Bullfighting

I figured.. What about the EU, haven't they tried to step in? It seems like something they would have already tried by now, on some sort of "ethical" ground.

 

As I said, it would not be a very popular decision, and considering that the EU diplomats don't know anything about bullfighting... I think they will never ever censure it.

Taking bullfighting from Spain would be something similar like banning hockey in Canada... just stupid.

 

In Portugal there has long bee a "compromise" in the law, which allows bullfights but forbids that the bull be killed in the arena. The Barrancos issue happened because they had always disregarded that ban and killed the bull there. As did several other towns, anyway. The "animal rights" crowd picked on that as a preliminary step in a campaign to get a total ban on bullfights.

Instead the outcome was that the state was first ridiculed, and then bowed down (correctly) to the population and allowed their harmless practice to continue, creating an exception in the law specifically allowing that village to kill the bull as part of the spectacle. I cannot but admire them for that, even though I, personally, don't like about bullfights. And the "animal rights activists", who here also happen to be those self-proclaimed "leftist" fringe groups which are so fond of foreign cultures and so despising of the local ones, got egg all over their faces!

But now, years after that, they're back with their antics. They got circuses with animals banned, it seems. They were successful this time because the few circuses which remain are nearly bankrupt anyway and cannot fight back. Just kick those already on the floor, it seems that those heroes learned their lesson...

 

@Harvin Since when does the EU do what's popular?

@innonimatu banning of animals in circuses? That seems a bit excessive, unless the animals are being mistreated... Hope nobody thinks I associate in any way with extremist groups like that.

 

In some way it could be viewed as this: In Mexico the Huicholes are the only ones allowed to consume Peyote, which we all know is a hallucinogenic plant and therefore is forbidden by the Mexican state. Nobody can but they can do it, because it's part of their culture.

 

In some way.. Slavery was a part of U.S. culture once too.. until some guys stood up and said "Hey.. this isn't right!"

The Huicholes are allowed to consume peyote for religious reasons.

 

And the bulls in Spain and Portugal are frequently killed as part of Christian festivals...take the example of the Barrancos bullfights that innonimatu mentioned earlier, those were part of the feast of Our Lady of the Conception...

 

as per that video I linked a couple of pages back there are groups in Spain that detest the practice of bullfighting. do not paint the entire country with one brush. there is room for maneuvering, haggling, educating and the odd bit of looking the other way. just throwing your arms up in the air and saying "oh, it's their way" is a bit... lame, if you don't me saying so. societies evolve, people evolve, what is acceptable and what not constantly changes as well as what is viewed as beautiful or a form of art.

to those who liken a bull being slain in the arena to a slaughterhouse I ask: have you ever donated blood? many people feel, literally, forgive the pun, drained and weak afterwards. some faint. now imagine the same procedure done to you multiplied by about, wild guess here, 10. while the skin and muscle between your shoulderblades is being torn to shreds. while you are fighting for your life. against a coordinated team of attackers that have all the odds stacked in their favour and who are wearing you down till you are on your knees, powerless, unable to breathe, to delive the coup de grace while the massess cheer on and you get your ears cut off if they have tortured you efficiently enough.

personally, I don't really mind to tell you the truth. those bulls are bred for that one purpose. it is a passtime that will eventually pass (what's with the puns today?). I love a good foie gras and that is not made in a nice way. I'll happily throw lobsters into burning water while whipping up a nice garlic dip. I just mind the comparison between steaks and bullfighting. surely the former has issues when you talk about living conditions, transportation, etc. it just does not make the latter any more fair or right.

 

Current practice with lobsters is to put them to sleep first in the freezer, before boiling them alive

foie gras, galic dip, lobster, lunch sure sounds good at your place,

 

*Hell yeah it is.


** No I am calling myself one, I am sure you are rationalizing it with saying that it is much worse than a slaughter house etc etc or something to that end, so you are not really a hypocrite given your conclusion. In my mind they are one in the same. So I can't exactly be against it and eat hamburgers.

You see unlike most of the jabronis on this forum I don't think my conclusions are the only valid ones (no I am not including you in the Jabronis, your pretty reasonable from what I've seen)

 

How about this:

Make it illegal and arrest the owner of the bull, the owner of the stadium or the people partaking most actively.

In your example with the village: If it can be proven that the local police did not try to stop the bullfighting, then arrest the chief of police! I know that might cause complications, but it's not like it's impossible to arrest and prosecute policemen.

Do you know why the US doesn't torture its worst criminals, but merely execute them?

It's not me who is harmed, nor my sensibilities. It's the animals who are actually tortured before being killed.

Once again: Do you have any sympathy with other non-human beings?

The banning of animals in circuses comes simply because the animals are mistreated. One may find examples of animals who are actually well-treated, but the large majority has to little room to move around in, are transported "constantly" and are coerced and trained to do things that are not in their nature.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/31/bolivia-bans-circus-animals

 

I think the far more important issue in the former is that we are killing a sentient creature. Killing people is generally a really bad thing to do; one of the worst. Only the gravest circumstances can justify it.

Yet we justify killing cattle for the sake of a few seconds culinary delight. Consequently I really don't see how we can say that we should treat cattle morally in any meaningful way . If we treated cattle morally, we wouldn't bloody well kill them. If cattle had any non-negligible moral worth than we would find the very concept of a slaughterhouse abominable.

We don't. Consequently we reject the claim that we should treat cattle morally. Torture is also very wrong. Maybe it's worse than murder, maybe not. Regardless both are in the set 'Very Bad Things'. They're things we don't do to any entity we want to treat morally. But as we've established we don't feel impelled to treat cattle morally. Consequently we shouldn't be much bothered if they get tortured.

I'm not trying to say that the former makes the latter any more right. I'm saying that both are absolutely fine, or both are absolutely repugnant. We can't endorse one whilst rejecting the other.

Because the purpose of execution is to remove an individual from society, irrevocably. Torture doesn't do that. The only credible justification of the death penalty is a utilitarian justification; torture doesn't meet the requirements.

I don't think your argument works here.

 

I suppose it makes as much sense as handing out eggs on Easter

 

It's been done in Britain already.

 

Most circus animals are mistreated, at least to some extent.

Spoiler :

 

Not to thread jack, but on that topic - how are the elephants in southeast asia treated?

I would like to get a ride on an elephant one day, but don't want to contribute to any big time abuse.

Anyone from the area?

 

Legally, you can't do that. At the most he could be fired. In practice even that was impossible. Ultimately the only wear you are going to keep people from doing something which they believe is right is by repressing them. And I'll be damned if I ever enforce repressing human beings purely for the sake of "animal rights".
There are sound, human-based arguments which can be made for protecting endangered species (extinction will make them unavailable for future generations of human beings). There are arguments for other forms of protection extended to animals, but they usually have something in common: there's always a human motive for them. They're not in place for the sake of the animals (who are passive objects of human politics), they're there for the sake of humans.

And that motive is always someone's offended sensibilities, or someones offended interests. Because humans, and only humans, make laws. Animals cannot make laws. The sole thing driving lawmaking are human feelings. "Animal rights" laws do not exist for the sake of the animals, who have neither votes nor the ability to manifest their will and offer it as input for lawmaking; they exist for the sake of human beings who want to "protect animals". Often in misguided ways.

Never more that what I have for human beings. And I'll never consider a human beings sensibilities to be important enough to justify violating the rights of another human being. The freedom of other human being who is objectively doing no harm to the first. In my example, the people of that village were not even known to the rabid "animal rights" crown until some reporters made a piece about it. How the hell were they harming them?!

Once you admit that someone's sensibilities overrule other human's freedom that then the way is also open for censure, religious prosecution, etc. In the end it is always "animal rights" vs. human rights, you cannot have both.
I'll go further and say that the animals rights crown is just another intolerant semi-religious mob who wants to invest animals with human attributes. And they only do that because they don't understand nature. They don't understand the very things they claim to defend.

 

It's been rumoured that there exists a law-making parakeet in Kurdistan. It may have written parts of the U.S. constitution as well.

 

It's awesome.