I don't have much of an opinion on bullfighting, yes it is cruel and inhumane, but so is carving them up, cooking and eating them, to some degree.
true, but i'd rather get a bolt through the head nice and quick than being slowly bled out to make me weak. and these matadors don't always make a clean kill.
and it's not just bulls in a match, sometimes they use horse in the spectacle, (blind folded) and they can be disembowled, by the angy bull.
and it's not just bulls in a match, sometimes they use horse in the spectacle, (blind folded) and they can be disembowled, by the angy bull.
Meh? Blind-folded? I didn't know that... What's the point in that?
EDIT: This one isn't blindfolded. I've also just found out that they don't actually kill the bull in the ring, they lead the weakened bull out of the ring at the end to be killed by a butcher. What's the point in that? "Yeah, you've just watched someone stab it repeatedly, but we'll spare you from seeing it actually die..."!?!?
Meh? Blind-folded? I didn't know that... What's the point in that?
they come out at the start and mess with the bull. the matador watches this to gauge how the bull will fight. it must be noted that not all bull fights use horses any more and for the most part the horse is wearing armour. its blind folded so it doesn't bubk the rider off and try and kick the bulls head in.
but yeah someimes the horse can be gourged, it doesn't always happen apparently.
EDIT: This one isn't blindfolded. I've also just found out that they don't actually kill the bull in the ring, they lead the weakened bull out of the ring at the end to be killed by a butcher. What's the point in that? "Yeah, you've just watched someone stab it repeatedly, but we'll spare you from seeing it actually die..."!?!?
there are different types of bull fights, french style, spanish style, portuguese style. and some still vary in regions, and for special holidays.
the one you are talking about does involve horse and a more humane way of killing the bull. but the poor thing can't enjoy its last moments, and im sure there are times when a horse will be injured, much like in horse racing.
still the classic style of the sword going through the shoulder blades does still carry on to this day.
my guess for the killing off screen so to speak is to avoid the great danger the matador faces. health and safety. they'd prolly make him wear a high vis vest if they did it in england.
I might have mentioned this here before, but I remember as a kid going out to Spain to visit the family, and we were all sat in this bar/caf? around midday watching a bullfight on telly. The matador was a proper showy t**t, jumping and somersaulting over the bull... until he did this flip over the bull and the bull jumped, his horn jabbing the git right in the eye. That'll teach him!! :D
I might have mentioned this here before, but I remember as a kid going out to Spain to visit the family, and we were all sat in this bar/caf? around midday watching a bullfight on telly. The matador was a proper showy t**t, jumping and somersaulting over the bull... until he did this flip over the bull and the bull jumped, his horn jabbing the git right in the eye. That'll teach him!! :D
i bet the majority of spaniards root for the bull. :lol:
In a recent Royal Institution Christmas Lecture, a physicist held a large heavy pendulum at a 30 degree angle right next to his nose, and let it go. It swung away several metres, and swung back towards him, but it stopped just short of his nose. He didn't even flinch.
"That's because of conservation of energy," he stated.
It's a pity the same principle didn't apply when they were flinging pies in the Tiswas studio...
You see, energy is a quantity, whose value for any given system can be calculated from other, measurable quantities. Only then can you meaningfully say that the sum total is conserved.
Now back to the notion of cruelty. You don't need to be able to measure it in SI units, but you do need a taxonomy, so anyone can unambiguously determine whether a given thing is cruel, not cruel or undecided. People can then use philosophy to determine whether this classification is consistent with itself, and also consistent with (what I loosely label as) "common sense".
At the moment, you give the impression that this determination is handed down by decree from the "high priests" of the animal rights movement. For everyone else, it's just a matter of faith.
It's a basic tenet of scientific philosophy that if a theory cannot be tested and potentially be disproved, then it's worth nothing as a scientific theory.
So, over to you. How, exactly, would you define cruelty?
It's a basic tenet of scientific philosophy that if a theory cannot be tested and potentially be disproved, then it's worth nothing as a scientific theory.
You can test the reactions of the mammalian nervous system to torture on your own body. The fear and pain of torture is cruelty.
The thought of a sport that inflicts mental and physical torture on another mammal is disgusting and if you test the results of torture on your own body and mental health I'm sure you will hold the same beliefs as strongly as others do without requiring that proof.
So, over to you. How, exactly, would you define cruelty?
unecessary suffering
right so you are probably not going to try to expalin how making a bull suffer in a ring for the enjoyment of a crowd is actually necessary.
what you are going to do instead is pick out other things that you believe i do that you can define as cruel, eating meat for instance, and then call me a hypocrite and say that my definition of what is cruel can be applied to all sorts of things.
i told you you wouldn't try to justify bull fighting, you'd use another example.
classic troll behaviour.
Any example would suffice to demonstrate the inconsistency in your collective argument. But if you wish to agree with me that foxhunting isn't cruel, you then need to question the justification of the animal rights campaign against it.
Back to your question. To what extent is the bull in the ring actually in fear or in pain? It seems to me that if anything, it is just enraged, and would like nothing more than to gore the trespassers.
Any example would suffice to demonstrate the inconsistency in your collective argument. But if you wish to agree with me that foxhunting isn't cruel, you then need to question the justification of the animal rights campaign against it.
Back to your question. To what extent is the bull in the ring actually in fear or in pain? It seems to me that if anything, it is just enraged, and would like nothing more than to gore the trespassers.
fox hunting is cruel, don't try to turn this argument into one about foxes. because that's not the topic, and i will start talking about sheds.
it is in pain when it starts to get stabbed with little spears, it is in pain when the matador fails to kill it cleanly.
To what extent is the bull in the ring actually in fear or in pain?
To the extent that it starts to hobble and stumble around, through exhaustion and blood loss. When the bull has half a dozen sharp instruments dangling from it's body, I'd imagine it to be in pain, only we're not entirely sure, given that bulls can't actually tell us!!
fox hunting is cruel, don't try to turn this argument into one about foxes. because that's not the topic, and i will start talking about sheds.
You may talk about whatever you want, as long as it's relevant to the discussion in question.
Do animal rights activists want to ban sheds too?
it is in pain when it starts to get stabbed with little spears, it is in pain when the matador fails to kill it cleanly.
Anthropomorphism has its limitations, but I would imagine, based on animal biology, that it would be full of endorphins at the time.
Quoting greencard:
To the extent that it starts to hobble and stumble around, through exhaustion and blood loss.
I'd imagine that's the point at which the matador would kill it cleanly.
Bearing in mind that you disapprove of the entire spectacle, so are perhaps not the best person to ask: you single out the wounding and exhausted stumbling of the animal as being particularly objectionable.
Assuming the spectators are more inclined to agree with you on that point, surely that would be the point at which the matador would end the spectacle with a killing blow? If that's the kernel from which the bad press grows, then it would be very much in the matador's best interest to kill the creature quickly at that point.
Assuming the spectators are more inclined to agree with you on that point, surely that would be the point at which the matador would end the spectacle with a killing blow? If that's the kernel from which the bad press grows, then it would be very much in the matador's best interest to kill the creature quickly at that point.
As I found out (and pointed out) earlier... they aren't killed until afterwards, when the bull is led out of the arena and killed behind-the-scenes by a butcher. You (as in the spectator) never actually see the bull die. You just see it fall to the floor, unable to continue fighting, probably hallucinating from lack of blood to the brain etc!!
As I found out (and pointed out) earlier... they aren't killed until afterwards, when the bull is led out of the arena and killed behind-the-scenes by a butcher. You (as in the spectator) never actually see the bull die. You just see it fall to the floor, unable to continue fighting, probably hallucinating from lack of blood to the brain etc!!
And yet, two posts down, Mile describes this as one of the more humane methods of bullfighting.
Therein lies one of my objections. If the animal rights movement can't even agree among itself what is cruel and what isn't, then it seems your definition of cruelty is subjective to the point of being completely arbitrary. Under such circumstances, why should society as a whole listen to you?
you were the one going on about religion and fox hunting you thicko.
i'm not gonig to continue arguing with a baiting troll because it serves no purpose in the games section what so ever.
It serves no purpose? Nonsense.
If you had given any real thought to your world-view, you would be able to squash any counter-argument without too much difficulty. Your inability to string together much of an argument at all indicates that very little thought has gone into your belief system.
There's a big wide world outside your head, and it doesn't revolve solely around banning things that are deemed (by whom?) to be cruel.
This is precisely why I'm bringing in notions that, to you at least, seem completely extraneous. I'm trying to elucidate what exactly your political standpoint is built on, and so far, it seems to reference absolutely nothing.
Why am I doing this? Because we live in a democracy, and change is (or at least should be) effected only be consensus. You get your own way in Parliament by persuasion, not by shouting and screaming louder than your opponents.
I'm trying very hard to come into this discussion with an open mind. I'm probably failing in that regard. However, your objective and mine should be to try to win over any lurkers that might be reading this thread, thereby attracting converts to your cause. Surely this is the very nature of political activism, and must be a precondition of any parliamentary action.
If you had given any real thought to your world-view, you would be able to squash any counter-argument without too much difficulty. Your inability to string together much of an argument at all indicates that very little thought has gone into your belief system.
There's a big wide world outside your head, and it doesn't revolve solely around banning things that are deemed (by whom?) to be cruel.
This is precisely why I'm bringing in notions that, to you at least, seem completely extraneous. I'm trying to elucidate what exactly your political standpoint is built on, and so far, it seems to reference absolutely nothing.
Why am I doing this? Because we live in a democracy, and change is (or at least should be) effected only be consensus. You get your own way in Parliament by persuasion, not by shouting and screaming louder than your opponents.
I'm trying very hard to come into this discussion with an open mind. I'm probably failing in that regard. However, your objective and mine should be to try to win over any lurkers that might be reading this thread, thereby attracting converts to your cause. Surely this is the very nature of political activism, and must be a precondition of any parliamentary action.
I don't think the whole of society should listen to me, I'm not that full of myself.
I believe you. Sadly, the "ban this" mentality is far too prevalent in modern British society.
If anyone wants to use the full weight of the law to enforce compliance with their personal viewpoint, they had better be able to justify their standpoint to all enquirers.
You've provided only the most cursory scintilla of a justification for your belief that bull fighting is cruel. You've flat out refused to justify your ad hominem swipe at me.
So the question is, do you believe that bull fighting should be banned?
Because if you do, we have a problem. You'd wish to impose your opinion on society at large, using the full force of the law to do so, yet when questioned, you quite singularly fail to provide any real argument to support such an imposition.
What happens when some other gobshite decides to press for a ban on something that affects you?
So the answer to my first question in post #88 is "No"?
I'd explain what prompted my initial outburst - it involves the difference between a ratchet and a pendulum, as metaphors for the political spectrum - but I'm not sure it would help at this stage.
Comments
true, but i'd rather get a bolt through the head nice and quick than being slowly bled out to make me weak. and these matadors don't always make a clean kill.
and it's not just bulls in a match, sometimes they use horse in the spectacle, (blind folded) and they can be disembowled, by the angy bull.
Meh? Blind-folded? I didn't know that... What's the point in that?
EDIT: This one isn't blindfolded. I've also just found out that they don't actually kill the bull in the ring, they lead the weakened bull out of the ring at the end to be killed by a butcher. What's the point in that? "Yeah, you've just watched someone stab it repeatedly, but we'll spare you from seeing it actually die..."!?!?
they come out at the start and mess with the bull. the matador watches this to gauge how the bull will fight. it must be noted that not all bull fights use horses any more and for the most part the horse is wearing armour. its blind folded so it doesn't bubk the rider off and try and kick the bulls head in.
but yeah someimes the horse can be gourged, it doesn't always happen apparently.
there are different types of bull fights, french style, spanish style, portuguese style. and some still vary in regions, and for special holidays.
the one you are talking about does involve horse and a more humane way of killing the bull. but the poor thing can't enjoy its last moments, and im sure there are times when a horse will be injured, much like in horse racing.
still the classic style of the sword going through the shoulder blades does still carry on to this day.
my guess for the killing off screen so to speak is to avoid the great danger the matador faces. health and safety. they'd prolly make him wear a high vis vest if they did it in england.
i bet the majority of spaniards root for the bull. :lol:
"That's because of conservation of energy," he stated.
It's a pity the same principle didn't apply when they were flinging pies in the Tiswas studio...
You see, energy is a quantity, whose value for any given system can be calculated from other, measurable quantities. Only then can you meaningfully say that the sum total is conserved.
Now back to the notion of cruelty. You don't need to be able to measure it in SI units, but you do need a taxonomy, so anyone can unambiguously determine whether a given thing is cruel, not cruel or undecided. People can then use philosophy to determine whether this classification is consistent with itself, and also consistent with (what I loosely label as) "common sense".
At the moment, you give the impression that this determination is handed down by decree from the "high priests" of the animal rights movement. For everyone else, it's just a matter of faith.
It's a basic tenet of scientific philosophy that if a theory cannot be tested and potentially be disproved, then it's worth nothing as a scientific theory.
So, over to you. How, exactly, would you define cruelty?
You can test the reactions of the mammalian nervous system to torture on your own body. The fear and pain of torture is cruelty.
The thought of a sport that inflicts mental and physical torture on another mammal is disgusting and if you test the results of torture on your own body and mental health I'm sure you will hold the same beliefs as strongly as others do without requiring that proof.
unecessary suffering
right so you are probably not going to try to expalin how making a bull suffer in a ring for the enjoyment of a crowd is actually necessary.
what you are going to do instead is pick out other things that you believe i do that you can define as cruel, eating meat for instance, and then call me a hypocrite and say that my definition of what is cruel can be applied to all sorts of things.
So, to take another example, foxhunting.
The fox never abandons its belief that it can escape the pack of hounds: no fear of torture.
If it fails to escape the pack of hounds, it gets ripped to pieces within a fraction of a second: no pain of torture.
From which I conclude, using the definition you provide, that foxhunting is not cruel.
How would you respond to this argument?
i told you you wouldn't try to justify bull fighting, you'd use another example.
classic troll behaviour.
Back to your question. To what extent is the bull in the ring actually in fear or in pain? It seems to me that if anything, it is just enraged, and would like nothing more than to gore the trespassers.
fox hunting is cruel, don't try to turn this argument into one about foxes. because that's not the topic, and i will start talking about sheds.
it is in pain when it starts to get stabbed with little spears, it is in pain when the matador fails to kill it cleanly.
To the extent that it starts to hobble and stumble around, through exhaustion and blood loss. When the bull has half a dozen sharp instruments dangling from it's body, I'd imagine it to be in pain, only we're not entirely sure, given that bulls can't actually tell us!!
Do animal rights activists want to ban sheds too? Anthropomorphism has its limitations, but I would imagine, based on animal biology, that it would be full of endorphins at the time.
Quoting greencard: I'd imagine that's the point at which the matador would kill it cleanly.
Bearing in mind that you disapprove of the entire spectacle, so are perhaps not the best person to ask: you single out the wounding and exhausted stumbling of the animal as being particularly objectionable.
Assuming the spectators are more inclined to agree with you on that point, surely that would be the point at which the matador would end the spectacle with a killing blow? If that's the kernel from which the bad press grows, then it would be very much in the matador's best interest to kill the creature quickly at that point.
As I found out (and pointed out) earlier... they aren't killed until afterwards, when the bull is led out of the arena and killed behind-the-scenes by a butcher. You (as in the spectator) never actually see the bull die. You just see it fall to the floor, unable to continue fighting, probably hallucinating from lack of blood to the brain etc!!
you were the one going on about religion and fox hunting you thicko.
i'm not gonig to continue arguing with a baiting troll because it serves no purpose in the games section what so ever.
good bye.
And yet, two posts down, Mile describes this as one of the more humane methods of bullfighting.
Therein lies one of my objections. If the animal rights movement can't even agree among itself what is cruel and what isn't, then it seems your definition of cruelty is subjective to the point of being completely arbitrary. Under such circumstances, why should society as a whole listen to you?
I don't think the whole of society should listen to me, I'm not that full of myself.
If you had given any real thought to your world-view, you would be able to squash any counter-argument without too much difficulty. Your inability to string together much of an argument at all indicates that very little thought has gone into your belief system.
There's a big wide world outside your head, and it doesn't revolve solely around banning things that are deemed (by whom?) to be cruel.
This is precisely why I'm bringing in notions that, to you at least, seem completely extraneous. I'm trying to elucidate what exactly your political standpoint is built on, and so far, it seems to reference absolutely nothing.
Why am I doing this? Because we live in a democracy, and change is (or at least should be) effected only be consensus. You get your own way in Parliament by persuasion, not by shouting and screaming louder than your opponents.
I'm trying very hard to come into this discussion with an open mind. I'm probably failing in that regard. However, your objective and mine should be to try to win over any lurkers that might be reading this thread, thereby attracting converts to your cause. Surely this is the very nature of political activism, and must be a precondition of any parliamentary action.
your mental.
If anyone wants to use the full weight of the law to enforce compliance with their personal viewpoint, they had better be able to justify their standpoint to all enquirers.
no, your mental, deal with it.
So the question is, do you believe that bull fighting should be banned?
Because if you do, we have a problem. You'd wish to impose your opinion on society at large, using the full force of the law to do so, yet when questioned, you quite singularly fail to provide any real argument to support such an imposition.
What happens when some other gobshite decides to press for a ban on something that affects you?
i have no problem, your problem is being mental.
I'd explain what prompted my initial outburst - it involves the difference between a ratchet and a pendulum, as metaphors for the political spectrum - but I'm not sure it would help at this stage.
the answer is, your mental.