Bullfights

[Karl Marx's Camel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfighting

What is your opinion on bullfighting?



Apparently just in Spain alone 35,000 bulls are killed on the arena every year. And again, apparently, a common bull will rarely be brave in battle against a human being; The bulls that are used for bullfighting are bred through generations to become aggressive.

The most famous bullfighters often kills hundred bulls a year, become celebrities and become rich due to their sport.

The bulls are often put in dark rooms and their eyes are often rubbed with petrolium-gel. This is, apparently, to make the bull disoriented, which makes the bull afraid, and as such, aggressive.

[RedAnarchist]

I find things like bullfighting to be sick and barbaric. How can anyone find torturing an animal fun?

[RaiseYourVoice]

if you want to fight so manly and fight be bull, try it one on one, without hurting the bull before, without weapons, without the a fence to jump behind if you might loose. under those conditions bull fight would be perfectly ok for me... for the reason they wouldn't last long

[Vanguard1917]

I find things like bullfighting to be sick and barbaric.

No one is forcing you to watch it or take part in it. It's a form of entertainment where a bull (a livestock animal used for its meat) is killed.

Why is it an issue?

Animals are an inferior species and it is up to human beings to decide for what purposes animals ought to be utilised. In fact, people in the 'barbaric' parts of the world have a far better understanding of what it means to be human than any Western animal rights activist. They don't assign silly 'rights' to beasts.


How can anyone find torturing an animal fun?

An animal cannot be 'tortured'. Saying that it can is to diminish what torture is from a human-oriented perspective.

But some people obviously do find things like bullfighting entertaining. As long such activities simply involve animals and consenting human beings, they're not an issue.

[Leo]

Uh, why is this in politics?

[The Grey Blur]

Isn't the black bull a (Spanish) symbol of fascism?

And I've read somewhere that modern-day Francoists in Spain are based in the bullring/ fighting culture

[Okocim]

I'm not against bullfighting. I think there is something in the human psyche which likes death and violence as entertainment - look at the Romans with their dangerous chariot racing and gladiatorial combat; the crowds absolutely loved it. Many modern people enjoy watching violent films, or violent sports such as boxing or wrestling.

also agree with Vanguard1917.

[Cult of Reason]

I see nothing inherently wrong with bull-fighting. Personally I am not attracted towards it, but having never seen it I do not know. However, if other people enjoy it, let them.

[DM.]

Bullfighting is pure capitalism to me. Breeding animals so they could be killed for our entertainment, I mean c'mon, who are we to play "god"?
The only reason to kill is survival but definetly not for entertainment.

[CheRev]

Posted on Sep 3 2006, 03:02 PM
QUOTE
I find things like bullfighting to be sick and barbaric.



No one is forcing you to watch it or take part in it. It's a form of entertainment where a bull (a livestock animal used for its meat) is killed.

Why is it an issue?

Animals are an inferior species and it is up to human beings to decide for what purposes animals ought to be utilised. In fact, people in the 'barbaric' parts of the world have a far better understanding of what it means to be human than any Western animal rights activist. They don't assign silly 'rights' to beasts.


QUOTE
How can anyone find torturing an animal fun?



An animal cannot be 'tortured'. Saying that it can is to diminish what torture is from a human-oriented perspective.

But some people obviously do find things like bullfighting entertaining. As long such activities simply involve animals and consenting human beings, they're not an issue.


Okay maybe I´m not up on the this whole issue of humans being wildly better than animals and there might be a whole host of literature out there to defend what you´re saying, but it seems to me that if you take this attitude that we can use and abuse any other living creature for our entertainment and enjoyment because they have a lower mental capacity then you could apply it to people also, which capitalists do i.e. keep the poor uneducated so that they can take advantage of them for their own gain.

Again, maybe you´ve got some other argument here, interested to hear your thoughts.

[Wanted Man]

I do not enjoy watching it. However, it is no worse than the way that meat ends up on your plate. I am not vegetarian myself, but non-vegetarians who want to illegalise bullfighting need a kick in the ass.

[bunk]

^ Apart from their not eaten afterwards are they? If they are it would be fine

[Mesijs]

I hate it. I hate killing animals so I'm a vegetarian. Anyone who hates this but isn't vegetarian: I think that's a bit hypocrit.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

No one is forcing you to watch it or take part in it.

Normally no one is forcing people to see executions, either.

Perhaps he thinks bullfighting in itself is disgusting, not just watching it.


It's a form of entertainment

Rape and stoning, hanging and torture frequently happen to be a form of entertainment. Does that make it any better?


Animals are an inferior species
So was "niggers" not many decades ago. So was jews decades ago. And black people are still being portrayed as such in media, in, you guessed it, entertainment.

I am not saying one should compare animals to coloured people or jewish people, I am saying you should not be to triggerhappy with the 'inferior card'; it has been an excuse for centuries.

A bull have feelings too. A bull can be afraid. A bull can be angry. A bull can fear death. A bull can go hungry, feel the thirst just as much as any human being.




An animal cannot be 'tortured'.

Of course an animal can be tortured.

What makes you say otherwise????



As long such activities simply involve animals and consenting human beings, they're not an issue.

That's your opinion.


But some people obviously do find things like bullfighting entertaining.

Some German soldiers found it entertaining shooting jews.

Again, "finding it entertaining" is not an excuse. Ever heard of happy slapping?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think there is something in the human psyche which likes death and violence as entertainment - look at the Romans with their dangerous chariot racing and gladiatorial combat; the crowds absolutely loved it.


So what? How is that revelant? If I want to eat your testicles while you are alive and the crowd likes it, how does that make it any more justified?


Many modern people enjoy watching violent films, or violent sports such as boxing or wrestling.
Boxing is between consenting individuals. Wrestling is between consenting individuals. I am myself a wrestler. How can you even compare wrestling to animal torturing?

Bullfighting is a "fight" between a drugged, disoriented, tired and frightened bull who is also partly blinded, and many men with armor, horses and weapons.

[Jimmy Jazz]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 3 2006, 04:01 PM
Isn't the black bull a (Spanish) symbol of fascism?

And I've read somewhere that modern-day Francoists in Spain are based in the bullring/ fighting culture
Not really. Bullfighting is a spanish symbol. But right wing groups tend to be very chauvinistic, so they may bear the black bull symbol. Anyway, it's true that left wing associations are usually against bullfighting. But this is an ethic issue rather than a political point of view.

Hello everybody from Spain. :P

[Marukusu]

I'm against bullfighting, but not for any moral or ethical reasons: but because it is unneccesary. There are many more effective ways of killing a bull, and there are many, many other ways of getting entertained.
The future communist society would not have any "use" for bullfights, and I also think that we all should be concerned of things of more important matter (seriously, a bull is inferior to a human being. End of discussion.).

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not interested in bullfighting. To be honest, it sounds boring. I feel the same way about fox hunting, camel fighting and bear dancing. But just because i don't like something it doesn't necessarily mean that i think it should be banned.

DM:

Breeding animals so they could be killed for our entertainment

Why is it wrong to kill an animal for entertainment if it's alright to kill an animal for food? Why is it assumed that people only have the right to kill an animal for the sake of our survival?

For example: most of those who are against fox hunting agree that foxes are vermin and that the fox population needs to be controlled. The reason that they don't like fox hunting does not really have much to do with the 'welfare' of the fox.

It has to do with quasi-religious, reactionary, misanthropic arguments like the one you just put forth:


I mean c'mon, who are we to play "god"?

Humanity's goal is to master nature, to 'play god'.

NWOG:

Rape and stoning, hanging and torture frequently happen to be a form of entertainment. Does that make it any better?

What does that have to do with this?

We're talking about a bull... about an animal.


So was "niggers" not many decades ago. So was jews decades ago. And black people are still being portrayed as such in media, in, you guessed it, entertainment.

I am not saying one should compare animals to coloured people or jewish people, I am saying you should not be to triggerhappy with the 'inferior card'; it has been an excuse for centuries.

A bull have feelings too. A bull can be afraid. A bull can be angry. A bull can fear death. A bull can go hungry, feel the thirst just as much as any human being.

Oppressed people - as human beings - are capable of consciously transforming their circumstances. They fight for their rights. Cattle have never consciously altered anything. Therefore, your comparison of 'animals to coloured people or jewish people' is not only nonsesical but also remarkably degrading of centuries of human struggle for freedom.


Of course an animal can be tortured.

The 'torture' inflicted on an animal is fundamentally and profoundly different to that inflicted on men and women.

Saying that animals are 'tortured' degrades the severity of what torture is... It does for me, anyway. You might not feel the same; your elevation of the status of animals (by giving them 'rights') necessarily implies a degraded view of humanity.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am a vegetarian, but I am a bit hypocritical. If I really wanted to minimize animal suffeirng, I would be vegan. However, I think it comes down to the fact that we should do the right thing, but, if that conflicts with our personal interests, we should consider not doing the right thing because it is not right for us.

If someone enjoys bullfighting, can find no alternative to find enjoyment in the same regard, and doesn't want to stop, I suppose I could view it as legitimate. However, it choices of entertainment are made available with ease to that individual - entertainment that is perhaps more enjoyable - they have little justification for continuing such an activity.

Becoming vegan at this time seems difficult (I am a fussy eater) and extremely inconvienent. I certainly view going from eating meat to lacto-ovo vegetarianism as a more humanitarian act than vegetarianism to veganism, but I think veganism is a step up.

I did more than most meat eaters would. I tried becoming vegetarian, and I found it easy to do. Will I try becoming vegan. Some day, maybe, but it is not at the top of my list of interests. Ethics must always account for personal benefit. Bullfighting is just barbarism. There is no excuse for it. Meat eating is different. It would be much more horrendous if a vegetarian thought it legitimate (having never eaten meat) to switch to eating it. Still, some circumstances might make it legitimate to do so.

Ideally, however, animals would not be treated in such cruel ways.


Also, Vanguard1917, animals are capable of fighting for their rights. One can still say "the pain and suffering of group A" does not affect me. Turning them into slaves is an efficient way to increase my personal satisfaction and success. Since I can overpower them, it is legitimate for me to do so.

Ethics are not so clear-cut. You are using the same type of logic a libertarian capitalist might be seen using. I might be able to come up with a legitimate argument for using animals and not people, but I don't feel like perpetuating a meat-eating ideology by doing that.

[Tekun]

I despise the use of animals for entertainment, be it for fun or education

As such I also dislike circuses, zoo's, and other institutions which take animals out of their habitat and enclose them to a life of show

They should be as free to live in the wild, without the disturbance of humans

[Solitary Mind]

i agree with what someone said, i wouldnt mind it if the humans couldnt escape and the bulls werent drugged. then we'll see whos 'inferior'. because an animal doesnt have the intelligence we do its justifiable to kill it? i mean hell, at least cattle is killed for food, so its for survival. but to kill for entertainment? maybe one day some of you will be considered 'inferior', we'll see how that goes for you and how you feel about it

[Vanguard1917]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor:

I am a vegetarian

That's a mere dietary choice. Being vegetarian will do nothing whatsoever to improve human existence on earth.


Also, Vanguard1917, animals are capable of fighting for their rights.

I'm assuming that you mis-typed that sentence.

Tekun:

They should be as free to live in the wild, without the disturbance of humans

For that to happen - for nature to be left to its own devices, free from human 'disturbance' - human existence on earth would need to end. Good news for the misanthropes, bad news for those of us who want humanity to prosper and flourish.

Here's a good quote from Engels, the avid foxhunter:

'While fox-hunting in England one can daily observe how unerringly the fox makes use of its excellent knowledge of the locality in order to elude its pursuers, and how well it knows and turns to account all favourable features of the ground that cause the scent to be lost. Among our domestic animals, more highly developed thanks to association with man, one can constantly observe acts of cunning on exactly the same level as those of children. For, just as the development history of the human embryo in the mother’s womb is only an abbreviated repetition of the history, extending over millions of years, of the bodily development of our animal ancestors, starting from the worm, so the mental development of the human child is only a still more abbreviated repetition of the intellectual development of these same ancestors, at least of the later ones. But all the planned action of all animals has never succeeded in impressing the stamp of their will upon the earth. That was left for man.

In short, the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this distinction.' (My italics)
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm)

[Messiah]

I'm always amazed by how supposed radicals are so quick to draw the lines and boundries of what is accepted behavior for the whole lot of us. "God" forbid we have compassion for animals. How dare we in our process for emancipation for the working classes reach beyond the horizons of our petty world views and maybe try to work on some other ideals. That we might want to make the world a better place, not just for each other, but for all sentient beings.

I thought we were the ones who were supposed to challenge all social norms? Not pick and choose because we're too lazy or unimaginative to imagine a different way, or because we ran out of steam after we go through that latest pile of Marx?

Bull fighting is cruel and degrading, to humanity alone, if not the animals themselves. If we cannot even acknowledge that instilling pain in another being for nothing more than our pleasure degrades our own self, I have very little hope for any of the same people to sympathize with the plight of the working classes in any sort of real way. A way that depends on a human and humane connection, not one that says we should care because some theorist told us to.

[piet11111]

to me its needlessly cruel to the animal but aperantly a lot of poeple enjoy it so i wont object to it.
it would be better if the children would be educated on the cruelty of this and hopefully in the future it would fade out of existance.

[DreamerDeceiver]

The irony in the sort of views expressed by Vanguard is that the 'what is it worth to us' mentality is exactly the kind of thinking that is hand in hand with Capitalism. I don't need to have some superficial 'value' to value the beauty, the power, or the importance of nature. Personally I can't understand how one can feel for the suffering of people and then not feel the same way when seeing an animal in such pain(because it's the exact same thing). Your arguement, Vanguard, doesn't make much sense to me. It's clear that you're saying humans are *better* than animals because they can alter their environment(a pretty questionable claim). That's a pretty odd way of looking at things, but let me ask for clarification: Are you also saying that animals' suffering cannot be compared to that of humans because only humans can affect their environment and/or that humans aren't totally helpess and can 'fight for their rights'? Again, that's a strange way of judging this matter.

You talk about how degrading the use of the word 'torture' is to describe things like bullfighting. Well let me ask you, what exactly is your definition of torture then? Also, what's this nonsense: "Why is it wrong to kill an animal for entertainment if it's alright to kill an animal for food? Why is it assumed that people only have the right to kill an animal for the sake of our survival?" That's like asking why it is wrong to kill a person for survival and not for fun. Incidentally I don't know how can you can honestly ask this question. It is a matter of neccessity! Isn't that obvious? It is perfectly justified to kill an animal for food because it is a matter of survival which is what all creatures naturally want to protect. That doesn't mean that the killing of the animal somehow wasn't painful or 'torture' or whatever(sort of besides the point to me, it's killing period). It was indeed, but we have to accept the reality that inflicting ultimate harm on a creature is essential to survival and is thus justified. And obviously we value our surival over that of something else. However it does not entail us rationalizing the action with delusional fantasies of some creature below us that cannot feel pain and torture just like we humans can. Nor does it back up the idea that an animal's only purpose is to serve as a tool for humans(only self-centered humans who have no understanding of how the world works think that). That lack of neccessity is exactly the reason why bullfighting and other such acts are completely unjustified. I find that lack of sensitivity in harming a thing for no legitimate reason to be disgusting.

How come humans have never come close to even understanding exactly how nature works if their purpose is to master nature? That's just living in a dream world, it's pretty delusional to actually think there are not larger forces at work that humans (as far as we know) cannot understand or control. If you, Vanguard, cannot understand this I submit that you are a much more reactionary person that anyone here.

[Herman]

Bullfighting for me is the shame of my people. It is the worst kind of act done to an animal such as the bull. I find it disgusting and utterly cruel. It is one of the traditions I have in mind that I intend to break until it becomes history.


Hello everybody from Spain.

Hi!

[Vanguard1917]

Personally I can't understand how one can feel for the suffering of people and then not feel the same way when seeing an animal in such pain(because it's the exact same thing).

'Because it's the exact same thing'?

Why do you hate humanity so much?

Your elevation of the status of animals is a product of your own degraded view of humanity.

And this passed off as 'radicalism'?

Your ideas are as backward as those of Oriental despotism, outlined by Marx over a century ago:

'We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.' (my italics)

Who would have thought that such a 'brutalising worship of nature' could continue to exist in 21st century society in the minds of so-called radicals in the heart of 'civilised' society - where misanthropes fall down on their knees in adoration of monkeys and hold medical research centres to ransom.

Disgusting.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Vanguard1917, were you/are you the kind of kid who poked animals with sticks, and teared worms apart? In general have a history of bothering animals?

[KC]

Vanguard that post was excellent.


Vanguard1917, were you/are you the kind of kid who poked animals with sticks, and teared worms apart? In general have a history of bothering animals?

What kind of question is that? Because he doesn't agree with people's bullshit views on "animal rights" that means he's some sicko that likes to torture animals?

"You're defending gay rights?! You're probably one of them!"

:rolleyes:

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:45 PM

'Because it's the exact same thing'?

Why do you hate humanity so much?

Your elevation of the status of animals is a product of your own degraded view of humanity.

And this passed off as 'radicalism'?

Your ideas are as backward as those of Oriental despotism, outlined by Marx over a century ago:

'We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.' (my italics)

Who would have thought that such a 'brutalising worship of nature' could continue to exist in 21st century society in the minds of so-called radicals in the heart of 'civilised' society - where misanthropes fall down on their knees in adoration of monkeys and hold medical research centres to ransom.

Disgusting.

You like to throw around terms about people hating humans but you're the only person here speaking with hatred. So why do you hate animals Vanguard? You like to emphasize how I said 'it's the same thing.' Of course, it is. That animal is in no way not experiencing the same painful feelings that a human would. Again, if you're delusional you might be seeing something else that makes it different(you call that "elevating" humans). But if you see things for what they are, what I said is exactly true. Of course we humans DO value ourselves over other species, and that is right and natural(to say that makes us better than others however is rubbish). But that does not excuse inflicting serious harm on another organism for pleasure or someother awful reason. Your justification of it because it doesn't matter is just your own delusional pretending. Who is the one elevating? I am setting simple standards about what I like anyone else can see. I see pain and I see it being done for no real reason. There is no elevation there. You confuse this with you downgrading the lives of other species(and of course that is because you have the Capitalist mentality that populations if living species are nothing more than 'supplies' for us to use).

I find your posting of Engles' opinions on these ancient societies to be comical. You might worship Engels as having all of the answers, but frankly that man isn't an expert in the slightest sense on these cultures and his opinion is pretty worthless. Furthermore it is merely a retreat by you from the arguement to compare animal worship by ancient cultures to the arguements presented in this thread because they have very little to do with eachother. Who said anything about worshiping? But I wouldn't expect any less from one posting hatred-inspired, delusional rants masked as thoughtful points. I wonder why it is you responded to a whole one sentence of my post when there was much more?

[Leo]

But why is this post in politics? I mean what does Bullsfights have to do with politics at all, let alone revolutionary politics?

http://www.boognish.com/ween_archive/weirdie/emoticons/lion.gif

[Vanguard1917]

But that does not excuse inflicting serious harm on another organism for pleasure or someother awful reason.

It makes no difference to the animal whether its killed for food or for entertainment, seeing as the animal has no awareness of things like a 'dignified death'. It matters to you because of your elevation of the animal. You have decided to see things from an animal-oriented perspective.

Animals have no value in and of themselves. Their only value is their value to humanity, their value from the perspective of human beings.


You like to emphasize how I said 'it's the same thing.' Of course, it is. That animal is in no way not experiencing the same painful feelings that a human would. Again, if you're delusional you might be seeing something else that makes it different(you call that "elevating" humans). But if you see things for what they are, what I said is exactly true. Of course we humans DO value ourselves over other species, and that is right and natural(to say that makes us better than others however is rubbish).

RevolutionaryLeft.com is (i hope) a place where we can discuss ways to improve human existence on earth. I have no desire to see things from the perspective of cattle.

[Solitary Mind]

so what i get from all of this is that, well, dog killing is also alright? so if we were to see a man slicing the throat of a dog on a side, we should do nothing, because it is mearly an animal right?

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:55 PM
It makes no difference to the animal whether its killed for food or for entertainment, seeing as the animal has no awareness of things like a 'dignified death'. It matters to you because of your elevation of the animal. You have decided to see things from an animal-oriented perspective.

Animals have no value in and of themselves. Their only value is their value to humanity, their value from the perspective of human beings.

RevolutionaryLeft.com is (i hope) a place where we can discuss ways to improve human existence on earth. I have no desire to see things from the perspective of cattle.
What does a dignified death have to do with anything? Forget about your comments being strange, now they're just absurd. You're trying to tell me because it can't understand what a 'dignified death' is that its pain does not matter? I know I wouldn't give two shits if I was to die a 'dignified' death, I simply wouldn't want to feel pain or die. That's merely an evasive tactic by you to stray away from the point. And the point, by the way, is pain. I'm sure that animal can *feel* pain and as humans it doesn't take a lot for humans to understand that. We are capable of understanding that just fine and your retreat from that point won't change it. Unneccessary pain is certainly unjustified in my book, maybe not in your dream world where nothing but humans can feel pain, but it does matter to people who wish to be dare I say humane. Let's drop the shenanigans about my "elevation." I am merely setting standards which are based on my own(human) perceptions about feelings and circumstance and applying them to the subject of bullfighting. What am I elevating from anyway? Your standards? I am not elevating animals nor humans. I can't say the same for you, who believes suffering matters for humans but not for animals. This setting of a higher standard for one group is elevation. I fail to see how I am elevating anything unless its elevation point is on your perceptions. This is again where you prove yourself delusional. If you mean by looking at the situation in an "animal-oriented perspective" that I am looking at what that animal must be feeling and applying that to myself then you are exactly right. What is wrong with that? It doesn't physically affect me either way, just like it doesn't if I had to see some peasent tortured by his government, but I don't see how putting myself in its shoes is off-limits. There's nothing "animal-oriented" in my, how dare I say humane outlook on the subject by the way.

I find the idea that creatures that existed on the planet long before us are clearly just a commodity whose only value is what we choose for it to be an extremely simplistic and self-centered view of the world. Being human is a silly thing to be arrogant about. That may sound nice to a delusional indidvidual who must create excuses for human actions that harm other creatures, but I failed to discover where this opinion of yours that you continually assert is written in stone. It should of course be observed that this opinion isn't based on any facts, nor any intelligent observations at all it would seem. I know it may be hard to understand for you, but there is nothing credible about YOU thinking you know so much so as to decide the value of much of the Earth(not that I am promoting humility :lol:). I mean if you really want to get into it, a much better arguement can be made that, based on what humans have done in their time on the Earth, and especially to the Earth, that they're a lower, even self-destructive species. Actually intelligence probably isn't such a good thing, biologically. You see there are much better arguements that would indicate the opposite of the point your feeble posts try to make. Now before you go on a "misanthrope!" tirade, I myself never made such arguements. They're so far besides the point to me I can hardly consider them. But they certainly aren't any less valuable than this, "I know what they're worth...because" drivel.

Lastly, when did this turn into a discussion about what this wonderful site is about? When exactly was that brought up in this thread? Is it your goal that we discuss what Revolutionary Left is about? I'm just wondering why you suddently brought that up in your fifth post of the topic when no one was discussing it. But who am I kidding I know why you brought it up. Yet again you are just using another evasion tactic to distract from the fact that your post has very little real substance. Why don't you just evade this thread instead(or better: learn something!)?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:53 AM
Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor:

I am a vegetarian

That's a mere dietary choice. Being vegetarian will do nothing whatsoever to improve human existence on earth.

Nonsense. See the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Motivation

Health and environmental benefits exist.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm sure that animal can *feel* pain and as humans it doesn't take a lot for humans to understand that. We are capable of understanding that just fine and your retreat from that point won't change it. Unneccessary pain is certainly unjustified in my book, maybe not in your dream world where nothing but humans can feel pain, but it does matter to people who wish to be dare I say humane. Let's drop the shenanigans about my "elevation."

Well, you are elevating the status of animals - you've done this in each one of your posts. And, in your case, this elevation of the status of animals comes from the degraded way in which you see humanity.

You say things like: the pain felt by an animal is the same as that felt by humans; it's 'rubbish' to think that we're superior to animals; 'being human is a silly thing to be arrogant about'.

You see animals and humans as equal! All your opinions on humanity are shaped by this disturbing and dangerous loathing of humanity.


I mean if you really want to get into it, a much better arguement can be made that, based on what humans have done in their time on the Earth, and especially to the Earth, that they're a lower, even self-destructive species. Actually intelligence probably isn't such a good thing, biologically. You see there are much better arguements that would indicate the opposite of the point your feeble posts try to make. Now before you go on a "misanthrope!" tirade, I myself never made such arguements.

So you claim, but you do say that it's a 'much better argument'. And let's get this straight, your 'much better argument ' is that: 'based on what humans have done in their time on the Earth, and especially to the Earth, that they're a lower, even self-destructive species. Actually intelligence probably isn't such a good thing, biologically.'

You're no longer just arguing that humans and animals are equal - you're now putting forward the argument that human beings are inferior to animals!

If you believe that human beings and animals are equal (ignoring, for a moment, your beyond hysterical attempts to place humanity below animals), then that must mean that you oppose, as a principle, medical research on animals, for example. You would oppose the human consumption of meat, even if the alternative was human hunger and malnutrition. Such are the practical implications of your misanthropic degradation of humanity.


Lastly, when did this turn into a discussion about what this wonderful site is about?

If misanthropes like you can come to this site and think it's 'wonderful', we're clearly doing something wrong.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:30 PM
Well, you are elevating the status of animals - you've done this in each one of your posts. And, in your case, this elevation of the status of animals comes from the degraded way in which you see humanity.

You say things like: the pain felt by an animal is the same as that felt by humans; it's 'rubbish' to think that we're superior to animals; 'being human is a silly thing to be arrogant about'.

You see animals and humans as equal! All your opinions on humanity are shaped by this disturbing and dangerous loathing of humanity.

So you claim, but you do say that it's a 'much better argument'. And let's get this straight, your 'much better argument ' is that: 'based on what humans have done in their time on the Earth, and especially to the Earth, that they're a lower, even self-destructive species. Actually intelligence probably isn't such a good thing, biologically.'

You're no longer just arguing that humans and animals are equal - you're now putting forward the argument that human beings are inferior to animals!

If you believe that human beings and animals are equal (ignoring, for a moment, your beyond hysterical attempts to place humanity below animals), then that must mean that you oppose, as a principle, medical research on animals, for example. You would oppose the human consumption of meat, even if the alternative was human hunger and malnutrition. Such are the practical implications of your misanthropic degradation of humanity.

If misanthropes like you can come to this site and think it's 'wonderful', we're clearly doing something wrong.
You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're 'arguement' thus far has been an utter failure. You fail to explain how I am elevating animals. Again, you're the one elevating something by setting different standards. That is definitively elevation! How is it what I am doing elevation? I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, it isn't rare for a delusional individual to convince themselves that standards they set are some kind of viable starting point. I am rather curious, why what I am saying is dangerous? I would hope you would offer some kind of explanation to this idea of yours. I don't know what you mean by "equal." Do I want animals to have equal status with humans? No, the idea is laughable. But if by "equal" you mean that I don't pretend like you do that the suffering of other creatures doesn't exist then yes, I am seeing the equality. You keep bringing up my "loathing" when there isn't one sentence you can point out that would prove that I had any loathing. The only one whose language has any hatred is yours of course, but for animals. If I was degrading humans then I would have a similar opinion about animals to yours. If I said some of the ridicolous things you said about animals, and then suggested humans are equal, then that might be loathing. But I never did that. You believe I am "loathing" only because of your own twisted views about creatures of the Earth. Yet again, you can't escape your dream world. I'm almost amazed that I have to remind you that this standard of yours is merely your opinion and repeatedly starting it as fact doesn't change that. The fact that you have done a poor job of arguing it indicates that that opinion is a worthless one by the way.

What part of your brain failed to register the: "Now before you go on a "misanthrope!" tirade, I myself never made such arguements. They're so far besides the point to me I can hardly consider them. But they certainly aren't any less valuable than this, "I know what they're worth...because" drivel" part of the post. I never made those arguments, I was simply comparing them to yours so as to show how obviously worthless your points are. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to understand that because I made it clear. It's already clear that your a delusional half-wit who can't think outside of your own narrow-minded viewpoints, but this name-calling of yours is now indicating that you are childish as well. There's no reason to call me a misanthrope because I never said I agreed with those arguements(instead I made the fact that I didn't very clear). What is most ironic is that your described these, what you falsely call "efforts" as "hysterical" when they are easily worth more than YOUR points. If you were not so full of yourself you would get an idea of how badly that reflects on your posts/tirades.

The rest of your post is a real jewel, you go to claim that I believe something when I made it obviously clear that I think the exact opposite. No I don't have some romantic views about humanity that leads me to think we are better than other species. What I do recognize is, what should be obvious, that I am a human and that I prioritize myself(and my species) over other creatures. That's a big difference. Going on that principle, I have nothing against eating meat. To be honest I love it, I don't go meals without meat very often. I encourage the eating of meat. But you see, if you go back to what I have been talking about the entire time you would already know that. I have said, repeatedly that I oppose bullfighting as wrong because it is a cruel action that is also unneccessary. That doesn't mean I am a delusional fuckwith(like you), and thinks that humans can't kill animals at all. Killing animals for food, destroying forests(and killing animals that live in it) to build cities, etc. are all justifiable actions. They are done for a reason, and for a very good one. They dramatically better the lives of humanity and the former is simply a neccessity in fact. For those reasons, I find those acts justifiable. Those reasons do not exist at all for bullfighting though, which I find unjustifiable. But again, that doesn't mean I have to create some delusional coping tactics to pretend the animals' suffering doesn't exist so I can feel good about the fact that these things which we kill(but out of neccessity) have to suffer for us to use them. Yes I acknowledge and understand the reality that whether they are involved in bullfighting or being hunted for food, that animal feels pain that we as humans can sympathize with. But, as a matter of pragmatism, I also acknowledge that the very real pain that animals must suffer when they are hunted for food, is something that should not prevent us from hunting them because it is a neccessity and a justifiable action. But again, that does not mean people can go all out and torture animals without any good reason, nor does it at all lend any weight to these factless claims that humans are better than animals, are here to decide the fate of animals, and that their only purpose is what humans decide for them(all it backs up is that we, as humans naturally prioritize ourselves over other creatures and SHOULD prioritize ourselves). There you go, I have repeated and reworded my position numerous times now in this thread and if you still continue to post as if I am saying otherwise you're merely admitting that you have nothing worth saying. As you should be able to see, there's nothing misanthropic about what I am saying.

[KC]

What's wrong with killing animals? Because it "hurts" them? Maybe you should take a look at the real world. Animals kill each other. It's what they do. We're just as much animals as every other creature on this earth, but the difference is that we're smarter. If you find something wrong with people killing animals then you'd have to find something wrong with animals killing animals, and then you're just going against nature and your position is absurd.

[LuXe]

Must say that I oppose bullfighting. I belive that hunting is good and animals are lower than humans in the food chain, and therefore if we didnt eat them, this would make the "system" useless.. However this has NOTHING with food and human needs to do.. It is for pure entertainment. This I find rather revolting.

I see some people are for bullfighting. I have seen one bullfight. That was enough for me ;)

[Jamal]

It is the cruelest sport of the 21st century...
How can somebody feel entertained when he sees something getting killed right infront of his eyes?

It is just like in the times of the Romans, they enjoyed seeing slaves getting killed in most brutal ways, this is the same concept, the only difference is that it is still happening in the 21st century!!!

[Jamal]

Why is this in politics any way?

[KC]

However this has NOTHING with food and human needs to do.. It is for pure entertainment. This I find rather revolting.


If I'm not mistaken, the bull is actually eaten.


It is the cruelest sport of the 21st century...
How can somebody feel entertained when he sees something getting killed right infront of his eyes?

It is just like in the times of the Romans, they enjoyed seeing slaves getting killed in most brutal ways, this is the same concept, the only difference is that it is still happening in the 21st century!!!

And the difference lies in the fact that slaves were humans and bulls are not.

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:33 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfighting

What is your opinion on bullfighting?



Apparently just in Spain alone 35,000 bulls are killed on the arena every year. And again, apparently, a common bull will rarely be brave in battle against a human being; The bulls that are used for bullfighting are bred through generations to become aggressive.

The most famous bullfighters often kills hundred bulls a year, become celebrities and become rich due to their sport.

The bulls are often put in dark rooms and their eyes are often rubbed with petrolium-gel. This is, apparently, to make the bull disoriented, which makes the bull afraid, and as such, aggressive.
and you trust wikipedfia???? I can go on it now and add my own philosophical thought to it and people may use it for the pyscological therapy classes. Wikipedia is generating from net users contributioin. An animal rights person could have gone on thier and adding such an article in anger to make it look bad.

(excuse my spelling couldnt be stuffed checking and chagining)

[Tekun]

For that to happen - for nature to be left to its own devices, free from human 'disturbance' - human existence on earth would need to end. Good news for the misanthropes, bad news for those of us who want humanity to prosper and flourish.

Of course we want humanity to 'prosper and flourish,' we kill animals for food in order to feed our fellow man
Humanity is based on the use of animals for food, clothes, and other needs essential for our subsistence
If we don't need an animal for our subsistence, than they belong in the wild where they belong
If we need them, than we have a right to go and kill them to satisfy our needs
I am not against the killing of animals by groups who still live in unindustrialized regions
Because they don't kill for fun, they kill to survive
Its like the Makah in Canada that kill gray whales for food, not sport

But I fail to see how killing a bull for the entertainment of a few helps us survive, thrive, or flourish?
How is a bloodsport helping us continue life?
Do spaniards NEED bullmeat from bullfights to thrive or flourish?
Its just meat, there are plenty of slaughter houses that provide bullmeat, and spectators don't have to pay 50 euros to enter and watch
If spaniards or other bullfighting fans want entertainment, let them go to the movies, or better yet, let em read a book

[chaz171]

this is a sporting issue..not really much on the political front now isn't it?

[Vanguard1917]

DreamerDeceiver:

You can keep repeating it, but that doesn't change the fact that you're 'arguement' thus far has been an utter failure. You fail to explain how I am elevating animals. Again, you're the one elevating something by setting different standards. That is definitively elevation! How is it what I am doing elevation? I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, it isn't rare for a delusional individual to convince themselves that standards they set are some kind of viable starting point.

I'm not quite with you.

Are you trying to say that you haven't been elevating animals (and thus degrading humanity) in this thread? I've showed that you have: see my previous post.

Honesty is a fundamental part of debate.


I myself never made such arguements. They're so far besides the point to me I can hardly consider them. But they certainly aren't any less valuable than this, "I know what they're worth...because" drivel" part of the post. I never made those arguments, I was simply comparing them to yours so as to show how obviously worthless your points are.

What are you talking about?

You said that the argument that humanity is lower than animals is a 'much better argument' than my argument that humanity is far superior than any animal.


I have nothing against eating meat. To be honest I love it, I don't go meals without meat very often. I encourage the eating of meat.

Why? What gives us the right to kill another animal for our own pleasure? At least be consistent in your degradation of humanity.

And, yes, there is a large pleasure element to consuming food, especially as humanity moves closer and closer towards civilisation. For example, when i eat pork scratchings it's not because it's essential for my survival, but because it goes nicely with a pint of cold beer.

As long as there's abundant animals bred for both purposes, I couldn't give a damn about this 'for pleasure' or 'for survival' nonsense. And i'm sure the animal in question doesn't care much either. You care. Why? Because of the degraded way you see humanity.


But again, that does not... lend any weight to these factless claims that humans are better than animals, are here to decide the fate of animals, and that their only purpose is what humans decide for them.

Well, there you go.

You don't believe that humans are superior.

You don't believe that humanity should strive to master nature and hence decide its 'fate'.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 09:06 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the bull is actually eaten.
This has really nothing with what I said to do. The bull is sendt out there MAINLY for beeing an entertainment pupose... guess it would be a sin to waste good meat once it is dead.

And btw, those who oppose the killing of animals, and eating of flesh; The darwinistic laws applies for us humans as they do for animals. We are made for eating, and reproducing.. Thats our two main drives. Eating only veggies and plants etc.. Would leave us with a lack of MANY important vitamins.

[Leo]

Why is this in politics any way?

That's what I've been asking.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I enjoy it when the "toreros" are the ones getting killed.

[Vanguard1917]

Why is this in politics any way?

Because such trivial things have been politicised by contemporary Western society.

Ask the same question to those MPs who have had heated debates in Parliament about fox-hunting.

[Leo]

Because such trivial things have been politicised by contemporary Western society.

Ask the same question to those MPs who have had heated debates in Parliament about fox-hunting.

:lol: Another reason why this thread should be in chit-chat.

[Physco Bitch]

I don't see why bullfighting is so popular. I have heard many people try to defend it by saying it is apart of their culture and they have been doing it for so long i suppose it is to them. But i still wish that they would not do it anymore, it seems such a waste of life. Also breeding the bulls and making them aggresive is totally disgusting. Fine i hate cruelty to anything - especially seen as the bull wouldn't want to be there. I am sure if they tried they could find something just as entertaing to watch, i don't see the attraction in watching any of it, let alone the bull getting slaughtered. Personally i like to watch outake programes where they show the bulls getting their own back, their going to die so it is funny watching them hurting humans. But i still see non of it as nesscary , no matter how funny watching those outake programmes are i would still rather see non of that and now the bulls aren't getting stupidly slaugthered off.

[KC]

Eating only veggies and plants etc.. Would leave us with a lack of MANY important vitamins.

Actually proper vegetarian/vegan diets are just as healthy as ones with meat.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by "Vanguard1917"+--> ("Vanguard1917")I'm not quite with you.

Are you trying to say that you haven't been elevating animals (and thus degrading humanity) in this thread? I've showed that you have: see my previous post.

Honesty is a fundamental part of debate. [/b]

Those are strong words coming from a hypocrit. Actually, you have showed nothing that proves the point. You have merely stated as a fact that I am elevating animals because I dare to compare equally their siutations of pain to those of humans. You seem to think that that alone somehows shows something. It doesn't show a thing. Maybe in your dream world comparison to humans is a universal, or scientific standard that leads to elevation. But in the real world, as far as I know there is nothing factual in that idea at all(and if there is you haven't argued it). You have not even done a good job of arguing the point, but merely repeating over and over that 'you are elevating animals because *quotes me* here you compared their pain to that of humans.' That is all you have done. It should be so obvious that you are merely stating an assumption, an opinion on the matter and not something factual in the slightest. Furthermore, the opinion itself isn't even based on anything factual, it is unsubstantiated, based on nothing, and merely stated as a fact when it isn't.

I don't know if you're pretending to be stupid or simply are, but this is not a point that requires repeating so much. How does saying that a better arguement can be made that "humanity is lower than animals"(which isn't quite what the arguement is but let's just run with that simplification) than the crap you post saying that humanity is in fact lesser than animals? If you understand English, it doesn't. That is namely because, it says that a better arguement CAN be made, and that context shows that of a comparison and perhaps a possibility but never one of stating a fact. And just to clear it up I even said that of course I don't even consider such arguements. The point, again, was to compare it to your arguement to show how ridicolous it was. Your sidetracking only proves that mine must have been a good arguement. It's laughable that under these circumstances you talk of honesty. I really doubt you are incapable of understanding the context of that point, and what 'a better arguement can be made' is. It doesn't really matter if you're a sidetracker or an ignoramos though, the point is that you're wrong and that's what you're trying to evade.


Originally posted by "Vanguard1917"+--> ("Vanguard1917")Why? What gives us the right to kill another animal for our own pleasure? At least be consistent in your degradation of humanity.

And, yes, there is a large pleasure element to consuming food, especially as humanity moves closer and closer towards civilisation. For example, when i eat pork scratchings it's not because it's essential for my survival, but because it goes nicely with a pint of cold beer. [/b]

Now there's more dishonesty, never did I say anything inconsistant with the points I made. People, including myself get pleasure out of eating meat, and many hunters get pleasure out of killing animals. I'm not here to talk about whether that is right or wrong and never did I imply that I would. Eating meat happens to be a valuable source of protein and a recommendable thing to eat by humans. However shocking it may be, there's nothing particulary healthy, or helpful, or 'good' about bullfighting. It is totally unneccessary and totally unjustified. Its only purpose is for commerical interests and personal pleasures. And what's even worse is it is deliberately done for torturing purposes, totally unlike hunting where the purpose is to kill without causing too much damage and that's basically it(there's one of many distinctions you fail to see). For that reason bullfighting is completely unjustified. The fact that people may get pleasure out of the act of killing/eating meat is besides the point. There is a good reason for it, whether or not you are getting pleasure out of it or not. Your apparent failure to see this distinction is again, mindboggling in that it is such an easy thing to see. If there's one thing you have been good at it has been missing the point. That you have done skillfully.


"Vanguard1917"@
As long as there's abundant animals bred for both purposes, I couldn't give a damn about this 'for pleasure' or 'for survival' nonsense. And i'm sure the animal in question doesn't care much either. You care. Why? Because of the degraded way you see humanity.

Of course the animal doesn't care. I wouldn't either. The animal wouldn't want to die at all, that's obvious enough. Of course a great deal of the point is that if the purpose of killing it is just for some absurd pleasures it wouldn't be killed at all. And that's that, there is no reason to kill or inflict pain on extra animals for no legitimate reason(nor to inflict extra pain on an animal that would just be killed for that matter). That's a very easy point to understand again.

I find it amusing how you structure this paragraph. You make it clear that you're stating an opinion for early on with "I couldn't give a damn about" and after describing what you don't give a damn about, you try to discover the problem. And how do you do this? You simply say, "Because of the degraded way you see humanity" and that is it. If you're purpose is merely to repeat old opinions without making an arguement you're wasting everyone's time. More likely, if you're delusional enough to think that statement is somehow a fact you're wrong. There's no factual correlation between not having a romantic view of humanity with a contemptuous view of other species and degredation. You think there is, but you haven't backed this up at all. Until you realize this you will continue to make a fool of yourself. You haven't proved anything. It is merely your opinion and it is one you have thus far been unable to backup. So is it safe to assume you're just making a lot of crap up with no real arguement to make?


"Vanguard1917"
What's wrong with killing animals? Because it "hurts" them? Maybe you should take a look at the real world. Animals kill each other. It's what they do. We're just as much animals as every other creature on this earth, but the difference is that we're smarter. If you find something wrong with people killing animals then you'd have to find something wrong with animals killing animals, and then you're just going against nature and your position is absurd.

No offense, but that that was a rather reckless arguement. Actually, the more logical conclusion drawn from your little facts is that humans should have a greater responsibility and sensitivity to killing other creatures and why they do it because they are able to understand the complexities of the situation and logically comprehend facts of neccessity(with intelligence comes understanding AND responsibility, right?). Anyway I don't know of many species who do anything comparable to bullfighting. By the way I'm not at all opposed to killing animals, I openly support it actually. I am simply opposed to it not being done for a good reason, and for unneccessary, extreme, and excessive amounts of pain and torture.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 7 2006, 09:12 PM
Actually proper vegetarian/vegan diets are just as healthy as ones with meat.

Are you sure about that? Are you saying that plant protein can construct connective tissue, tendons, and muscles, just like/as well as fibrous proteins?

[KC]

Anyway I don't know of many species who do anything comparable to bullfighting.

There are many carnivorous animals that play with their prey before and/or after they kill them. Cats and killer whales, for example.


Are you sure about that? Are you saying that plant protein can construct connective tissue, tendons, and muscles, just like/as well as fibrous proteins?

Plant foods contain the same eight amino acids as animal foods do, only in differing amounts. As long as you are getting enough calories from a healthy diet, plant foods give you all the amino acids you need, by themselves or in combination with one another.

Foods listed below are considered complete proteins, meaning they contain all of the essential amino acids:

-Nuts
-Soy foods, such as tofu, tempeh, miso, and soy milk
-Sprouted seeds -- each type of sprout has differing proportions of nutrients, so it's best to eat a variety of them
-Grains, especially amaranth and quinoa, are highest in protein and are high-quality proteins
-Beans and legumes, especially when eaten raw
-Spirulina and chorella (blue-green algae), which are over 60 percent protein

Common Sources of Essential Amino Acids

Histidine: Apple, pomogranates, alfalfa, beets, carrots, celery, cucumber, dandelion, endive, garlic, radish, spinach, turnip greens.

Arginine: Alfalfa, beets, carrots, celery, cucumbers, green vegetables, leeks, lettuce, potatoes, radishes, parsnips, nutritional yeast.

Valine: Apples, almonds, pomegranates, beets, carrots, celery, dandelion greens, lettuce, okra, parsley, parsnips, squash, tomatoes, turnips, nutritional yeast.

Tryptophan: Alfalfa, brussel sprouts, carrots, celery, chives, dandelion greens, endive, fennel, snap beans, spinach, turnips, nutritional yeast.

Threnoine: Papayas, alfalfa sprouts, carrots, green leafy vegetables such as celery, collards, kale, and lettuce (especially iceberg), lima beans, laver (Nori -- a sea vegetable).

Phenylalanine: Apples, pineapples, beets, carrots, parsley, spinach, tomatoes, nutritional yeast.

Methionine: Apples, pineapples, Brazil nuts, filberts, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, chives, dock (sorrel), garlic, horseradish, kale, watercress.

Lysine: Apples, apricots, grapes, papayas, pears, alfalfa, beets, carrots, celery, cucumber, dandelion greens, parsley, spinach, turnip greens.

Leucine: Avocados, papayas, olives, coconut, sunflower seeds.

Isoleucine: Avocados, papayas, olives, coconut, sunflower seeds.