Bullfighting vs. Red Meat Consumption

[johnny karate]

Which is the more cruel and inhumane? I abhor the "sport" of bullfighting, but enjoy the occasional steak or burger. Am I any less monstrous than the matador who tortures a bull for the amusement of an audience?

From a derail in another thread, the discussion already in progress:

Do you eat red meat? If so, the torture that animal goes through is worse than the noble death of the fighting bull. I won't attempt to justify bullfighting, as there is no way to convince someone that it is an art and not just a blood sport. Either you appreciate it or you don't.

Torture of an animal is not a requisite for its consumption. It can be killed quickly and humanely, and any suffering it might endure is incidental. The same is not true for bull-fighting.

On the brighter side, I googled your hero and found some great photos of him being gored. I had myself quite a hearty chuckle. :D

Yeah, but the meat you're eating was most likely slaughtered at a commercial facility, google that and it will be much worse than the goring Tomas took. BTW, all bullfighters get gored, the great ones continue to fight.

I eat very little red meat, my diet consisting mostly of poultry, and I make an effort to purchase "free-range" or some such similar product that some clever marketing person assures me is more humane.

I do not have any moral compunction whatsoever with the killing of animals for the purposes of meat consumption. While I acknowledge that certain methods of industrialized agriculture are perhaps inhumane, I recognize certain necessary evils in the feeding of large populations.

However, the key issue here is that animal torture and/or suffering is not inherent in the consumption of meat. Whereas bullfighting is nothing more than the torture and murder of an animal for no other reason than amusement.

Bullfighting serves absolutely no purpose whatsover other than to glean entertainment from cruelty and death.

[Alt+F4]

Bullfighting serves absolutely no purpose whatsover other than to glean entertainment from cruelty and death.

I'm not certain but I believe that in Mexico after a bullfight the meat is distributed to the poor for free. If that is the case then the only difference would be the lifestyle the animal in question had while alive and how much pain was involved in their death.

[Mr.Herbert]

I'm not certain but I believe that in Mexico after a bullfight the meat is distributed to the poor for free. If that is the case then the only difference would be the lifestyle the animal in question had while alive and how much pain was involved in their death.

I found a website. "Backstage at Bullfight." There are some pretty graphic pictures there. They do, however confirm that there is a butcher there that takes the meat.

http://www.quovadimus.org/spain99/toro-backstage/14-400.html

[quarky]

Bulls killed in the ring go to a special place. Its a big deal for them, spiritualy. They die for our sins, unlike cattle, which die for our appetite.

[johnny karate]

Is the acquisition of meat the purpose of bullfighting? Or is it merely an afterthought to the barbarism?

[madurobob]

Interesting comparison.

Farmed raised beef cows can live a pretty miserable life, but death is pretty humane all things considered. I imagine just the opposite is true for bulls used in the fights - pretty nice life of open spaces, good food and lots of ladies... until they make it to the arena.

I cannot say which is worse - I disapprove of both. I don't think storing food in the form of cows is at all necessary nor efficient in feeding a large population. Nor do I think toying with them in bloodsport is such a grand idea.

[RedIbis]

The bull meat is distributed in Spain as well, though I'm not sure if it's free for the poor anymore. You can order the meat of the bulls that have been fought earlier in the day at some restaurants that get it from the bullring. You can even order the "unmentionables" which apparently is considered a delicacy. Most bullrings in Spain have an underground slaughterhouse.

I don't eat red meat at all. Not for any ethical or religious reason, but simply because I was a vegetarian for three years and when I went back to eating meat I got sick trying to digest red meat and pork.

I think this is a cool thread, but I will not attempt to defend my interest in bullfighting. It is cruel, it is a tragedy, it is bloody, and attending a bullfight is nothing like rooting for your favorite football team, or any other sport for that matter.

I am interested in discussing whether or not eating red meat is any more or less cruel than bullfighting. I consider the way meat is slaughtered here in the US far more cruel and inhumane than the bullfight.

[johnny karate]

I will readily admit there is a fine (albeit, definite) line being drawn here. Is an animal destined for either the bullring or the slaughterhouse going to suffer in both cases? Yes. The difficulty lies in quantifying that suffering.

However, the distinction for me is in the intent. The intent of a slaughterhouse is not to cause the animal suffering. The intent of the bullfight is.

[madurobob]

However, the distinction for me is in the intent. The intent of a slaughterhouse is not to cause the animal suffering. The intent of the bullfight is.

I doubt the animal cares much about the intent. But, I'm having a hard time sidling up to the intent viewpoint. Do you feel the same about Boxing or MMA contests? How about rodeo?

I don't mean to be silly - its just that once you define intent as your bright line between OK and evil you can quickly run into some murky areas. Intent is difficult to measure.

[Piscivore]

At least the bull in the ring gets a swing at the guy killing him, so to speak.

[TexasJack]

I will readily admit there is a fine (albeit, definite) line being drawn here. Is an animal destined for either the bullring or the slaughterhouse going to suffer in both cases? Yes. The difficulty lies in quantifying that suffering.

However, the distinction for me is in the intent. The intent of a slaughterhouse is not to cause the animal suffering. The intent of the bullfight is.

I think Bullfightings' exploiting the suffering for entertainment value is the real issue for me. The purpose of a slaughterhouse is not for amusement.

[rwguinn]

I doubt the animal cares much about the intent. But, I'm having a hard time sidling up to the intent viewpoint. Do you feel the same about Boxing or MMA contests? How about rodeo?

I don't mean to be silly - its just that once you define intent as your bright line between OK and evil you can quickly run into some murky areas. Intent is difficult to measure.
How do you figure that?
Meat packers and slaughterhouses do NOT sell tickets to watch an animal being slain over a period of several minutes.
People don't stand and cheer as the hearder runs the critters up a chute to their death.
Intent is extremely clear. Bullfights are for entertainment purposes. Period.

Rodeo is a different ball of wax- usually the only deaths involved are the riders. A 2000 lb bull will barely notice (from a physical POV) a 200lb cowboy on his back, and it's only for 8 seconds a day (usually less)

[madurobob]

How do you figure that?
Meat packers and slaughterhouses do NOT sell tickets to watch an animal being slain over a period of several minutes.
People don't stand and cheer as the hearder runs the critters up a chute to their death.
Intent is extremely clear. Bullfights are for entertainment purposes. Period.

Rodeo is a different ball of wax- usually the only deaths involved are the riders. A 2000 lb bull will barely notice (from a physical POV) a 200lb cowboy on his back, and it's only for 8 seconds a day (usually less)

Are the 20K fans in the arena really all there to see the bull suffer? Would any say that if you asked them? My guess is most would say that, sure, the bull suffers, but that's not why they are there. Do people attend boxing matches to see people suffer? Again, I doubt they would make that claim.

In rodeo, if the ponies and bulls are not suffering,why are they so upset and bounding around the arena so forcefully? Sure, the amount of suffering may be less, but it is clearly evident in the actions of the animals.

(ETA: would bullfighting be OK,from an intent perspective, if it was done in private instead of in an arena?)

[thaiboxerken]

Bullfighting is wrong because it's wrong to play with your food.

[RedIbis]

If you're really concerned about the wellbeing of the animals, stop eating meat altogether.

You could have a bullfight a day, all day every day, and it wouldn't compare to the amount of death, violence, and cruelty that is involved in eating commercially produced meat.

Hunting is cruel, but I have far greater respect for a meateater who kills and dresses his own meat than everyone else who picks it up frozen on a styrofoam tray.

[RedIbis]

Are the 20K fans in the arena really all there to see the bull suffer? Would any say that if you asked them? My guess is most would say that, sure, the bull suffers, but that's not why they are there. Do people attend boxing matches to see people suffer? Again, I doubt they would make that claim.

In rodeo, if the ponies and bulls are not suffering,why are they so upset and bounding around the arena so forcefully? Sure, the amount of suffering may be less, but it is clearly evident in the actions of the animals.

(ETA: would bullfighting be OK,from an intent perspective, if it was done in private instead of in an arena?)

Good points. To answer your question, the bulls in a rodeo are upset because their cajones are tied up with a leather strap. That's not the case in bullfighting.

[Piscivore]

Are the 20K fans in the arena really all there to see the bull suffer? Would any say that if you asked them? My guess is most would say that, sure, the bull suffers, but that's not why they are there. Do people attend boxing matches to see people suffer? Again, I doubt they would make that claim.

Sure, they won't make that claim. But what else is there? Would the people that go watch boxing show up if it were all done on a "Punch-Out" machine?

[maddog]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4899149#post4899149

If you use a big pot with a glass lid when you boil lobsters, you can look them in the eyes while they're snuffing it on the way from "lively crustacean with snippy claws" to "dinner".

Is there a difference between having a staredown with a lobster and simply dunking its tail in drawn butter?

I say "no", and I'm perfectly willing either to look that sea-spider in the eyes, or not, before cracking that exoskeleton open for some tasty goodness.

[JimBenArm]

Oh, dear, here we go again. Another "I'm better than you because I don't eat meat" thread.

Yes. Yes you are far more moral, righteous, a much better human being than I can ever hope to be, and there is no way I can justify the cruelty of my eating meat. I bow before your awesomeness.

Just don't get between me and my burnt ends.

[madurobob]

Hunting is cruel, but I have far greater respect for a meateater who kills and dresses his own meat than everyone else who picks it up frozen on a styrofoam tray.

FYI - that's the only meat I have eaten in over 25 years. It not something I do often or even regularly, but I do it. I know its cruel, but that deer had a pretty good life up until it died (quickly, usually). And, sometimes I want revenge for all of those hostas I planted.

Which brings up an interesting point on intent. There are a few cable TV channels dedicated to following people around and filming them killing various animals. Is this as bad as bullfighting as far as intent of the audience is concerned?

I don't think so, because I don't think "intent" is why bullfighting is wrong. Bullfighting is wrong because, regardless of the intent of the participants or audience, the bull is tortured and eventually killed.

[RedIbis]

Sure, they won't make that claim. But what else is there? Would the people that go watch boxing show up if it were all done on a "Punch-Out" machine?

What else is there? If you're talking about boxing, it's the technique, strategy, stamina, intelligence, and ultimately the drama of a good match.

In bullfighting, there's just the aesthetic, cultural, athletic and artistic aspects.

In both cases 95% of the "matches" are abominations. It's in those rare instances that they are elevated above barbarism to high art.

[Toke]

It is a bit of a pseudo problem, and I am pretty sure the bulls are better off that the regular ones.

If you really want to make a difference to animal suffering you should go let the minxes out of the minx farm.

[madurobob]

Sure, they won't make that claim. But what else is there? Would the people that go watch boxing show up if it were all done on a "Punch-Out" machine?

Of course not. But, to a man they would say its not about suffering, but about the art and skill and endurance of the fighters. Their "intent" is to witness all the positive bits and ignore the suffering.

This is exactly why using "intent" as your bright line between OK and evil doesn't work well.

(as an aside; what if it was a robot fight? With robots programmed with different weaknesses and strengths mimicking human combatants? Would people attend even though robots can't suffer? Hell yes! Probably even to a greater extent that human boxing... because there is no suffering. If that's true, then witnessing suffering must not have been part of the "intent" of the audience in the first place)

[RedIbis]

I don't think so, because I don't think "intent" is why bullfighting is wrong. Bullfighting is wrong because, regardless of the intent of the participants or audience, the bull is tortured and eventually killed.

Since the bulls are eaten for their meat, by the same logic, all meat eating is wrong because all animals suffer before they're killed, regardless of how.

Yes, there are gradations to the suffering, but your average commercial slaughterhouse is a cruel fate for an animal. Kosher butchering (which I was raised on) is a particularly cruel way to slaughter an animal, but I believe is probably cleaner meat.

[madurobob]

Since the bulls are eaten for their meat, by the same logic, all meat eating is wrong because all animals suffer before they're killed, regardless of how.
I generally agree, but I think it is possible to slaughter animals humanely. Slaughterhouses have gotten MUCH better in the past couple of decades and much of my objection to eating meat goes away if the animals are treated well while alive and killed quickly and painlessly without knowing what's coming.

[Darth Rotor]

Which is the more cruel and inhumane? I abhor the "sport" of bullfighting, but enjoy the occasional steak or burger. Am I any less monstrous than the matador who tortures a bull for the amusement of an audience?
== snip==
Bullfighting serves absolutely no purpose whatsover other than to glean entertainment from cruelty and death.
Bullfighting is similar to UFC or boxing, differing only in degree, not kind: blood sport.
Bullfighting vs. Red Meat Consumption
The two go together pretty well: after the fight, butcher up the bull and have a nice big cook out. Or, eat the matador, if the bull wins.

Ole!

DR

[johnny karate]

A man is driving down a street, approaches an intersection, but does not see a boy crossing the street. He accidentally hits the boy and kills him.

A man is driving down a street, approaches an intersection, and notices a boy crossing the street. He speeds up and steers towards the boy, hitting and killing him.

Which is the act of greater immorality?

[Darth Rotor]

A man is driving down a street, approaches an intersection, but does not see a boy crossing the street. He accidentally hits the boy and kills him.

A man is driving down a street, approaches an intersection, and notices a boy crossing the street. He speeds up and steers towards the boy, hitting and killing him.

Which is the act of greater immorality?
1. Dishonest question, as the first isn't an act related to the term "immorality" at all. It is called an accident. It is not by default immoral to make a mistake.

2. What has this to do with bullfighting?

[johnny karate]

On the issue of comparing bullfighting to boxing or the UFC: There is no comparison. Boxing and UFC matches are between two consensual, sentient beings. A bull has neither given consent to engage in a bullfight, nor does it lack the cognitive capacity to do so.

[johnny karate]

1. Dishonest question, as the first isn't an act related to the term "immorality" at all. It is called an accident. It is not by default immoral to make a mistake.

2. What has this to do with bullfighting?

It has been argued in this thread that intent is irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. I am trying to demonstrate the contrary.

[madurobob]

It has been argued in this thread that intent is irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. I am trying to demonstrate the contrary.

By me.

I do see your point and concede that a driver intentionally running down a pedestrian (or other animal) is worse. So, it has nothing to do with the "intent" of the spectators, but with the intent of the participants, right?

But is that relaly any different than UFC? Sure, my opponent may be there willingly, but my intent is still to beat the **** out of him regardless of why he is there.

The bullfighter isn't fighting the bull for entertainment, he's fighting the bull for money to support his family and his lifestyle. Just like the UFC fighter, just like the boxer, just like the slaughterhouse worker. I don't think bullfighting is any worse because people watch it, just like I don't think the slaughterhouse would be any worse if outfitted with webcams and broadcast 24/7 (hell, that might make for a significant improvement).

The only real issue is the torture and killing of the animal. Both bullfighting and the slaughterhouse do it, just in different ways and with a different temporal proximity of torture and death.

Granted, however, that I have agreed that it is possible to humanely raise meat for slaughter, though its just not done. I cannot say the same for bullfighting.

[Piscivore]

It has been argued in this thread that intent is irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. I am trying to demonstrate the contrary.

"Morality" is meaningless. It is a code word for assuming that other people must share one's own opinions and biases regarding behaviour.

[Ysidro]

On the issue of comparing bullfighting to boxing or the UFC: There is no comparison. Boxing and UFC matches are between two consensual, sentient beings. A bull has neither given consent to engage in a bullfight, nor does it lack the cognitive capacity to do so.

They also don't fight to the death. And if they did, they probably wouldn't cook up the loser.

[Darth Rotor]

On the issue of comparing bullfighting to boxing or the UFC: There is no comparison. Boxing and UFC matches are between two consensual, sentient beings. A bull has neither given consent to engage in a bullfight, nor does it lack the cognitive capacity to do so.
They are all blood sports, but I'll play along with your chosen distinction here. It's a reasonable point to make.
It has been argued in this thread that intent is irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. I am trying to demonstrate the contrary.
We have an accord, I think. ;)

[madurobob]

They also don't fight to the death. And if they did, they probably wouldn't cook up the loser.

From some interviews I've seen I'm not so sure some of them wouldn't if they could ;)

[RedIbis]

By me.

I do see your point and concede that a driver intentionally running down a pedestrian (or other animal) is worse. So, it has nothing to do with the "intent" of the spectators, but with the intent of the participants, right?

But is that relaly any different than UFC? Sure, my opponent may be there willingly, but my intent is still to beat the **** out of him regardless of why he is there.

The bullfighter isn't fighting the bull for entertainment, he's fighting the bull for money to support his family and his lifestyle. Just like the UFC fighter, just like the boxer, just like the slaughterhouse worker. I don't think bullfighting is any worse because people watch it, just like I don't think the slaughterhouse would be any worse if outfitted with webcams and broadcast 24/7 (hell, that might make for a significant improvement).

The only real issue is the torture and killing of the animal. Both bullfighting and the slaughterhouse do it, just in different ways and with a different temporal proximity of torture and death.

Granted, however, that I have agreed that it is possible to humanely raise meat for slaughter, though its just not done. I cannot say the same for bullfighting.

So then we might say that the pleasure from a great steak would be comprable to the pleasure derived from watching a great bullfight.

[blue sock monkey]

Without bullfighting we would not have Carmen. But that's the only nice thing I can say about it.

[BTMO]

If you really want to make a difference to animal suffering you should go let the minxes out of the minx farm.


:bgrin:

I think you mean "minks".

"Minxes" are women of ... negotiable virtue. Although...

;)

[Jungle Jim]

This question goes out to everyone. Suppose that either by choice or legislation, people stopped eating beef. What would we do with the approximately 104 million head of cattle in the United States? By comparison, there are roughly 30 million white-tailed deer in the U.S.

[johnny karate]

So then we might say that the pleasure from a great steak would be comprable to the pleasure derived from watching a great bullfight.

The pleasure one derives from a steak is from the flavor of the meat, not from the death or suffering of the animal that provided the meat.

A steak would still be delicious if the cow died gently and peacefully after a long, wonderful life or if it was brutally bludgeoned to death with a car battery in a drainage ditch. That the animal need suffer is not at all instrinsic in the obtaining of meat from it; nor is its suffering a requisite in enjoying that meat.

The same cannot be said of bullfighting.

[Piscivore]

The pleasure one derives from a steak is from the flavor of the meat, not from the death or suffering of the animal that provided the meat.

A steak would still be delicious if the cow died gently and peacefully after a long, wonderful life or if it was brutally bludgeoned to death with a car battery in a drainage ditch. That the animal need suffer is not at all instrinsic in the obtaining of meat from it; nor is its suffering a requisite in enjoying that meat.

How do you know?

[johnny karate]

I do see your point and concede that a driver intentionally running down a pedestrian (or other animal) is worse. So, it has nothing to do with the "intent" of the spectators, but with the intent of the participants, right?

It's the overall intent. To parse it down to the intent of each individual involved would be meaningless. The intent of a bullfight is to tortute and murder an animal for sport. Period.

But is that relaly any different than UFC? Sure, my opponent may be there willingly, but my intent is still to beat the **** out of him regardless of why he is there.

See my previous response to this point.

The bullfighter isn't fighting the bull for entertainment, he's fighting the bull for money to support his family and his lifestyle. Just like the UFC fighter, just like the boxer, just like the slaughterhouse worker. I don't think bullfighting is any worse because people watch it, just like I don't think the slaughterhouse would be any worse if outfitted with webcams and broadcast 24/7 (hell, that might make for a significant improvement).

Again, it's the overall intent. Slaughterhouses don't intend to cause suffering. Bullfights do.

The only real issue is the torture and killing of the animal. Both bullfighting and the slaughterhouse do it, just in different ways and with a different temporal proximity of torture and death.

Except that "torture" is not instrinsic in the process of obtaining meat from an animal. That it might cause suffering is an unintended consequence. Bullfighting is all about the torture. The whole point is to cause an animal pain and watch it slowly die.

[Toke]

:bgrin:

I think you mean "minks".

"Minxes" are women of ... negotiable virtue. Although...

;)
Thank you :)

I just find that going after bullfighting in the name of animal rights is rather silly when comparing to the conditions in our farm industry.

But maybe not quite as bad as letting out thousands of cage raised minks to tear through the local animal life.

[RedIbis]

The pleasure one derives from a steak is from the flavor of the meat, not from the death or suffering of the animal that provided the meat.

A steak would still be delicious if the cow died gently and peacefully after a long, wonderful life or if it was brutally bludgeoned to death with a car battery in a drainage ditch. That the animal need suffer is not at all instrinsic in the obtaining of meat from it; nor is its suffering a requisite in enjoying that meat.

The same cannot be said of bullfighting.

I disagree (I know you're shocked). The "pleasure" derived from bullfighting is an abstract and aesthetic experience and is not premised on the suffering of the bull. This is why at the end of the bullfight, the death blow must be performed precisely and quickly once, not multiple stabs.

I can understand why the matador is overlooked and why most focus on the bull, but it's the matador's skill and bravery that elevate it to an artform.

[The Painter]

Except that "torture" is not instrinsic in the process of obtaining meat from an animal. That it might cause suffering is an unintended consequence. Bullfighting is all about the torture. The whole point is to cause an animal pain and watch it slowly die.

You think because you eat little red meat and free range chicken you are more moral the other consumers? Death is death. Life feeds on life.

Go to a slaughter house, then tell me there is no torture unintended or not. I have been to both a slaughter house and a bullfight. The bullfight is much more humane. Bullfighting is not about torture. It is the artistic dance of life. The dance of life and death.

[Piscivore]

Thank you :)

I just find that going after bullfighting in the name of animal rights is rather silly when comparing to the conditions in our farm industry.

But maybe not quite as bad as letting out thousands of cage raised minks to tear through the local animal life.

So... we should eat mink?

[Toke]

So... we should eat mink?
No, they are supposed to taste rather bad, but have nice fur.

[kerikiwi]

You think because you eat little red meat and free range chicken you are more moral the other consumers? Death is death. Life feeds on life.

Go to a slaughter house, then tell me there is no torture unintended or not. I have been to both a slaughter house and a bullfight. The bullfight is much more humane. Bullfighting is not about torture. It is the artistic dance of life. The dance of life and death.

Ths is total rubbish.
Bullfighting is about torture. Inflicting pain. The reason it is inflicted does not change the fact that it is torture.
Bullfighting can in no way be described as humane.
What took place at the slaughterhouse that you think was torture?
Why did you go to a bullfight?

[quarky]

If a bull fight was all about torture, it surely would be conducted differently. There would be no art, and more water-boarding and such. So, clearly, it isn't all about the torture of the bull. A bull could be tortured much worse, if that was the intent.

A fighting bull likely has a better life than your average bull, and its death takes no more time than if it were a wild herbivore being pursued by lions. We should all be so lucky as to suffer for such a short duration as a bull in the ring.

How long does it take? Any one know? And what % of that time is the bull actually suffering? In some ways, it looks like its the only worthwhile experience in the animal's life. If you were a bull, which life would you choose? Fight, or feed-lot?

Another plus of the spectacle is that it keeps the reality of humans killing mammals up front. It prevents the total removal from the inherent violence that more civilized carnivores are privy to.

My defense of bullfighting is independent from my own distaste for it. I don't eat mammals because of an innate repulsion to the slaughter.

[johnny karate]

How do you know?

I'm not aware of any way the manner of animal's death could affect the taste of the meat is yields. If you are, I'd be curious to hear about it.

[johnny karate]

I disagree (I know you're shocked). The "pleasure" derived from bullfighting is an abstract and aesthetic experience and is not premised on the suffering of the bull.

Of course it is, because this "aesthetic experience" is a highly ritualized performance during which the bull suffers. See below.

This is why at the end of the bullfight, the death blow must be performed precisely and quickly once, not multiple stabs.

You're conveniently forgetting about the two stages of the bullfight that precede the "death blow", quick and clean though it may be. "Multiple stabs" most certainly do occur, and for no other reason than to inflict injury upon the animal. As described on Wikipedia:

At this point, the picador stabs a mound of muscle on the bull's neck, weakening the neck muscles and leading to the animal's first loss of blood.

and:
In the next stage, the tercio de banderillas ("the third of flags"), the three banderilleros each attempt to plant two razor sharp barbed sticks (called banderillas) on the bull's flanks, as close as possible to the wound where the picador drew first blood.


I can understand why the matador is overlooked and why most focus on the bull...

Probably because, unlike the matador, the bull is an unwilling participant who is tortured and eventually murdered for the sake of entertainment.

...but it's the matador's skill and bravery that elevate it to an artform.

Torture, however artfully done, is still torture.

[johnny karate]

You think because you eat little red meat and free range chicken you are more moral the other consumers?

No.

Death is death. Life feeds on life.

Agreed. But what we're talking about here is suffering. More specifically, willfully inflicted suffering. Even more specifically, willfully inflicted suffering for the sake of entertainment.

Go to a slaughter house, then tell me there is no torture unintended or not.

Whether any particular slaughterhouse might engage in what you deem "torture" doesn't change the fact that torture is not intrinsic to the slaughtering of livestock. The same is not true of bullfighting.

I have been to both a slaughter house and a bullfight. The bullfight is much more humane.

I beg to differ.

Bullfighting is not about torture.

It most certainly is. Pain is inflicted upon an animal for no other reason than to provide entertainment. That is pretty much the definition of "torture".

It is the artistic dance of life. The dance of life and death.

Acted out by torturing and killing a bull.

[johnny karate]

If a bull fight was all about torture, it surely would be conducted differently. There would be no art, and more water-boarding and such. So, clearly, it isn't all about the torture of the bull. A bull could be tortured much worse, if that was the intent.

Just because the torture is ritualized and done by a man in a fancy costume, or conceivably could be worse, doesn't make it any less torture.

Bullfighting inflicts pain upon an animal for the purposes of entertainment. That is torture.

A fighting bull likely has a better life than your average bull, and its death takes no more time than if it were a wild herbivore being pursued by lions.

That a bull might have had it worse under some other theoretical conditions does not provide an excuse to torture it.

We should all be so lucky as to suffer for such a short duration as a bull in the ring.

During a bullfight, the bull is stabbed repeatedly until it is sufficiently weakened, and then it is finally murdered. I weep for anyone who has endured suffering enough to call that "lucky" by comparison.

How long does it take? Any one know? And what % of that time is the bull actually suffering? In some ways, it looks like its the only worthwhile experience in the animal's life. If you were a bull, which life would you choose? Fight, or feed-lot?

I would choose not to be repeatedly stabbed for the amusement of others.

This is not about what the bull wants or doesn't want. It's about the willful infliction of pain upon an animal for the sake of entertainment. Hypothesizing about what an animal incapable of choosing might choose if it were able does nothing to address the inherent immorality of the act.

[RedIbis]

I'm not aware of any way the manner of animal's death could affect the taste of the meat is yields. If you are, I'd be curious to hear about it.

I'm not sure if its true for other animals but deer must be killed quickly or else it releases adrenalin into its muscles and the meat is spoiled.

As far as the first two stages of the bullfight, yes, the picador is very brutal to watch. It used to be worse for the horse, who before the early part of the 20th C did not wear the padding and would often be disemboweled in the ring. Thanks to Sidney Franklin, a highly regarded Brooklyn born, Jewish matador, the pads were added and many horses were saved.

If the picador did not weaken the neck muscles, the bull would win every time. Also, even if a bull kills the matador, the bull must be killed. It's a law in Spain that a bull can never fight more than once, for the fighting bull is highly intelligent and he will have learned how to kill the matador.

[madurobob]

I'm not aware of any way the manner of animal's death could affect the taste of the meat is yields. If you are, I'd be curious to hear about it.

:) I'm pretty sure it was a joke - how do YOU know beating a cow with a battery in a ditch doesn't change the tastiness? Even if you are debating something you passionately believe in, try to keep your sense of humor engaged... especially w/Piscivore!

However, when I visited one of the modern Smithfield slaughterhouses two years ago and saw how surprisingly humane they were (compared to what I had seen as a teen in the 70s) one of the reasons they gave was that when the cow is not terrorized before it dies the meat tastes better. I have no idea if this is fact or woo, but it is plausible.

[madurobob]

Again, it's the overall intent. Slaughterhouses don't intend to cause suffering. Bullfights do.
I disagree. Sure, slaughterhouses do not intentionally inflict pain. In fact, modern ones take measures to prevent pain and suffering. But, the intent of the bullfight is not to inflict pain. The intent is to weaken the bull enough to make it a good fight, anger the bull, then have a fight. In this regard its no different than rodeo - anger the pony or bull, make it extremely uncomfortable, then have a fight (stick a cowboy on its back and see how long he can hold on).

The intent of the bullfight is not torture; the intent is sport. The intent is the contest between man and beast. That torture occurs is a side effect just as you point out below that the torture of animals headed for the slaughterhouse is a side effect.

Except that "torture" is not instrinsic in the process of obtaining meat from an animal. That it might cause suffering is an unintended consequence. Bullfighting is all about the torture. The whole point is to cause an animal pain and watch it slowly die.
Nope. Death in the bullfight in intended to be swift - specifically to reduce suffering of the animal.

You dismissed this question earlier, but I wonder which life you would really choose. Life as a fighting bull where you live in a large field with minimal human contact, lots of good food and lots of females to mate with. Then, when you are chosen, you go to the arena and fight to the death. Or, life as a feed lot cow where you are castrated at an early age, live life in a small cage that barely allows you to move, eat crappy pre-digested feed that flows by in a sluice, and a quick bolt to the head when you have the right amount of fat and meat on your bones.

Me, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the fighting bull life. But I can't really see much of a difference in the level of cruelty over the span of the two animals lives.

[RedIbis]

You dismissed this question earlier, but I wonder which life you would really choose. Life as a fighting bull where you live in a large field with minimal human contact, lots of good food and lots of females to mate with. Then, when you are chosen, you go to the arena and fight to the death. Or, life as a feed lot cow where you are castrated at an early age, live life in a small cage that barely allows you to move, eat crappy pre-digested feed that flows by in a sluice, and a quick bolt to the head when you have the right amount of fat and meat on your bones.

Me, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the fighting bull life. But I can't really see much of a difference in the level of cruelty over the span of the two animals lives.

And if you were a bull lucky enough to be fought in Pamplona during San Fermin you would have a legitimate shot at revenge before racing into the ring.

[Drudgewire]

Being Portuguese where we don't kill the bull in the ring, I get to eat steak without worrying about this moral quandary. :p

[madurobob]

Being Portuguese where we don't kill the bull in the ring, I get to eat steak without worrying about this moral quandary. :p
That's fine, as long as you don't use tomatoes when making barbecue sauce for your pork. because, that would be wrong.

[Drudgewire]

That's fine, as long as you don't use tomatoes when making barbecue sauce for your pork. because, that would be wrong.


I'm in the south, it's all about mustard-based down here.

[madurobob]

I'm in the south, it's all about mustard-based down here.

As it should be (me: right on the dividing line between East and West in NC)

[Megalodon]

Being Portuguese where we don't kill the bull in the ring, I get to eat steak without worrying about this moral quandary. :p

That and, of course, that matadores are pussies ;)

You want bullfighting, search forcados...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_88cLVMfS4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0_88cLVMfS4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Doesn't work out every time, though.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jXSdpG2NHFM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jXSdpG2NHFM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Megalodon]

On a more serious not, I see bullfighting as a necessary evil. Although I'm opposed to the practice, which I see as barbaric, the wild bulls are raised in what amounts to privately owned natural parks. The ending of the practice would remove the incentive to keep them in that pristine state and these areas would be either farmed or "developed", with dramatic drop in biodiversity.

[marksman]

If the bull wins, do we get to eat the matador?

[volatile]

On a more serious not, I see bullfighting as a necessary evil. Although I'm opposed to the practice, which I see as barbaric, the wild bulls are raised in what amounts to privately owned natural parks. The ending of the practice would remove the incentive to keep them in that pristine state and these areas would be either farmed or "developed", with dramatic drop in biodiversity.

That's a weird use of the word "necessary". If biodiversity is our goal, we can do all we currently do with these wild bulls, but spare them the the "amusing" death at the end of it, surely?

[Megalodon]

That's a weird use of the word "necessary". If biodiversity is our goal, we can do all we currently do with these wild bulls, but spare them the the "amusing" death at the end of it, surely?

Certainly... the government can expropriate the land, that will then succumb to a raging fire next summer. I'm very much a pragmatist when it comes to environmentalism. Right now the areas are privately owned and managed, and it works quite well to sustain a huge biodiversity. In the future, if the bullfighting is forbidden... well, we'll see.

[johnny karate]

I disagree. Sure, slaughterhouses do not intentionally inflict pain. In fact, modern ones take measures to prevent pain and suffering. But, the intent of the bullfight is not to inflict pain. The intent is to weaken the bull enough to make it a good fight, anger the bull, then have a fight.

The bull is weakened by inflicting injury. Injury causes pain. There is no alternative within the structure of the ritual for weakening the bull other than inflicting injury, and thus pain. Therefore, if the ritual of the bullfight demands a specific action that causes the bull pain, then pain is intrinsic in the process.

In this regard its no different than rodeo - anger the pony or bull, make it extremely uncomfortable, then have a fight (stick a cowboy on its back and see how long he can hold on).

Not to defend rodeos, but there is a world of difference between being "uncomfortable" and being stabbed multiple times. Not to mention the fact that, as far as I know, the animals in a rodeo usually survive the rodeo.

The intent of the bullfight is not torture; the intent is sport. The intent is the contest between man and beast.

I think these hairs being split to define "intent" are a bit too fine. Sure, the intent of bullfighting is the sport, artistry, whatever... but those ends are achieved solely and exclusively through the infliction of pain. If the only way to achieve your intent is through a specific set of actions, then those actions become married to your intent.

That torture occurs is a side effect just as you point out below that the torture of animals headed for the slaughterhouse is a side effect.

Torture is not a side effect of the slaughterhouse; it is only sometimes an unintended consequence. There is a difference. You can't have a bullfight without torture, but you can certainly have a slaughterhouse without it.

Nope. Death in the bullfight in intended to be swift - specifically to reduce suffering of the animal.

Not to be overly semantic, but I would argue the bull is in the process of dying as soon as it receives the first stab wound. And although the injuries it sustains in the early stages are not meant to be fatal, it is plausible to assume that they might be fatal eventually, i.e.the bull could bleed to death. Just because the bull is killed before this has a chance to happen does mean it isn't actually "dying" up until receiving the death blow.

You dismissed this question earlier, but I wonder which life you would really choose. Life as a fighting bull where you live in a large field with minimal human contact, lots of good food and lots of females to mate with. Then, when you are chosen, you go to the arena and fight to the death. Or, life as a feed lot cow where you are castrated at an early age, live life in a small cage that barely allows you to move, eat crappy pre-digested feed that flows by in a sluice, and a quick bolt to the head when you have the right amount of fat and meat on your bones.

Me, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the fighting bull life. But I can't really see much of a difference in the level of cruelty over the span of the two animals lives.

The reason I've dismissed this particular academic exercise is because it is utterly beside the point. Animals don't have the cognitive capacity to make such choices, and if they did, I imagine they would choose a life of freedom that doesn't end in them being killed for sport or food.

As I've stated before, I have no compunction whatsoever with the idea that animals are killed for my dinner plate. My objection to bullfighting isn't about life or death, or quality of life. It's about the willful torture of a living creature for the sole purpose of entertainment.

[johnny karate]

On a more serious not, I see bullfighting as a necessary evil. Although I'm opposed to the practice, which I see as barbaric, the wild bulls are raised in what amounts to privately owned natural parks. The ending of the practice would remove the incentive to keep them in that pristine state and these areas would be either farmed or "developed", with dramatic drop in biodiversity.

That's a weird use of the word "necessary". If biodiversity is our goal, we can do all we currently do with these wild bulls, but spare them the the "amusing" death at the end of it, surely?

Certainly... the government can expropriate the land, that will then succumb to a raging fire next summer. I'm very much a pragmatist when it comes to environmentalism. Right now the areas are privately owned and managed, and it works quite well to sustain a huge biodiversity. In the future, if the bullfighting is forbidden... well, we'll see.

The simple solution is to just stop breeding these animals. I don't think it will put us in a crisis of biodiversity vis-à-vis the cattle population, and it is far more humane to not breed them than it is to breed them for the sole purpose of torturing and killing them for entertainment.

[Toke]

...snip...
As I've stated before, I have no compunction whatsoever with the idea that animals are killed for my dinner plate. My objection to bullfighting isn't about life or death, or quality of life. It's about the willful torture of a living creature for the sole purpose of entertainment.
Ok, its bloodsport, but those bulls are still better of than farm animals, and banning bullfighting would be at best an empty gesture.

I would look at the empty ring benefit of PETA, at the farms and slaughterhouses, and feel sick from the hypocrisy.

[RedIbis]

Johnny,
You don't have to eat a hamburger, but you do. You are unnecessarily participating in the cow's death, but you do it because it gives you pleasure.

Bullfighting does not have to exist, but people still go. Where I agree with you is that every one of those participants and enthusists is participating in the animal's pain suffering and ultimately, death.

As has been said before, the slaughterhouse is very often a miserable existence for animals, and by eating them, you are participating in their suffering.

You seem to be taking some sort of moralistic position by not recognizing this simple analogy.

[Delscottio]

From first injury to death how long does it take to kill the bull in the ring?

[Piscivore]

If the bull wins, do we get to eat the matador?

There's a joke about that...

[johnny karate]

Ok, its bloodsport, but those bulls are still better of than farm animals, and banning bullfighting would be at best an empty gesture.

Assuming for the sake of argument they are better off in one environment than another, they are only better off by standards which they are cognitively incapable of grasping; i.e. by human standards. "Quality of life" is a practically meaningless term to a creature lacking self-awareness.

Bulls can feel pain, however. So whether or not a bull would "enjoy" it's life more in a pasture or a feedlot is debatable. That a bull will feel pain when it's stabbed repeatedly is not.

I would look at the empty ring benefit of PETA, at the farms and slaughterhouses, and feel sick from the hypocrisy.

As cruelty is not instrinsic in the slaughtering process, I see no hypocrisy.

[Toke]

As cruelty is not intrinsic in the slaughtering process, I see no hypocrisy.
I was thinking of some animal rights activists and populist politicians banning bullfighting and strutting around claiming that they have done something of great importance to animal welfare.
Then pan to farms, transports and slaughterhouses and compare the number of animals involved.
They would have done nothing, but the feel good experience would allow them to ignore the problems in farming.

Bullfighting is a lot more visible than farms and should therefore be the last place to change for the better.


So whether or not a bull would "enjoy" it's life more in a pasture or a feedlot is debatable
I think you are selling the bull's self awareness short.

[johnny karate]

You don't have to eat a hamburger, but you do. You are unnecessarily participating in the cow's death, but you do it because it gives you pleasure.

At the risk of this thread devolving into another "morality of meat-eating" debate, suffice to say that while I don't have to eat any specific type of food, I do have to eat something, and if I follow your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, I'll starve to death.

Whether it be a carrot or a cow, something must die for me to live, and I have no problem with that. But as I've already stated numerous times, it's not the death of an animal I object to, it's the wilfull infliction of pain upon it.

Bullfighting does not have to exist, but people still go. Where I agree with you is that every one of those participants and enthusists is participating in the animal's pain suffering and ultimately, death.

As has been said before, the slaughterhouse is very often a miserable existence for animals, and by eating them, you are participating in their suffering.

Only if the animal actually did suffer. That the animal suffer is not instrinsic to the slaughtering process, and it's quite possible to consume meat with the suffering of an animal being involved. The same is not true of bullfighting, and therein lies the difference.

You seem to be taking some sort of moralistic position by not recognizing this simple analogy.

And you seem to be ignoring the distinctions I've offered that render your analogy moot.

[The Painter]

"amusing" death

What a load of crap. You understand nothing. There is nothing "amusing" about it.

[johnny karate]

I was thinking of some animal rights activists and populist politicians banning bullfighting and strutting around claiming that they have done something of great importance to animal welfare.
Then pan to farms, transports and slaughterhouses and compare the number of animals involved.
They would have done nothing, but the feel good experience would allow them to ignore the problems in farming.

Bullfighting is a lot more visible than farms and should therefore be the last place to change for the better.

Perhaps, but this line of thought takes the discussion a bit farther beyond the abstract then I'm interested in going.

I think you are selling the bull's self awareness short.

If you're going to argue that a bull has the self-awareness to make quality of life distinctions, I'll have to request you provide substantiating evidence.

[Toke]

If you're going to argue that a bull has the self-awareness to make quality of life distinctions, I'll have to request you provide substantiating evidence.
It would involve reports of pigs and chicken injuring them selfs and others from cramped conditions, stress and boredom. Good indication that they are not having a happy life. I expect it extends to bulls.

[madurobob]

Only if the animal actually did suffer. That the animal suffer is not instrinsic to the slaughtering process, and it's quite possible to consume meat with the suffering of an animal being involved. The same is not true of bullfighting, and therein lies the difference.
(my bolding)
In theory, but not in practice, unless you are raising your own animals for slaughter. You seem to be equating lack of visible animal suffering with lack of suffering at all. Just because you don't experience it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Have you spent any time in a large feed lot?

In practice, all meat you eat entails animal cruelty and suffering at least on par with what a fighting bull goes through. Just because you can conceive of a way to raise and slaughter animals that is not cruel doesn't discount the actual cruelty that abounds in the process today.

[A W Smith]

Like corn being slaughtered, With music

Cf1Ofi1rlJI

[The Painter]

In practice, all meat you eat entails animal cruelty and suffering at least on par with what a fighting bull goes through. Just because you can conceive of a way to raise and slaughter animals that is not cruel doesn't discount the actual cruelty that abounds in the process today.

That's it in a nutshell.


You can't talk about it until you've been to a slaughter house. It is not what you picture in your head. I guarantee you will throw up.

[madurobob]

As I've stated before, I have no compunction whatsoever with the idea that animals are killed for my dinner plate. My objection to bullfighting isn't about life or death, or quality of life. It's about the willful torture of a living creature for the sole purpose of entertainment.
(all good points in your overall post - I have little argument with them I have not already stated)
The bull is tortured and killed for people's choice of entertainment. They could easily choose many other non-tortuous means of entertainment, but choose not to. The cow is tortured and killed for your choice of food. You could easily choose many foods that do not involve torture, but you choose not to.

I still don't see any material difference. It seems you prefer not think about the torture involved in getting that burger to your plate. That doesn't make it go away.

[Z]

I am currently against bullfighting. However, if they a) didn't use the picadors, and b) allowed a 'winning bull' to fight again... I'd probably become an afficionado.

Give the bull an equal chance, darnit, and THEN it becomes a sport!

Of course, I'm still a little upset that slave-gladiator sports were shut down... :D

Seriously, though: it is a sport and an art form, albeit a cruel and barbaric one. I am against it just as I am against cock-fighting in the South, or bulldog fighting, or snake and mongoose fighting in Asia. If, on the other hand, people want to participate in blood rings (aka extreme deathsports) themselves, I'm all for it. The key issue in my mind isn't torture, or murder, or art; it's consent. The cock and bull aren't aware of what's going to happen when all their good food and exercise is over; the fighter does.

As for farm-related cruelty, I'm agin' that, as well. But life feeds on life, and while I'm all for finding more humane ways to kill dinner, in some cases (like lobster), it just ain't happening. Still, maybe there's something to the idea that we've lost connection with what eating meat really means. Maybe slaughterhouses should show videos of the restaurant patron's dinner being killed as he orders his porterhouse. Wouldn't have slowed me down one bit, but then I lived on a beef cattle ranch as a kid.

[RedIbis]

From first injury to death how long does it take to kill the bull in the ring?

Maybe about 12-15 mins.

[Megalodon]

The simple solution is to just stop breeding these animals. I don't think it will put us in a crisis of biodiversity vis-à-vis the cattle population, and it is far more humane to not breed them than it is to breed them for the sole purpose of torturing and killing them for entertainment.

I probably wasn't clear enough. The biodiversity I was referring as valuable is not of the bulls, but of all the other biota living in a pristine environment that only exists because of the bulls.

You stop breeding these animals and the land gets used for farming or urban development.

[pauldmin]

I am currently against bullfighting. However, if they a) didn't use the picadors, and b) allowed a 'winning bull' to fight again... I'd probably become an afficionado.


Perhaps people should read "Death In The Afternoon" by Hemingway, then come back and criticize bullfighting. There seems to be a mis-understanding about how afficionados perceive the sport.

Just for reference, there is no "winner" in a bullfight. The bull and matador are simply playing out a tragedy, where the bull eventually dies. It is the performance of both participants before the death which marks the quality of the fight. Even if a bull is granted a pardon for it's part of the performance, it never re-enters the ring because it would immediately go for the matador and not the cape.

[funk de fino]

How about pulling the legs off spiders or just eating them whole?

[RedIbis]

Perhaps people should read "Death In The Afternoon" by Hemingway, then come back and criticize bullfighting. There seems to be a mis-understanding about how afficionados perceive the sport.

Just for reference, there is no "winner" in a bullfight. The bull and matador are simply playing out a tragedy, where the bull eventually dies. It is the performance of both participants before the death which marks the quality of the fight. Even if a bull is granted a pardon for it's part of the performance, it never re-enters the ring because it would immediately go for the matador and not the cape.

Now that's a great book. It always amazes me how young Hemingway was when he wrote this and some of his other incredible books. No more than 30-31 when he was writing this.

And as I said earlier in the thread the law in Spain is that even if the bull kills the matador, the bull must be killed, and no bull can be fought more than once, or there would be no more matadors.

[Careyp74]

I can understand the art shown in the performance. I think that a bull's death in the wild is much harsher. Either by getting mauled by a stronger bull, or hunted by a pack of dogs.

however,

I think that if the bull gets the upper hand on the matador, there shouldn't be any assistance. The tragedy should just continue to play out. At least the matador knows what he is getting into when he steps into the ring.

[quarky]

I live in a zone with a history of cock fighting, which is illegal here, and being enforced of late. The irony is that the exotic breeds of fighting birds will soon be extinct.

[johnny karate]

In theory, but not in practice, unless you are raising your own animals for slaughter. You seem to be equating lack of visible animal suffering with lack of suffering at all. Just because you don't experience it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Have you spent any time in a large feed lot?

In practice, all meat you eat entails animal cruelty and suffering at least on par with what a fighting bull goes through. Just because you can conceive of a way to raise and slaughter animals that is not cruel doesn't discount the actual cruelty that abounds in the process today.

I’m sorry, but you’re making a statement that’s a blatant falsehood. Not all meat necessarily entails the suffering of the animal from which it was acquired.

Two things to consider:

1) The mistreatment of animals in a slaughterhouse is against the law. That it goes on is undeniable, but to automatically equate animal cruelty with the slaughterhouse is dishonest.

2) It is possible, and actually not all that difficult, to obtain meat from a source that will ensure the humane treatment of the animals. So even if we’re going to make the assumption that all slaughterhouses practice torture, not all meat comes from these slaughterhouses.

Therefore, to assert that someone who eats meat is taking part in the suffering of an animal is simply not true.

The bull is tortured and killed for people's choice of entertainment. They could easily choose many other non-tortuous means of entertainment, but choose not to. The cow is tortured and killed for your choice of food. You could easily choose many foods that do not involve torture, but you choose not to.

Again, you’re making a generalization that is demonstrably false. Not all meat comes from an animal that was tortured or otherwise mistreated. Therefore, meat that any particular person consumes is not necessarily the result of animal cruelty.

I still don't see any material difference. It seems you prefer not think about the torture involved in getting that burger to your plate. That doesn't make it go away.
My personal choices are irrelevant to the point I’m making. Furthermore, you’re assuming I don’t make certain considerations about the meat I choose to eat without actually knowing if I do. Not all meat is derived from an animal that was treated inhumanely. Therefore, it is quite possible that the meat I consume didn’t come from one.

I probably wasn't clear enough. The biodiversity I was referring as valuable is not of the bulls, but of all the other biota living in a pristine environment that only exists because of the bulls.You stop breeding these animals and the land gets used for farming or urban development.

I don’t have a problem with that. Is there any particular species in danger of extinction if these environments go away?

[johnny karate]

There seems to be an unfair comparison going on in this thread where the worst case scenario of the slaughterhouse (overcrowded feedlots, mistreatment of the animals) is being compared to the best case scenario of bullfighting (the bulls live wonderful lives of pastoral freedom up until that brief moment when they are killed). Unless someone can establish that all animals who are slaughtered for meat are mistreated, and all bulls destined for the arena are not, this comparison simply does not hold.

My thesis from the start has been that torture is not intrinsic in the slaughter of animals for meat, while it is intrinsic in bullfighting. Choosing to focus only on the exceptions does nothing to render my assertion untrue.

[madurobob]

The mistreatment of animals in a slaughterhouse is against the law. That it goes on is undeniable, but to automatically equate animal cruelty with the slaughterhouse is dishonest.
You keep referring to the slaughterhouse - that's terribly myopic. The bulk of the poor treatment occurs well before the animals reach the slaughterhouse.

Mistreatment of animals raised for food is well documented. Sure, by law it is not considered mistreatment, because we've written the laws to allow treatment of cows, chickens and pigs in ways that would land you quickly in jail were you to treat any other animal that way. In the past year in my area two different groups have been arrested for raising dogs in "inhumane" puppy mills. Those puppy mills were luxury accommodations compared to what chickens and pigs in the same county deal with all the time. Yet the poultry and pork producers are seen as model citizens.

Again, it is entirely possible to raise animals for slaughter in a humane way. But, in practice this not done commercially anywhere in the US.

It is possible, and actually not all that difficult, to obtain meat from a source that will ensure the humane treatment of the animals.
How have you verified this? Do you know what the definition is for "free range" chicken? According to the USDA it means the chicken has access to the outdoors. In practice, this means there is a window on the cage that is still barely large enough for the chicken to move in. In other words, it is far more a marketing concept than anything to do with animal welfare.

As far as I know there is no USDA definition for free range cows. But consider what virtually every cow that becomes USDA beef goes through without any painkiller or analgesic: teeth grinding to prevent damage from bites, branding, dehorning, castration, tail-docking, etc... Is this really any different that what the picadors do? Do you really believe the beef you buy is exempt from these practices?

[johnny karate]

Let's put this myth that all meat involves the mistreatment of animals to bed once and for all.

Whole Foods Market, a grocer with almost 300 locations in North America and the UK, has very strict humane practices they require in their procurement of meat, poultry, fish, etc. So much so that PETA recognized them with a 2004 Proggy Award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer (http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#retailer).

Stop and think about that for a second.

Whole Foods sells dead animal flesh, and yet arguably one of the most militant animal rights groups honored them with an award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer.

I think its fair to say that if you kill animals and are still considered "animal-friendly" by an animal rights group, you're probably not mistreating any animals.

[RedIbis]

Let's put this myth that all meat involves the mistreatment of animals to bed once and for all.

Whole Foods Market, a grocer with almost 300 locations in North America and the UK, has very strict humane practices they require in their procurement of meat, poultry, fish, etc. So much so that PETA recognized them with a 2004 Proggy Award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer (http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#retailer).

Stop and think about that for a second.

Whole Foods sells dead animal flesh, and yet arguably one of the most militant animal rights groups honored them with an award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer.

I think its fair to say that if you kill animals and are still considered "animal-friendly" by an animal rights group, you're probably not mistreating any animals.

And what percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought from Whole Foods?

[johnny karate]

And what percentage of meat consumed in the US is bought from Whole Foods?

Irrelevant. My point was that not all meat comes from mistreated animals, and therefore, the mistreatment of an animal is not instrinsic in the process of acquiring meat.

But if you want to talk percentages, what percentage of bulls that take part in a bullfight are not repeatedly stabbed for the sake of entertainment?

[madurobob]

Let's put this myth that all meat involves the mistreatment of animals to bed once and for all.

Whole Foods Market, a grocer with almost 300 locations in North America and the UK, has very strict humane practices they require in their procurement of meat, poultry, fish, etc. So much so that PETA recognized them with a 2004 Proggy Award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer (http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html#retailer).

Stop and think about that for a second.

Whole Foods sells dead animal flesh, and yet arguably one of the most militant animal rights groups honored them with an award for Best Animal Friendly Retailer.

I think its fair to say that if you kill animals and are still considered "animal-friendly" by an animal rights group, you're probably not mistreating any animals.

I like wholefoods and what they are doing is a step in the right direction. But look at their requirements (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/meat-quality-standards.php) for cattle/buffalo:

No antibiotics — ever
No supplemental growth hormones
No animal byproducts in feed
Range raised for at least 2/3 of the animal's life


Only the fourth point really relates solely to the welfare of the beast. The first three are far more related to the demands of the typical Wholefoods customer with regard to what they will put into their bodies, as opposed to how the beast is treated. Also, we have no definition of "range" but we can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it means pasture. So, for 1/3 of the cows life its OK to keep it on a feed lot in a cage so small it cannot move. And what about all the standard abuses? Teeth grinding, castration, tail clipping, branding, all with no regard to pain and suffering of the animal. I'm not convinced this is any less cruel than what a fighting bull endures.

So, is Wholefoods really that concerned about the animals, or more concerned with being able to market profitable meat to its customer base? Hard to say.

[johnny karate]

PETA disagrees.

[madurobob]

PETA disagrees.

You sure? PETA agrees that Wholefoods is the best among US retailers - that's not saying a whole lot.

But - you put a lot of stock in PETA's opinion? What do you expect the official PETA position would be on the question posed in your OP? We might even be able to get an official position directly from PETA. Would you agree with their assessment?

[johnny karate]

You sure? PETA agrees that Wholefoods is the best among US retailers - that's not saying a whole lot.

What it says is that an organization which has the sole purpose of advocating for the rights of animals deemed humane Whole Foods treatment of animals.

But - you put a lot of stock in PETA's opinion? What do you expect the official PETA position would be on the question posed in your OP? We might even be able to get an official position directly from PETA. Would you agree with their assessment?

I'm not sure how whether or not I agree with the totality of PETA's philosophy has any bearing on their assessment of Whole Foods' animal treatment practices. And I'm also not sure how many more hoops I need to jump through to prove to you that's it's very much possible to be a meat-consumer without participating in animal mistreatment. You can nitpick and goalpost-shift all you want, but you've done nothing to disprove this assertion.

ETA: I'm also not sure what that damn smiley face is doing there.

[quarky]

There is no way of raising a mammal for slaughter that doesn't involve mistreatment. It demands dominance and manipulation. To avoid that unpleasantness, one can eschew eating meat, or one can hunt wild animals and hope for a clean kill with minimal disturbance.

Or, one can face the fact and discover that they are ok with it, and eat away, with impunity. That's fine. For me, the rubby part is the artful dodge that proclaims "I treat my slaves with compassion".

Free them, or don't.

[MarkCorrigan]

Again, it is entirely possible to raise animals for slaughter in a humane way. But, in practice this not done commercially anywhere in the US.




So what about outside the US?

My family buys almost all their meat (not entirely, yet) from a local farm shop. You can drive or walk past the farm and see the cattle in the fields before you walk into the shop and purchase the meat from the former residents of said field. The cattle, pigs and sheep are reared almost entirely outside, with them only coming indoors, I believe during bad weather and parts of the winter. They're fed silage from the farms feed crop and kept happy throughout their lives.

Would that be considered better than repeatedly stabbing an animal for a baying crowd?

Incidentally, if an animal is kept happy and well treated throughout its life, then the meat tends to be more tender because the animal will be relaxed when it is shot with the boltgun, or bashed on the head or whatever the method of slaughter is.

[Megalodon]

I don’t have a problem with that. Is there any particular species in danger of extinction if these environments go away?

There are, but even if there weren't, that would be a very myopic way to look at biodiversity management.

To restate my position, the suffering of the bull in the arena is a necessary evil for the maintenance of pristine biodiversity havens. I recognize that bullfighting it's a barbaric practice, but if it's the price to pay for those areas, then so be it.

[RedIbis]

Irrelevant. My point was that not all meat comes from mistreated animals, and therefore, the mistreatment of an animal is not instrinsic in the process of acquiring meat.

But if you want to talk percentages, what percentage of bulls that take part in a bullfight are not repeatedly stabbed for the sake of entertainment?

0% since the stabbing or picing is not for entertainment. The matador's performance and bull's bravery are part of what is enjoyable about bullfighting. The picing and banderillos are to weaken the bull and correct certain tendencies in its charges.

[quarky]

So what about outside the US?

My family buys almost all their meat (not entirely, yet) from a local farm shop. You can drive or walk past the farm and see the cattle in the fields before you walk into the shop and purchase the meat from the former residents of said field. The cattle, pigs and sheep are reared almost entirely outside, with them only coming indoors, I believe during bad weather and parts of the winter. They're fed silage from the farms feed crop and kept happy throughout their lives.

Would that be considered better than repeatedly stabbing an animal for a baying crowd?

Incidentally, if an animal is kept happy and well treated throughout its life, then the meat tends to be more tender because the animal will be relaxed when it is shot with the boltgun, or bashed on the head or whatever the method of slaughter is.

Not true, in my opinion. Tender meat comes from animals that get very little exercise. Confined and fatted. Before feed lots, beef was very low fat. People like that fat.

[kerikiwi]

Ok, its bloodsport, but those bulls are still better of than farm animals.

This is an utterly ridiculous claim.
An animal which is tortured is not better off than an animal that is not tortured.

I invite you to visit a farm down this way and make the same claim.

[kerikiwi]

That's it in a nutshell.


You can't talk about it until you've been to a slaughter house. It is not what you picture in your head. I guarantee you will throw up.

I would throw up in an operating theatre too. That in no way shows that what happens is cruel.

[kerikiwi]

The cow is tortured and killed for your choice of food.
.

Can you tell us where this happens? Where are cows tortured before slaughter?

[kerikiwi]

Perhaps people should read "Death In The Afternoon" by Hemingway, then come back and criticize bullfighting. There seems to be a mis-understanding about how afficionados perceive the sport.
.

I think the bull would agree with me on this one: how the audience views it has nothing to do with whether it is cruel or not.

[Toke]

This is an utterly ridiculous claim.
An animal which is tortured is not better off than an animal that is not tortured.

I invite you to visit a farm down this way and make the same claim.

If you had bothered to read the other posts in the tread you would have noticed the bits about general quality of life for farm animals.

As it is, you come across as the kind of hipocrite who would ignore millions of farm animals and focus of the bulls who suffer in a very public and spectacular way.

I am sure a ban on bullfighting would give you a warm fuzzy feeling of being good to animals, enough to let you ignore the other animals.

[kerikiwi]

If you had bothered to read the other posts in the tread you would have noticed the bits about general quality of life for farm animals.

As it is, you come across as the kind of hipocrite who would ignore millions of farm animals and focus of the bulls who suffer in a very public and spectacular way.

I am sure a ban on bullfighting would give you a warm fuzzy feeling of being good to animals, enough to let you ignore the other animals.

Actually I have read the entire thread.
I did see the bits about the general quality of life for farm animals, and I disagree with the claim that farm animals are tortured. I again extend an invitation to visit a farm down this way and still make the same claim.
I am in no way hypocritical.
I do not focus on the bulls and ignore other animals.
I am not interested in warm and fuzzy feelings.
And what I said still stands:
an animal which is tortured is not better off than an animal which is not tortured.

[Toke]

an animal which is tortured is not better off than an animal which is not tortured.

You would be correct if it was taken out of context.
Here the context is the animals whole life, and the bull is better off than farm animals.
(I know nothing of NZ farms and they might as some of the only in the world be humane.)

[kerikiwi]

You would be correct if it was taken out of context.
Here the context is the animals whole life, and the bull is better off than farm animals.


The context is bull fighting. Torturing an animal.
Nothing to do with farm conditions.

[quarky]

NZ must be doing something amazing with their cattle. No barbwire? Babies aren't taken from their mothers before either are willing, so the mother's milk can be taken? No castration? The animals are allowed to live out a full lifespan before slaughter? They don't have to be transported on highways while crammed in tight, scary spaces? How about that last forced march into the killing room? Are they convinced they're being herded to greener pastures?

Wouldn't most humans accept a half hour of torture over a life of assured mediocrity which also ends in an early death?

[madurobob]

Can you tell us where this happens? Where are cows tortured before slaughter?
I take it you've never been to a commercial feed lot?

[madurobob]

The context is bull fighting. Torturing an animal.
Nothing to do with farm conditions.

So, torturous conditions on the farm should be excluded from a conversation about what is more cruel, bullfighting or eating a hamburger? Can you explain how that makes sense?

[SatanicSheep]

I'm sure it varies, but life in the slaughter house is not that great. A friend worked in a slaughter house and had tales of live cows being eviserated, punching and kicking and even chainsaw play done to cows before they are shot in the head with a bolt.

I just wonder what the dividing line is for some of you is. What's Art, culture, sport and babrarism? Is a Costan Rican bullfight cruel? The running of the bulls? An American rodeo? A Mexican rodeo? Greyhound racing? A Big Mac?

[Toke]

The context is bull fighting. Torturing an animal.
Nothing to do with farm conditions.

Try read the tread title, unless you eat no meat or only meat from the arena, farm conditions are very relevant.

[Toke]

I'm sure it varies, but life in the slaughter house is not that great. A friend worked in a slaughter house and had tales of live cows being eviserated, punching and kicking and even chainsaw play done to cows before they are shot in the head with a bolt.

I just wonder what the dividing line is for some of you is. What's Art, culture, sport and babrarism? Is a Costan Rican bullfight cruel? The running of the bulls? An American rodeo? A Mexican rodeo? Greyhound racing? A Big Mac?

Interesting question.
I do not know the conditions of your examples but comparing the number of animals involved in meat production vs. entertainment I would say the later is a minor problem.

[johnny karate]

There are, but even if there weren't, that would be a very myopic way to look at biodiversity management.

To restate my position, the suffering of the bull in the arena is a necessary evil for the maintenance of pristine biodiversity havens. I recognize that bullfighting it's a barbaric practice, but if it's the price to pay for those areas, then so be it.

I'm sorry, but you'll need to supply some hard data to support your assertion that some kind of valuable ecosystem is being threatened. How many (and of what size) of these environments exist worldwide? How many species are dependent on them?

[johnny karate]

0% since the stabbing or picing is not for entertainment. The matador's performance and bull's bravery are part of what is enjoyable about bullfighting. The picing and banderillos are to weaken the bull and correct certain tendencies in its charges.

You might want to check your figures. If the bull is stabbed to facilitate the enjoyment of the event, then it is most certainly being stabbed for the sake of entertainment.

[johnny karate]

So, torturous conditions on the farm should be excluded from a conversation about what is more cruel, bullfighting or eating a hamburger? Can you explain how that makes sense?

I can. And have. Many, many times.

Mistreatment of the animal in not intrinsic to meat-consumption. I have provide documented evidence to this fact. That you choose to not believe it is immaterial to its veracity.

Mistreatment of the animal is intrinsic to bullfighting. I would argue it's even the point.

[Toke]

Mistreatment of the animal in not intrinsic to meat-consumption

Yes it is, on acount of being a lot cheaper than humane treatment.

[madurobob]

Mistreatment of the animal in not intrinsic to meat-consumption. I have provide documented evidence to this fact. That you choose to not believe it is immaterial to its veracity.

It is exactly its veracity that is in question. That PETA cites Whole Foods as the best in its class by no means identifies the treatment of animals destined for Whole Foods stores as humane. In fact, nowhere in the PETA press release does it laud Whole Foods for humane treatment of animals raised for slaughter. The whole thing is a marketing piece no doubt penned by Whole Foods.

The sad fact is that animals raised for slaughter are treated shamefully. Some may be treated better than others, but even the best treatment would be grounds for arrest and imprisonment were you to be caught treating dogs or cats the same (even excluding the slaughter).

[johnny karate]

Yes it is, on acount of being a lot cheaper than humane treatment.

"Intrinsic" means it must be an essential part of the process.

That an animal need suffer is most certainly not an essential part of the process of slaughtering it to obtain meat. Many such examples have been given in this thread.

[johnny karate]

It is exactly its veracity that is in question. That PETA cites Whole Foods as the best in its class by no means identifies the treatment of animals destined for Whole Foods stores as humane. In fact, nowhere in the PETA press release does it laud Whole Foods for humane treatment of animals raised for slaughter. The whole thing is a marketing piece no doubt penned by Whole Foods.

I understand that you don't believe the evidence I've provided. My point is that when all you offer to counter it is personal incredulity, it does nothing to undermine said evidence.

The sad fact is that animals raised for slaughter are treated shamefully. Some may be treated better than others, but even the best treatment would be grounds for arrest and imprisonment were you to be caught treating dogs or cats the same (even excluding the slaughter).

And your appeal to emotion does nothing to undermine my evidence either.

[RedIbis]

You might want to check your figures. If the bull is stabbed to facilitate the enjoyment of the event, then it is most certainly being stabbed for the sake of entertainment.

I don't think the analogy will ever penetrate, but you don't have to eat the steak. You eat it because you enjoy it. The cow is killed for your enjoyment. You could just as easily survive without eating any red meat (I have for years).

[kerikiwi]

I don't think the analogy will ever penetrate, but you don't have to eat the steak. You eat it because you enjoy it. The cow is killed for your enjoyment.

Of course it is killed for our enjoyment. It is not tortured. Inhumane treatment is not an intrinsic part of killing animals for food.
Inhumane treatment is an intrinsic part of bullfighting.
The analogy will never penetrate because it is inapt.

[johnny karate]

I don't think the analogy will ever penetrate, but you don't have to eat the steak. You eat it because you enjoy it. The cow is killed for your enjoyment. You could just as easily survive without eating any red meat (I have for years).

It's not the death of the animal that troubles me, but rather the willful infliction of suffering upon it.

I've made a statement to this effect multiple times in this thread. I'm not sure why you're making me repeat it.

[madurobob]

It's not the death of the animal that troubles me, but rather the willful infliction of suffering upon it.

I've made a statement to this effect multiple times in this thread. I'm not sure why you're making me repeat it.
Yes, I think we all agree on that point. Where we don't agree is your refusal to admit that there is rampant "willful infliction of suffering" involved in raising cattle for beef. That it is possible to raise beef humanely is really beside the point because as a rule this is not done.

At this point we pretty much have to agree to disagree - we are at an impasse.

[johnny karate]

Yes, I think we all agree on that point. Where we don't agree is your refusal to admit that there is rampant "willful infliction of suffering" involved in raising cattle for beef.

I don't refuse to admit that at all, and have actually acknowledged it several times. My only point is that this willful infliction of suffering is not at all intrinsic in the raising of cattle for beef.

That it is possible to raise beef humanely is really beside the point because as a rule this is not done.

No, it's not beside the point. It's actually exactly the point. There has been an underlying implication that for a person who consumes meat to object to bullfighting is hypocritical as both supposedly entail the animal suffer in some fashion. I have demonstrated this is not the case, and that a meat-eater can take steps to ensure the meat being consumed is procured in a humane, ethical way.

[kerikiwi]

Where we don't agree is your refusal to admit that there is rampant "willful infliction of suffering" involved in raising cattle for beef.

Can you specify the actions which you have in mind when you speak of 'willful infliction of suffering'?

[RedIbis]

Of course it is killed for our enjoyment. It is not tortured. Inhumane treatment is not an intrinsic part of killing animals for food.
Inhumane treatment is an intrinsic part of bullfighting.
The analogy will never penetrate because it is inapt.

The point has already been well established that conventional meat raising and slaughtering is very much torture for the animals.

The only thing left to determine, in a very cold and logical way, is what "enjoyment" causes the least amount of total suffering. I would say if you don't eat red meat but enjoy bullfighting, you are contributing far less to bovine suffering than the eater of read meat.

[kerikiwi]

The point has already been well established that conventional meat raising and slaughtering is very much torture for the animals.

I haven't seen that point well established.
Can you be specific?

[soylent]

The purpose of a slaughterhouse is not for amusement.

Of course it is.

Producing grain fed meat represents a destruction of food(even if mostly grass-fed and grain is just for the 'finish'), it's more costly than directly eating grains and legumes and it doesn't confer any known health benefits unless you're on a really poor diet.

If it wasn't simply for amusement people wouldn't be eating meat except for what little was hunted or entirely grass-fed on lands unfit for agriculture. It's not an economically rational thing to do, it's just tasty.

[BTMO]

Whereever possible, I hunt or fish for my own meat.

I like to shorten supply chains where I can....

[kerikiwi]

Producing grain fed meat represents a destruction of food(even if mostly grass-fed and grain is just for the 'finish'), it's more costly than directly eating grains and legumes and it doesn't confer any known health benefits unless you're on a really poor diet.

If it wasn't simply for amusement people wouldn't be eating meat except for what little was hunted or entirely grass-fed on lands unfit for agriculture. It's not an economically rational thing to do, it's just tasty.

I can see nothing wrong with any of that.
But I disagree that 'it is not an economically rational thing to do'. Of course it is, just as it is economically rational to produce any item which is not strictly essential for sustaining life.
But none of it supports your claim that a slaughterhouse is for amusement.

[LashL]

The way I see it, we (humans, that is) are at the top of the food chain for a reason, and I have no problem with the fact that animals (whether fish, poultry, beef, or other) are killed for purposes of feeding humans.

I do, however, have a problem with animals being killed for purposes of entertaining humans, and that is what bullfighting amounts to, in my view. Therefore, I do not like it.

It seems to me that someone who claims to eschew eating meat on humanitarian grounds while he simultaneously promotes (and even glorifies) the killing of animals for entertainment purposes is being more than just a little hypocritical and more than just a little disingenuous.

[johnny karate]

I would say if you don't eat red meat but enjoy bullfighting, you are contributing far less to bovine suffering than the eater of read meat.

Unless that eater of red meat takes the necessary steps to ensure the meat being eaten is procured humanely.

This distinction has been illustrated in pretty much every post I've made in this thread.

That you continue to disregard it is nothing more than willful ignorance.

[madurobob]

Can you specify the actions which you have in mind when you speak of 'willful infliction of suffering'?

See several posts back where I talk about the specific actions - thinks like castration, tooth grinding, de-horning, etc.. all with no painkillers. Then there is the extreme confinement necessary to keep the animals fat (a practice even allowed by the much lauded Whole Foods).

[johnny karate]

Of course it is.

Producing grain fed meat represents a destruction of food(even if mostly grass-fed and grain is just for the 'finish'), it's more costly than directly eating grains and legumes and it doesn't confer any known health benefits unless you're on a really poor diet.

If it wasn't simply for amusement people wouldn't be eating meat except for what little was hunted or entirely grass-fed on lands unfit for agriculture. It's not an economically rational thing to do, it's just tasty.

If we're going too begin equating "eating" with "amusement" and then make moral judgments based on that comparison, we'll be treading on a very slippery slope best left for one of the many other threads about whether or not eating meat is wrong.

[quarky]

This thread is kind of bizzare for me. I haven't had red meat in 40 years, and bull fighting disgusts me. Its not so much that I want to defend bull-fighting as it is that I want to pop the bubble of the idea of ethical treatment of an animal that we intend to eat. That it is largely unnecesary to eat said animal in the first place, makes it all the weirder to find ethical comfort therein.

I don't mind that people love the taste of meat, and choose to eat it.
Why sugar-coat it? The domestic animals we eat have all been bred toward that goal, largely replacing the wild version. What's the point of being 'nice' to our zombie-slaves, when the point is to fatten them for our table, as fast as possible?

[RedIbis]

The way I see it, we (humans, that is) are at the top of the food chain for a reason, and I have no problem with the fact that animals (whether fish, poultry, beef, or other) are killed for purposes of feeding humans.

I do, however, have a problem with animals being killed for purposes of entertaining humans, and that is what bullfighting amounts to, in my view. Therefore, I do not like it.

It seems to me that someone who claims to eschew eating meat on humanitarian grounds while he simultaneously promotes (and even glorifies) the killing of animals for entertainment purposes is being more than just a little hypocritical and more than just a little disingenuous.

How about if the person who doesn't eat meat doesn't claim any particular reason other than a bad reaction to eating it but still appreciates bullfighting? I noticed your somewhat self righteous scenario didn't include that possibility.

[johnny karate]

How about if the person who doesn't eat meat doesn't claim any particular reason other than a bad reaction to eating it but still appreciates bullfighting? I noticed your somewhat self righteous scenario didn't include that possibility.

Kind of like how you don't seem to allow for the possibilty that a conscientious meat-eater can be morally opposed to bullfighting without being hypocritical.

[volatile]

Is enjoyment for taste different from enjoyment for sport? If so, why?

[Prometheus]

....What's the point of being 'nice' to our zombie-slaves, when the point is to fatten them for our table, as fast as possible?

Being 'nice' to them makes them taste better (http://www.luciesfarm.com/artman/publish/article_39.shtml).

[johnny karate]

Is enjoyment for taste different from enjoyment for sport? If so, why?

Eating, first and foremost, is a utilitarian activity. That one might also enjoy the taste of what is being eaten is a secondary consideration.

Bullfighting serves no useful purpose, unless the satisfying of bloodlust is considered to be useful.

[quixotecoyote]

Eating, first and foremost, is a utilitarian activity. That one might also enjoy the taste of what is being eaten is a secondary consideration.


I disagree. Given that people who can purchase beef have many many other options, the decision to purchase beef RATHER than some other food product speaks to the fact that they enjoy it. Eating may be utilitarian, but the decision to eat one thing rather than another is generally not, at lest in a society of plentiful food such as ours.

[volatile]

I disagree. Given that people who can purchase beef have many many other options, the decision to purchase beef RATHER than some other food product speaks to the fact that they enjoy it. Eating may be utilitarian, but the decision to eat one thing rather than another is generally not, at lest in a society of plentiful food such as ours.

Excatly. The realisation of that precise argument is pretty much what made me go vegan.

The decision to eat meat, for most people in developed countries, comes down to the fact that they enjoy the taste. Claiming that the savouring of flavour of beef is somehow more justifiable than savouring the "sport" of bullfighting does strike me as rather hypocritical, especially given the fact that I'm pretty sure toros are raised in better conditions than your average head of beef cattle.

[quixotecoyote]

Excatly. The realisation of that precise argument is pretty much what made me go vegan.

Yeah. I just honestly don't give a **** about cows. Then again, I don't really have a problem with bullfighting or hunting (I have issues with those activities as 'sport' but that's another thread).

I have problems with animal cruelty, but mostly to 'domestic' animals. When people torture animals they are expected to form emotional bonds with, it doesn't bode well for their interactions with the rest of society.

[johnny karate]

I disagree. Given that people who can purchase beef have many many other options, the decision to purchase beef RATHER than some other food product speaks to the fact that they enjoy it. Eating may be utilitarian, but the decision to eat one thing rather than another is generally not, at lest in a society of plentiful food such as ours.

An argument that can be made for any specific type of food until we're all eating rock soup so no living creature need die to serve as "enjoyment" for another.

That certain animals are food is a premise upon which the OP is based. Arguments to the contrary can be taken to one of the other threads dealing with that specific issue.

[quixotecoyote]

An argument that can be made for any specific type of food until we're all eating rock soup so no living creature need die to serve as "enjoyment" for another.

Well it could, but only if you suck at arguing. If you have many options for food, you don't have to eat all of them. You can pick and choose. What do you pick and choose based on? Generally, either health or taste.

If you choose to eat a cow because you think it's the only way to stay healthy, you're simply mistaken. If you choose to eat a cow because it tastes good, you're sanctioning the current treatment of beef cattle which in reality does include harsh treatment.

Now I love me a good hamburger, especially if you can get a good loose-meat burger that's depressingly rare these days. I can do that because I don't care that the cattle have to suffer for me to eat that burger any more than I care the spiders and ants in my house have to suffer because I'm happier with them dead.

What I don't do is buy into the idea that I HAVE to eat cattle products because I need to eat. I don't. There are many other things I could eat, many with no measurable ability to feel pain/suffering/discomfort. Saying that because I have to eat I'm excused from the moral responsibility of my choices of food is not good argumentation. Otherwise I could go around killing children and eating them with a light honey glaze, and since I have to eat, you couldn't argue against my food choice.

[RedIbis]

Kind of like how you don't seem to allow for the possibilty that a conscientious meat-eater can be morally opposed to bullfighting without being hypocritical.

I have never contested why someone would be morally opposed to bullfighting. In fact, I understand it implicitly. It's just not for everyone, in the same way that boxing or MMA is not for everyone.

Some people don't eat meat for moral reasons. I get that. I just don't apply a moral standard to what I eat. That's my choice.

When I watched the bullfights in Pamplona during San Fermin this year, my girlfriend leaned over and whispered that she was rooting for the bull. I found it charming and I had no pretense about trying to get her to see what I found aesthetic and beautiful about it. Not everyone is going to see the world the way you do. We have to accept and appreciate these differences.

[LashL]

How about if the person who doesn't eat meat doesn't claim any particular reason other than a bad reaction to eating it but still appreciates bullfighting? I noticed your somewhat self righteous scenario didn't include that possibility.

I have no idea what you're babbling about here, Red. I do not see anything "self righteous" about my post at all, and it does not purport to include every possible hypothetical situation in which one may choose not to eat any particular type of meat.

Look, it's simple. We (humans) are at the top of the food chain for a reason. Choosing not to eat one or more of fish, poultry, beef, or any other animal is a personal choice made by individuals for myriad reasons. But glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment (as you have done) is, in my view, deplorable.

In short: Killing animals for food, I have no problem with that. Killing animals for entertainment, I have a problem with that.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

[volatile]

I have no idea what you're babbling about here, Red. I do not see anything "self righteous" about my post at all, and it does not purport to include every possible hypothetical situation in which one may choose not to eat any particular type of meat.

Look, it's simple. We (humans) are at the top of the food chain for a reason. Choosing not to eat one or more of fish, poultry, beef, or any other animal is a personal choice made by individuals for myriad reasons. But glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment (as you have done) is, in my view, deplorable.

In short: Killing animals for food, I have no problem with that. Killing animals for entertainment, I have a problem with that.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

I agree with you in part, but I disagree with you in one quite crucial area. Isn't the enjoyment of the taste of meat - when other non-animal, nutritionally-equivalent and far-from-unpalatable alternatives are available - essentially just as frivolous? Isn't eating steak because one particularly enjoys the taste (there's a lot of this type of evangelising abut the taste of steak, I find) pretty much of the same order of "entertainment", and hence deplorability, as the bullfight? Why do people eat steak when tofu is for sale on the next aisle over? Because they enjoy the taste of steak (usually). Do you reserve the same outrage for those who glorify the death of their food animals with T-shirt slogans such as "Meat is Tasty Murder" and "For Every Cow you Don't Eat, I'll Eat Five"? Aren't they "glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment"

I don't think the distinction is as vivid as you seem to want it to be.

[LashL]

I agree with you in part, but I disagree with you in one quite crucial area. Isn't the enjoyment of the taste of meat - when other non-animal, nutritionally-equivalent and far-from-unpalatable alternatives are available - essentially just as frivolous? Isn't eating steak because one particularly enjoys the taste (there's a lot of this type of evangelising abut the taste of steak, I find) pretty much of the same order of "entertainment", and hence deplorability, as the bullfight? Why do people eat steak when tofu is for sale on the next aisle over? Because they enjoy the taste of steak (usually).

I fail to understand the steak-eating focus of your post, as this thread is about eating "red meat" which includes hamburger and low-quality cuts of meat just as much as (if not more so than) steak. I guess I do not understand why you seem to be trying to turn this into an elitist type of thing (since it is not any such thing) by focusing on steak while ignoring hamburger, which is cheap and versatile and provides a vast array of low cost meals to those who might not otherwise be able to afford or be capable of coming up with nutritional meals for their families.

In any event, my post and my point is not about which particular cuts of beef one eats (or even about which particular animals one eats), but rather about my view that there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food, but much wrong with killing animals for entertainment.

[quarky]

I have no idea what you're babbling about here, Red. I do not see anything "self righteous" about my post at all, and it does not purport to include every possible hypothetical situation in which one may choose not to eat any particular type of meat.

Look, it's simple. We (humans) are at the top of the food chain for a reason. Choosing not to eat one or more of fish, poultry, beef, or any other animal is a personal choice made by individuals for myriad reasons. But glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment (as you have done) is, in my view, deplorable.

In short: Killing animals for food, I have no problem with that. Killing animals for entertainment, I have a problem with that.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand?



Food is entertainment. Even strawberries can be entertaining.
If food was simply about nutrition, can you imagine how differently we'd eat?
As mentioned prior, we lucky ones have choices as to what we eat.

To choose to eat mammals is a choice that should free one from any fantasies about humane treatment. In the human realm, we find no solace that a murderer eats his victim. In fact, it makes matters worse for the defendant in court.

Most people have an innate sense of a 'value' system with other animals.
There are animals that most people wouldn't eat. Mostly when it gets too close to home. Cannabalism has mostly disapeared. Society at large is trying to discourage the eating of chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, dogs, cats, elephants, and so on.

The reasons for this trend are not particularly scientific; its more of an emotional thing; maybe uniquely human.

Horses and cows and sheep and such are the next thing down that line.
Some people aren't happy with eating them. Some are. So be it.

If a bull fight turns your stomach you should probably be a vegetarian...or at least quit eating mammals.

Is that so hard to understand?

[volatile]

I fail to understand the steak-eating focus of your post, as this thread is about eating "red meat" which includes hamburger and low-quality cuts of meat just as much as (if not more so than) steak. I guess I do not understand why you seem to be trying to turn this into an elitist type of thing (since it is not any such thing) by focusing on steak while ignoring hamburger, which is cheap and versatile and provides a vast array of low cost meals to those who might not otherwise be able to afford or be capable of coming up with nutritional meals for their families.

That wasn't my intention. This certainly isn't about elitism. Feel free to substitute "hamburger" where the word "steak" appears; the point still stands. For most people in the Western world, most of the time, meat eating is flavour-lead choice and not necessity; as such it strikes me as more difficult than your argument so far has required to draw a stark line between eating meat from cows (OK) and using their death in pursuit of a different mode of enjoyment (Not OK).

I don't think the way you're drawing the line, nor where you're drawing it, is legitimate. What makes killing for one sort of enjoyment OK, but killing for another utterly deplorable?

[quixotecoyote]

I fail to understand the steak-eating focus of your post, as this thread is about eating "red meat" which includes hamburger and low-quality cuts of meat just as much as (if not more so than) steak. I guess I do not understand why you seem to be trying to turn this into an elitist type of thing (since it is not any such thing) by focusing on steak while ignoring hamburger, which is cheap and versatile and provides a vast array of low cost meals to those who might not otherwise be able to afford or be capable of coming up with nutritional meals for their families.

In any event, my post and my point is not about which particular cuts of beef one eats (or even about which particular animals one eats), but rather about my view that there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food, but much wrong with killing animals for entertainment.

Ok, since you prefer hamburger to steak, maybe this will help you understand her point:

I agree with you in part, but I disagree with you in one quite crucial area. Isn't the enjoyment of the taste of meat - when other non-animal, nutritionally-equivalent and far-from-unpalatable alternatives are available - essentially just as frivolous? Isn't eating hamburger because one particularly enjoys the taste (there's a lot of this type of evangelising abut the taste of hamburger, I find) pretty much of the same order of "entertainment", and hence deplorability, as the bullfight? Why do people eat hamburger when tofu is for sale on the next aisle over? Because they enjoy the taste of hamburger(usually). Do you reserve the same outrage for those who glorify the death of their food animals with T-shirt slogans such as "Meat is Tasty Murder" and "For Every Cow you Don't Eat, I'll Eat Five"? Aren't they "glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment"

I don't think the distinction is as vivid as you seem to want it to be.

IOW, the cut of meat was an irrelevancy that you chose to focus on.

[LashL]

Do you reserve the same outrage for those who glorify the death of their food animals with T-shirt slogans such as "Meat is Tasty Murder" and "For Every Cow you Don't Eat, I'll Eat Five"? Aren't they "glorifying the killing of animals for purposes of entertainment"

I don't think the distinction is as vivid as you seem to want it to be.


Oh, I see that you edited to add this after I had already quoted your original post.

What on earth are you talking about? What "outrage" are you talking about? Do I sound "outraged" to you? I am not at all. I am simply engaging in a discussion on a discussion forum.

I have never seen any T-shirt slogans such as those you describe in your post, so I really cannot comment on them too extensively as I do not know if they are (a) tongue in cheek responses to something else; (b) intended to be satirical; (c) worn by hard core believers in some kind of meat-is-king-let's-kill-the-king type of cult or something; or (d) something else entirely. But if I ever did see such a thing - in the absence of knowing what the hell they're on about - my initial reaction would probably be to think that those who would sport such nonsense on their chests are morons. They might even be comparable to those who glorify the death of animals for entertainment, such as bullfighting, for all I know, but without more information, I couldn't say.

[volatile]

Oh, I see that you edited to add this after I had already quoted your original post.

What on earth are you talking about? What "outrage" are you talking about? Do I sound "outraged" to you? I am not at all. I am simply engaging in a discussion on a discussion forum.

I equated "deplorable" with "outrage". I don't think that was unreasonable.

I have never seen any T-shirt slogans such as those you describe in your post, so I really cannot comment on them too extensively as I do not know if they are (a) tongue in cheek responses to something else; (b) intended to be satirical; (c) worn by hard core believers in some kind of meat-is-king-let's-kill-the-king type of cult or something; or (d) something else entirely. But if I ever did see such a thing - in the absence of knowing what the hell they're on about - my initial reaction would probably be to think that those who would sport such nonsense on their chests are morons. They might even be comparable to those who glorify the death of animals for entertainment, such as bullfighting, for all I know, but without more information, I couldn't say.

Those people are right here in a parallel thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5067728 Comments welcome; there is, as usual, some overlap. Such comments crop up in the first few pages of basically any vegetarianism thread on this forum.

(Pssssttt.... QC.... I'm a "he")

[LashL]

Food is entertainment. Even strawberries can be entertaining.
If food was simply about nutrition, can you imagine how differently we'd eat?
As mentioned prior, we lucky ones have choices as to what we eat.

To choose to eat mammals is a choice that should free one from any fantasies about humane treatment. In the human realm, we find no solace that a murderer eats his victim. In fact, it makes matters worse for the defendant in court.

Most people have an innate sense of a 'value' system with other animals.
There are animals that most people wouldn't eat. Mostly when it gets too close to home. Cannabalism has mostly disapeared. Society at large is trying to discourage the eating of chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, dogs, cats, elephants, and so on.

The reasons for this trend are not particularly scientific; its more of an emotional thing; maybe uniquely human.

Horses and cows and sheep and such are the next thing down that line.
Some people aren't happy with eating them. Some are. So be it.

If a bull fight turns your stomach you should probably be a vegetarian...or at least quit eating mammals.

Is that so hard to understand?

This is just ridiculous.

The food chain is what it is. We (humans) happen to be at the top of it.

I never said that bullfighting turns my stomach, by the way. It doesn't. What bothers me about it is that some humans take delight in the killing of animals for entertainment purposes, which I find deplorable. Animals should not be killed for entertainment purposes.

Humans do not eat for entertainment purposes. Humans must eat to survive (even though eating can, indeed, be entertaining, otherwise dinner clubs would never have taken off, etc.)

[volatile]

This is just ridiculous.

The food chain is what it is. We (humans) happen to be at the top of it.

I never said that bullfighting turns my stomach, by the way. It doesn't. What bothers me about it is that some humans take delight in the killing of animals for entertainment purposes, which I find deplorable. Animals should not be killed for entertainment purposes.

Humans do not eat for entertainment purposes. Humans must eat to survive (even though eating can, indeed, be entertaining, otherwise dinner clubs would never have taken off, etc.)

It reallty isn't ridiculous at all. Aside from the naturalistic fallacy (where we are "in the food chain" is more or less irrelevant; and indeed a similar argument could be made in support of making those stoopid bulls fight for us), the point is not that we eat for entertainment purposes in toto; it is that our choices of what to eat are basically down to what we, individually find enjoyable. We do not need to eat meat to survive. It is easy to eat a vegan diet. Under such circumstances, eating meat becomes a choice based on what we individually find enjoyable.

Yes, we need to eat. We do not, however, need to eat dead animals. That's where your argument breaks down and where your stark line bewteen deplorable bullfighting (for pleasure) and acceptable beef supper (for pleasure) becomes rather fuzzier.

What makes the pleasure gleaned from the taste of beef OK, but the pleasure gleaned from watching a bullfight "deplorable"?

[quixotecoyote]

This is just ridiculous.

The food chain is what it is. We (humans) happen to be at the top of it.

I never said that bullfighting turns my stomach, by the way. It doesn't. What bothers me about it is that some humans take delight in the killing of animals for entertainment purposes, which I find deplorable. Animals should not be killed for entertainment purposes.

Humans do not eat for entertainment purposes. Humans must eat to survive (even though eating can, indeed, be entertaining, otherwise dinner clubs would never have taken off, etc.)

It boggles me that you can write that parenthetical and still claim that we eat meat to survive and not because we like it better (find it more entertaining) than other options.

eta: sorry Mr. volatile

[LashL]

That wasn't my intention. This certainly isn't about elitism. Feel free to substitute "hamburger" where the word "steak" appears; the point still stands.

Yet, you focused solely on "steak" even though I never mentioned it, and you did so quite clearly and specifically, even though my post referred to "fish, poultry, beef or other" so one can only surmise that you did so purposely.

For most people in the Western world, most of the time, meat eating is flavour-lead choice and not necessity; as such it strikes me as more difficult than your argument so far has required to draw a stark line between eating meat from cows (OK) and using their death in pursuit of a different mode of enjoyment (Not OK).

There is, in my view, a very stark difference between eating meat (fish, poultry, beef or other) and killing animals for entertainment purposes. You will note that I did not limit this to cows, as I specifically mentioned "fish, poultry, beef, or other" - I feel the same way about all animals. They are fair game for food, but not fair game for entertainment purposes.

Bullfighting is conducted solely for entertainment purposes, and multiple humans involved in the "show" pic and stab the bull repeatedly, and eventually the matador attempts to strike a killing blow for purposes of garnering applause and personal glory.

I do not understand how any rational person cannot see the notable differences between eating meat and putting on a show that deliberately sets out to kill an animal for entertainment purposes, and to promote the personal 'glory' of the man who kills it.

[volatile]

Yet, you focused solely on "steak" even though I never mentioned it, and you did so quite clearly and specifically, even though my post referred to "fish, poultry, beef or other" so one can only surmise that you did so purposely.

We were talking about bullfighting. Steak comes from bulls. It wasn't some concerted misdirection or anything; simply an illustration of the point I was making vis-a-vis what strikes me as a rather marked weakness in your cricisims of Ibis' position. Simply: meat eating is a choice, not a necessity, for most people. Further: it is a choice based principly on preference; the satiation of one particular form of desire.

"I enjoy the taste of meat" is a common enough justification when you ask people why they ordered the steak, the ork, the lamb, whatever. Claiming that people buy meat because they enjoy it is not a strawman, is it?

There is, in my view, a very stark difference between eating meat (fish, poultry, beef or other) and killing animals for entertainment purposes. You will note that I did not limit this to cows, as I specifically mentioned "fish, poultry, beef, or other" - I feel the same way about all animals. They are fair game for food, but not fair game for entertainment purposes.

Yes. You said. And I (and now Quarky and QC) have explained why this doesn't really make much sense, given how we culturally relate to food. This is just a bad assertion; and a bald assertion that seems to jar with the rest of your argument.

Bullfighting is conducted solely for entertainment purposes, and multiple humans involved in the "show" pic and stab the bull repeatedly, and eventually the matador attempts to strike a killing blow for purposes of garnering applause and personal glory.

I do not understand how any rational person cannot see the notable differences between eating meat and putting on a show that deliberately sets out to kill an animal for entertainment purposes, and to promote the personal 'glory' of the man who kills it.

Because our food choices are entertainment that deliberately set out to kill an animal. What's so difference about taste, on the one hand, and enjoyment of a different kind on the other? Both involve the killing of an animal in the unnecessary pursuit of the satiation of human whim.

[quixotecoyote]

There is, in my view, a very stark difference between eating meat (fish, poultry, beef or other) and killing animals for entertainment purposes. You will note that I did not limit this to cows, as I specifically mentioned "fish, poultry, beef, or other" - I feel the same way about all animals. They are fair game for food, but not fair game for entertainment purposes.

And since food is an entertainment purpose (you certainly don't need meat to survive, you just prefer it), how does that affect 'fair game'?

Bullfighting is conducted solely for entertainment purposes, and multiple humans involved in the "show" pic and stab the bull repeatedly, and eventually the matador attempts to strike a killing blow for purposes of garnering applause and personal glory.

What is the point of this paragraph? Is it a challenge to respond with horror stories of farms and slaughterhouses?


I do not understand how any rational person cannot see the notable differences between eating meat and putting on a show that deliberately sets out to kill an animal for entertainment purposes, and to promote the personal 'glory' of the man who kills it.



Of course there are differences. The question is are those differences relevant to the question at hand, specifically whether eating meat is a necessity for survival or a voluntary act for the pleasure of the participant.

If the former, then there is indeed a difference between killing for the entertainment pleasure of spectators and killing for the entertainment pleasure of diners.

If the latter, then you are indeed setting out to deliberately support the killing of an animal for entertainment purposes. Does the fact that there is no glory in eating make it ok? Is that the important difference? It's the only one left from the quote.

[LashL]

I equated "deplorable" with "outrage". I don't think that was unreasonable.

I think you need to recalibrate your rhetoric meter as it appears to be seriously out of whack.

Commenting that I find a particular practice in which people kill animals for the purpose of entertainment does not = outrage. If I am "outraged" about something, you can rest assured that it will be made abundantly clear that that is the case.

You do yourself no favours by over-reaching and attributing ridiculous positions to others that they have never taken.


ETA: More tomorrow as I have to be in court in the morning so I must get some sleep. Interesting convo, though. See you later.

[quixotecoyote]

I think you need to recalibrate your rhetoric meter as it appears to be seriously out of whack.

Commenting that I find a particular practice in which people kill animals for the purpose of entertainment does not = outrage. If I am "outraged" about something, you can rest assured that it will be made abundantly clear that that is the case.

You do yourself no favours by over-reaching and attributing ridiculous positions to others that they have never taken.


ETA: More tomorrow as I have to be in court in the morning so I must get some sleep. Interesting convo, though. See you later.

From freethesaurus.net:

Main Entry: deplorable Synonyms:
abominable, affecting, afflictive, appalling, arrant, atrocious, awful, bad, base, beastly, beneath contempt, beneath one, bitter, blameworthy, bleak, brutal, calamitous, cheap, cheerless, comfortless, contemptible, debasing, degrading, demeaning, depressing, depressive, desperate, despicable, detestable, difficult, dire, disastrous, discomforting, disgraceful, disgusting, dismal, dismaying, disreputable, distressful, distressing, disturbing, dolorific, dolorogenic, dolorous, dreadful, dreary, egregious, enormous, execrable, fetid, filthy, flagrant, foul, fulsome, grave, grievous, gross, gutter, hateful, heartbreaking, heartrending, heinous, hopeless, horrible, horrid, horrifying, humiliating, humiliative, infamous, infra dig, infra indignitatem, intolerable, joyless, lamentable, loathsome, lousy, miserable, monstrous, mournful, moving, nasty, nefarious, noisome, notorious, obnoxious, odious, offensive, oppressive, opprobrious, outrageous, overwhelming, painful, pathetic, piteous, pitiable, pitiful, poignant, rank, regrettable, reprehensible, repulsive, rotten, rueful, sad, saddening, scandalous, schlock, scurvy, serious, shabby, shameful, sharp, shocking, shoddy, sickening, sordid, sore, sorrowful, sorry, squalid, terrible, too bad, touching, tragic, troubling, unbearable, unbecoming, unclean, uncomfortable, unfortunate, unworthy of one, upsetting, vile, villainous, woebegone, woeful, worst, worthless, wretched


The Collins English Dictionary suggests they are close enough to both be synonymous with "unpardonable."
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/unpardonable


Hardly a ridiculous overreach.

[RedIbis]

In any event, my post and my point is not about which particular cuts of beef one eats (or even about which particular animals one eats), but rather about my view that there is nothing wrong with killing animals for food, but much wrong with killing animals for entertainment.

So kittys and puppys are good for the grill?

[BTMO]

So kittys and puppys are good for the grill?

Depends on your culture... It happens (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591615).

[RedIbis]

Depends on your culture... It happens (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591615).

Oh I know it does. I was wondering if she was going to maintain the same absolutist illogic.

[quarky]

The 'taste' of meat, as well as its nutritional content, can be had without mammal enslavement. Even the texture of meat can be nicely mimicked with wheat gluten.

Its true that in some areas of the globe, eating meat is the most obvious and efficient way to go. But for the majority of Earth's humans, not so much. Its a choice, and one that implies some barbaric behavior along the line. Hunting is usually less so, mostly due to regulations that prevent mass slaughter or shooting bison from a train, or shooting caged birds that are released in front of your party.

Oops, scratch that last part. Long live Cheney.

[RedIbis]

The 'taste' of meat, as well as its nutritional content, can be had without mammal enslavement. Even the texture of meat can be nicely mimicked with wheat gluten.

Its true that in some areas of the globe, eating meat is the most obvious and efficient way to go. But for the majority of Earth's humans, not so much. Its a choice, and one that implies some barbaric behavior along the line. Hunting is usually less so, mostly due to regulations that prevent mass slaughter or shooting bison from a train, or shooting caged birds that are released in front of your party.

Oops, scratch that last part. Long live Cheney.

Canned hunts have to be one of the most despicable practices known to man. They give hunting a bad name. Real hunters would never be caught anywhere near one.

[quixotecoyote]

Canned hunts have to be one of the most despicable practices known to man. They give hunting a bad name. Real hunters would never be caught anywhere near one.

Seems like a good timesaver to me, although this is getting off-topic. If you want to talk about the sporting/honor values of hunting (or bullfighting) a new thread would probably be better.

[johnny karate]

Well it could, but only if you suck at arguing. If you have many options for food, you don't have to eat all of them. You can pick and choose. What do you pick and choose based on? Generally, either health or taste.If you choose to eat a cow because you think it's the only way to stay healthy, you're simply mistaken. If you choose to eat a cow because it tastes good, you're sanctioning the current treatment of beef cattle which in reality does include harsh treatment.

I’ve bolded the part that’s an egregious falsehood. It’s been demonstrated several times in this thread that there are other options available to a morally conscientious meat-eater than acquiring their meat from industrialized agriculture.

Now I love me a good hamburger, especially if you can get a good loose-meat burger that's depressingly rare these days. I can do that because I don't care that the cattle have to suffer for me to eat that burger any more than I care the spiders and ants in my house have to suffer because I'm happier with them dead.What I don't do is buy into the idea that I HAVE to eat cattle products because I need to eat. I don't. There are many other things I could eat, many with no measurable ability to feel pain/suffering/discomfort. Saying that because I have to eat I'm excused from the moral responsibility of my choices of food is not good argumentation. Otherwise I could go around killing children and eating them with a light honey glaze, and since I have to eat, you couldn't argue against my food choice.

No one is saying you have to eat meat. Feel free not to. But meat is food. Because the wonders of modern technology and prosperity make it so I don’t necessarily have to eat meat doesn’t change that fact.

And furthermore, your implication that a meat-eater can’t exercise moral responsibility in their food choices is so far from being true, it borders on obnoxiousness.

[johnny karate]

So kittys and puppys are good for the grill?

Oh I know it does. I was wondering if she was going to maintain the same absolutist illogic.

Speaking of which, you must be a big fan of dog-fighting.

[quixotecoyote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I’ve bolded the part that’s an egregious falsehood. It’s been demonstrated several times in this thread that there are other options available to a morally conscientious meat-eater than acquiring their meat from industrialized agriculture.

No. It hasn't. In a magical fairy world of rainbows and unicorns, sure, you can theoretically have happy cows prancing about the meadows frolicing for years until they grow old and are killed in painless stress-free manners.

It doesn't actually happen that way in the real world. Since I live in the real world, I prefer to concern myself with what happens there.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]No one is saying you have to eat meat. Feel free not to. But meat is food. Because the wonders of modern technology and prosperity make it so I don’t necessarily have to eat meat doesn’t change that fact.

Yes johnny. Meat is food. But you know what, if I make a steak out of a 6-year old, that's food too. If I did this, would I be able to just say, "meat is food" and have all responsibility magically vanish?

And furthermore, your implication that a meat-eater can’t exercise moral responsibility in their food choices is so far from being true, it borders on obnoxiousness.

Hey. I live in the real world where eating meat has consequences. You apparently do not. That's cool, but you don't get to comment on moral consequences in the real world until you start living here.

I'm not going to say it's impossible to find meat that's been raised in condontitions that don't cause animals to suffer. I will say that if such things exist, they will be such a small portion of the market as to be a negligible factor in considering the ethics of the situation.

[volatile]

I will say that if such things exist, they will be such a small portion of the market as to be a negligible factor in considering the ethics of the situation.

Indeed. But it's even firmer than that. These kinds of defences come up often when a poster can't refute the underlying logic - they will resort to saying "not all meat is terrible". Fine. I agree.

If that's the position someone wants to use to rationalise themselves out of the dilemma at hand, then let's hope they actually mean what they say and aren't just pitching it as a diversion:

Johnny - is all the meat you buy sourced from local, grass-fed small-holdings?

[johnny karate]

I'm not going to say it's impossible to find meat that's been raised in condontitions that don't cause animals to suffer.

Except for the part of your post where you did exactly that:
In a magical fairy world of rainbows and unicorns, sure, you can theoretically have happy cows prancing about the meadows frolicing for years until they grow old and are killed in painless stress-free manners.

It doesn't actually happen that way in the real world. Since I live in the real world, I prefer to concern myself with what happens there.



I will say that if such things exist, they will be such a small portion of the market as to be a negligible factor in considering the ethics of the situation.

But not negligible in rendering false an absolutist statement like this:
If you choose to eat a cow because it tastes good, you're sanctioning the current treatment of beef cattle which in reality does include harsh treatment.

If you want to demonize the meat industry for their deplorable conditions and treatment of livestock, I take no issue with that. But when you, and others in this thread, try and place the burden of the meat industry's sins on the shoulders of anyone who eats meat, you're completely in the wrong for reasons which you've just acknowledged.

[off-topic]I apologize for the screwed-up formatting of my last post (that subsequently carried over to yours when you quoted me). Posting on an iPhone has its challenges.[/off-topic]

[johnny karate]

Johnny - is all the meat you buy sourced from local, grass-fed small-holdings?

I see no point in personalizing. All I have to do is say "Yes" to your question, and it does nothing to further the discussion, nor do you have any way of knowing if I'm telling the truth.

[RedIbis]

Speaking of which, you must be a big fan of dog-fighting.

Nope. There's no matador in dogfighting. I appreciate the matador's skill and bravery and the dogs aren't slaughtered for their meat after the fight.

[johnny karate]

Nope. There's no matador in dogfighting. I appreciate the matador's skill and bravery and the dogs aren't slaughtered for their meat after the fight.

Since you make allowances for yourself to discern between animals that should be killed for sport and those that shouldn't, I don't think it's too much to ask to extend those same allowances to us meat-eaters.

[Prometheus]

So kittys and puppys are good for the grill?

Dog meat tastes a lot like pork, and is fine when grilled. I've not tried house cat, so I can't speak to that, but lion meat tastes like liver and would be disgusting grilled. Not bad in a stew with lot's of other strong flavours, though.

[RedIbis]

Since you make allowances for yourself to discern between animals that should be killed for sport and those that shouldn't, I don't think it's too much to ask to extend those same allowances to us meat-eaters.

I make allowances because the fighting bulls have been raised specifically for this purpose for over a thousand years. Watching a matador fight a sheep would not only be boring, it would eliminate the most important part of the bullfight which is the matador facing his own mortality. Sheep aren't particularly dangerous.

Do you support catch and release fishing?

[kerikiwi]

I'm not going to say it's impossible to find meat that's been raised in condontitions that don't cause animals to suffer. I will say that if such things exist, they will be such a small portion of the market as to be a negligible factor in considering the ethics of the situation.

If people choose to eat humanely produced meat, they can do so regardless of what other psople do. Ethics is ethics, regardless of the percentages.

Such things exist, and are the norm down this way.

[kerikiwi]

I make allowances because the fighting bulls have been raised specifically for this purpose for over a thousand years. Watching a matador fight a sheep would not only be boring, it would eliminate the most important part of the bullfight which is the matador facing his own mortality. Sheep aren't particularly dangerous.



Whether something has been done for a thousand years is irrelevant as to whether it is a good thing.

Whether an animal has been reared for the purpose of being tortured is irrelevant as to whether it is a good thing.

If the matador wants to face his own mortality I am sure we can come up with some ways which do not involve torturing another animal.

[johnny karate]

Do you support catch and release fishing?

I'm not a particular fan of injuring or killing any animal for sport, however issues of conservation and a fish's questionable ability to feel and process pain seem to make a special case of catch-and-release fishing.

[BTMO]

Canned hunts have to be one of the most despicable practices known to man. They give hunting a bad name. Real hunters would never be caught anywhere near one.

Hear hear!

Where I live, we mock people who travel half way around the world to do this.

(and yes, I consider myself a real hunter!)

[kerikiwi]

Canned hunts have to be one of the most despicable practices known to man. They give hunting a bad name. Real hunters would never be caught anywhere near one.

Why would you think that? Are the animals not bred specifically for that purpose?
Why is it worse than having a guide take you to where the animals are in the wild?
And 'one of the most despicable practices'? Really?

[quixotecoyote]

Except for the part of your post where you did exactly that:

Which was modified by the part of the post you quoted first, dishonestly creating a contradiction where there wasn't any.


But not negligible in rendering false an absolutist statement like this:


If you want to demonize the meat industry for their deplorable conditions and treatment of livestock, I take no issue with that. But when you, and others in this thread, try and place the burden of the meat industry's sins on the shoulders of anyone who eats meat, you're completely in the wrong for reasons which you've just acknowledged.

I have absolute confidence that if you eat meat, you will periodically eat meat that is not raised in idyllic conditions. You might shake that confidence my saying that you never eat meat in popular restaurants, never eat meat at a friends house where you are unsure of it's provenance, and never get lazy and pick up a package of sandwich meat at the corner store, and since I'm a trusting kind of guy, I'll believe you.

If you only EVER eat the happy frolicking cows from happy frolicking cow-farms, I'll be amazed, shocked, stunned into disbelief. But since I can't prove you don't, I'd have to exclude you from those responsible.

[RedIbis]

I'm not a particular fan of injuring or killing any animal for sport, however issues of conservation and a fish's questionable ability to feel and process pain seem to make a special case of catch-and-release fishing.

I find catch and release to be pretty pointless. When I fish, it's for a species I expect to eat. This is why, although it looks like fun, I've never been Tarpon fishing. It just seems pointless to me.

But in a coldly logical sense, since the bulls killed in bullfights are slaughtered and consumed, it's more ethical than catch and release, since the injury and suffering of the fish is only for sport. The fighting bulls are eaten.

I'm not sure if it's still the case, but the bulls killed in bullfights used to be slaughtered exclusively for the poor and distributed for free.

[BTMO]

Why would you think that? Are the animals not bred specifically for that purpose?
Why is it worse than having a guide take you to where the animals are in the wild?
And 'one of the most despicable practices'? Really?

Because hunting is about giving the animal a fair chance, trying to outwit it in its own environment and overcoming millions of years of evolved predator avoidance with stealth, cunning and planning.

A canned hunt is simply about shooting an animal. One which has nowhere to run, and in many cases has been hand (or at best, farm) reared and is used to seeing and even being fed by humans.

Here in NZ, there is another type of hunting that is even more unethical - helicopter "hunting". This is where rich folks chase animals from helicopters, the helicopter runs the animal down until it is exhausted, then the "hunter" gets out and shoots it. Or even just shoots it from the chopper. It isn't very common, and the genuine hunting community here (rightly) mock and belittle people who indulge in it. Especially if they then pretend they went out and did it the hard way - walk up mountains, camp out for a week in dodgy conditions, etc.

There is a funny story that I read in one of the South Island papers not that long ago. (googles it up) You can read about it here (http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/news/news-feature/high-country-aerial-cowboys-136.html).


ETA: Canned hunting is to real hunting what prostitution is to a normal sexual relationship. It reduces hunting to a simple business transaction between someone with a commodity, and a loser with money, who can't get any on his own merits.

[Toke]

There is a funny story that I read in one of the South Island papers not that long ago. (googles it up) You can read about it here (http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/news/news-feature/high-country-aerial-cowboys-136.html).

I my country poachers have theit equipment confiscated and given to the landowner, that includes rifle and car, a helicopter would count as equipment*.

*The poacher would then have a explanation problem with the owner of the helicopter.

[johnny karate]

I have absolute confidence that if you eat meat, you will periodically eat meat that is not raised in idyllic conditions. You might shake that confidence my saying that you never eat meat in popular restaurants, never eat meat at a friends house where you are unsure of it's provenance, and never get lazy and pick up a package of sandwich meat at the corner store, and since I'm a trusting kind of guy, I'll believe you.

If you only EVER eat the happy frolicking cows from happy frolicking cow-farms, I'll be amazed, shocked, stunned into disbelief. But since I can't prove you don't, I'd have to exclude you from those responsible.

Your personal incredulity doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

[kerikiwi]

Because hunting is about giving the animal a fair chance, trying to outwit it in its own environment and overcoming millions of years of evolved predator avoidance with stealth, cunning and planning.


You mean you think hunting is partly about...
Otherwise taking the animal's picture would be just as good an outcome as shooting it.
I think hunting is about finding dinner.
Or eliminating pests. Bugger giving rabbits or possums a sporting chance...

[johnny karate]

I find catch and release to be pretty pointless. When I fish, it's for a species I expect to eat. This is why, although it looks like fun, I've never been Tarpon fishing. It just seems pointless to me.

But in a coldly logical sense, since the bulls killed in bullfights are slaughtered and consumed, it's more ethical than catch and release, since the injury and suffering of the fish is only for sport. The fighting bulls are eaten.

I'm not sure if it's still the case, but the bulls killed in bullfights used to be slaughtered exclusively for the poor and distributed for free.

My understanding is that there seems to be some dispute about whether or not fish feel pain when their mouths are hooked, thus possibly rendering moot any discussion of the suffering they endure. Furthermore, they aren't killed, and are released back "into the wild", so to speak.

[BTMO]

You mean you think hunting is partly about...
Otherwise taking the animal's picture would be just as good an outcome as shooting it.
I think hunting is about finding dinner.
Or eliminating pests. Bugger giving rabbits or possums a sporting chance...

Rabbits and possums I will happily shoot with a spotlight. Different kettle of fish.

Canned hunting isn't just about shooting things or taking meat home - it is about getting a "trophy".

[quixotecoyote]

Your personal incredulity doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

Yes, I didn't think you ONLY EVER eat the happy frolicking cow meat, given how rare it is to find.

Thank you for your honesty.

[volatile]

And that, in essence, is the problem. People seem very happy to pay lip-service to their commitment to animal welfare, will find videos (such as the one I posted in the other thread of egg-factory chicks being put, live, into grinders) shocking and abhorrent, will proffer "but not all meat production is bad" in defence of any criticism of the welfare of food animals - but won't do anything about it.

Do something about it, if it bothers you. Go vegan.

[johnny karate]

Yes, I didn't think you ONLY EVER eat the happy frolicking cow meat, given how rare it is to find.

Thank you for your honesty.

Calling me a liar doesn't make for a very convincing argument either.

[johnny karate]

And that, in essence, is the problem. People seem very happy to pay lip-service to their commitment to animal welfare, will find videos (such as the one I posted in the other thread of egg-factory chicks being put, live, into grinders) shocking and abhorrent, will proffer "but not all meat production is bad" in defence of any criticism of the welfare of food animals - but won't do anything about it.

Do something about it, if it bothers you. Go vegan.

Yes, that type of restrictive diet should be adopted instead of, say, only consuming meat from retailers and restaurants that procure it humanely and abstaining from meat-consumption in all other circumstances because that type of restrictive diet is not possible under any circumstances anywhere, by anyone, ever.

And we know this because volatile and quixotecoyote say so.

[quixotecoyote]

Calling me a liar doesn't make for a very convincing argument either.

You wound me.

I am complementing you on your honesty.

I already said I would concede the argument that you bore any responsibility for the actions of the meat industry if you would tell me that you ONLY EVER ate meat from happy-farm cattle, and NEVER ate a hamburger from a fast-food joint, or meat at a friends house, or got sandwich meat from the supermarket, etc.

You were too honest to do that, however, so I complemented you on it.

[johnny karate]

You wound me.

I am complementing you on your honesty.

I already said I would concede the argument that you bore any responsibility for the actions of the meat industry if you would tell me that you ONLY EVER ate meat from happy-farm cattle, and NEVER ate a hamburger from a fast-food joint, or meat at a friends house, or got sandwich meat from the supermarket, etc.

You were too honest to do that, however, so I complemented you on it.

That I ignored your vaguely asserted offer of concession is proof of nothing. And it certainly does nothing to contradict my proposition that humane meat consumption lies comfortably within the realm of possibility.

[quixotecoyote]

That I ignored your vaguely asserted offer of concession is proof of nothing. And it certainly does nothing to contradict my proposition that humane meat consumption lies comfortably
within the realm of possibility.

Anything's possible. A troop of monkeys flying out your butt is possible.

When even the loudest defender of the proposition in this thread admits through silence that he doesn't operate under that proposition, I'm comfortable saying that I don't take it seriously. Although once again, I respect your integrety in refusing to claim that you do only eat humanly treated meat.

[johnny karate]

Your not-so-clever rhetoric trap is lame and tedious. But I guess when you've been proven wrong on the actual topic of the thread, resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks is your only recourse. I won't be responding to such childish nonsense any further.

[quixotecoyote]

Your not-so-clever rhetoric trap is lame and tedious. But I guess when you've been proven wrong on the actual topic of the thread, resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks is your only recourse. I won't be responding to such childish nonsense any further.

Well there you go then.

You say that it's wrong to tar meat eaters with responsibility for the meat industry because they could theoretically eat humanely raised and killed meat, even though they actually don't.

I say that's obvious ********.

Sure it's theoretically possible, but it's not how it actually happens. Even you, the champion of that argument in this thread, don't do it. That says to me my generalization is legitimate.

[RedIbis]

Your not-so-clever rhetoric trap is lame and tedious. But I guess when you've been proven wrong on the actual topic of the thread, resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks is your only recourse. I won't be responding to such childish nonsense any further.

How can someone be proven wrong when the premise of the thread is the subjective moral and aesthetic preferences of bullfighting and meat eating?

[quixotecoyote]

How can someone be proven wrong when the premise of the thread is the subjective moral and aesthetic preferences of bullfighting and meat eating?

I believe he's referring to post 176, where we started off on the tangent about whether meat eaters who only ever eat humanely raised and slaughters meat bear responsibility for the meat industry.

It's a question with some basis in fact, and indeed they don't. Of course, neither do their immediate relatives; the unicorns, leprechauns, and bigfoots.

[RedIbis]

I believe he's referring to post 176, where we started off on the tangent about whether meat eaters who only ever eat humanely raised and slaughters meat bear responsibility for the meat industry.

It's a question with some basis in fact, and indeed they don't. Of course, neither do their immediate relatives; the unicorns, leprechauns, and bigfoots.

I'm not so sure about that because he said, "when you've been proven wrong on the actual topic of the thread"

My bold.

[johnny karate]

Considering that I started the thread, I think I've got a pretty solid handle on the intended topic of discussion. But by all means, please continue conflating your own interpretation of what this thread is about with what it's actually about in order to score cheap points in an irrelevant semantic debate.

[quixotecoyote]

Considering that I started the thread, I think I've got a pretty solid handle on the intended topic of discussion.

Of course, since you'd rather play silly games than actually state whether you were speaking to the broader discussion or a specific point, the solidity of your handle shall remain unknown.

But by all means, please continue conflating your own interpretation of what this thread is about with what it's actually about in order to score cheap points in an irrelevant semantic debate.

Do you even know what 'semantic' means?

[BTMO]

I my country poachers have theit equipment confiscated and given to the landowner, that includes rifle and car, a helicopter would count as equipment*.

*The poacher would then have a explanation problem with the owner of the helicopter.

Yep, they do that here, too.

Unfortunately, people who hunt from helicopters are normally rich, politically connected, famous, or some combination of the above.

They seem to get different treatment to other poachers. People who poach fish, for example, regularly lose vehicles, boats, gear, etc.

Also, we don't really have game poaching laws as such here. All game animals are introduced to NZ, and are (legally) somewhere between vermin and crown property. The standard of evidence required to get a poaching conviction is MUCH higher for a poached tahr (for example) than it is for an undersized crayfish.

[Toke]

Bit of a shame, the loss of a helicopter would have been a great deterrent, they are not cheap.

[Lonewulf]

Or just cut down on meat intake enough to get rid of mass farming.

Hell, if you're really big on protein, just go insectivore.

[kerikiwi]

Also, we don't really have game poaching laws as such here. All game animals are introduced to NZ, and are (legally) somewhere between vermin and crown property. The standard of evidence required to get a poaching conviction is MUCH higher for a poached tahr (for example) than it is for an undersized crayfish.

Can tahr be 'poached'? Do we have any legal restrictions on hunting tahr? Or any other introduced pests?
Aside from not hunting on private land?

[MikeMangum]

This entire argument will soon be superfluous.

Is It Ethical To Engineer Delicious Cows That Feel No Pain (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/ethical-debate-pain-free-beef)?

:D

[Lonewulf]

Yes, that type of restrictive diet should be adopted instead of, say, only consuming meat from retailers and restaurants that procure it humanely and abstaining from meat-consumption in all other circumstances because that type of restrictive diet is not possible under any circumstances anywhere, by anyone, ever.

And we know this because volatile and quixotecoyote say so.

Can you please quote where they said that?

[BTMO]

Can tahr be 'poached'? Do we have any legal restrictions on hunting tahr? Or any other introduced pests?
Aside from not hunting on private land?

Yep, they can. They can be hunted legally on DoC land - but only on foot. Many areas in the conservation estate are no-fly zones. Flying in and shooting them without prior DoC approval is against the law, and counts as poaching.

Flying onto private property and shooting them (without permission) is also against the law, though in this case, I think it is only counted as tresspass. I don't actually know where the line is drawn.

I can't afford fly-in hunting, so I just walk everywhere...

:)

I also get permission before I hunt anywhere. In the case of DoC land, I get the appropriate permit(s). In the case of private land, I ask the land owner.