends not to be about polar opposites, and this issue is a classic issue where there aren't just two options. You make it out like people can either 'kill for pleasure' or 'not'. The concept is not binary...there would be different levels of killing for pleasure. There is an arbitrary line which we cross where we can feel there is a certain level of moral rigidity to our actions for them to be morally acceptable.
I'd say that sitting in an arena watching one animal being slowly tortured to death is a lot further down the line of barbarism than paying for meat that is hopefully obtained fairly quickly when compared to the way the bull in the correo dies. It is of course a goal that we should all share to be able to produce sustaining, tasty, varied food without any inconvenience to any sentient beings, but that is not an absolute we can achieve at the moment so we make the relatively rational decision that the method we use at the moment, while not perfect, is moral acceptable enough for the moment.
To say 'if buying beef is allowed, bull fighting should be allowed' is tantamount to saying 'if paying people minimum wage is allowed, slavery is allowed' or 'if we can have sex with 16 year old girls, we can have sex with 12 year old girls'. These are all arbitrary lines, nothing is absolute in the modern world. Even murder is not an absolute line, when one is talking about murdering a hostage-taker or someone with a bomb.
|
The only shame is that he didn't die since i'm sure the bull did.
|
On June 10 2010 07:09 On_Slaught wrote:
The only shame is that he didn't die since i'm sure the bull did.
bull =/= human
|
The only righteous declamations being thrown around in this thread are against those taking schadenfreude from the bullfighter's injury. I remember seeing The Matrix with my aunt when I was younger, and she walked out of the theater because she couldn't take the violence. I could've given her a lecture on the difference between fiction and reality and about how she should be more concerned with real-life violence, but I didn't...maybe because I was too young =P. Anyway, the point is this: the people posting snide comments about the matador didn't gore him; the bull did. If you have problems with taking this "tragic" incident lightheartedly, then take them up with Stephen Colbert who included this clip on his show for comedic purposes.
Edit: The point about the matrix was that emotional reactions don't adhere to a strict, rational ethical code. If bullfighting pisses people off, it pisses them off, regardless of what happens to cows on farms.
|
On June 10 2010 07:11 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 07:09 On_Slaught wrote:
The only shame is that he didn't die since i'm sure the bull did. bull =/= human
This doesn't preclude myself, or anybody, from assigning a really really really low value to his life.
|
On June 10 2010 07:12 agen wrote:
The only righteous declamations being thrown around in this thread are about those taking schadenfreude from the bullfighter's injury. I remember seeing The Matrix with my aunt when I was younger, and she walked out of the theater because she couldn't take the violence. I could've given her a lecture on the difference between fiction and reality and about how she should be more concerned with real-life violence, but I didn't...maybe because I was too young =P. Anyway, the point is this: the people posting snide comments about the matador didn't gore him; the bull did. If you have problems with taking this "tragic" incident lightheartedly, then take them up with Stephen Colbert who included this clip on his show for comedic purposes.
Edit: The point about the matrix was that emotional reactions don't adhere to a strict, rational ethical code. If bullfighting pisses people off, it pisses them off, regardless of what happens to cows on farms.
you know at the top of my head, i can't even remember a scene where it would make someone walk out... but i guess your aunt is really senstive?
|
On June 10 2010 07:18 Sephy69 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 07:12 agen wrote:
The only righteous declamations being thrown around in this thread are about those taking schadenfreude from the bullfighter's injury. I remember seeing The Matrix with my aunt when I was younger, and she walked out of the theater because she couldn't take the violence. I could've given her a lecture on the difference between fiction and reality and about how she should be more concerned with real-life violence, but I didn't...maybe because I was too young =P. Anyway, the point is this: the people posting snide comments about the matador didn't gore him; the bull did. If you have problems with taking this "tragic" incident lightheartedly, then take them up with Stephen Colbert who included this clip on his show for comedic purposes.
Edit: The point about the matrix was that emotional reactions don't adhere to a strict, rational ethical code. If bullfighting pisses people off, it pisses them off, regardless of what happens to cows on farms. you know at the top of my head, i can't even remember a scene where it would make someone walk out... but i guess your aunt is really senstive?
Yea, she walked out when the pointy thing was inserted into the back of Neo's head so that he "entered the matrix". Probably not the best example, but she's generally sensitive to violence in film.
Anyway, there is always a distinct possibility that if you taunt a bull, it will gore you. It's part of his job, and the matador clearly was capable of anticipating the possibility of such an occurrence. Maybe it wasn't condign, but there still seems to be a certain poetic justice to the whole incident.
|
this thread needs moar agen's grandma
|
On June 10 2010 07:12 agen wrote:
The only righteous declamations being thrown around in this thread are about those taking schadenfreude from the bullfighter's injury. I remember seeing The Matrix with my aunt when I was younger, and she walked out of the theater because she couldn't take the violence. I could've given her a lecture on the difference between fiction and reality and about how she should be more concerned with real-life violence, but I didn't...maybe because I was too young =P. Anyway, the point is this: the people posting snide comments about the matador didn't gore him; the bull did. If you have problems with taking this "tragic" incident lightheartedly, then take them up with Stephen Colbert who included this clip on his show for comedic purposes.
Edit: The point about the matrix was that emotional reactions don't adhere to a strict, rational ethical code. If bullfighting pisses people off, it pisses them off, regardless of what happens to cows on farms.
The reason the situation of cows on farms doesn't piss people off is because it's ignored, or written off as 'necessity', or accepted because 'animals are not people'. It's been clearly illustrated that the necessity doesn't actually exist in most cases. This leave ignorance and the 'animals are not people' argument.
True, animals cannot reason at the level of humans; they do not communicate with the finesse and specificity of humans; nor do they murder or rape, which are again solely the realm of humanity. What, then, convinces those of us who decry the treatment of animals in the world that they deserve our moral consideration?
I bring you Jeremy Bentham:
"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?"
Animals should not be afforded the right to vote as humans do, or to own property as humans do, because they lack the capacity to do these things. However, they do have the capacity to suffer, something all of us can relate to, and ought to consider. Yes, that's a moral ought.
This significantly weakens the 'animals are not humans, and therefore do not deserve our moral consideration' argument. This leaves only ignorance, specifically voluntary ignorance.
EDIT because my quote was incomplete.
|
On June 10 2010 07:26 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 07:12 agen wrote:
The only righteous declamations being thrown around in this thread are about those taking schadenfreude from the bullfighter's injury. I remember seeing The Matrix with my aunt when I was younger, and she walked out of the theater because she couldn't take the violence. I could've given her a lecture on the difference between fiction and reality and about how she should be more concerned with real-life violence, but I didn't...maybe because I was too young =P. Anyway, the point is this: the people posting snide comments about the matador didn't gore him; the bull did. If you have problems with taking this "tragic" incident lightheartedly, then take them up with Stephen Colbert who included this clip on his show for comedic purposes.
Edit: The point about the matrix was that emotional reactions don't adhere to a strict, rational ethical code. If bullfighting pisses people off, it pisses them off, regardless of what happens to cows on farms. The reason the situation of cows on farms doesn't piss people off is because it's ignored, or written off as 'necessity', or accepted because 'animals are not people'. It's been clearly illustrated that the necessity doesn't actually exist in most cases. This leave ignorance and the 'animals are not people' argument. True, animals cannot reason at the level of humans; they do not communicate with the finesse and specificity of humans; nor do they murder or rape, which are again solely the realm of humanity. What, then, convinces those of us who decry the treatment of animals in the world that they deserve our moral consideration? I bring you Jeremy Bentham: Show nested quote +"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?" Animals should not be afforded the right to vote as humans do, or to own property as humans do, because they lack the capacity to do these things. However, they do have the capacity to suffer, something all of us can relate to, and ought to consider. Yes, that's a moral ought. This significantly weakens the 'animals are not humans, and therefore do not deserve our moral consideration' argument. This leaves only ignorance, specifically voluntary ignorance.
Yea, I agree.
|
On June 10 2010 02:56 Corrupt wrote:
Holy cow!
Pun?...
|
On June 10 2010 07:35 wiseman500 wrote:Pun?...
Absolutely not.
|
On June 10 2010 07:26 sc4k wrote:
this thread needs moar agen's grandma
Awesome, I have quite a few good stories about her if you'd like me to PM them to you.
|
its a shame they kill the bull and the bulls mother if the guy dies.. fuck him he deserved it.. its mean cruelty and very unfair.. to kill to eat is a VERY different thing..
|
I think that bullfighting is wrong, but this,
![[image loading]](http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/01/large_cowsMlive.jpg)
is far worse.
|
.... How distasteful.
Just because the guy is indulging in an activity that you guys believe to be animal cruelty, you are laughing at his excruciatingly painful injury. You must feel so goddamn happy about this "justice" being passed down.
Whether bull-fighting is unjust or not; whether the guy deserved it or not is of no matter.
The fact that you'd laugh at a guy being speared through the chin is sickening.
|
not sure what happened there...
But anyway, at the last poster: It doesn't really matter whether or not people laugh at it...they have no influence on the events. They didn't injure him, and they won't be taking care of him to ensure that he recovers. Why does it matter whether or not they laugh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
