Bulls 1 Matodors 0 (..........it's gory but he survived)

[Removed]

Can't remember any thread recently debating the morality or entertainment value of bullfighting but I saw this picture (http://www.elpais.com/fotografia/cultura/Cornada/elpdiacul/20100521elpepucul_37/Ies/) today and could not believe the guy survived.

Video here (http://www.elpais.com/videos/cultura/escalofriante/cornada/Julio/Aparicio/elpepucul/20100521elpepucul_5/Ves/) (don't watch if of a nervous disposition)

Mon the bulls :thumbsup:

(....aye and I spelt Matador wrong :doh:)

[AgentDaleCooper]

Can't remember any thread recently debating the morality or entertainment value of bullfighting but I saw this picture (http://www.elpais.com/fotografia/cultura/Cornada/elpdiacul/20100521elpepucul_37/Ies/) today and could not believe the guy survived.

Video here (http://www.elpais.com/videos/cultura/escalofriante/cornada/Julio/Aparicio/elpepucul/20100521elpepucul_5/Ves/) (don't watch if of a nervous disposition)

Mon the bulls :thumbsup:

(....aye and I spelt Matador wrong :doh:)


not normally one for wishing pain on another person, but it positively delights me when a bull ****s up one of those odious, morally bankrupt cretins.

i know the bull probably got killed anyway - but that just further highlights the utter sickness of the whole thing. it's not even a competition, it's a disgusting spectacle that only a truly ignorant person could take the slightest of interests in.

so aye - 'MON THE BULLS!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Ed De Gramo]

'mon the Bull :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Proper gore!!!!!!!

[Woody1985]

not normally one for wishing pain on another person, but it positively delights me when a bull ****s up one of those odious, morally bankrupt cretins.

i know the bull probably got killed anyway - but that just further highlights the utter sickness of the whole thing. it's not even a competition, it's a disgusting spectacle that only a truly ignorant person could take the slightest of interests in.

so aye - 'MON THE BULLS!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

The bull was killed after by another matador.

Nae luck for the matador was my first thought on seeing the picture!

[AgentDaleCooper]

The bull was killed after by another matador.

Nae luck was my first thought on seeing the picture!

what's your point?

[AgentDaleCooper]

by the way, just to warn you, i'm finding it really hard to resist hijacking this thread into an all out animals rights bonanza...technically still relevant to the OP...:wink:

[Removed]

by the way, just to warn you, i'm finding it really hard to resist hijacking this thread into an all out animals rights bonanza...technically still relevant to the OP...:wink:

:agree: Feel free agentDC

Go for it. Bullfighting sickens me, I was actually disappointed the matador survived. Would have served him right IMO. What else you thinking about?

[AgentDaleCooper]

:agree: Feel free agentDC

Go for it. Bullfighting sickens me - what else you thinking about?

well...i'm a vegan, so...:greengrin

i am willing to bet that noone has a sensible, logical argument that justifies the meat industry and animal testing. :I'm waiti
:wink:

[AgentDaleCooper]

(by the way, i'm aware that vegans are often possibly the most irritating people on the planet - i endeavor to not behave in such a manner, and i don't take a holier than though view of people who eat meat - i used to.
i do, however, take such a view of people who actually enjoy watching slow, brutal slaughter of bulls and followers of other such sick "sports")

[Woody1985]

what's your point?

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious, no?


i know the bull probably got killed anyway

[Removed]

well...i'm a vegan, so...:greengrin

i am willing to bet that noone has a sensible, logical argument that justifies the meat industry. :I'm waiti
:wink:

:hmmm: What about men in leather :whistle:

[Jonnyboy]

(by the way, i'm aware that vegans are often possibly the most irritating people on the planet - i endeavor to not behave in such a manner, and i don't take a holier than though view of people who eat meat - i used to.
i do, however, take such a view of people who actually enjoy watching slow, brutal slaughter of bulls and followers of other such sick "sports")

Vegans may aspire to that title but surely Hearts, Rangers, Celtic and Man Utd fans have a more valid claim? :greengrin

Oh and by the way I am totally against bullfighting and animal cruelty in any way shape or form :agree:

[AgentDaleCooper]

:hmmm: What about men in leather :whistle:
vaguely think you're talking about poofs here or something, not sure...:confused:

if you're being serious, then that could be lumped in with meat industry...:dunno:

[AgentDaleCooper]

Vegans may aspire to that title but surely Hearts, Rangers, Celtic and Man Utd fans have a more valid claim? :greengrin

Oh and by the way I am totally against bullfighting and animal cruelty in any way shape or form :agree:

maybe, although a few years ago, when my dog died, one of my friends reprimanded me for having a pet in the first place...that's pretty irritating:greengrin

[Removed]

vaguely think you're talking about poofs here or something, not sure...:confused:

if you're being serious, then that could be lumped in with meat industry...:dunno:

:faf: The poofs are the ones that ride Harleys :wink:

I meant that if there were no meat & milk industry then the price of leather would probably rocket or maybe we bikers would all just switch to kangaroo whcih is very popular with racers these days.

And you have just opened a massive :worms:Maybe this topic deserves a thread of it's own so you can word it in your own way.

[Hainan Hibs]

Was a tad queasy seeing that:greengrin but ****in loved it:thumbsup:.

He's giving it the billy big time attitude over an animal until he stumbles and completely ****s it, almost looks like he is begging the bull to not be pissed off any more.

On the animal cruelty thing I wish there were far more severe penalties in this country. People can get away with so much cruelty and just face a 2 or 3 year ban on keeping pets which is horrendous. Prison sentences should be introduced for cowards who like to show power by doing horrible things to animals who can't defend themselves.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Was a tad queasy seeing that:greengrin but ****in loved it:thumbsup:.

He's giving it the billy big time attitude over an animal until he stumbles and completely ****s it, almost looks like he is begging the bull to not be pissed off any more.

On the animal cruelty thing I wish there were far more severe penalties in this country. People can get away with so much cruelty and just face a 2 or 3 year ban on keeping pets which is horrendous. Prison sentences should be introduced for cowards who like to show power by doing horrible things to animals who can't defend themselves.


this film is an hour and a half long, and is a bit "american", but it's a ****ing eye opener.

earthlings (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#)

you might find some of it seems like nonsense initially, the problem is it's overly sentimental as americans do best.

if anyone can be bothered watching and wants to discuss the stuff they agree/disagree with, i'd be happy to! :greengrin

EDIT: by the way, that film isn't exactly a comprehensive argument against killing animals, but it gives you an idea of the stuff we do to them, which is pretty insanely sick...

[.Sean.]

'MON THE BULLS!! :greengrin

[lyonhibs]

As I posted elsewhere:

Appalling it may be, but it certainly is a tradition, and a very big part of Spanish and Mexican culture. I'm not particularly in favour of it, but I'd like - I think, though I might be that horrified that the cultural, pagentary side of proceedings would pale far, far into insignificance - to go to a bullfight once in my life.

You have to remember that - in those countries - those bulls are most probably bred for that purpose - it's not like they are tying fireowrks to domestic cats tails or anything, as happened over here not that long ago - that truly was repulsive.

Also, The Grand National is - if not on the same scale - a pretty brutal spectacle for horses unfortunate enough to fall, yet we all like to put a couple of quid on that and watch it.

That said, 'Mon the Bull.

[ArabHibee]

well...i'm a vegan, so...:greengrin

i am willing to bet that noone has a sensible, logical argument that justifies the meat industry and animal testing. :I'm waiti
:wink:

Coz I like eating it?

[AgentDaleCooper]

Coz I like eating it?

i'm going to assume that's a genuine "argument"...


liking something alone is not a justification for eating it:

if i like the taste of severely-disabled new-born orphan, does this justify me eating it?

this example is appropriate because the beings in question are probably less intellectually capable than animals and have no ties to people who have concerns for them.

you might respond to this with "well if people tasted good i'd eat them too :D" as my cousin usually does (i suspect in jest...) but would you then condone the farming (with often brutal living conditions) and often painful and slow slaughter of disabled babies?

the answer, i suspect, would be no...so what makes it ok to do so with animals?

[ArabHibee]

i'm going to assume that's a genuine "argument"...


liking something alone is not a justification for eating it:

if i like the taste of severely-disabled new-born orphan, does this justify me eating it?

this example is appropriate because the beings in question are probably less intellectually capable than animals and have no ties to people who have concerns for them.

you might respond to this with "well if people tasted good i'd eat them too :D" as my cousin usually does (i suspect in jest...) but would you then condone the farming (with often brutal living conditions) and often painful and slow slaughter of disabled babies?

the answer, i suspect, would be no...so what makes it ok to do so with animals?

I don't think it's ok to do it with animals. I don't have time to go into this at length right now, I'll post later. Just didn't want you thinking I was ignoring you.

[Woody1985]

I'm pretty sure there was a large thread on here in the last couple of months going over the whole animal testing / meat industry.

FWIW, I only tend to eat meat that doesn't look like it's been running around i.e. I'll eat a chicken burger but not a chicken leg. Weird, I know, and I know which one is more healthy (blah). It's not because I feel guilty, I just don't like the idea of my food running around pissing and ****ting all over the place in a little pen. :greengrin

And I won't be reading the replies to this because I don't want you putting me off my burgers!

[AgentDaleCooper]

I don't think it's ok to do it with animals. I don't have time to go into this at length right now, I'll post later. Just didn't want you thinking I was ignoring you.

cool, cheers!

[Big Frank]

i'm going to assume that's a genuine "argument"...


liking something alone is not a justification for eating it:

if i like the taste of severely-disabled new-born orphan, does this justify me eating it?

this example is appropriate because the beings in question are probably less intellectually capable than animals and have no ties to people who have concerns for them.

you might respond to this with "well if people tasted good i'd eat them too :D" as my cousin usually does (i suspect in jest...) but would you then condone the farming (with often brutal living conditions) and often painful and slow slaughter of disabled babies?

the answer, i suspect, would be no...so what makes it ok to do so with animals?


Eyes that face front rather than the side of our skulls.

Inscisors.

ancient man.

The brutality of nature. (All in the animal kingdom are hungry or scared).

Top of the head stuff, I'm sure you have very justified counters....:thumbsup:

[AgentDaleCooper]

Eyes that face front rather than the side of our skulls.

Inscisors.

ancient man.

The brutality of nature. (All in the animal kingdom are hungry or scared).

Top of the head stuff, I'm sure you have very justified counters....:thumbsup:
eyes and teeth: this is essentially an argument based on the assumption that something being built for something intrinsically justifies it's use for said purpose - by this logic, it would ALWAYS be ok to shoot someone with a gun, because that's what the gun is for and thus it is always justifiable to be used as such.

the use of guns is justifiable when it is necessary to defend a life.

likewise, the consumption of meat is only justifiable when it is necessary to sustain life - this is not the case for humans. they eat it for taste alone, NOT out of necessity.


ancient man: are you basically saying here that anything ancient man did we can also justifiably do...? :confused:

it's down to what is necessary - we don't need to eat meat, they did.


brutality of nature: you're saying (i think) that because animals in nature kill each other in fairly nasty ways, it's ok for us to do it to them. this is essentially a claim that what other individuals do to each other, we can do to them. babies hit each other, so we can hit them...? that's possibly a weak analogy, but you cannot justify your own actions by going "but they're all doing it!". other people/beings doing something doesn't make it right. this reasoning becomes weaker still when you take into account the fact that animals MUST kill each other in order to survive, while we don't.

[Toaods]

:faf: The poofs are the ones that ride Hartleys :wink:

...sorted that for you....:cool2:




i do, however, take such a view of people who actually enjoy watching slow, brutal slaughter of bulls and followers of other such sick "sports")


they don't enjoy it though...the standard of matadors has dropped markedly in the last twenty years. :agree:

[Big Frank]

eyes and teeth: this is essentially an argument based on the assumption that something being built for something intrinsically justifies it's use for said purpose - by this logic, it would ALWAYS be ok to shoot someone with a gun, because that's what the gun is for and thus it is always justifiable to be used as such.

the use of guns is justifiable when it is necessary to defend a life.

likewise, the consumption of meat is only justifiable when it is necessary to sustain life - this is not the case for humans. they eat it for taste alone, NOT out of necessity.


ancient man: are you basically saying here that anything ancient man did we can also justifiably do...? :confused:

it's down to what is necessary - we don't need to eat meat, they did.


brutality of nature: you're saying (i think) that because animals in nature kill each other in fairly nasty ways, it's ok for us to do it to them. this is essentially a claim that what other individuals do to each other, we can do to them. babies hit each other, so we can hit them...? that's possibly a weak analogy, but you cannot justify your own actions by going "but they're all doing it!". other people/beings doing something doesn't make it right. this reasoning becomes weaker still when you take into account the fact that animals MUST kill each other in order to survive, while we don't.


Your eyes face forward, because you are a predator.

You have cutting teeth so that you can rip flesh.

You are man. You are nature. Man is nature. Nature is brutal.

forgot.... flatulence.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Your eyes face forward, because you are a predator.

You have cutting teeth so that you can rip flesh.

You are man. You are nature. Man is nature. Nature is brutal.

forgot.... flatulence.

i asked for a logical justification. not trying to be a dick here, but none of that is remotely logical, it's just rhetoric and basically amounts to a flimsy excuse - "i eat meat 'cause a canny help it" - which is clearly rubbish.

by the way, r.e. the "nature" stuff, do you think there's anything natural about factory farming? in this debate, 'nature' is nothing more than a buzz word.

[New Corrie]

Can't abide any form of animal cruelty and it's desperately disappointing that the man survived. Interesting that the EU subsidise this barbaric tradition with our money.

[Speedy]

i'm going to assume that's a genuine "argument"...


liking something alone is not a justification for eating it:

if i like the taste of severely-disabled new-born orphan, does this justify me eating it?

this example is appropriate because the beings in question are probably less intellectually capable than animals and have no ties to people who have concerns for them.

you might respond to this with "well if people tasted good i'd eat them too :D" as my cousin usually does (i suspect in jest...) but would you then condone the farming (with often brutal living conditions) and often painful and slow slaughter of disabled babies?

the answer, i suspect, would be no...so what makes it ok to do so with animals?

Your example would be illegal, eating meat isn't so it's not quite the same. Obviously morality and legality are different but they do tend to guide each other.

I don't see anything wrong with eating animals. Out of interest what is your argument against it?

[Sweep]

ouch thats a sair one.

[Makaveli]

Disclosure: I'm a vegan.

Not usually the preachy type, because I know that's counter-productive, but I'm always happy to explain my choice when people ask. So since we're here :)

Animals have feelings and we don't have to eat them. Ergo we shouldn't.

The biological arguments don't even matter, but if anything they side toward a meat-free diet anyway. We don't have claws for killing or ripping through flesh, and good luck getting your jaw open wide enough to get round any substantial neck. Then good luck getting very far with your teeth... although our dentistry is clearly not typical of carnivores or herbivores. That's what human beings are: omnivores. This doesn't mean we have to eat everything; it means we can eat anything.

An Inuit eating fish and wearing a seal is different from you having a McDonalds and buying a fur coat - I personally would never condemn the Inuits' actions the same way I wouldn't judge an obligate carnivore (i.e. kitty cat) for coming into my garden and ripping off frog's heads.

As for the argument from nature: "A metaphor has been presented by Douglas Dunn: that if one gives a young child an apple and a live chicken, the child would instinctively play with the chicken and eat the apple, whereas if a cat were presented with the same choices, its natural impulse would be the opposite."

The fact that a lot of meat eaters are squeamish about some things (most women I know won't eat lamb, you won't catch many kids eating rabbit or venison, a lot of people need to season their food to f..k, etc etc) is an indication that maybe it's not as natural as we like to kid ourselves.

If you see a dead animal at the side of a road do you think "aww" or "mmm"? When you see lambs jumping in a field do you salivate at the thought of chewing through them? I see their eyes and connect the same way I would with someone's dog or cat.

Earthlings is a must-watch, but it's the tip of the iceberg. A cooler man than me once said "If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian." Well now we can see inside. You can't be a hypocrite until you know, and anyone's who's too scared to look and see what they're funding when they buy animal products is a coward IMO.

[Ally]

well...i'm a vegan, so...:greengrin

i am willing to bet that noone has a sensible, logical argument that justifies the meat industry and animal testing. :I'm waiti
:wink:

Evolution. Have you ever taken medicine?

[lyonhibs]

Evolution. Have you ever taken medicine?

:agree: :agree:

Cosmetic animal testing for pish like lipstick and make-up is barbaric.

Medical testing is a necessary evil.

[Makaveli]

:agree: :agree:

Cosmetic animal testing for pish like lipstick and make-up is barbaric.

Medical testing is a necessary evil.

So why not do it on people? Prisoners serving life, babies nobody wants... in fact why not go further and breed babies for it? Chimpanzees are no less sentient and the results would be a lot more useful since inter-species generalisation has proven misguided in more instances than not.

Ethically, if an animal is "like us" enough for any scientific generalisations to be drawn (only really the higher apes) they are surely too "like us" to be subjected to it.

I understand the "people are just different" argument but don't subscribe to it. Is it just because you're a person? Seems pretty similar to how the majority of Europeans treated the African slave trade IMO, the slaves weren't "like us" so the rules didn't apply.

Pragmatically, testing on anything other than the aforementioned apes is pretty pointless. Thalidomide anyone? The rats might have been fine but the thousands of crippled children weren't! Confirming negative outcomes in any species other than that the treatment is intended for is a complete waste of time.

It works the other way too, who knows how many potentially life-saving treatments never made it to humans because animals reacted badly? My rabbit would get sick if I gave him a handful of grapes every day...

Better alternatives than animal testing exist. The use of in vitro cell culture techniques is proving effective and silico computer simulation is also promising. The American military now uses computer programs to simulate battlefield traumas when they once used monkeys and apes... obviously they wouldn't be wasting their time if it wasn't more accurate.

I know I'm probably barking up the wrong trees here but if even one person thinks about this stuff I've not wasted my time. You can't be a hypocrite until you know.

[Ally]

So why not do it on people? Prisoners serving life, babies nobody wants... in fact why not go further and breed babies for it? Chimpanzees are no less sentient and the results would be a lot more useful since inter-species generalisation has proven misguided in more instances than not.

Ethically, if an animal is "like us" enough for any scientific generalisations to be drawn (only really the higher apes) they are surely too "like us" to be subjected to it.

I understand the "people are just different" argument but don't subscribe to it. Is it just because you're a person? Seems pretty similar to how the majority of Europeans treated the African slave trade IMO, the slaves weren't "like us" so the rules didn't apply.

Pragmatically, testing on anything other than the aforementioned apes is pretty pointless. Thalidomide anyone? The rats might have been fine but the thousands of crippled children weren't! Confirming negative outcomes in any species other than that the treatment is intended for is a complete waste of time.

It works the other way too, who knows how many potentially life-saving treatments never made it to humans because animals reacted badly? My rabbit would get sick if I gave him a handful of grapes every day...

Better alternatives than animal testing exist. The use of in vitro cell culture techniques is proving effective and silico computer simulation is also promising. The American military now uses computer programs to simulate battlefield traumas when they once used monkeys and apes... obviously they wouldn't be wasting their time if it wasn't more accurate.

I know I'm probably barking up the wrong trees here but if even one person thinks about this stuff I've not wasted my time. You can't be a hypocrite until you know.

They are less sentient otherwise they would be much more dominant than they are. Thalidomide works it just happens that it was marketed using the wrong isomer, although the 'good' isomer can be converted to the 'bad' isomer in the body but this could potentially be corrected. It wasn't that we reacted differently to it than animal testing it's that we ballsed it up the first time.

It's not pointless testing on anything other than apes, we are pretty dam similar to mice which most testing is done on. It's tested on humans after it's tested on animals anyway in clinical trials. Obviously the use of cell cultures is promising but it's still a long way down the line to be an effective testing mechanism.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I don't see anything wrong with eating animals. Out of interest what is your argument against it?

i think i started not wanting to eat animals when it occurred to me that the things i was eating were no more or less alive than my dog, and no more or less capable of suffering. the thought of a creature like my dog, possibly more intelligent and capable of feeling pain, really just makes me feel sick. it's not just "cow" you're eating, it's "a cow" that was alive and quite possibly suffered tremendously during its life because to its owner it was destined for the slaughterhouse anyway.

i also think that if you stop and think about it, there is no reason for us to continue to eat meat, given the suffering that results. this (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm) article is absolutely brilliant on the matter. if you find a single flaw in it, i'm all ****in' ears because i think after that it's case closed.

to (probably poorly) outline the main argument presented:

rights are based on interests. you cannot have a right to something if you have no interest in it (e.g. men having a right to an abortion, animals having a right to vote). all living things deserve equal consideration of interests.

animals have an interest not to suffer

their interest not to suffer outweighs our interest to eat tasty meat

.'. we shouldn't eat meat



this is a very shoddy outline - the article is really worth a read, much better than the earthlings film IMO in that it is pure substance and you really cannot argue with it.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Disclosure: I'm a vegan.

Not usually the preachy type, because I know that's counter-productive, but I'm always happy to explain my choice when people ask. So since we're here :)

Animals have feelings and we don't have to eat them. Ergo we shouldn't.

The biological arguments don't even matter, but if anything they side toward a meat-free diet anyway. We don't have claws for killing or ripping through flesh, and good luck getting your jaw open wide enough to get round any substantial neck. Then good luck getting very far with your teeth... although our dentistry is clearly not typical of carnivores or herbivores. That's what human beings are: omnivores. This doesn't mean we have to eat everything; it means we can eat anything.

An Inuit eating fish and wearing a seal is different from you having a McDonalds and buying a fur coat - I personally would never condemn the Inuits' actions the same way I wouldn't judge an obligate carnivore (i.e. kitty cat) for coming into my garden and ripping off frog's heads.

As for the argument from nature: "A metaphor has been presented by Douglas Dunn: that if one gives a young child an apple and a live chicken, the child would instinctively play with the chicken and eat the apple, whereas if a cat were presented with the same choices, its natural impulse would be the opposite."

The fact that a lot of meat eaters are squeamish about some things (most women I know won't eat lamb, you won't catch many kids eating rabbit or venison, a lot of people need to season their food to f..k, etc etc) is an indication that maybe it's not as natural as we like to kid ourselves.

If you see a dead animal at the side of a road do you think "aww" or "mmm"? When you see lambs jumping in a field do you salivate at the thought of chewing through them? I see their eyes and connect the same way I would with someone's dog or cat.

Earthlings is a must-watch, but it's the tip of the iceberg. A cooler man than me once said "If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian." Well now we can see inside. You can't be a hypocrite until you know, and anyone's who's too scared to look and see what they're funding when they buy animal products is a coward IMO.

:top marks excellent post, the bit in bold is very important IMO

[Speedy]

i think i started not wanting to eat animals when it occurred to me that the things i was eating were no more or less alive than my dog, and no more or less capable of suffering. the thought of a creature like my dog, possibly more intelligent and capable of feeling pain, really just makes me feel sick. it's not just "cow" you're eating, it's "a cow" that was alive and quite possibly suffered tremendously during its life because to its owner it was destined for the slaughterhouse anyway.

i also think that if you stop and think about it, there is no reason for us to continue to eat meat, given the suffering that results. this (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm) article is absolutely brilliant on the matter. if you find a single flaw in it, i'm all ****in' ears because i think after that it's case closed.

to (probably poorly) outline the main argument presented:

rights are based on interests. you cannot have a right to something if you have no interest in it (e.g. men having a right to an abortion, animals having a right to vote). all living things deserve equal consideration of interests.

animals have an interest not to suffer

their interest not to suffer outweighs our interest to eat tasty meat

.'. we shouldn't eat meat



this is a very shoddy outline - the article is really worth a read, much better than the earthlings film IMO in that it is pure substance and you really cannot argue with it.

I see where you're coming from. Would you consider eating meat if you knew it never suffered?

[Ally]

You miss the crucial fact that meat tasted ****ing good, that's why we eat it.