Bull Fighting

Cabaal

Right this has been bothering me for quiet awhile now.

Was sitting in a mates apartment and he turned on TVE (I think) on NTL, its a Spanish channel..

Anyway, it was showing bull fighting at the time,
Now up till I saw it bullfighting on TVE I always assumed it was fairly harmless and that they'd just run around abit and the bull would get nackered.

But I was TOTALLY SHOCKED to see what happen, to start with the stab it in the back of the neck on its way out to the arena.

Then they tired it out and stuck several small spears like objects into the back of the neck around the same place as the first spear was stuck

After a few min's of this the bull is pumping bleeding and its tongue is out and eventually it lies down on the ground from exhaustion and blood loss.
Then, and apparently only the really good bull fighters do this, he cut of one of the bulls ears while it was still alive.

So it gets to the end and basically they cut the bulls neck and the bull die's.

To end it all and to show the crowd JUST how great there cruel cruel 'sport' is they drag the bull around the arena.


How the hell is this still even allowed in this day and age,
Its totally crazy, these people called them selfs civilized
Could have bloody fooled me!

Can someone please enlighten me to why this is not outlawed?

Wook

because it's an age old tradition ?
Don't get me wrong , i loathe this 'sport' as well , and am highly amused when the 'matador' get's his ass impaled by a set of horns.

It's a bit like the old tradition in ireland of setting cars on fire.

Beëlzebooze

Cabaal,

The matadors are held in extremely high regard, and are generaly from wealthy families that have a say in politics. Basically the same reason why the fox hunt in the UK took so long to ban.


The spears that are stuck into the bulls neck, are to weaken the neck muscles, that results in the bull to hang it's head, the in turn exposes the back of the neck to the Matador.

The really good matador will kill the bull with a plunge from hes sword, the sword is supposed to go between the shoulderblades directly into the heart.

The BAD matadors, let the bull bleed to death.

but all in all you are right, it is barbaric to say the least.

sanvean

Is the killing for no reason, or is there some 'explanation' given (like, say, that it'd be cruel to let them live afterwards). I always just presumed that that was why they killed them, but apparently not.

Cabaal

Originally posted by Wook
because it's an age old tradition ?

It's a bit like the old tradition in ireland of setting cars on fire.

Age old tradition is no reason, cock fighting can be seen by some people as a age old tradition. Don't mean it should keep on going and even be aired on TV.

As for car burning, thats a tradition in more areas then some.

Beëlzebooze

Is the killing for no reason, or is there some 'explanation' given

since when have men given a rats ass about animals? it is easier to 'end it's suffering' than nurse it back to health. And let's say they do nurse it back to health, would it get a second go at the matador? once again having spears plunged into it's neck?

maybe it would be more of a sport without the spears and sword, 'mano a bull' so to speak. Now that I would watch!

mike65

Its barbaric and you'll go along way to find a Spaniard that agrees with what I've just said. Its a huge thing still over there and the top Matadors are indeed minor royalty in eyes of thier adoring public. I guess only ppl who have been bought up in a culture
where its seen as heroic and macho can think its acceptable.

Meanwhile we are happy enough to allow hunting/coursing to continue....

http://www.banbloodsports.com/home.htm

Mike.

Zombrex

it is a stupid macho thing ... makes the men well really dangerous, running around in a bull pen ... oooh look how brave we are ... then they stab the bull to death ... like Wook said it is the funniest thing in the world to see the Matador getting smacked full force by the bull ... silly twats

It is still tolerated in Spain for the same reason blood sport such as fox hunting is still tolerated in Ireland, because people enjoy it. It is very hard to tell people to stop doing something they enjoy, even if it is sick ... just look at smoking in pubs

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
it is a stupid macho thing ... makes the men well really dangerous, running around in a bull pen ... oooh look how brave we are ... then they stab the bull to death ... like Wook said it is the funniest thing in the world to see the Matador getting smacked full force by the bull ... silly twats

Ohh... and they don't speak English either... and eat funny food... and they look different too...

Beëlzebooze

Ohh... and they don't speak English either... and eat funny food... and they look different too...

nobody sugested that the Spanish are barbaric, just this particular form of 'entertainment'

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ohh... and they don't speak English either... and eat funny food... and they look different too...

*sigh* .. long day at work TC, not in the mood to be replying to silly posts...

my post had nothing to do with the fact that they are Spainish and if you bothered to read on you whould have seen I compared bull fighting to fox hunting, an equally barbaric past time in Ireland.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
my post had nothing to do with the fact that they are Spainish and if you bothered to read on you whould have seen I compared bull fighting to fox hunting, an equally barbaric past time in Ireland.

Barbaric for one culture is tradition for another. Who are you to dictate morality or value system to another culture? Equate it as you will, but a Spaniard will rightly only see another foreigner pontificating.

bugler

Plenty of underdeveloped/developing countries use the same logic when explaining human rights abuses.

To be honest, I think it's fairly apparent when something is unacceptable or not. I would think this is doubly true when it comes down to killing animals. Why are they killed? How are they killed? If satisfactory answers can't be given (depending on who or what is determining what is satisfactory of course) then the practice should be banned, in my opinion. Just because people have been doing something for a long time, doesn't alter the facts of the situation.

mike65

It might be more "acceptable" if it were a fair fight. The bulls are nobbled long before a matador flashes his cape...

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bugler
Plenty of underdeveloped/developing countries use the same logic when explaining human rights abuses.

Are you equating human and animal rights then?

To be honest, I think it's fairly apparent when something is unacceptable or not. I would think this is doubly true when it comes down to killing animals. Why are they killed? How are they killed? If satisfactory answers can't be given (depending on who or what is determining what is satisfactory of course) then the practice should be banned, in my opinion. Just because people have been doing something for a long time, doesn't alter the facts of the situation.

But it’s not fairly apparent when something is unacceptable or not, if it were we would all share the same value system. Were some more enlightened culture to dictate to us that eating meat or drinking alcohol was barbaric, would we share their ‘fairly apparent’ sense of right and wrong? How patronising is it to tell another culture what is right or wrong?

bugler

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Are you equating human and animal rights then?

Yes, in the sense that I think both have basic rights that shouldn't be comprised. I'm not stating that animals have identical rights to humans.

But it’s not fairly apparent when something is unacceptable or not, if it were we would all share the same value system.

I disagree. My views: Torturing any animal is wrong. I'm not even equating bull-fighting with torture, though plenty would. I don't see how it can be said that torturing animals is not wrong. And I don't care if the person doing it honestly believes in it, thinks it's necessary to save their family's souls, or relies on it to make a living. The people of the world came together to reach (token) consensus on human rights, so why not the same for animals? Obviously this would take a different form to it's human counter-part. The basic tenet of this should be that animals should not be subjected to cruelty for the entertainment of people, and that they should be treated as humanely as possible when being killed for food.

I understand the point you're making. But I don't think we should stop ourselves from condemning cruelty to animals when we see it occuring abroad. How do you feel about bear-baiting, Corinthian? Is it sometimes acceptable? All the time acceptable? What about "dancing" bears? Consensus should be reached in all communities about what is acceptable and what is needless and cruel. Ultimately, I'd hope to see this include the European community and then the International community.

Were some more enlightened culture to dictate to us that eating meat or drinking alcohol was barbaric, would we share their ‘fairly apparent’ sense of right and wrong? How patronising is it to tell another culture what is right or wrong?

Those actions are not really comparable, in that no needless cruelty is meted out (presuming the animals were killed humanely). Barring some shocking discovery that beer feels pain when I drink it, I can't see me changing my mind.

I'm as liberal as they come, and I'm also very non-judgemental. However, I wouldn't sit back and say "hey, none of my business" if I saw something particularly brutal. A husband slapping his wife might be perfectly normal in say the travelling community (and I'm not saying it is), but that won't stop me from condemning it and if need be intervening to stop it happening. There's only so many things you can excuse on the grounds of tradition, or the relevant climate. The killing of POWs in the balkan wars of the nineties was rampant. It was also wrong. And if stating this makes me patronising, then I'm not ashamed to be called so.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bugler
I'm not stating that animals have identical rights to humans.

Then I don’t know if you can really make the comparison you made.

I understand the point you're making. But I don't think we should stop ourselves from condemning cruelty to animals when we see it occuring abroad.

Fair point, but I was not disagreeing with condemnation of another culture, but dictation.

How do you feel about bear-baiting, Corinthian? Is it sometimes acceptable? All the time acceptable? What about "dancing" bears?

I’m fairly neutral on the subject. I’ve no interest in causing cruelty to an animal, however, I’ve never objected to killing animals for sport either.

Consensus should be reached in all communities about what is acceptable and what is needless and cruel.

Perhaps we should reach agreement on The One True Faith, while we’re at it...

SkepticOne

I dictate that they stop this barbaric practice.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I dictate that they stop this barbaric practice.

/me pats SkepticOne on the head and sends him back to sit at the children's table :rolleyes:

patch

Well this is interesting. TC, this is the first time I've seen you make an argument which I feel is ill thought out, and downright wrong.
Bull fighting is indeed barbaric. I was brought up to have respect for people AND animals. As some have said, at least if it were a fair fight we could agree that it were at least sporting.
But it's not. It's an animal being slaughtered, slowly, whilst a crowd of people cheer on. That can't be right.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by patch69
Well this is interesting. TC, this is the first time I've seen you make an argument which I feel is ill thought out, and downright wrong.

I’ll take that as a compliment

Bull fighting is indeed barbaric. I was brought up to have respect for people AND animals.

Now while you may have been brought up with an empathy for animals, not everyone else is. I wasn’t for example. While not Spanish, I was brought up with an Italian attitude towards animals, which will generally view one as:

1. Something to guard the family home.
2. Something to keep the children amused.
3. Something that goes well with a good sauce.

No doubt, many people, largely in the English-speaking world, would probably find such an attitude inhuman, if not barbaric.

Conversely, my Italian grandmother came to Ireland for the first time when my parents married. She recounted a social evening, just before the wedding, in a pub where her Irish hosts drank to excess, to the point that some were decked out in the street afterwards, completely ossified. She has considered the Irish to be barbaric ever since.

The imposition of one culture or tribe’s set of values on another is essentially the reason for one out of two wars - that overwhelming human obsession to launch a crusade to change the barbaric beliefs or practices of another.

As an aside; even were we to feel justified to dictate change on another culture, we still have to ask is our morality any more correct than theirs? What makes us so sure we have it right?

Of course, we’re perfectly in our rights to condemn another nation’s morality. We don’t have to trade or have anything to do with them if we don’t want to. But you still have to respect another culture, even if you do not agree or, as in the case of many of the posts in this thread to date, even understand it.

Otherwise evangelical and often violent crusades will inevitably follow, as one tribe attempts to change something in another tribe that is barbaric or simply “can't be right”.

Wook

i'd say Bush should do an pre-emptive strike on Italy and teach those guy's the subtle way of western living !
(ahum)

patch

Originally posted by The Corinthian

[*]Something that goes well with a good sauce.

LoL! I got a chuckle out of that one.

I well see your point, now that you've explained it without the suspicion of somebody making a racist comment

Then again, Like your Grandmother, I too can see that SOME irish people drink to excess.
I also know plenty of people from many countries who can drink to such extremes no problem. So that really is only a valid point where people of your Grans outlook are concerned.

My own opinions on bullfighting are only *slightly concerned*, in that I can see where the fault is apparent.But will hardly seek out a petition.

What interests me really, is how a chap like yourself would appear
to have no problem with it at all.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by patch69
What interests me really, is how a chap like yourself would appear to have no problem with it at all.

Morality is largely, if not completely, learned. I was brought up in a home where vegetarianism was considered an affectation and the thought of hunting caused no upset whatsoever. You were brought up differently.

Even having grown up largely in Ireland could not reverse that. I remember being offered ‘tea’ at a friend’s house when I was about ten. Everyone just scoffed something that vaguely resembled hamburgers and chips (with vinegar - ugh!) at the ungodly hour of 6pm. I declined. Other than the cuisine looking less than appetising, it was far to early for me to eat, as I was used to eat at 9pm onwards. And to this day I still prefer to eat after 9pm.

Horses for courses.

patch

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Morality is largely, if not completely, learned. I was brought up in a home where vegetarianism was considered an affectation and the thought of hunting caused no upset whatsoever. You were brought up differently.

I can well see where your coming from. It's worth noting though, that I shot and ate many rabbits in my days as a young un.
In fact, I even ate some of a pet goat at one stage, which my mother got butchered and fed us initially under the guise of lamb!

So I dunno how much I'd agree with you!

Nevyn

There is a big difference between the killing of an animal for food and the abuse of animals for entertainment.

Bullfighting is the unusual sport where the animal is in fact killed and eaten afterwards. Yes the killing of the bull could be handled a lot differently but the bleeding out of the bull is not unsimular to how pig are slaughtered, with the blood draining from the animal as it dies so not to taint the meat.

Infact given the Bull is finally killed with a swift thrust of the sword is more merciful then how thousands of pigs are killed in this country to make sausages and rashers.

At least the Bull is honoured and it is a glorious way to meet your end.

Honestly the hypocritical idea that animals are our friends and not related to the meat that is got at the butchers or in a plastic pack in the supermarket
Is appalling.

Cabaal

Originally posted by Wook
i'd say Bush should do an pre-emptive strike on Italy and teach those guy's the subtle way of western living !
(ahum)

Hmm I wats thinking of something interesting, if if Bush's/America's/UK's way to declare war on other countries that don';t follow there ideals then surely if they change Iraq to be the same Iraq will declare war on other countries such as Iran.

Holy crap thats his plan all alone!"

Cabaal

Originally posted by Thaed
There is a big difference between the killing of an animal for food and the abuse of animals for entertainment.

There surely is, thats why Fox Hunting should be banned.

Infact given the Bull is finally killed with a swift thrust of the sword is more merciful then how thousands of pigs are killed in this country to make sausages and rashers.

At least the Bull is honoured and it is a glorious way to meet your end.

Grand so, which way would you rather die?

- Shot in the back of your head in a small room with only the person holding the gun

or

- In a massive arena with thousands of people sitting around and cheering on the person before he shots ya!

Surel;y its the same thing because they will honour you afterwards


I'm not saying animals are aware of this kinda situation (and no I'm not getting into that whole argument)

But to look at it from human standpoint changes the whole thing around.

Honestly the hypocritical idea that animals are our friends and not related to the meat that is got at the butchers or in a plastic pack in the supermarket
Is appalling. [/B]

There is a difference mind you, the bull in the ring is not eaten where as the animal killed in the slaughter house is atleast eaten so its not a waste of a life.
Not really gona go into morals of all of this.

But by your logic is perfectly ok to set some dogs on a rabbit in a feild and call it OK after all people eat rabbits.

Nevyn

Originally posted by Cabaal

Grand so, which way would you rather die?

- Shot in the back of your head in a small room with only the person holding the gun

or

- In a massive arena with thousands of people sitting around and cheering on the person before he shots ya!

if i had to chose it would be with lots of witness so that my death would have an impact on as many as possible.

Originally posted by Cabaal


But to look at it from human standpoint changes the whole thing around.

but is is not a human is an animal breed , reared and trained for this purpose.

Originally posted by Cabaal

There is a difference mind you, the bull in the ring is not eaten where as the animal killed in the slaughter house is atleast eaten so its not a waste of a life.

anyway the bull does get eaten, and the teste are eaten with partivular relish by the matdor or awarded to someone else as a great honour.

Originally posted by Cabaal

Not really gona go into morals of all of this.

Why not that is the whole point of discusing issues here ?

Originally posted by Cabaal

But by your logic is perfectly ok to set some dogs on a rabbit in a feild and call it OK after all people eat rabbits.

I disagree with coursing as there is nothing left of the rabbit and it is not hunting but a ill named sport where the rabbit or hare is litterally torn apart.
Not a pretty sight and yes i have seen it. Same goes with dog, cockeral fighting and fox hunting.

Anyway there is no need for a live fox in a hunt, scent trails can be used just as effectivly if poeple want a day out chasing after somthing on horse back with a pack of dogs.

bugler

I don't think we should dwell on people's blissful ignorance about how fluffy the lamb looked before before he slid down their throat. I think a lot of this thread has gone askew...the subject of this thread is bull-fighting, the killing of an animal primarily for entertainment purposes.

Yes the killing of the bull could be handled a lot differently but the bleeding out of the bull is not unsimular to how pig are slaughtered

The fact that a lot of animals are not killed in the humanest of manners when being dispatched to become food matter doesn't make the drawn-out killing of an animal for sport any better. So what if the balls are particularly appreciated? Explain to me how this makes the preceding act any less cruel.

Infact given the Bull is finally killed with a swift thrust of the sword is more merciful...

What precedes the final thrust (assuming this final act is done correctly) is not at all merciful. It generally isn't a bull running through a cape a few times before receiving swift death. It is a long and gradual process, the bull receiving numerous wounds that have no chance of killing it, and whose purpose is to further infuriate the animal, and of course increase the spectacle's appeal to a crowd. As I understand it the bull endures attack from at least two kinds of piercing weapons before the final thrust, several attacks with each before the killing. No pig endures that. As for the bull being honoured..well I'm sure he really appreciates the fact that he could have ended up like poor Mr Pig, as he fights for his life with half a dozen barbed spears in his back. I'd say it's the people who appreciate the "honouring" more than the animal.

a. Something to guard the family home.
b. Something to keep the children amused.
c. Something that goes well with a good sauce.

No doubt, many people, largely in the English-speaking world, would probably find such an attitude inhuman, if not barbaric.

I doubt it...assuming no ill-treatment of the animals in question occurs. What could be considered barbaric about thinking the above? A little utilitarian maybe, hardly very affectionate, but it doesn't sound like a necessarily bad attitude toward animals.

However, I think if you add: "d. Something to kill slowly for entertainment", I think then people might consider such an attitude barbaric. Your anecdote about your grandmother's view of the Irish is also completely irrelevant. The Irish got drunk of their own accord. They made their own decision and hopefully didn't inflict pain upon anyone else in the course of getting completely drunk. There is no comparison to be made between people rationally choosing to do something to themselves, and choosing to do something to another person or animal who has no say in the matter.

You are neutral on the issue of bear-baiting and dancing bears? I find this a little worrying. I'd assume everyone knows what bear-baiting entails. For those who might not be familiar with dancing bears, they are bears who have usually been subjected to extreme physical abuse until they are driven insane, as it were, leaving them performing a rather bizarre little shuffle-hop. This is of course used to fetch tourist coins, as they are dragged around by a chain through the nose by their 'owners'.

I feel perfectly justified in making the comparison between human rights and animal rights. We're not that different after all. "Oh, that's fine in the Western world, but things like that just don't work in Malaysia/Cambodia/Saudi Arabia", the common reply of the abusive regime, and one which it also seems can be used to excuse attitudes towards animals as well as humans. Do you believe human rights to be inalienable? Is it acceptable for a culture of torture or detainment without trial to exist? Would you have any interest in stopping such a culture? I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not you think a cultures treatment of people is also beyond reproach.

Perhaps we should reach agreement on The One True Faith, while we’re at it...

So do you think noone should have bothered with the U.N Charter then?

To conclude, this thread is about the painful and slow death of an animal for entertainment purposes, and the stories about greasy suppers at far too early an hour and drunken Irish folk are not at all relevant. I don't think it's correct to say that wars are fought to change the barbaric beliefs of another people. Maybe the crusades were among others. These days, it's all about the money/power. George Bush might say he's trying to bring democracy and human rights to Iraq, but most people know he's not. If he was, I'd be behind him.

And do Italians really bandy the word "barbaric" about so easily? I've no doubt that if your family saw my toilet bowl I'd be labelled quite the barbarian.

Cabaal

Originally posted by Thaed
but is is not a human is an animal breed , reared and trained for this purpose.

Training has nothing to do with it, humans are animals when it comes down to it and you can train and rear a person for the same purpose (not seen those documentarys about kids growing up with animals)
Nothing makes us to special ya know.

Anyway there is no need for a live fox in a hunt, scent trails can be used just as effectivly if poeple want a day out chasing after somthing on horse back with a pack of dogs.

Yeah but there's no need for bull fighting or atleast if you MUST do it why not just do it in such a way that you tire the bull out or stun or rather then bleeding it to death.