Well, congrats. You’ve finally figured out the one way to make goddamn sure I get off my ass and attend as soon as possible.
When it gets made illegal to partake in a cultural event in another country that has been integral to one of the proudest societies in the western hemisphere because a bunch of halfwits who are in no way affected by the situation themselves and are bellowing “Barbarism” out of some kind of misplaced guilt for not taking action on whatever myriad things may actually have some fucking relevance to their lives, I will absolutely make certain to violate that law.
So easy to say when the culture in question isn’t yours, isn’t it? And if someone demanded that the practice of a vital part of YOUR culture, which hurt noone, was barbaric, would you give any weight to such claims?
Further, do the quotes around culture indicate that you question Spain’s culture as even being a culture, or what?
What I’m getting at is, the running of the bulls, bullfighting, dogfighting, and cockfighting, have at least one thing in common: Never (barring freak accidents) do they harm anyone that has not explicitly agreed to the risk of said harm. Further, the property that is destroyed is used for just that purpose, by the rightful owners.
That being the case, what justification is there for moral outrage? No crime has been committed, no injustice, no wrong.
Animals are property, after all. And I for one believe in property rights, especially when other soverign nations are concerned.
I jest? I only jest just to justify my gist. If you know what I mean.
And in the news: Today’s run at 12 muinutes was the longest in many decades. The bulls generally run as a pack wuith the steers and are not dangerous but a couple of bulls separated from the pack and did a lot of tossing and goring before finally completing the run. Five people were hurt seriously enough to be hospitalised, three of them US citizens.
I still have not seen any explanation of why running with the bulls is only for “fucking idiots”. . .which I would expect in a thread that says that in the OP
If PETA proposes to change this into the running naked through Pamplona, I for one, am all for the change. Naked humans interest me much more than naked bulls.
I just recalled that famous Argentinian musical group called The Pampalona Running Idiots who hade famous hits like “Run, Don’t Walk” , “Ferdinand The Bull’s Moonlight Serenade”, “Holy Cow”, “Matadors Got Balls”, and the all time favorite “Killing Me But Not Softly Enough”.
My apologies if I misconstrued you, pld; I suppose I can be subject to an inflammatory effect when I see things that look too damn disproportionate being used as examples of a point minty, I understood PL 103-344 to create a specific situation in which NA use of peyote was allowed precisely in response to Division of Employment vs. Smith. (Thanx for catching me on the US/Fla courts!)
My assumption would be that Congress has no power to compel the states to comply, as was the case in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the statute references. RFRA was held unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores.
So only people ascribing to the practice can criticize it – as if they ever would? And what’s with “hurt no one”? I assume you exempt animal cruelty from “hurting anyone,” yes? And by your exemption, may I assume animal cruelty need not be considered? Because I think that’s surpassingly disengenuous. I eat beef often, but I don’t kid myself that no one or no thing was hurt in putting the burger on my table. I give no weight – zero – to the idea that animal torture is acceptable because it is a “cultural” thing.
That would be “or what”. They indicate that I have no respect for “culture” that involves torture of people or animals.
Surpassingly disengenous. When do the bulls “explicitly agree to the risk”? Or are we just pretending like the treatment of the bulls can be somehow artificially removed from the discussion of bullfighting?
This only begs the question of whether, as a moral matter, it is okay to unnecessarily torture a living creature simply because it is “property.” I reject such an assertion.
What a weak argument! You remove the “bull” from “bullfighting” by asserting that “everyone explicitly consents” and “no one is hurt” – as if the entire point is not to hurt and then kill large animals. Then you conclude that there is “no injustice,” “no wrong.”
What bullshit. The “wrong” is the torture of the animal. The “injustice” is the torture of the animal. See if you can present an argument that doesn’t pretend that doesn’t occur as a central part of the occasion.
Who the hell said anything about infringing on Spanish sovereignty? I believe in property rights too, but not when they extend to the gratuitous and pointless torture of animals.
I eat beef. I support the use of animals for humanity, including medical testing and for clothing and food. But I do not believe they should under any circumstances be tortured before they are put to death – certainly not in the name of “sport,” “entertainment,” or “culture.”
Jodi, you’ve got something in your eye there. Looks suspiciously like a beam.
So, intentional torture, such as a bullfight, is morally indefensible (odd thing to say, considering the number of people here defending it). However, incidental torture, such as the suffering animals go through in factory farming, is a-okay with you? I’m sure that the cow, in the moments before a steel piston punches a hole in its skull, is greatly comforted by the idea that the suffering it has endured for most of its life wasn’t “intentional.”
If you’re so concerned about the treatment of dumb beasts, what the hell are you doing eating meat? Surely the amount of suffering going on in stockyards and egg-laying factories far outweighs the suffering caused by bullfighting. For one thing, bullfights only take place on certain days during certain parts of the year. Stockyards work year round, and lacking the ceremony and ritual of the bullfight, they kill a lot more cows in an hour. and their lives are no bed of roses before they get the hammer, either. But that’s all okay because it’s not the actual killing that you enjoy, merely eating the carcass afterwards? That somehow mitigates your guilt? For God’s sake, how the hell do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance of a statement like,
What the hell do you think medical testing consists of? “Here, Thumper, rub a little of this on your nose. How’s it feel?” “<Giggle> Kinda tingly! Can I have a carrot now?” What exactly is the moral you’re working from, here? “It’s never okay to torture animals, unless it benefits me in some way”? You want to be honest about bullfighting? I think that’s a fine idea: You’re against it because you find it personally distasteful, and you can score some easy Moral Smugness points by taking a stand against it, without having to give up anything yourself.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a dedicated carnivore myself, and I think bullfighting is just spiffy. But anyone who eats meat and turns around and calls bullfighting “barbaric” is a hypocrite. Unless you can explain to me exactly how your love of a good rib-eye is somehow more morally defensible than someone else’s love of watching a man in tight pants prance around with enraged livestock. Don’t like bullfighting? Don’t go. But don’t pretend you’ve got some sort of moral superiority over the people who do go, while at the same time directly supporting the torture and death of thousands of animals for your personal enjoyment. Either put down the hamburger, or get off the high horse.
When you’re there, you can smell the bulls. You can smell the fear of the humans. You can feel it pumping in your own veins, and yourself, that rolled up little newspaper in your hand and the trembling mass of other runners around you is the only thing you can rely on.
Your agility, your superior vision, your inherent capacity to act in unison with others of your species and a rolled up piece of paper against 3 to 8 times 1/2 a metric ton of muscle crowned by piercing horns that by natural instinct is hell bent at getting you out of its way. If you make it (like ALL the bulls and most humans do) you’re on top of the world for a moment.
Maybe that’s nature of idiocy, or maybe it’s just human and bull nature.
Yep. Because farming animals leads to food for humans. It is not merely “entertainment,” it’s food. And the pain and suffering to the animal is minimized, not maximized for sporting purposes. This is not that hard to grasp: The right to use animals does not obviate the moral obligation to minimize the suffering of all sentient beings. If we must put them to death, they should be put to death with a minimum of pain and suffering.
I’m sure the cow who has a steel piston punched through its head – an instantaneous death – suffers much less than a confused and weakened, frightened and angry bull tortured and put to death to entertain people.
Why does one have to “outweigh” the other? If one is wrong, does the other become okay? How does that work? I do not consider factory farming to be wrong because the end result is a product that sustains humanity – food – and because the means of obtaining that product are generally done (and ought to be done) in a way that minimizes the suffering of the animal. When IMO there are not sufficient attempts to minimize that suffering – as with factory-raised veal and lamb – then I do not eat those products. Not that that’s any of your business. But where is the justification for killing animals for entertainment or “culture”? What is the end product that benefits humanity? Where is the attempt to minimize the suffering of the animals?
So what? The fact that other animals are killed in other ways (less torturous ways) for other purposes (more defensible purposes) justifies bullfighting how, exactly? You are the one saying factory farming is wrong. Fine. Since that’s your thesis, run with it: It’s wrong in your eyes. Now explain to me how or why, in light of that, bullfighting is right. In other words, you may prove to your own personal satisfaction that my positions mean I am a big ol’ hypocrite – and frankly, I don’t give a shit about your opinion there anyway – but after that you still have to explain why torturing animals for “cultural” reasons is okay. So get to it.
Testing of products on animals. I think I’m clear on that, thanks. :rolleyes:
Yep. That’s the moral, exactly. It is never okay to torture animals unless it is absolutely necessary to provide a significant and necessary tangible benefit to humanity, which benefit cannot be arrived at any other way. Which, by the way, it almost never is. Factory farmed animals are not “tortured.” Many animals in medical testing are not “tortured,” and I probably would not support testing where they were, unless you could show an immediate, necessary, tangible benefit to humanity that could not be achieved by other means.
This is not that hard: The right to use animals for the good of humanity does not obviate the responsibility to treat them humanely, for their own sake and for our own. Under that philosophy – not as hard for others to grasp as it is for you, apparently – it is okay to put an animal to death quickly to eat it, but it is not okay to put an animla to death slowly to entertain yourself.
Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. See above re: not giving a shit about whether you find it hypocritical. Even if you could establish my hypocrisy – which you can’t – you failed entirely to show that bullfighting is “just spiffy” when it results in no practical human benefit and when it actually undermines our collective humanity by allowing the torture of animals for entertainment – which, in case you missed it, is not IMO a good enough reason to torture an animal. Presumably you think the neighborhood boys setting fire to a cat is “just spiffy” as well, because, hey! as a carnivore, you couldn’t possibly object to any mistreatment of animals without being a “hypocrite.”
And you know I “love a good rib-eye,” how, exactly? If you see no difference in the benefit to society between providing a source of food and the amusement of watching “prancing men,” then nothing I could possibly say could explain it to you.
I do believe I have moral – and cognitive – superiority over people such as yourself who cannot seem to distinguish between animals killed to provide a tangible benefit to society and animals killed for entertainment, and who further are incapable of recognizing the difference between animals put to death as humanely as possible, and animals being put to death after being extensively tortured. And I say “cognitive superiority” to you particularly, because to construe my position as “supporting the torture and death of animals for my personal enjoyment” indicates you cannot read, much less think.
Now that you’ve demonstrated the fallacy in the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, take a crack at defending your own position. Explain to me why the torture and death of animals for entertainment purposes could possibly be “just spiffy.” That is, if you’re not too busy doing something spiffy to entertain yourself, like pulling the wings off flies.
That is correct. Animal cruelty need not be considered. Animals are property.
Then you must have no respect for all cultures that eat meat, yes?
Obviously, bulls cannot agree to accept a risk, because they are animals. Animals cannot give consent to anything.
I do not.
I already have, but I will clarify: A property owner may do whatever he likes with a given piece of property, provided that:
He does not infringe on any other person’s rights.
The mere act of owning that property is illegal.
The specific act is illegal.
Bullfighting clearly meets these criteria.
That would be sailor, with this gem:
Which would give U.S. law enforcement jurisdiction over Spain, an obvious violation of soverignity.
In the U.S., cows are raised in terrible conditions before being stunned, skinned alive, and sliced into pieces. This act is ingrained in our culture. At our surrent level of technology (vitamins, supplements), Americans do not need to eat meat. It is done so anyway. To say nothing of animal testing, which is hundreds of times worse than bullfighting.
Certainly, bulls for bullfighting have a much better life before they are old enough to fight than beef cows in the U.S.
I also eat beef. I have no problem with bullfighting. This, unlike your ideas, is internally consistent.
Miller addressed this side of your arguement much better than I have. I agree with him/her entirely.
And therefore, since they may be owned, there is no moral obligation to refrain from treating them with unwonted cruelty, even though we are undeniably in a position of absolute power over them, and even though they are undeniably sentient? I consider such a position absolutely indefensible, and totally immoral as well.
No. Please endeavor to grasp the difference between torturing animals and killing them.
You have failed entirely to explain why a sentient being’s status as property should invalidate the moral imperative to not cause unnecessary pain or harm. If slavery were legal, may I assume you’d agree that torturing people would also be okay? Because then, of course, they’d be property.
Offering a defense of bullfighting that is grounded in immorality at worst or amorality at best, can hardly confince me or anyone that it is not immoral.
Sure they can. Take a little trip to the Serengeti, go poke a lioness with a sharp stick, then report back here and tell me whether she consented or not.
Exactly. I don’t see why this distinction is so difficult to grasp.
MYTHOS, I take it you would have had no objection to the cruel treatment of slaves back when slavery was legal? After all, slaves were just property. Also, what is your view on the treatment of wild animals that are no one’s property? If you think unnecessary torture of such animals is acceptable, on what grounds do you object to unnecessary torture of humans? If you think it is unacceptable, kindly explain how whatever reason you give for that unacceptability is defeated by an animal’s being someone’s property?
HI Sparc. Welcome to the SDMB. One thing you may notice here is that threads have a life of their own. This is the way of things, and no one has any control over it. A thread about shaving cream may turn into a thread about the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. And you know what? It is then a thread about that. Sure, someone can come back and address the issues from the OP, but it isn’t wrong to continue the direction that a thread has taken.
This is how it has always been. This is how it will continue to be. Threads wander.
Sorry, buddy, but I’d sooner see a lot of people dead than see my dog put down.
To take an extreme case: if you had your beloved family pet and Osama bin Laden next to each other and you had a gun and you had to pick one… which would you pick? To me it would be immoral to kill the innocent dog over the evil person.
In a bullfight, I’d root for the bull. Why? Because I would value an innocent animal who is being tortured and mistreated over the type of person who would willingly (eagerly!) treat an animal in that way. Those are my morals. They may not be the same as yours, but they aren’t changing.
