EPT[NSFW?] Beautiful bull-fighting fail. - Page 13
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Zhou
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
You said "they're going to eat the bull in the end," in an attempt to justify the way in which they kill it. I responded with examples of animals we wouldn't want to see this done to. Now you're adding the cultural factor. Let's consider this. Why is something "ok" just because it's what's been done forever? In some cultures it's customary for women to have their genitals mutilated, in order to reduce their sexual pleasure and stem the temptation of cheating. Does this make it "ok"? Many women lose all sensation in the region; some die. Is this a cost justified by culture? In some cultures, the practice of "exposing" was normal. Exposing is when a newborn child is left in an area outside of town and exposed to the elements, to die. This may have been done because the child was unwanted due to defect, or perhaps questionable lineage. Does the longevity of its practice make it ok? In some cultures it was once alright for a husband to beat his wife if she refused him or disagreed with him. This was the norm, and had been for a long time. Does this make it alright? In my country's history, it was once the cultural norm that black people were considered less than human-- something akin to animals who can talk. Women were afforded only slightly better stance in society. This wasn't unique to America-- it was common in many nations, for a very long time. Should we have simply accepted and supported it because it had been? Also thank you for being the first person to directly answer my posts. I've refuted many points in this thread without any response. Fingers in ears and screaming 'lalalala' is a fun way to exist, apparently. I would urge to you put away the "PETA hippie scumbag" mentality. It's something I've been exploring, and I've come to the conclusion that language like that is a way of dismissing someone's input. If one is a "PETA hippie scumbag", or a honkey, or a spic, or a retard, or an abo, it's easy to dismiss them. They become less than human, less than you, and so their ideas become immediately not worth consideration. | ||
|
mint_julep
United States254 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:02 Zhou wrote: That looks pretty painful. Not really something I can laugh at. As a human being, I enjoy eating. I don't think that person will have a good time eating anymore ;_; Whether deserved or not. He made a full recovery. He can eat and drink fine. He intends to return to the ring. edit: excuse me. He is expected to make a full recovery. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
mint_julep
United States254 Posts
On June 10 2010 09:10 snotboogie wrote: OK, time for clarification. I'm not supporting the sport. I'm condemning the people who laugh at a human being gored by an animal, and justify doing that by judging a culture. I'm not sure what you mean by "justify doing that by judging a culture". I'm judging the people who support and engage in this "sport". That's it. I think its funny and particularly ironic when someone who gores animals for a living gets gored by an animal he is in the process of goring, in possibly the most epic way ever. I don't need to reference culture to justify laughing at the misfortunes of a professional animal mutilator. Note as I've said earlier that this person suffered no permanent injury what so ever. He made a full recovery. He suffered short term pain and, much more importantly, serious humiliation. Nothing that happened here is much worse than breaking an arm. It just happens to look awesomer. Much awesomer. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
And they had this betting system whom they call Cristos? LOL, Cristos? Christ give a thumbs down on this sport. He only eats fish, Kapeesh? just to show you guys a douche bag holding on to his cock. Okay, I can't find a picture of a guy holding on to his cock, but you get the idea. | ||
|
agen
Barbados111 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:15 mint_julep wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "justify doing that by judging a culture". I'm judging the people who support and engage in this "sport". That's it. I think its funny and particularly ironic when someone who gores animals for a living gets gored by an animal he is in the process of goring, in possibly the most epic way ever. I don't need to reference culture to justify laughing at the misfortunes of a professional animal mutilator. Note as I've said earlier that this person suffered no permanent injury what so ever. He made a full recovery. He suffered short term pain and, much more importantly, serious humiliation. Nothing that happened here is much worse than breaking an arm. It just happens to look awesomer. Much awesomer. qft. Still don't see how it's offensive for others to laugh at this bullfighter's misfortune when they've clearly done him no harm. Why bother demanding that people justify their sense of humor? | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On June 10 2010 09:34 neohero9 wrote: They are eating the cat in the end anyways. Let's torture it. They are eating the dog in the end anyways. Let's torture it. They are going to eat YOUR PET in the end anyways. Let's torture it. My point isn't that animals are more important than people. It's that both humans and animals have the ability to feel pain, and inflicting unnecessary and unjustifiable pain is bad. A lot of people like speeding on city streets. A lot of people like shooting guns wildly into the air. A lot of people like smashing car windows with baseball bats. A lot of people like sexual assault. Even if a majority of people liked these things, should they be permissible? Okay these arguments are so ignorant and weak that I can't help but say something. In the same way that you people in the states eat beef and pork and such, and indeed, anywhere, people elsewhere keeps bulls and other such animals for fights. It is commonly understood that human beings take priority over animals in very much every country (except maybe in countries where certain animals are held as sacred, e.g. India), and to such an extent that killing them for food and sport is acceptable, and yes, even in your own. Your argument about if the animal in question is one's own pet holds even less water, since the bulls are bred and owned by the organisations, or for the organisations who use them for bullfighting or donated thereto. They are nobody's pet, or nobody's who have not donated them willingly. Also just because your culture does not endorse it, doesn't mean it is wrong. Unless if you are a vegetarian, your arguments are invalid and irrelevant. Now as to the second part of your post, about comparing bull-fighting to sexual assualts, smashing private properties, etc, I am going to be reasonable and point out the illogics in these contrastings. In your examples, people's actions harm other poeple, who persumably doesn't wish to be harmed. In bull-fighting, nobody's actions hurt anybody else, only the bulls are hurt. Human rights, including rights to body and property, as well as public security, is very much safe I can assure you. If you are bringing these illogics up just because you don't like bull-fighting, and are therefore comparing these horrible things to bull-fighting, I can offer a few explanations: You might be operating on the grounds on parternalism, the belief that other people don't know what's good for them as well as you do, and so therefore you should get to tell them what to do since you know better. What role these principles have in terms of formulating an argument, however, is an open question. Basically, the logics you brought up are flawed, incoherent, and irrelevant, and are completely praternalist in nature. | ||
|
agen
Barbados111 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:19 sc4k wrote: god damnit agen Dude. What? | ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: One more sport that I don't adhere to besides bull fighting (well, at least the matador fights for honor and shit like that) is COCK FIGHTING! Why the fuck would you want to cocks to slug it out inside a ring? I mean come on,when I watch that shit I don't even understand what's so exciting about it? Yeah, they attack each other like zerling and zealot but it's not that entertaining when some cock gets killed in the process. And they had this betting system whom they call Cristos? LOL, Cristos? Christ give a thumbs down on this sport. He only eats fish, Kapeesh? just to show you guys a douche bag holding on to his cock. Okay, I can't find a picture of a guy holding on to his cock, but you get the idea. you get alot of money off that shit is why however in your terms, you get alot of money watching two cocks fight to death and whoevers cock is stronger gets money | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
I am a vegetarian, for the very same reasons I've outlined here-- moral ones. Paternalism is nowhere near my philosophy. My view is simply that animals CAN suffer, and would prefer NOT to suffer, and it's wrong to MAKE them suffer. "Only the bull suffers" is an incredibly weak counter-argument, and actually proves my point. They suffer. They suffer for the ENTERTAINMENT of man. This is not justifiable. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
i made a funeh relating to a post but your post got in the way so I had to abort and ninja edit  | ||
|
agen
Barbados111 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:29 sc4k wrote: i made a funeh relating to a post but your post got in the way so I had to abort and ninja edit funeh? funny? | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
I hate the American attitude of "we know better than everyone else, X aspect of their BARBARIC culture needs to be taken away for everyone's well being." I am a Mexican living in the United States, whenever I go back to Mexico my grandfather and I go to the corridas. Who are you in America to tell me that I am a terrible person for doing this, especially when your country has some of the worst animal rights records in terms of the food industry in the entire world. | ||
|
cr4ckshot
United States291 Posts
| ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:23 neohero9 wrote: 5unrise: I am a vegetarian, for the very same reasons I've outlined here-- moral ones. Paternalism is nowhere near my philosophy. My view is simply that animals CAN suffer, and would prefer NOT to suffer, and it's wrong to MAKE them suffer. "Only the bull suffers" is an incredibly weak counter-argument, and actually proves my point. They suffer. They suffer for the ENTERTAINMENT of man. This is not justifiable. People take precedence animals, this is commonly understood."only the bulls suffer" is a strong argument since you were contrasting bull-fighting to actions in which human beings suffer. I brought that up just to tell you that is not the case. Now it's good that you are a vegetarian, and therefore maybe what you say can be more understandable. However, your moral principles may not be true where other people are concerned, and to argue why you are right and they are wrong in terms of morality, unless if the argument is one that very much everybody agrees on., is not going to get anywhere, since "morality" varies from people to people. To tell poeple that they have no right, using their own resources, to host bull-fights, while not impacting on anybody else's well-being, is the best example of parternalism | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
| ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
On June 10 2010 10:32 cr4ckshot wrote: terrible, terrible damage! ROFL! | ||
| ||
