Harlow Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Hello, my dear Counterpoint... Here I bring up a social issue that has been a popular topic of debate recently. Bullfighting. What's your stance on it? Personally, I'm not pro-bullfighting, but I feel that I can't be opposed to it because of the animal in question. I'm in no way a vegetarian and I think it would be hypocritical of me to say no to the killing of cattle and then go munching away on a juicy burger. (A reason I found most of its opposition rather wrong. That and that they sometimes call for the death of the bullfighter. Can you say NUTS!?) If I'm not misinformed, the bull killed in the fight in question would be eaten later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shaper Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Let's see. Bullfighting. You get to risk possible death at the hands of an animal which could easily kill you, you get death or injury if you fail, if you win you get parts of the animal, and the animal will be put to death in either outcome. There's really no point to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Let's see. Bullfighting. You get to risk possible death at the hands of an animal which could easily kill you, you get death or injury if you fail, if you win you get parts of the animal, and the animal will be put to death in either outcome. There's really no point to it. Every extreme activity has its risk. But the point is, is this a legit activity? Or a tradition that needs to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) It is, however, cruel as they generally cut the animal's muscles to make it weaker and less maneuverable, to give the bull fighter a better chance. I don't mind bull fighting, but don't handicap the match. If the guy is afraid of being gored to death by a bull, he shouldn't be getting into the ring with the bull in the first place. And that's what I've heard, anyway. Actually, looking into it, I've found that they have a man mounted on horseback with a lance (picador) impale the bull in a crucial muscle behind the neck to cause it to weaken due to blood loss, and then three men (banderilleros) attempt to stab sharpened, barbed sticks into the bull's shoulders to anger it, but cause it to weaken even more due to blood loss, before the matador re-enters the stage, dances around the bull to get it to weaken even more, before attempting to impale it through the shoulder blades into the heart or aorta. That's rather disgusting. That's nothing but glorified torture on the bull. This may sound contradictory, but I'd have no problem if it was just the matador entering to fight the uninjured bull, and the injuries were sustained in the course of the battle. There, the bull would have a good fighting chance to defeat the matador, and only the matador's skill would stop this. But, there's no sport to be had in fighting an animal that's going to keel over from injuries sustained before you even started. Edited October 10, 2011 by Vydrach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'm agreeing with Vydrach here. If you have to fight someone, make it a fair fight. That goes for everything, including against animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZM Anonymous Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 It is, however, cruel as they generally cut the animal's muscles to make it weaker and less maneuverable, to give the bull fighter a better chance. I don't mind bull fighting, but don't handicap the match. If the guy is afraid of being gored to death by a bull, he shouldn't be getting into the ring with the bull in the first place. Well, the thing is you're not really taking the safety of the spectators into consideration. People can get gored to death by an enraged bull, regardless of their presence in the ring. But also, people see it as a cultural tradition and an art form, so yes it is an activity that is actually celebrated. I'm agreeing with Vydrach here. If you have to fight someone, make it a fair fight. That goes for everything, including against animals. You say that as if bulls and humans are on the same level in terms of strength, speed, and ferocity. If you want to make it fair without hurting the bull, then you're gonna have to beef up the human significantly. This is just me using my brain here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 You say that as if bulls and humans are on the same level in terms of strength, speed, and ferocity. If you want to make it fair without hurting the bull, then you're gonna have to beef up the human significantly. This is just me using my brain here. Not necesarily. A human posess nimbleness and resourcefullness unheard of for the living freight-trains they use in bullfighting. Besides, I don't believe in making challenges too easy, any way you look at it. If you don't fancy yourself capable of taking on a healthy and un-handicapped fighting bull armed with nothing but a sword and the other gear a matador carries with him, which I'd allow to let the guy have any chance whatsoever, then stay the hell out of the ring. Same thing with my pet peeve about sportcars being toned down and made more accessible for the general masses. If you can't handle a fast vehicle without resorting to traction-controll and the like, then go and drive a Prius or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Bullfighters choose that as their profession. They train for it. They are not just randomly plucked off the streets and tossed into the ring with the bull. A lot of countries have forms of bullfighting that the animal is uninjured in, such as one where people, anyone really, can attempt to pluck a piece of paper or some such off the bull's horns. I don't see how plucking a trinket off the horns of a bull would be any less difficult than impaling a bull as it is attempting to charge your cape. All that'd happen is you would have less matadors, for two reasons. One, a lot of matadors would be too afraid to do it, because now the handicap in their favour is removed, and two, because there is a decent chance that injuries and fatalities from it would increase, but that's what happens in a bloodsport. It may be steeped in tradition and an integral part of the culture, but it is still a bloodsport. It's on the same level as the Roman Colosseum. People are going there to watch something die. Don't want to fight an uninjured bull? Easy, don't be a matador. If you are confident enough in your abilities to fight a bull with a sword, become one. If you succeed and defeat the bull fairly, you have earned the right to be called a bullfighter. If the bull emerges victorious, either to you being gored or leaping from the arena, you shoulda practiced more or not been overconfident in your abilities. However, killing an animal that is about to succumb to blood loss (and causing it in the first place) and is denied its full range of movement in several locations is not sport. It's torture. Same with bow fishing for alligator gar. When I first heard it, I thought people would try and shoot the fish with a bow when they came up for air (they do surface for air for some reason). Not the case from what I've seen. They basically catch the fish in the conventional sense, bring it near the boat, tie it up, and then turn it into a living pin-cushion. It's just sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZM Anonymous Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The whole tone I'm getting throughout these entire posts is "BULLFIGHTERS ARE PUSSIES BECAUSE THE BULL IS INJURED FROM THE START." Maybe this will put things into perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The whole tone I'm getting throughout these entire posts is "BULLFIGHTERS ARE PUSSIES BECAUSE THE BULL IS INJURED FROM THE START." Maybe this will put things into perspective And your point? No matter how much one chose to skewer the odds in the bulls disfavor, sometimes, the result will go against the odds. This is a risk they take when they enter the arena, and still doesn't justify that the whole thing is set up to make it significantly easier for the matador to come out on top. Yes, fighting dirty is for pussies, no matter how you slice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 i agree with asper and vydrach, killing a bull in the ring of honor is by no means a cruel thing. but thats only if the bull has a fair chance of killing you. beating the bull take alot of the honor and sport out of the whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 i agree with asper and vydrach, killing a bull in the ring of honor is by no means a cruel thing. but thats only if the bull has a fair chance of killing you. beating the bull take alot of the honor and sport out of the whole thing How is it not cruel, or even honorable? Whether the bull is handicapped or not, killing an animal for sport is cruel. Dog fighting is illegal. Cockfighting is illegal. And yet it's legal to kill a bull in front of thousands of people? Hypocrisy to the max. Killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and killing for the sake of entertaining a crowd even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 How is it not cruel, or even honorable? Whether the bull is handicapped or not, killing an animal for sport is cruel. Dog fighting is illegal. Cockfighting is illegal. And yet it's legal to kill a bull in front of thousands of people? Hypocrisy to the max. Killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and killing for the sake of entertaining a crowd even more so. It's largely a cultural thing as well. Who are we to say what's legal in one country shouldn't be allowed worldwide? Different countries have different laws. There are things that are legal in North America that would appall people in different parts of the world. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 How is it not cruel, or even honorable? Whether the bull is handicapped or not, killing an animal for sport is cruel. Dog fighting is illegal. Cockfighting is illegal. And yet it's legal to kill a bull in front of thousands of people? Hypocrisy to the max. Killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and killing for the sake of entertaining a crowd even more so. i can see why you would say this. But war is cruel and yet is it not honorable? people don't go to bull fights to see the bull die they go to see it live. I think the person much like the bull should not be able to leave the ring. it is much like a duel the ultimate competiton between to beings. that runs deep in human nature. the southern gentlemen factor is one example. each with a pistol. people don't whatch do see some one die. they watch to see how he will live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The whole tone I'm getting throughout these entire posts is "BULLFIGHTERS ARE PUSSIES BECAUSE THE BULL IS INJURED FROM THE START." Maybe this will put things into perspective Yes, people get hurt from it, it's a matter of "when," not "if." However, they still choose it as their profession and are willing to face said dangers. Injuring the bull to cause it to nearly succumb to blood loss before the matador even comes out is unsporting in any way. Like I said, several other countries has variations of bullfighting where the animal remains uninjured, and the participants are often people out of the stands protected by nothing more than their clothing and their reflexes, and the goal is varied amongst the countries and what not, but include plucking something from the horns or grabbing the horns entirely themselves. Yes, injuries and fatalities happen with that, but not all that often. Are you going to tell me that those are any less dangerous than attempting to skewer a bull as it charges an area beside you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 How is it not cruel, or even honorable? Whether the bull is handicapped or not, killing an animal for sport is cruel. Dog fighting is illegal. Cockfighting is illegal. And yet it's legal to kill a bull in front of thousands of people? Hypocrisy to the max. Killing for the sake of killing is cruel, and killing for the sake of entertaining a crowd even more so. Yep, that pretty much nails it. I'm nothing close to a vegetarian, and I don't even mind hunting for food. However there's a difference between going out into the woods and shooting a deer then taking it home to feed your family, and sticking a trapped animal in a coliseum surrounded by thousands of jeering people after having its muscles slashed and balls tied, forced to fight some asshole in a silly outfit, and then killed no matter what happens. It's largely a cultural thing as well. Who are we to say what's legal in one country shouldn't be allowed worldwide? Different countries have different laws. There are things that are legal in North America that would appall people in different parts of the world. Just sayin'. If someone gets butthurt over something that people do in America, it probably isn't to do with the public torture of living beings. If something, human or animal, is made to suffer physical or even societal torment, then the "but its just their culture buuuuuh" excuse doesn't really fly. Just sayin'. edit: people don't go to bull fights to see the bull die they go to see it live. What the hell, no they don't. It'll die anyways. The entire thing is based around schadenfreude, the exact same reason why stupid Youtube videos of guys getting kicked in the nuts are funny to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 i can see why you would say this. But war is cruel and yet is it not honorable? The difference between bullfighting and war is that war can sometimes be a necessity. A just (or justified) war is one that is waged on behalf of justice. War can be justified be for the following reasons. 1) There must be a just cause. Bringing aggression, injustice, and genocide to a stop would therefore be a just cause. 2) There must be just intention. The goal is peace and safety for all involved. The desire for ideological supremacy, geographical expansion, or economic gain does not justify a war. 3) War must be the last resort after all other methods to resolve the conflict have failed. 4) There must be a formal declaration of war. This shows that it is the government taking action on behalf of its citizenry. 5) Proportionate means are used. Weaponry and use of force must be limited to what is necessary to repel the attack and prevent future aggression. Unlimited war is wrong. 6) Noncombatant immunity. Individuals not actively involved in the conflict, including POWs and casualties, should be immune from attack. If someone gets butthurt over something that people do in America, it probably isn't to do with the public torture of living beings. If something, human or animal, is made to suffer physical or even societal torment, then the "but its just their culture buuuuuh" excuse doesn't really fly. Just sayin'. Regardless of the reasons behind it it's still our subjective opinion that can be interpreted radically or differently in other parts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I also think it's wrong to kill for sport, in case anyone got the impression I didn't. Rigging it makes it just even more despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 i can see why you would say this. But war is cruel and yet is it not honorable? As User pointed out, war is a totally different scale than killing an animal in front of thousands so they can get their jollies. Bullfighting is an excuse for people to see something die. War is waged for a variety of reasons, and while some are as selfish as bullfighting, some are just as pointless. I'm honestly baffled that you would compare fighting between countries - for whatever reason - to killing for sport in front of thousands of people. people don't go to bull fights to see the bull die they go to see it live. And Dras already covered this. The point of bullfighting is so that people can see something die, no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 I agree that weakening the bull's not necessary. If you'd like to fight it, be sure to fight it on its 100%. Like rodeos and other bul related American sports But one can't dcuss it's an older-than-thou tradition (dating way back of the AC's) and there are reports of people eating the carcass afterwards (God that sounds wrong, but you get the point) I also think it's wrong to kill for sport I agree with this. I would like to try hunting one day, but only of the carcass' given an use afterwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myu Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 i can see why you would say this. But war is cruel and yet is it not honorable? people don't go to bull fights to see the bull die they go to see it live. I think the person much like the bull should not be able to leave the ring. it is much like a duel the ultimate competiton between to beings. that runs deep in human nature. the southern gentlemen factor is one example. each with a pistol. people don't whatch do see some one die. they watch to see how he will live. If you've never gone to a bull fight (maybe you have, I don't know, but still) you can't say what people who do go for. I'm pretty sure a large part of attending bullfights is gambling, much like people who go to horse races and the like. It's already been said, but bullfight is not the same as war. Yes, it's a fight between two beings, but the two things are very different, and there is hardly anything honorable about it in my opinion. A duel is something that has consent from both sides. Pretty sure if the bull knew what was going on and had the ability to make a choice, he'd be like, "Screw this, I'm outta here." I'm basically against bullfighting though I am also not a vegetarian, for many - if not all - the reasons listed above. I know it's a tradition, but I'm not really sure what the point of keeping it around is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The difference between bullfighting and war is that war can sometimes be a necessity. A just (or justified) war is one that is waged on behalf of justice. War can be justified be for the following reasons. 1) There must be a just cause. Bringing aggression, injustice, and genocide to a stop would therefore be a just cause. 2) There must be just intention. The goal is peace and safety for all involved. The desire for ideological supremacy, geographical expansion, or economic gain does not justify a war. 3) War must be the last resort after all other methods to resolve the conflict have failed. 4) There must be a formal declaration of war. This shows that it is the government taking action on behalf of its citizenry. 5) Proportionate means are used. Weaponry and use of force must be limited to what is necessary to repel the attack and prevent future aggression. Unlimited war is wrong. 6) Noncombatant immunity. Individuals not actively involved in the conflict, including POWs and casualties, should be immune from attack. unlimite war is wrong, but prehaps i should say battle is honorable. In midevil japan samurai would devote their life to bushido or the art of how to die honorabley in battle. much like the southern gentlmen in gone with the west charge in to certain death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The killing of a human is NEVER going to be the same of that of an animal, IMHO. And after many reports of injuries and deaths of bullfighters, I sometimes wonder. Is it really fixed on every fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The killing of a human is NEVER going to be the same of that of an animal, IMHO. why? because we aren't animals. honostly animals kill each other all the time. death after all is more assured then life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 unlimite war is not wrong, but prehaps i should say battle is honorable. I feel like I'm just repeating everyone else at this point, since this point has already been covered as well. Battle can be honorable, but killing as a spectator sport in no way compares to fighting for some honorable cause. Killing a bull before it can rampage through the orphanage full of blind children? Honorable. Stabbing a bull multiple times then killing it so other people can laugh? Nope. In midevil japan samurai would devote their life to bushido or the art of how to die honorabley in battle. much like the southern gentlmen in gone with the west charge in to certain death. Again, several key differences here. Fights between humans usually involve both sides deciding to fight. A bull is forced to, and it's tortured beforehand. Samurai had a reason to fight, beyond entertainment. why? because we aren't animals. honostly animals kill each other all the time. death after all is more assured then life Animals kill each other to claim territory, or survive. Not for sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts