From the footage I've seen, it is both entertaining and twisted. I don't know how I feel about the ban. Either way, I'm sure that they can find some other form of entertainment now.
" Just want to take a quick poll of the people responding positively to what is essentially an act of legislative masturbation by the politicians of a region eager to express their 'distinctive identity' apart from Spain: how many of you are vegans? The thing I've never got about the legal opposition to animal cruelty is, what difference does it make how an animal dies? Isn't the dying part the bad part? Would you rather the bulls that get maimed killed by matadors be sent off to slaughter, or would you rather humans cease in their domestication of cattle? I've never seen a bullfight in my life, and don't care to. I'm just trying to understand the desire to use the law to enforce private morality. "
I'm not a vegan, but I'm happy that bull-fighting has been banned in that particular part of Spain. The difference isn't whether or not the animal dies in this case; obviously cattle are killed all of the time to be eaten, but making a sport out of it and tormenting the animal before it finally dies is different from the quick process employed in slaughterhouses. The torture that takes place before the kill is a terrible, terrible thing, and that's what separates it from what we normally do.
" Just want to take a quick poll of the people responding positively to what is essentially an act of legislative masturbation by the politicians of a region eager to express their 'distinctive identity' apart from Spain: how many of you are vegans? The thing I've never got about the legal opposition to animal cruelty is, what difference does it make how an animal dies? Isn't the dying part the bad part? Would you rather the bulls that get maimed killed by matadors be sent off to slaughter, or would you rather humans cease in their domestication of cattle? I've never seen a bullfight in my life, and don't care to. I'm just trying to understand the desire to use the law to enforce private morality. "
I'm not a vegan, but I'm happy that bull-fighting has been banned in that particular part of Spain. The difference isn't whether or not the animal dies in this case; obviously cattle are killed all of the time to be eaten, but making a sport out of it and tormenting the animal before it finally dies is different from the quick process employed in slaughterhouses. The torture that takes place before the kill is a terrible, terrible thing, and that's what separates it from what we normally do. "
I've already acknowledged that cruelty is a necessary component of bullfighting, and the primary reason for people's satisfaction for the ban. So your comment doesn't really address my question, which was: why is torturing an animal worse than killing it? If the animal is the property of the person(s) doing these terrible things, what difference does it make?
" Just want to take a quick poll of the people responding positively to what is essentially an act of legislative masturbation by the politicians of a region eager to express their 'distinctive identity' apart from Spain: how many of you are vegans? The thing I've never got about the legal opposition to animal cruelty is, what difference does it make how an animal dies? Isn't the dying part the bad part? Would you rather the bulls that get maimed killed by matadors be sent off to slaughter, or would you rather humans cease in their domestication of cattle? I've never seen a bullfight in my life, and don't care to. I'm just trying to understand the desire to use the law to enforce private morality. "
I'm not a vegan, but I'm happy that bull-fighting has been banned in that particular part of Spain. The difference isn't whether or not the animal dies in this case; obviously cattle are killed all of the time to be eaten, but making a sport out of it and tormenting the animal before it finally dies is different from the quick process employed in slaughterhouses. The torture that takes place before the kill is a terrible, terrible thing, and that's what separates it from what we normally do. "
I've already acknowledged that cruelty is a necessary component of bullfighting, and the primary reason for people's satisfaction for the ban. So your comment doesn't really address my question, which was: why is torturing an animal worse than killing it? If the animal is the property of the person(s) doing these terrible things, what difference does it make? "
Have anyone here been into a slaughterhouse?
For me the distinction between killing and torturing, resides in toying with the animal's suffering.
@Jeust: To me the question of whether an issue is a matter of law or private ethics is whether or not it involves another human being. Since bulls aren't human beings, I don't see this as a legal issue.
" @Jeust: To me the question of whether an issue is a matter of law or private ethics is whether or not it involves another human being. Since bulls aren't human beings, I don't see this as a legal issue. "
Me neither. But the sad part is legislators love implementing bans.
" @Jeust: This does seem like an attempt on the part of the Catalan legislature to differentiate the region they administrate from the rest of Spain. "
Yes, it does seem like it. Like most of the legislation is a matter of political leverage, not of public consent.
While i am not for Bullfighting by any means. This was a move to disassociate Catalonia from traditional Spanish heritage and was simply another stunt to further the divide between the region and the rest of the country in its bid for independance
" @Jeust: Well that's a subject too large for a bullfighting thread, but one worth discussing to be sure. "
if you think a politic flame war is worth it. but in the proper setting with people willing to contribute and not become giant political ass hats then yes it is worth discussing
@Ryax: Heh. I guess you weren't around last summer when I was defending secularism, sexual freedom (with respect to homosexuality and abortion), and free market capitalism to the fullest extent of the terms of service :p
" @Ryax: Heh. I guess you weren't around last summer when I was defending secularism, sexual freedom (with respect to homosexuality and abortion), and free market capitalism to the fullest extent of the terms of service :p "
i beg your pardon? i hardly think my sexual freedom is any of your business to defend!
My question is to everyone who supports this ban or gets on their moral high horse for such bans. Are you meat eaters?, and if so how can you possibly make the distinction between the killing of bulls for mass pleasure and the slaughter of other animals for your daily meal?. There is no real difference, both suffer immensely and both are not necessary but only one is socially frowned upon. I just find that curious.
" @Jeust: Well that's a subject too large for a bullfighting thread, but one worth discussing to be sure. "
if you think a politic flame war is worth it. but in the proper setting with people willing to contribute and not become giant political ass hats then yes it is worth discussing "
Yes. :)
@Ryax said:
" @Suicrat said:
" @Ryax: Heh. I guess you weren't around last summer when I was defending secularism, sexual freedom (with respect to homosexuality and abortion), and free market capitalism to the fullest extent of the terms of service :p "
i beg your pardon? i hardly think my sexual freedom is any of your business to defend! "
" People and bans... >_> I don't know why people love bans on everything they hate. True that it is a disgusting activity, at least for me, but forcing someone not to do it isn't a good thing. People should be educated, not forced. "
Tell the bull that. "
yep, still enforcing it, doesn't mean it will go away. Illegal bullfights will still take place, and will be more expensive than a legal one ever was. "
And there will be fewer of them. I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing. Do you also recommend that we make murder legal since it goes on despite the law? "
No. I think people should be educated instead of prohibited. Along with these more consensual bans there are other much more controversial or even unjust. Banning is a convenient tool to unilateraly force a large number of individuals to assume a behavior, just for the desire of a few, the legislators, and the supporters of the claim. Murder is bad, but instead of sending people to jail, condemning to death, if we taught them the value of life beforehand, maybe things would be better. Do you think it's just to have laws regulating the freedoms of citizens, even when the use of their freedom doesn't affect directly the freedom of others? "
" People and bans... >_> I don't know why people love bans on everything they hate. True that it is a disgusting activity, at least for me, but forcing someone not to do it isn't a good thing. People should be educated, not forced. "
Tell the bull that. "
yep, still enforcing it, doesn't mean it will go away. Illegal bullfights will still take place, and will be more expensive than a legal one ever was. "
And there will be fewer of them. I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing. Do you also recommend that we make murder legal since it goes on despite the law? "
No. I think people should be educated instead of prohibited. Along with these more consensual bans there are other much more controversial or even unjust. Banning is a convenient tool to unilateraly force a large number of individuals to assume a behavior, just for the desire of a few, the legislators, and the supporters of the claim. Murder is bad, but instead of sending people to jail, condemning to death, if we taught them the value of life beforehand, maybe things would be better. Do you think it's just to have laws regulating the freedoms of citizens, even when the use of their freedom doesn't affect directly the freedom of others? "
@Suicrat: My opinion is that bullfighting would be fine, if it were fair and even. But the whole thing is stacked so unfairly against the bull but the whole thing is just a ridiculous exercise in pulling the wings off of flies.
" People and bans... >_> I don't know why people love bans on everything they hate. True that it is a disgusting activity, at least for me, but forcing someone not to do it isn't a good thing. People should be educated, not forced. "
Tell the bull that. "
yep, still enforcing it, doesn't mean it will go away. Illegal bullfights will still take place, and will be more expensive than a legal one ever was. "
And there will be fewer of them. I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing. Do you also recommend that we make murder legal since it goes on despite the law? "
No. I think people should be educated instead of prohibited. Along with these more consensual bans there are other much more controversial or even unjust. Banning is a convenient tool to unilateraly force a large number of individuals to assume a behavior, just for the desire of a few, the legislators, and the supporters of the claim. Murder is bad, but instead of sending people to jail, condemning to death, if we taught them the value of life beforehand, maybe things would be better. Do you think it's just to have laws regulating the freedoms of citizens, even when the use of their freedom doesn't affect directly the freedom of others? "
You're a tool of the Philosophy 101 variety. "
At least i think. ^^ "
No, you don't. Not well at least.
That people should be educated instead of prohibited is a false dichotomy. You can do both, and prohibition is certainly going to be more effective than education.
What evidence do you have that this is the evil Catalonian leadership banning something that the people want? All the indications that I've seen show that Spaniards generally dislike the activity, but I've seen no evidence one way or the other as to how Catalonians feel about the ban. It seems quite presumptuous of you to assume that the legislators are acting against public will.
Again with the false dichotomy shit regarding murder. Do you not think that we promote the value of life in this country? Or in every country for that matter? It's in our goddamn Declaration of Independence, codified in the laws, and taught to every individual. You think that murderers are simply those ignorant of what life means? Is it not possible that they are well aware but simply don't give a shit, or are you trying to take up Socrates' heavy mantle that no one who knows right from wrong can act wrongly? Simply proposing an alternate portion of a solution isn't equivalent to holding a cogent or reasonable position on a matter.
As to laws that prohibit activities which don't harm other humans, I think that if the activity harms other sentient beings in a cruel way a ban can sometimes be justified.
" That seems like a dumb idea to me. What is Spain known for other than bullfighting? Also I don't give a flying shit about how the bulls are harmed or anything of that matter "
What a dick.
I for one SUPPORT the Chicago Bulls. That's what this is about, right?
@TomWhitbrook: Explaining why you don't like an act is not justification for employing the power of a regional coercive entity to prevent other people from undertaking that act.
I'm not a fan of bloodsports myself, but I also know that my personal opinion should not carry the weight of law.
@Whisperkill: Oh. Oh dear. Are you not an American? Do you not realise that you got words like Florida and California from the Spanish? Not to mention of course that the Spanish were the first Europeans to explore the Americas in any significant manner. Spanish is the second most natively spoken language in the world. And all you can think of is bullfighting? Good heavens.
@Suicrat: Sorry, don't think I was quite clear enough. I'm neither vegan, vegetarian, nor opposed to the concept of bullfighting. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm quite happy for it to continue, as long as they fair up the odds a little. Otherwise its just meaningless cruelty. The manner and circumstances of death do have some meaning, and if I were the bull I would certainly want to go out fighting. And the Catalan parliament is a democratically elected body. Their purpose is to make legislation, which is obviously going to be at some level a reflection of personal morality. I'm afraid that's just how it works in a representative democracy. I'm sure if the Catalans don't like it they'll elect a pro-Corrida parliament at the next elections, but as most politicians are very sensitive to the way public opinion is moving there may not be a significant enough faction to make a difference.
@TomWhitbrook: Honestly, the presence or absence of bullfighting in a non-Spanish region of Spain is not really something with which libertarians need to concern themselves, there are far more egregious (and destructive) uses of the power of law to coerce minorities into accepting the morality of the majority; I was merely addressing what I thought was a disagreement.
I lived overseas in the Azores for almost a year and saw two different styles of Portuguese bullfights, a street style and a beach style. I never had a chance to actually see an arena bullfight, which I hear differs a bit from the two I experienced.
I take kind of a metered approach to bullfighting, mainly because there are different places and different styles. From my small experience, bullfights in the Azores, specifically where I lived in Terceira, were much more dangerous for the men involved. I remember going to a street style fight near my house, and it really was almost like a running of the bulls type event, except there was only the one bull. They would kind of block off the stretch of street and let the bull out of his trailer. He would run around and the men would run away. The bull was on a rope but from what I remember the men holding the rope couldn't really do much to keep the bull from going where it wanted to go. I don't recall it lasting all that long, and when it was done the bull got put back into his trailer and returned to his pasture. The beach bullfight was similar. The bull would be let out on the beach, and the men would run around and get knocked over by the bull. Again, when it was over the bull would get put back in his trailer or crate and returned to his pasture.
I personally don't like the idea of the Spanish bullfights, and I don't really enjoy the idea that in Portuguese arena fights they may also kill the bull after the fight is over, the difference being that they do that after the fact away from the crowds eyes and not as part of the show. I can also understand that even my explanation of what I saw might still be seen as cruel by some people. All I know is that I saw many content bulls out to pasture on the island where I lived and I saw many more grown men get toppled over and hurt than I saw any harm come to the bulls.
Jade makes a good point, 95% of the entertainment of a bullfight doesn't involve the death of the bull. It's entirely possible to conduct a bullfight where the matador avoids the bull, tricks it with the red cloth, and at the end of the day they both get to go home. There is no good reason a bull should be tortured to death when you can get almost all of the entertainment value with none of the horrors.
" People and bans... >_> I don't know why people love bans on everything they hate. True that it is a disgusting activity, at least for me, but forcing someone not to do it isn't a good thing. People should be educated, not forced. "
Tell the bull that. "
yep, still enforcing it, doesn't mean it will go away. Illegal bullfights will still take place, and will be more expensive than a legal one ever was. "
And there will be fewer of them. I'm failing to see why that's a bad thing. Do you also recommend that we make murder legal since it goes on despite the law? "
No. I think people should be educated instead of prohibited. Along with these more consensual bans there are other much more controversial or even unjust. Banning is a convenient tool to unilateraly force a large number of individuals to assume a behavior, just for the desire of a few, the legislators, and the supporters of the claim. Murder is bad, but instead of sending people to jail, condemning to death, if we taught them the value of life beforehand, maybe things would be better. Do you think it's just to have laws regulating the freedoms of citizens, even when the use of their freedom doesn't affect directly the freedom of others? "
You're a tool of the Philosophy 101 variety. "
At least i think. ^^ "
No, you don't. Not well at least. That people should be educated instead of prohibited is a false dichotomy. You can do both, and prohibition is certainly going to be more effective than education. What evidence do you have that this is the evil Catalonian leadership banning something that the people want? All the indications that I've seen show that Spaniards generally dislike the activity, but I've seen no evidence one way or the other as to how Catalonians feel about the ban. It seems quite presumptuous of you to assume that the legislators are acting against public will. Again with the false dichotomy shit regarding murder. Do you not thing that we promote the value of life in this country? Or in every country for that matter? It's in our goddamn Declaration of Independence, codified in the laws, and taught to every individual. You think that murderers are simply those ignorant of what life means? Is it not possible that they are well aware but simply don't give a shit, or are you trying to take up Socrates' heavy mantle that no one who knows right from wrong can act wrongly? Simply proposing an alternate portion of a solution isn't equivalent to holding a cogent or reasonable position on a matter. As to laws that prohibit activities which don't harm other humans, I think that if the activity harms other sentient beings in a cruel way a ban can sometimes be justified. "
Well first i think i have to clarify a misconception on your part. I'm not american, i am an european, and a portuguese at that.
You are right when you say that people should be prohibited. The problem is when a prohibition is imposed, not because it's the right thing to do, but the quickest route to a goal. Here in Portugal, like in many countries in the EU, it was put into effect a policy concerning the ban of smoking in public places. So far so good, as it is really a nasty habit that interferes with the health of the one smoking, and the people in same space, but what about planning the measure, or preparing it, educate and help people quit smoking. No such thing was done, and the population was caught off guard, like in many other implementations of different laws. This is the quickest route, yes, still it is the best. People should be able to comprehend the change and not be forced to change by the threat of criminal charges otherwise.
Because of my particular residence, i have a close perspective about what happens in Spain. Bullfights in Portugal and in Spain are a very ancient tradition, respected generally and a tourist attraction, having a guaranteed audience, especially in Spain as the tradition and following there is much bigger. And i never heard of any supported movement against bullfights in any part of Spain, even as it is a very ancient tradition, elevated into the refinement of an art. So it comes to a big surprise, here too, as the ban was approved, and despite not living in Catalonia, i personally don't believe in the romantic idea of a public outcry for it.
As i've said, by experience, i don't believe in most of what the politicians wave gestures of good will or laws following public will. Even worldwide from what i've seen most bans seem implemented not by a public majority, but because of a moralist sect focused in having it approved. Most people don't care either way.
And what right have politicians or any other person of forcing someone else to change their behavior, if it doesn't affect others?
People love their bans.
There are different ways of teaching the value of life. The problem of many of the tools used to implement that haven't evolved with time, and got detached from the citizens. Religion isn't what it was, role models have become more and more materialistic, the media work more and more in function to ratings and profits, literature isn't as popular as it was, games and movies, despite exceptions, are generally violent. Also the excess of stimuli, with an excess overflow of different cultures, in movies, books, music, games, everything. And with all that we daily navigate in this excess, getting more insatiable and capricious, while less prone to change. We are living confusing times. Despite all the information we can master, we are unable, at least i am, to find exactly what i want to find.
There are several reasons to crime, and many of them have causes upon themselves. Acting upon then can resolve many crimes before they are actually committed. Sounds a cliché, still it is true. But that can't prevent crime on itself, but like you said with "taking Socrates mantle", many are confused. But others are just prone to crime. There are institutions to deal with them.
I'm getting off rails as that doesn't have anything to do with prohibitions. Prohibitions are needed yes, but not as it is being implemented nowadays. Banning everything someone finds offensive, more than preventing crime, prevents human activity. Isn't it?
Proposing an alternative part of the solution, is more reasonable than negating it, and holding to old decaying habits. And what is reasonable? Someone said reason is the eveyone's madness, and madness is someone's dreams. Reason is very much on the eye of who speaks in her name.
Saying that a ban that prevents the harming other sentient being in a cruel way can sometimes be justified, is opening the Pandora's box, where the ban depends solely of those in power and with the will to enforce it. Isn't it?
Banning is easy. Especially in what we don't agree with.
I never learn my lesson about arguing with people on the internet. It always turns into page long bullshit rants resulting in no change in mentality. I'm like a kid who keeps sticking his hand on the hot stove, only I'm arguing with idiots.
You are right when you say that people should be prohibited. The problem is when a prohibition is imposed, not because it's the right thing to do, but the quickest route to a goal. Here in Portugal, like in many countries in the EU, it was put into effect a policy concerning the ban of smoking in public places. So far so good, as it is really a nasty habit that interferes with the health of the one smoking, and the people in same space, but what about planning the measure, or preparing it, educate and help people quit smoking. No such thing was done, and the population was caught off guard, like in many other implementations of different laws. This is the quickest route, yes, still it is the best. People should be able to comprehend the change and not be forced to change by the threat of criminal charges otherwise.
You've presented no evidence as to the reasoning behind this law being anything but an abhorrence of torturing animals, or perhaps a desire to promote the Catalon region as a separate and more mature entity viz a viz Spain.
You fail to note that education is not a cure all to most problems, and even if you can slowly dissuade many people from some particular activity, if that activity infringes on the rights of others you will still have to live with those infringements. Torture of a bull infringes on the rights of the bull, and failing to ban it (and perhaps instead going with a public education plan) will still leave many instances of legal, unpunished torture.
You've got an incredibly strange perspective that education is an option instead of prohibition, even (apparently) on a matter so universally considered worthy of prohibition as murder. What is it in the water in Portugal that gives you so much faith in education campaigns? What if educated people still like murdering or torturing bulls? I'm certain plenty of killers and bull torturers know well the pain they're inflicting, and just don't give a damn. Do you recommend that we continue to educate them, or do we just let them continue?
Because of my particular residence, i have a close perspective about what happens in Spain. Bullfights in Portugal and in Spain are a very ancient tradition, respected generally and a tourist attraction, having a guaranteed audience, especially in Spain as the tradition and following there is much bigger. And i never heard of any supported movement against bullfights in any part of Spain, even as it is a very ancient tradition, elevated into the refinement of an art. So it comes to a big surprise, here too, as the ban was approved, and despite not living in Catalonia, i personally don't believe in the romantic idea of a public outcry for it.
I don't think you're in any more of a position than I am to speak to public opinions in Catalonia, and short of a poll to that effect you've got no sensible reason to continue to claim that their legislature is acting against public will.
As i've said, by experience, i don't believe in most of what the politicians wave gestures of good will or laws following public will. Even worldwide from what i've seen most bans seem implemented not by a public majority, but because of a moralist sect focused in having it approved. Most people don't care either way.
That's an incredibly broad, and as a consequence incredibly wrong statement. Americans (like most other peoples) abhor and see fit to ban murder, rape, theft, etc. There is a broad consensus on these issues, so much so that you forgot they were issues at all. If you're speaking to bans which are not based in the harm principle then you might have a point (probably not though, it's simply too broad of a statement to ever verify) but all of the bans you've brought up trade in the harm principle. Harm to bulls and harm to the lungs of others.
And what right have politicians or any other person of forcing someone else to change their behavior, if it doesn't affect others?
Fair enough, I'm a huge proponent of the harm principle. Show me a ban that doesn't trade in the harm principle and I'll almost certainly oppose it. Bans on drugs, pornography, political parties, etc. The problem is that the ban on bullfighting very much DOES involve the harm principle, unless you're willing to take up the fantastic argument that animals can't feel pain or otherwise don't count as beings which can be harmed.
Saying that a ban that prevents the harming other sentient being in a cruel way can sometimes be justified, is opening the Pandora's box, where the ban depends solely of those in power and with the will to enforce it. Isn't it?
It sure does. That's the way the world works. Those who are in power are the ones who decide where the lines are drawn. Do you have another way to suggest, or do you just think we can educate ourselves out of that problem as well?
I never learn my lesson about arguing with people on the internet. It always turns into page long bullshit rants resulting in no change in mentality. I'm like a kid who keeps sticking his hand on the hot stove, only I'm arguing with idiots.
Likewise.
You've presented no evidence as to the reasoning behind this law being anything but an abhorrence of torturing animals, or perhaps a desire to promote the Catalon region as a separate and more mature entity viz a viz Spain.
That's the charm of politics. You can never present irrefutable proof about anything, even most criminal charges against politicians are never proven. Interestingly enough, i've not seen nor did you see any outcry suggesting the hypothesis you present. And if it is the desire to promote the region politically, it suggests it was taken by politics for political leverage, as i previously stated, not with the best interests of the people of region in mind.
You fail to note that education is not a cure all to most problems, and even if you can slowly dissuade many people from some particular activity, if that activity infringes on the rights of others you will still have to live with those infringements. Torture of a bull infringes on the rights of the bull, and failing to ban it (and perhaps instead going with a public education plan) will still leave many instances of legal, unpunished torture.
I didn't say i was against rules and prohibitions, but rules and prohibitions should be understood and not just enforced. We're not just cattle to be taken through the loops and turns by our sheppards, are we? A society that doesn't learn from its mistakes is bound to commit them again.
Education is a long road, but one better than seeing our freedom continuously and progressively diminished by cryptic rulings. A better society is probably one that moves away from prohibition to education, that instead of telling a person what not to do, what it should do, or look for. Guiding, instead of punishing. A positive reinforcement, instead of a negative one.
Ah! the bulls have rights now? Didn't knew that! Do you think banning it will resolve the problem? There will be a variable amount of illegal bullfights. Maybe even more than before.
You've got an incredibly strange perspective that education is an option instead of prohibition, even (apparently) on a matter so universally considered worthy of prohibition as murder. What is it in the water in Portugal that gives you so much faith in education campaigns? What if educated people still like murdering or torturing bulls? I'm certain plenty of killers and bull torturers know well the pain they're inflicting, and just don't give a damn. Do you recommend that we continue to educate them, or do we just let them continue?
I'm not saying we shouldn't prohibit murder, but we should try to prevent it, not only act when it is already done. Have we ever tried to educate people instead of prohibiting them of using their freedom?
And what it is about you and bulls? Nature states that the weak are at the mercy of the strong. it is unquestionable. We can try to embellish, and cover our ears to its truth, but the bull will always be at the mercy of his master. Will it change because bullfights were prohibited?
About bull torturers, if you want to prevent animal abuse, no rule will ever be enough, if even when you're walking you can step into an animal and inflict pain. You can argue that it wasn't conscious, but first that is hard to prove, and second did you really care? Man is an animal, more intelligent than the rest, still an animal though.
And killers, like all men should be educated and nurtured, so that less will be prone to crime, and if they do take that choice, they face the consequences they've learn to know. Prohibitions can and should enforced, but truth be told they are unnecessary, as the consequences of each persons actions will reflect upon them and their lives, and will lead them ultimately to their end.
I don't think you're in any more of a position than I am to speak to public opinions in Catalonia, and short of a poll to that effect you've got no sensible reason to continue to claim that their legislature is acting against public will.
Curiously enough, in many of the results in your search, shows that the spaniards oppose the ban. That's something akin if not respecting the tradition.
And your claim ends here, as YOUR results clearly shows that the majority of spaniards oppose the ban, so if that isn't acting against public will i don't know what is.
According to USA Today
MADRID (AP) — Most Spaniards don't like bullfighting but oppose the recent move by the northeastern region of Catalonia to ban it, according to a survey published Sunday.
You said
That's an incredibly broad, and as a consequence incredibly wrong statement. Americans (like most other peoples) abhor and see fit to ban murder, rape, theft, etc. There is a broad consensus on these issues, so much so that you forgot they were issues at all. If you're speaking to bans which are not based in the harm principle then you might have a point (probably not though, it's simply too broad of a statement to ever verify) but all of the bans you've brought up trade in the harm principle. Harm to bulls and harm to the lungs of others.
lol have politicians recently banned "muder, rape, theft, etc."? Or stuff like cartoon depicting sex, erotic manga, hentai games? Are they more nefarious or more publicized?
Smoking is a bad habit, for the person that smokes and the people around them, still implementing a ban out of nowhere is not the right decision to make.
The problem is that the ban on bullfighting very much DOES involve the harm principle, unless you're willing to take up the fantastic argument that animals can't feel pain or otherwise don't count as beings which can be harmed.
Do you think that rule will avoid the harm of animals, and bulls? Animals are at the mercy of their masters if domesticated. And the weak is at the mercy of the strong. That cannot be changed, and harm will still occur, no matter how much you limit human activity.
It sure does. That's the way the world works. Those who are in power are the ones who decide where the lines are drawn. Do you have another way to suggest, or do you just think we can educate ourselves out of that problem as well?
We could stop banning things, for once. No matter how much we ban we can never achieve the greater goal we perceive. It's just a limited solution to a problem. We should get in touch with the ways of the world, and accept it as it is. Violence is in our nature, abuse is impossible to avoid - and people fond of it will do it in one way or another - and there is no fairness in reality. People are free to do whatever they like, while dealing with the consequences of their actions, whatever the society and ruling against it. A thief can try to rob me, and i have the freedom to resist.
At least it would be a more honest society.
And some rules can be implemented to make a more ordered society, but still applying more and more rules just makes a more chaotic, nonsensical and paradoxical one.
We can try to implement an utopian world, still it will be utopian as it can never be fully enforced, as people will always find ways to bend and brake its rules, while the laws keep pilling up.
" People and bans... >_> I don't know why people love bans on everything they hate. True that it is a disgusting activity, at least for me, but forcing someone not to do it isn't a good thing. People should be educated, not forced. "
Completely agree.
I would be happy if it just didn't receive public money. That would be a very good step IMHO.
Next step: bou embolat: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bou_embolat
@Demonstride: the bull is basically stabbed to death, and my guess is that probably that has to be painful.
@Suicrat said:
" @Jeust: This does seem like an attempt on the part of the Catalan legislature to differentiate the region they administrate from the rest of Spain. "
It is.
@Jeust said:
To me it is cruel because, while still a courageous activity, bullfights consist in toying with animals, that previously had their horns sawed, drugged and suffered other kinds of abuse. It's not a honest fight, it is a violent spectacle. Still people should see it for what it is, and not ban it because it is easier. "
It isn't like that. They are spiked, with the main goal of waking their rage, but the horns are not sawed and they are quite dangerous. I don't think they are drugged either. Actually, the bulls used for bullfighting have been chosen for generations among the fiercest, as they provide a greater spectacle.
About illegal bullfightings going on (which I read somewhere) that is quite unlikely, if you consider the size of these things: http://maps.google.es/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=es&geocode=&q=Plaza+de+Toros+de+Las+Ventas&sll=40.396764,-3.713379&sspn=8.681468,19.753418&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plaza+de+Toros+de+Las+Ventas&ll=40.431849,-3.663093&spn=0.004238,0.009645&t=h&z=17
@GIVEMEREPLAY said:
All the indications that I've seen show that Spaniards generally dislike the activity, but I've seen no evidence one way or the other as to how Catalonians feel about the ban.
Most Spaniards dislike it. So do I. But if it is so then it will no longer be profitable, and thus it will disappear on its own. That's why I think stopping subsidies from public funding would be a better first step, which could be followed by other steps, or render them as unnecessary.
@Whisperkill said:
" That seems like a dumb idea to me. What is Spain known for other than bullfighting?
Well, maybe that's not what some spaniards would like to be known for, specially in Catalonia, I guess. Although Spanish fighting bulls have become an important symbol of Spain.
A point that is being missed in this debate is that without bullfighting those bulls will disappear, and no longer exist. Since they are currently property of the people (kind of farm animals) and will be pointless without bull fighting, ferociousness is the main treat of those animals, while for other purposes (meat production, for instance) bigger in size specimens will be selected and pass their genes to the following generations. Just to make the thread a little more complete.
PS: I'm sorry I couldn't read the comments after Jade, but those are too long for the time I have available now. If someone would like to point something specific just write the @trylks tag and I'll check that.
That's the charm of politics. You can never present irrefutable proof about anything, even most criminal charges against politicians are never proven. Interestingly enough, i've not seen nor did you see any outcry suggesting the hypothesis you present. And if it is the desire to promote the region politically, it suggests it was taken by politics for political leverage, as i previously stated, not with the best interests of the people of region in mind
You suggested that it was done contrary to the public will. That's a positive assertion and you'll need some evidence to justify that assertion. I am not asserting that the politicians were acting in response to the public, just that you're incorrect in assuming otherwise.
Ah! the bulls have rights now? Didn't knew that! Do you think banning it will resolve the problem? There will be a variable amount of illegal bullfights. Maybe even more than before.
Most developed states have rules prohibiting animal cruelty, for obvious reasons. It seems you really are daft enough to deny even that most basic of rights to a sentient being. Not that I'm a vegan, I love my meat, but it also seems quite clear that unnecessary torture is a bad thing.
I'm not saying we shouldn't prohibit murder, but we should try to prevent it, not only act when it is already done. Have we ever tried to educate people instead of prohibiting them of using their freedom?
Are you from mars or something? Yes, we educate people that murder is wrong and life is valuable. These are basic lessons taught in every school, by every religion, and by every culture. Do you propose that we take up a more obvious anti-murder education campaign? What would that look like? Will we all be asked to attend "Why murder is wrong" seminars once a year?
And what it is about you and bulls? Nature states that the weak are at the mercy of the strong. it is unquestionable. We can try to embellish, and cover our ears to its truth, but the bull will always be at the mercy of his master. Will it change because bullfights were prohibited?
I was waiting for it to come to this. I appreciate you being forthright with your inane, philosophically juvenile positions. If your sole guiding rule in life is that might makes right we can end this conversation here. It's an axiom without justification, and thereby without the possibility for falsification. I will but note that you almost certainly do not hold this position, as I would imagine you would like to see successful robbers, rapists and murderers tried and punished despite their evidently greater power over their victims.
About bull torturers, if you want to prevent animal abuse, no rule will ever be enough, if even when you're walking you can step into an animal and inflict pain. You can argue that it wasn't conscious, but first that is hard to prove, and second did you really care? Man is an animal, more intelligent than the rest, still an animal though.
Again with this philosophy 101 mentality. The impossibility of perfection doesn't mean one should not strive toward betterment. The fact that your teeth will never be perfectly clean doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to clean them twice a day, lest they rot. Yes, you're right that no law is perfect in its enforcement. However, it is also plain to see that 10 bulls being tortured to death rather than 100 in a year is a reduction in suffering ten fold, and if unnecessary suffering is a bad thing then the imposition of that law banning bullfighting is a good thing.
And killers, like all men should be educated and nurtured, so that less will be prone to crime, and if they do take that choice, they face the consequences they've learn to know. Prohibitions can and should enforced, but truth be told they are unnecessary, as the consequences of each persons actions will reflect upon them and their lives, and will lead them ultimately to their end.
Is this a defense of anarchism? If so, it's still clear that prohibitions on certain undesirable activities will speed up and ensure that ultimate end. In any case if you need evidence of killers who got away with it look no further than the Nazis who lived out their twilight days in Argentina, facing no bad end to account for their bad actions. The same for all unsolved murders, robberies, rapes, etc. Karma is a convenient binky for the oppressed and unexamined (you), but it has far too high a failure rate to be counted as an accurate description of the world.
Curiously enough, in many of the results in your search, shows that the spaniards oppose the ban. That's something akin if not respecting the tradition.
And your claim ends here, as YOUR results clearly shows that the majority of spaniards oppose the ban, so if that isn't acting against public will i don't know what is.
My God, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. Yes, that a majority of Spaniards oppose the ban is in the very title of the article. Yet I was not speaking of how many support or oppose the ban, but rather I was citing the statistic that a majority of Spaniards dislike the activity, thus giving lie to your claim that it is respected by a majority of Spaniards. Further, you fail to recognize that a study of Spain generally tells you nothing about what percentage of Catalonians support or oppose the ban (a majority of them might support it, but they are dwarfed by Spaniards in the rest of the country who oppose it), hence why I said that we have no justification to presume how Catalonians feel about the ban until a study is done of the citizens of that area.
" Jolly good. I recommend those who are thirsty for blood to take up watching Spiderfighting instead.
"
I fought a wolf spider with a burning incense stick naked once. If I wasn't tens of thousands of times his size it would have been a flaming torch that smelled good. I must admit I still felt pretty bad-ass and got quite an adrenaline rush.
Log in to comment