[quote]Vash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It sure as hell isn’t that important if they still end up dead and you still end up eating them. In a universal context, the animal is still D E A D.
I see. I am arguing from the point of view that causing unnecessary pain to an animal, regardless of the impending death, is wrong.[/quote]
Why does the pain of the animal matter?
Roaches are living creatures as well and no one cries when they twitch in the corner after being sprayed.
Why is that?
[quote]
Certainly. It’s an animal, animals will be eaten. However, I would argue as the “stewards” of the animals, to use a dangerously religious implication, torture is unnecessary to cause the cessation of life.[/quote]
It may very well be unnecessary, but the only thing that makes it wrong is our own society’s standards and values.
But…we live in the same society that pays top dollar for front row seats in coliseums to watch two heavy weights boxers rip each others’ heads off and bleed on the mat. Exactly how “proper” are we?
Was it? Why is eating one animal ok over eating another? Why can’t I cook of “fluffy-kins” in a broiler at home like I do beef stew?
[quote]Vash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It sure as hell isn’t that important if they still end up dead and you still end up eating them. In a universal context, the animal is still D E A D.
I see. I am arguing from the point of view that causing unnecessary pain to an animal, regardless of the impending death, is wrong.[/quote]
Why does the pain of the animal matter?
Roaches are living creatures as well and no one cries when they twitch in the corner after being sprayed.
Why is that?[/quote]
How many people get entertainment from the roach twitching? I’m just glad the fucker’s not eating my food. If pain were avoidable in this instance I would take the pain-free option (which often includes getting a paper towel and scooping it out the door/window, or if that’s not an option, a quick smash which minimizes the pain signal.
Now, X, you’re the one equating humans with animals, something you commented on negatively in a previous post.
The fact is, we have no analogue in the animal kingdom. We are much more complex than they. We form moral systems, et al. And I agree 100% our views will be slanted by our cultures. That’s the nature of the systems.
However, I would submit the knowing of an actions full implications should, regardless of culture, influence our actions in relation to lower-level systems.
As has been pointed out, many cultural traditions are fucking retarded.
[quote]
Was it? Why is eating one animal ok over eating another? Why can’t I cook of “fluffy-kins” in a broiler at home like I do beef stew?[/quote]
Again, I would make no moral implications to the eating of a particular type of animal. After all, they are all protein, and protein is fucking awesome. To reiterate, though, I would submit we, as more complex intellectual organisms, needn’t cause unnecessary harm, simply because we know that shit hurts.
Having our level of complexity gives us options which do not occur in any other species (that we have yet understood or encountered).
Also, I would agree with you in not equating humans to animals in any way. We are simply too complex.
How many people get entertainment from the roach twitching? [/quote]
Probably way more than you are willing to accept seeing as how, as humans, we can often be into some perverse shit.
[quote]
I’m just glad the fucker’s not eating my food. If pain were avoidable in this instance I would take the pain-free option (which often includes getting a paper towel and scooping it out the door/window, or if that’s not an option, a quick smash which minimizes the pain signal.[/quote]
But…in some cultures, that insect’s life is also sacred. Why is it RIGHT to kill it here but not if you happen to be a Buddhist Monk?
[quote]
Now, X, you’re the one equating humans with animals, something you commented on negatively in a previous post.
The fact is, we have no analogue in the animal kingdom. We are much more complex than they. We form moral systems, et al. And I agree 100% our views will be slanted by our cultures. That’s the nature of the systems.[/quote]
I wasn’t equating humans to animals. I am saying we live in a culture where EVEN OUR OWN HUMANS are watched for enjoyment as they hurt each other…yet we turn into hypocrites and cry against it when it comes to CERTAIN animals.
[quote]
However, I would submit the knowing of an actions full implications should, regardless of culture, influence our actions in relation to lower-level systems.
As has been pointed out, many cultural traditions are fucking retarded.[/quote]
There is no doubt about that…and if this were in the context of HUMAN TORTURE, like the women in some African tribes being “circumcised”, I would be against the action. This is again an animal…and the only “full implications” that arise are presented by the society we live in.
Then we really don’t disagree…aside from the realization that personal issues with how an animal dies is based on your own upbringing and social influences. While I may personally feel a greater connection with animals I come in contact with, I can not say that everyone on the planet has to play nice with their burgers before they eat them.
I’ve been to a bullfight in Spain, when I was 18. It was very cool, but very alien. I don’t know that I would want to go again, but I am glad that I did go.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The majority of Spaniards are against bullfighting so there goes the whole moral relativism and judging cultures argument. [/quote]
There has been a decline in popularity, the only place where people are actually against bullfighting is Catalonia. There’s a huge difference between being against something and simply not going to watch it. Catalonia is only one region of Spain and really only dislikes bullfighting because they’re trying distance themselves from things viewed as Spanish.
[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
B. That’s exactly what you should expect when you tease a powerful beast[/quote]
Not exactly. If I recall correctly in Europe (Spain and southern France) EVERY YEAR there are ten of thousands of bulls tortured to death by those effeminate clowns. On the other hand only a dozen of those jerks (Spain) have been killed in the last 200 years. By the way writing “torturing” a powerful (but nonetheless helpless) animal would be more accurate than “teasing”. This is actual torture.
Of course this is not the killing of an animal per se which is problematic but its systematic torture beforehand.
Some “cool” vids:
[/quote]
Those aren’t cool videos, this is a cool video:
Do you think factory farming isn’t torture? A animal is kept in a confined space that is densely packed with other animals, it’s then injected with hormones and fed so it can be slaughtered as soon as possible. Then the cow will be rendered unconscious, hung upside, and its jugular is cut. The bulls[who happen to bred only for bullfighting] are stabbed a limited amount of times with a lance, have sticks stuck in its back, then are ultimately killed in one motion by the matador[if they’re good]. The final strike of the matador should kill the bull in 20 seconds or less.
The only difference between killing animals for food and doing so for sport is there’s no audience, both are equally as brutal. Besides, I can’t see why people focus on the bulls, the horses are the ones people should care about. Where’s the outcry for the horses? I can’t say I’ve ever heard any. I suppose it’s because there’s no group of people[PETA] distorting facts and making ridiculous attempts at trying to stop stress and pain imposed on horses.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The only difference between killing animals for food and doing so for sport is there’s no audience, both are equally as brutal.[/quote]
Plus, one of them is done for the enjoyment of the activity.
Is it true that the bull is kept in a dark stall leading up to the event, with wet newspaper stuffed up its ears, vaseline rubbed in its eyes, and cotton stuffed up its nose?
Does it really have chemicals rubbed on its legs to irritate them (messing with its balance) and prevent it from laying down for the day or two leading up to the event and are additives put in its food to give it diarrhea and further weaken it before the fight?
Are needles REALLY stuck in its genitals and are drugs seriously administered to either pep it up or slow it down?
Or do these matadors really fight a healthy, strong bull?
Bulls are not allowed to fight full strength because they would be unbeatable. There is a time limit because if a matador is unable to kill it in the time allotted, the bull will probably win as it is learning the matadors moves and improving his timing. Bulls were allowed, at one time, to fight again if they survived but they always won when given a second chance as they had learned to adapt to what the matador was doing. The treatment of the horses is just as cruel. at one time they were not given any protection and simply allowed to be gored by the bulls. The reasoning being that the act of goring and lifting the horse would tire them even more. Then the animal rights movements got stronger and the horses were given padding which stop them from being gored but don’t prevent damage from impact.
And the majority of Spaniards, throughout Spain, are against it. It is a tourist driven event/industry and subsidized by the local govt.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Bulls are not allowed to fight full strength because they would be unbeatable. There is a time limit because if a matador is unable to kill it in the time allotted, the bull will probably win as it is learning the matadors moves and improving his timing. Bulls were allowed, at one time, to fight again if they survived but they always won when given a second chance as they had learned to adapt to what the matador was doing. The treatment of the horses is just as cruel. at one time they were not given any protection and simply allowed to be gored by the bulls. The reasoning being that the act of goring and lifting the horse would tire them even more. Then the animal rights movements got stronger and the horses were given padding which stop them from being gored but don’t prevent damage from impact.
And the majority of Spaniards, throughout Spain, are against it. It is a tourist driven event/industry and subsidized by the local govt. [/quote]
Bullfighting is still a billion dollar industry and millions of Spaniards still enjoy it.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Is it true that the bull is kept in a dark stall leading up to the event, with wet newspaper stuffed up its ears, vaseline rubbed in its eyes, and cotton stuffed up its nose?
Does it really have chemicals rubbed on its legs to irritate them (messing with its balance) and prevent it from laying down for the day or two leading up to the event and are additives put in its food to give it diarrhea and further weaken it before the fight?
Are needles REALLY stuck in its genitals and are drugs seriously administered to either pep it up or slow it down?
Or do these matadors really fight a healthy, strong bull?[/quote]
Those actions are illegal, one can’t do that to a bull before a fight. The bull is in full health when it enters a ring, it however grows tired in the ring but is still quite dangerous and can easily gore a matador.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
The only difference between killing animals for food and doing so for sport is there’s no audience, both are equally as brutal.[/quote]
Plus, one of them is done for the enjoyment of the activity.[/quote]
People enjoy the matador, the death of the bull is just part of the show.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The majority of Spaniards are against bullfighting so there goes the whole moral relativism and judging cultures argument. [/quote]
There has been a decline in popularity, the only place where people are actually against bullfighting is Catalonia. There’s a huge difference between being against something and simply not going to watch it. Catalonia is only one region of Spain and really only dislikes bullfighting because they’re trying distance themselves from things viewed as Spanish.
[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
B. That’s exactly what you should expect when you tease a powerful beast[/quote]
Not exactly. If I recall correctly in Europe (Spain and southern France) EVERY YEAR there are ten of thousands of bulls tortured to death by those effeminate clowns. On the other hand only a dozen of those jerks (Spain) have been killed in the last 200 years. By the way writing “torturing” a powerful (but nonetheless helpless) animal would be more accurate than “teasing”. This is actual torture.
Of course this is not the killing of an animal per se which is problematic but its systematic torture beforehand.
Some “cool” vids:
[/quote]
Those aren’t cool videos, this is a cool video:
Do you think factory farming isn’t torture? A animal is kept in a confined space that is densely packed with other animals, it’s then injected with hormones and fed so it can be slaughtered as soon as possible. Then the cow will be rendered unconscious, hung upside, and its jugular is cut. The bulls[who happen to bred only for bullfighting] are stabbed a limited amount of times with a lance, have sticks stuck in its back, then are ultimately killed in one motion by the matador[if they’re good]. The final strike of the matador should kill the bull in 20 seconds or less.
The only difference between killing animals for food and doing so for sport is there’s no audience, both are equally as brutal. Besides, I can’t see why people focus on the bulls, the horses are the ones people should care about. Where’s the outcry for the horses? I can’t say I’ve ever heard any. I suppose it’s because there’s no group of people[PETA] distorting facts and making ridiculous attempts at trying to stop stress and pain imposed on horses.
[/quote]
I’m not going to defend factory farming but two wrongs don’t make a right. Besides, the aim of factory farming is efficient food production, not animal abuse for animal abuse’s sake. It’s much easier to talk people out of animalfighting than meat consumption. And for the record, I do not eat meat so that cannot be thrown against me.
LOL @ people using google for references in to how bulls are kept and prepped for bullfighting, most likely in a country they have NEVER stepped foot in whatsover. Unless you have lived/live in Spain or know an extensive amount of people from Spain, you have no say in this matter and your assumptions are full of shit.
Some people…seriously.
When I go to Spain, I’m going to watch a bull fight and enjoy the entertainment. After I’ll go hit up the infamous bar with all the pictures of famous matadores/bulls plastered over the walls and enjoy a drink with the locals and take it all in, hell maybe even take a picture with the Matadores and dead bulls . I’m going to go eat some steak now, oooh boo hoo hoo poor little cow , I’ll have to force myself to eat it and I’ll season it’s nicely grilled flesh with my tears. (ps you vegans who subtly make it known “I don’t eat meat” like we’ll praise you or actually really care, can fuck off)
Aliens land on Earth after leaving their own planet where broccoli is considered a legitimate citizen of society and gets to vote. They are appalled by the fact that we eat broccoli here. Do they have right to stop us?
Is eating broccoli bad?
Push is right. Right and wrong are relative and we do not have the right to stick our noses into EVERYONE ELSE’S business and decide for them what is right and wrong. That is what led to Native Americans losing their land…the belief that “those savages” didn’t know what to do with it…which is WRONG according to our own society.
You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t have to take part in it.
That is THEIR culture and TO THEM it is not wrong. Therefore, why whine about them doing it?[/quote]
Are you serious? Dude you have an opinion on everything so don’t tell me I can’t have an opinion.
Broccoli is not a tradition. Another analogy fail.[/quote]
What? How could you miss the point? In that scenario, BROCCOLI has a very deep tradition TO THE ALIENS. How simple do I need to make this shit?
[quote]
The native americans lost. Another analogy fail. Every great nation is founded on the bones of conquered people. Every one. I’m so sick and tired of hearing that dead dog argument. It is broken and doesn’t work. [/quote]
Again, WHAT? Remember MANIFEST DESTINY? There is way more to that story than just “they lost”.
Wow.
[quote]
Should every nation have to give back the land to aboriginal peoples? Modern Japanese are not aboriginals. Australia is not aboriginals. The UK is not aboriginals. And Italy would be chopped up. I can go on and on.
This isn’t about right or wrong. [/quote]
Wait, how is it not about right and wrong? Would it be OK right now to go kick some Native Americans off their land and take it?
Why not?
But…you DO support animal torture. We simply glorify that “torture” by calling it necessity to feed us. Shooting something in the head when it’s life is not hanging by a thread is not exactly “loving” the animal.[/quote]
X… being falsely disingenuous is not well done.
You had some failed analogies. It’s okay, seems to happen a lot.
The natives lost. How far back do you want to go on what is someone’s land? Again, just a really bad analogy and also a bad example
And no… I do not support animal torture. I do not regard the humane butchering of animals for food the same as driving barbs, spears, knives, and swords into bulls, in and out, and cutting off their ears or tails while still alive to the raucous cries and cheering and jeering of slavering spectators.
