Bullfighting vs. Red Meat Consumption

johnny karate · 25th August 2009, 10:23 AM

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:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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 · 25th August 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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 · 25th August 2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

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/to...ge/14-400.html

quarky · 25th August 2009, 10:42 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 10:45 AM

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

madurobob · 25th August 2009, 10:46 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 10:52 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:07 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:17 AM

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

TexasJack · 25th August 2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by madurobob

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:39 AM

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

RedIbis · 25th August 2009, 11:41 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by madurobob

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by madurobob

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:50 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...49#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 · 25th August 2009, 11:51 AM

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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 · 25th August 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

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 · 25th August 2009, 12:03 PM

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 · 25th August 2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

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 · 25th August 2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by madurobob

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 · 25th August 2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by 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?
== 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 · 25th August 2009, 01:17 PM

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:25 PM

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Darth Rotor · 25th August 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

They are all blood sports, but I'll play along with your chosen distinction here. It's a reasonable point to make.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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 · 25th August 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ysidro

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 · 25th August 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by madurobob

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 · 25th August 2009, 02:04 PM

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

BTMO · 25th August 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Toke

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

I think you mean "minks".

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

Jungle Jim · 25th August 2009, 02:22 PM

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 · 25th August 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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.

25th August 2009, 10:23 AM	#1
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	Bullfighting vs. Red Meat Consumption 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: Originally Posted by RedIbis 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. Originally Posted by johnny karate 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. Originally Posted by RedIbis 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.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

25th August 2009, 10:26 AM	#2
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by johnny karate 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.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

25th August 2009, 10:39 AM	#3
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 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/to...ge/14-400.html
	__________________ Please go to www.curedfoundation.org and make a donation of only a dollar to help find a cure for a rare autoimmune disease that my son is currently battling called Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis

25th August 2009, 10:42 AM	#4
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	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.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

25th August 2009, 10:45 AM	#5
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	Is the acquisition of meat the purpose of bullfighting? Or is it merely an afterthought to the barbarism?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 25th August 2009 at 10:48 AM.

25th August 2009, 10:46 AM	#6
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	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.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 10:52 AM	#7
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	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.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

25th August 2009, 11:07 AM	#8
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	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.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

25th August 2009, 11:16 AM	#9
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by johnny karate 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.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 11:17 AM	#10
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,462	At least the bull in the ring gets a swing at the guy killing him, so to speak.
	__________________ It's always been Wankershim. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

25th August 2009, 11:21 AM	#11
TexasJack Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,881	Originally Posted by 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. I think Bullfightings' exploiting the suffering for entertainment value is the real issue for me. The purpose of a slaughterhouse is not for amusement.

25th August 2009, 11:24 AM	#12
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,441	Originally Posted by madurobob 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)
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

25th August 2009, 11:31 AM	#13
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by rwguinn 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?)
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here. Last edited by madurobob; 25th August 2009 at 11:37 AM.

25th August 2009, 11:39 AM	#14
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	Bullfighting is wrong because it's wrong to play with your food.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

25th August 2009, 11:41 AM	#15
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	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 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

25th August 2009, 11:45 AM	#16
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by madurobob 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.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

25th August 2009, 11:46 AM	#17
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,462	Originally Posted by madurobob 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?
	__________________ It's always been Wankershim. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

25th August 2009, 11:50 AM	#18
maddog Intimidating Terrapin Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The People's Republic of Maryland Posts: 11,820	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...49#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.
	__________________ 90% of what I say is meant to be funny, and the other half doesn't mean anything at all. When I grow up, I want to be just like me.

25th August 2009, 11:51 AM	#19
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,977	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.
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

25th August 2009, 11:58 AM	#20
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by RedIbis 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.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 11:58 AM	#21
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Piscivore 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.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

25th August 2009, 12:03 PM	#22
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	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.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

25th August 2009, 12:11 PM	#23
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by Piscivore 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)
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 12:22 PM	#25
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by RedIbis 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.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 01:13 PM	#26
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by 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? == 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

25th August 2009, 01:17 PM	#27
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	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?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

25th August 2009, 01:20 PM	#28
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by 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? 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?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

25th August 2009, 01:25 PM	#29
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	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.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

25th August 2009, 01:29 PM	#30
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,826	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 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.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

25th August 2009, 01:46 PM	#31
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by johnny karate 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.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here. Last edited by madurobob; 25th August 2009 at 01:49 PM.

25th August 2009, 01:47 PM	#32
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,462	Originally Posted by johnny karate 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.
	__________________ It's always been Wankershim. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

25th August 2009, 01:49 PM	#33
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	Originally Posted by 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. They also don't fight to the death. And if they did, they probably wouldn't cook up the loser.
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

25th August 2009, 01:54 PM	#34
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by 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. They are all blood sports, but I'll play along with your chosen distinction here. It's a reasonable point to make. Originally Posted by johnny karate 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.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 25th August 2009 at 01:55 PM.

25th August 2009, 01:55 PM	#35
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,543	Originally Posted by Ysidro 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
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

25th August 2009, 02:00 PM	#36
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by madurobob 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.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)