Matador gored through his throat *GRAPHIC*

[Paulski]

dude, im not being funny or anything - but if your first language is ´espana´, then you´d probably know that ´espana´ actually means spain, and ´espanol´ means spanish.

but, as you were...

I was about to say the exact same thing. How can someone's home language lapse so much they forget the name of their language? And Lucas, you said that 'Espana' was your first language as an excuse for your poor English. Now make your mind up lad, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Of course, we all know if Bullfighting was a Muslim tradition and custom no-one would dare say boo .

Without doubt the most ridiculous statement i've ever seen on BM.

It is fucking ridiculous, what a twat you are Lucas. But this is worse:

it actually doesn´t.. that would be ´de espana´..

Not in the context of speaking the language in a different Country, anyway,

What the fuck does that mean? Anyway I should go I'm going to a China restaurant, but before that I have to read that thread about going to French.

 

[Damocles]

Isn't this all a bit hypocritical?

Those screaming blue murder at the maltreatment of a bull should probably look at how the food they eat is prepared. Actually, they should look at how they treat spiders, ants, bees, wasps, flys, cockroaches and other insects that enter their house. Where's their humanitarian "lets think of the animals" argument then?

Or when they use bleach or any other substance that kills bacteria.

They are all alive yet don't get websites and campaigns setup to save them from murder.

Nature is dangerous, scary and full of things that kill each other. Every single animal on this planet apart from us spend their entire life terrified, desperately trying to breed before something savagely kills them.

Morality wise, what's exactly more evil; having a sport that attracts millions of Euros in tourist destinations, creating a whole economy for people with a destination where families are brought together and share in an experience, or squashing a spider to death with absolutely no reason apart from "it was annoying me"?

As the original post shows, bulls will take every opportunity to kill you stone dead if you piss them off, why we somehow believe that we have risen above this (while still fighting wars with each other) I'm not really sure.

Isn't this just more middle class rage? It's interesting to see how many of the anti-bull fighting people are also pro-death penalty. Where's the morality in that?

 

[Paulski]

Isn't this all a bit hypocritical?

Those screaming blue murder at the maltreatment of a bull should probably look at how the food they eat is prepared. Actually, they should look at how they treat spiders, ants, bees, wasps, flys, cockroaches and other insects that enter their house. Where's their humanitarian "lets think of the animals" argument then?

Or when they use bleach or any other substance that kills bacteria.

They are all alive yet don't get websites and campaigns setup to save them from murder.

Nature is dangerous, scary and full of things that kill each other. Every single animal on this planet apart from us spend their entire life terrified, desperately trying to breed before something savagely kills them.

Morality wise, what's exactly more evil; having a sport that attracts millions of Euros in tourist destinations, creating a whole economy for people with a destination where families are brought together and share in an experience, or squashing a spider to death with absolutely no reason apart from "it was annoying me"?

As the original post shows, bulls will take every opportunity to kill you stone dead if you piss them off, why we somehow believe that we have risen above this (while still fighting wars with each other) I'm not really sure.

Isn't this just more middle class rage? It's interesting to see how many of the anti-bull fighting people are also pro-death penalty. Where's the morality in that?

For me, I have to look at everything scientifically and ethically. Therefore, the murder of a bull is worse than that of a spider. I look at nervous systems, sentience and, occasionally, cuteyness (and apart from the fact they're cool, why would I ever go out of my way to kill a spider?)

A family doesn't need to get thrilled by the death of something else, for me that's twisted and warped. Taking my kids to watch a bull get stabbed in front of thousands of people is a bit of a disturbing thought. And I don't like the way the word 'nature' is thrown around to justify horrendous actions. The BNP use the argument that we discourage natural diversity by allowing breeding between races. And this is true, it does. Doesn't mean we should throw all people whose names aren't Smith out of the country.

I think a good moral code to live by is to say why not try and leave this world a better place than when you came in. That includes letting others (humans and animals) enjoy their right to life.

 

[Bigga]

Isn't this all a bit hypocritical?

Those screaming blue murder at the maltreatment of a bull should probably look at how the food they eat is prepared. Actually, they should look at how they treat spiders, ants, bees, wasps, flys, cockroaches and other insects that enter their house. Where's their humanitarian "lets think of the animals" argument then?

Or when they use bleach or any other substance that kills bacteria.

They are all alive yet don't get websites and campaigns setup to save them from murder.

Nature is dangerous, scary and full of things that kill each other. Every single animal on this planet apart from us spend their entire life terrified, desperately trying to breed before something savagely kills them.

Morality wise, what's exactly more evil; having a sport that attracts millions of Euros in tourist destinations, creating a whole economy for people with a destination where families are brought together and share in an experience, or squashing a spider to death with absolutely no reason apart from "it was annoying me"?

As the original post shows, bulls will take every opportunity to kill you stone dead if you piss them off, why we somehow believe that we have risen above this (while still fighting wars with each other) I'm not really sure.

Isn't this just more middle class rage? It's interesting to see how many of the anti-bull fighting people are also pro-death penalty. Where's the morality in that?

And what would your argument be if, say for example, someone catches spiders, slugs etc. and lets them go??

 

[Damocles]

So you are basically an animal fascist then, believing in the genetic superiority of one animal over another and forming an opinion of what is dispensable and what isn't based upon their current appeal?

Spiders have a well developed nervous system that is critical to their lives, they have the intelligence to spin hugely complex and sometimes physically improbable webs. Perhaps they aren't necessarily cute, but that's entirely a subjective term, somebody out there will find them lovable.

Concerning the families bit, how is watching bullfighting different from watching boxing, or martial arts? It is two animals trying their damnedest to hurt each other for a short period of time. People die in these events all of the time. Is this twisted and warped?

I also don't like the way that you used a logical fallacy in your comparison in the argument from nature and a hate group such as the BNP. Especially when you used what is essentially an argument from nature in your first paragraph.

Surely though, if you look at nervous systems, sentience and cuteyness then the life of a human is much more important than the life of a bull?
The other two should be obvious, and the cuteyness rating; well give me a smoking hot female in front of a cow any day of the week.
Therefore, we should surely do what is best for humans, and their survival, which is leaving a 'sport' such as this in place whilst it drives a substantially large percentage of their town's economy?

I agree with the last sentence, but see it as impossible. My personal motto is more like "don't be selfish", if you have to kill an animal, make sure it is justified.

I actually AM an animal fascist and do believe that the lives of humans are more important than other animals. This is because the self-interest of the human race will drive us forward. I feel no shame by killing viruses (with medicine) that attack my immune system, feel no shame in swatting flies that land on my desk, and feel no shame in eating meat that was prepared in a somewhat unethical way. My personal comfort comes before that of any animal. Whilst this may be selfish, it is no different from any other brutality that occurs in the wild. We are selfish animals, who want what is best for our own species, would you kill a bull to save a dying child? What about two bulls? Ten? Ten thousand? What number is it okay to let a child die to save an animal? If the answer is anything above two, then you are an animal fascist, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />-- Tue May 25, 2010 2:32 pm --<br /><br />

And what would your argument be if, say for example, someone catches spiders, slugs etc. and lets them go??

I'd point to viruses, bacteria, meat (if they aren't vegetarian), fish (if they aren't vegan), ants that they step on whilst walking down the road, and any other things that may be labelled 'pests'

 

[Fame Monster]

I had an epiphany just then. I managed to read a whole paragraph about a spider's nervous system before thinking "wow, what a sad twat I am!"

I shall not be returning to this forum in the foreseeable future. It's for the best.

 

[Paulski]

So you are basically an animal fascist then, believing in the genetic superiority of one animal over another and forming an opinion of what is dispensable and what isn't based upon their current appeal?

Spiders have a well developed nervous system that is critical to their lives, they have the intelligence to spin hugely complex and sometimes physically improbable webs. Perhaps they aren't necessarily cute, but that's entirely a subjective term, somebody out there will find them lovable.

Concerning the families bit, how is watching bullfighting different from watching boxing, or martial arts? It is two animals trying their damnedest to hurt each other for a short period of time. People die in these events all of the time. Is this twisted and warped?

I also don't like the way that you used a logical fallacy in your comparison in the argument from nature and a hate group such as the BNP. Especially when you used what is essentially an argument from nature in your first paragraph.

Surely though, if you look at nervous systems, sentience and cuteyness then the life of a human is much more important than the life of a bull?
The other two should be obvious, and the cuteyness rating; well give me a smoking hot female in front of a cow any day of the week.
Therefore, we should surely do what is best for humans, and their survival, which is leaving a 'sport' such as this in place whilst it drives a substantially large percentage of their town's economy?

I agree with the last sentence, but see it as impossible. My personal motto is more like "don't be selfish", if you have to kill an animal, make sure it is justified.

I actually AM an animal fascist and do believe that the lives of humans are more important than other animals. This is because the self-interest of the human race will drive us forward. I feel no shame by killing viruses (with medicine) that attack my immune system, feel no shame in swatting flies that land on my desk, and feel no shame in eating meat that was prepared in a somewhat unethical way. My personal comfort comes before that of any animal. Whilst this may be selfish, it is no different from any other brutality that occurs in the wild. We are selfish animals, who want what is best for our own species, would you kill a bull to save a dying child? What about two bulls? Ten? Ten thousand? What number is it okay to let a child die to save an animal? If the answer is anything above two, then you are an animal fascist, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If 'animal fascist' is the term you'd like to use then okay. I'd prefer to say what I said already, that we can give a rough value to almost everything in our environment, and we have to have a group of factors upon which we base our judgement. That's the scientific way of thinking. To say that the life of bacteria is equal to that of a bull is either playing devil's advocate or being plain silly (in my opinion). Single or few-cell organisms cannot be compared to sentient beings that engage with their world.

And for the record, vegetarians don't eat fish.

 

[Skashion]

So you are basically an animal fascist then, believing in the genetic superiority of one animal over another and forming an opinion of what is dispensable and what isn't based upon their current appeal?

Spiders have a well developed nervous system that is critical to their lives, they have the intelligence to spin hugely complex and sometimes physically improbable webs. Perhaps they aren't necessarily cute, but that's entirely a subjective term, somebody out there will find them lovable.

Concerning the families bit, how is watching bullfighting different from watching boxing, or martial arts? It is two animals trying their damnedest to hurt each other for a short period of time. People die in these events all of the time. Is this twisted and warped?

I also don't like the way that you used a logical fallacy in your comparison in the argument from nature and a hate group such as the BNP. Especially when you used what is essentially an argument from nature in your first paragraph.

Surely though, if you look at nervous systems, sentience and cuteyness then the life of a human is much more important than the life of a bull?
The other two should be obvious, and the cuteyness rating; well give me a smoking hot female in front of a cow any day of the week.
Therefore, we should surely do what is best for humans, and their survival, which is leaving a 'sport' such as this in place whilst it drives a substantially large percentage of their town's economy?

I agree with the last sentence, but see it as impossible. My personal motto is more like "don't be selfish", if you have to kill an animal, make sure it is justified.

I actually AM an animal fascist and do believe that the lives of humans are more important than other animals. This is because the self-interest of the human race will drive us forward. I feel no shame by killing viruses (with medicine) that attack my immune system, feel no shame in swatting flies that land on my desk, and feel no shame in eating meat that was prepared in a somewhat unethical way. My personal comfort comes before that of any animal. Whilst this may be selfish, it is no different from any other brutality that occurs in the wild. We are selfish animals, who want what is best for our own species, would you kill a bull to save a dying child? What about two bulls? Ten? Ten thousand? What number is it okay to let a child die to save an animal? If the answer is anything above two, then you are an animal fascist, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I'd point to viruses, bacteria, meat (if they aren't vegetarian), fish (if they aren't vegan), ants that they step on whilst walking down the road, and any other things that may be labelled 'pests'

So, basically, there is no escape from being an 'animal fascist' and someone who wantonly mistreats animals, cruelly inflicting pain, is no worse than someone who accidentally steps on an ant or whose anti-bodies fight infection?

 

[Damocles]

Single or few-cell organisms cannot be compared to sentient beings that engage with their world.

Why? Morally speaking, isn't a life a life?

Anyway, in the macro world, what about the pest exterminations then? Is that mass genocide or is it just killing some animals that don't really matter? At what point in the tree of evolution do the lives of animals start to matter?

And for the record, vegetarians don't eat fish.

Really? I must admit that most of the veggies that I'd met ate fish, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge here, as I can probably count the people who I've asked on one hand.

-- Tue May 25, 2010 3:02 pm --

So, basically, there is no escape from being an 'animal fascist' and someone who wantonly mistreats animals, cruelly inflicting pain, is no worse than someone who accidentally steps on an ant or whose anti-bodies fight infection?

Taking automatic process such as anti-bodies, and accidental ant squashing out of the equation, then no, if you have ever swatted a fly, or a spider, or pulled the legs off of a Daddy Long Legs, or ate any sort of meat that was prepared unethically then you are as bad as the spectators of the bullring. Morally, killing animals is killing animals, there should be no distinction in the terms, just as there should be no distinction about under what circumstances a person murdered another person. I preach moral equivalence, and I have yet to see anybody answer the fundamental question about why some animals should be harmed and why some animals shouldn't be.

It is those who are saying that some animals are worth less than others, which is coining the term of animal fascism, which I thought was quite apt to be honest. It's also illuminating that Paulski tried to make a comparison on my argument with ultra-nationalism when he is arguing from a perspective that some animals we should be allowed to kill and some we shouldn't

 

[Skashion]

Taking automatic process such as anti-bodies, and accidental ant squashing out of the equation, then no, if you have ever swatted a fly, or a spider, or pulled the legs off of a Daddy Long Legs, or ate any sort of meat that was prepared unethically then you are as bad as the spectators of the bullring. Morally, killing animals is killing animals, there should be no distinction in the terms, just as there should be no distinction about under what circumstances a person murdered another person. I preach moral equivalence, and I have yet to see anybody answer the fundamental question about why some animals should be harmed and why some animals shouldn't be.

It is those who are saying that some animals are worth less than others, which is coining the term of animal fascism, which I thought was quite apt to be honest. It's also illuminating that Paulski tried to make a comparison on my argument with ultra-nationalism when he is arguing from a perspective that some animals we should be allowed to kill and some we shouldn't

I certainly don't swat flies, spiders or wasps now, though I probably did when I was younger when I didn't really think about such things so I'm already condemned.

I'm not a vegetarian either but I do go well out of my way to ensure I don't eat anywhere where there have been animal mistreatment scandals in the media. It's not to say it's never happened because it almost certainly has but I've never knowingly done it.

I don't consider killing an animal for food itself to be immoral and I wouldn't consider an animal trying to kill me for food to be wrong.

I wouldn't personally kill an animal for food, only in self-defence or defence of another animal. The logic I apply to that is that when I buy meat is that not buying it will not bring animals back to life. The market is not responsive enough to take note of one person eating meat. If it was, I would not eat meat.

I don't particularly have ranking system of what animals can be harmed or not other than thinking it's justifiable to kill animals which will kill other animals in bloodlust i.e. foxes, if they are known to be the guilty culprit to the person doing the killing.

Just about sums up my views on killing animals.

Incidentally, how do you square your Darwinist views with your libertarian ones. As a libertarian, you must believe that humans are entitled to as much liberty as that which is compatible with the same level of liberty for others. However, you also believe humans are superior to other animals. So, why aren't humans, who've proved themselves to be stronger through competitive means by ceasing power, entitled to take your liberty away?