Posted: 5/5/2011 1:23:20 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the bull could not win the bullfight would be far less interesting just like hunting dangerous game would be far less interesting if there was actually no danger involved. I'd love to see a bullfight someday. I actually think it gives the bull a more dignified death than being led to a slaughterhouse. He fights for his life and can actually win. And in the end, if/when he's killed, he becomes tacos just like the rest. These bulls are also bred to be that dangerous, so it's no like there is anything else to be done with them other than killing them. I'd hate to see bullfighting die.
every time you post in a thread i should just quote you and say "this", because your views are always the exact same as mine, but they're always stated much better than what i would type.
Stupid. Proof that some cultures/peoples stay stuck in adolescent mode. Little more "sporting" than "canned hunts". A bull or cow at the slaughter house meets its end far faster than this. Death happens in seconds. This is a protracted blood-letting for max spectacle. It's throw-back century thinking. That they're bred for it is simply for, as stated, maximizing spectacle.
If something has to die, then just kill it quick.
It's as sporting as hunting for dangerous game (and I don't mean canned hunts). The difference is that one is more ritualized and intended for an audience while the other is more ad hoc and personal/private. A bull or cow at a slaughterhouse just marches on to its death. The bull at a fight fights for his life. Think about it this way. Would you personally prefer to walk on down to the gas chambers or would you rather fight to the death with a small chance you will live to see another day? While animals are not people, the dignity is still afforded to them in this case. These types of sports (real hunting, bull-fighting, etc.) are meant to keep man in touch with his primal heritage. Some people can never understand this and thus hate it, but I get it and it is something I want to be a part of when I can afford it.
Perhaps you mght feel compelled to compare Spanish BF to hunting or maybe even American football. The only real point of comparison is the shared spectacle. There is basic utlity with hunting. whatever emotional-philosophical characteristic you want to assign to it, at its core, it's about putting food on the table - as was the point from the beginning. The bull doesn't have any say in this spectacle, & it isn't being hunted. Instead it's being made "sport" of, via the expense of its own misery. So, given the choice between essentially bleeding it slowly & putting it down quickly, I'll vote for the latter. The Auschwitz analogy is false dichotomy. Lining people up & exterminating them - by whatever means - is what I'd categorize as immoral. People aren't food or sport. I personally don't condone hunting animals purely for trophies/sport. Take the sporting factor of hunting as a natural "byproduct", if you will, but if that underlying utility of putting food on the table isn't there, then it's a waste, IMO. If you disagree, then we'll agree to not seeing eye-to-eye on that.
Most modern hunting, dangerous game hunting even moreso, i not about the meat, although sometimes it can be a byproduct. It is both cheaper and easier for most people to buy the meat from a store. Hunting today is about more than that.
|
|