Of bullfightings

Orleander said:
really?! I never hope that a person dies.
I hope he has a change of heart or the bull runs over him and breaks his leg. I never hope for his death.
Click to expand...

Ok, seriously injured then :p
He doesn't give the bull's life a second thought either though, if he would be killed in the process I can't say that I would even feel the slightest bit of sorrow for him.
 
S.A.M. said:
What would you prefer if you were being killed for sport? Being shot from a distance or the opportunity to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

I would prefer not to be killed for sport.
And if I HAD to pick my way of death I would definitely pick the gun.
 
Orleander said:
I am unable to put animals on the same level as humans. To me, killing for sport means you walk away from the dead animal and leave it to rot.

Do you know if they eat the bull?
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy, humans ARE animals.
 
S.A.M. said:
Killing animals for sport is barbaric anyway. IMO, it has the same level of sophistication as a serial killer who kills for pleasure or marauding armies who sign up to kill innocents. And there are a lot more humans to spare.
Click to expand...

Huh ? :)
I never imagined...
 
Orleander said:
thats a hair you choose to split. :rolleyes: For me, its humans and animals.
Click to expand...

It's not splitting hairs at all, it's a fact.
If humans were not animals the situation would be completely different, so it's valid point I am making.
 
S.A.M. said:
What would you prefer if you were being killed for sport? Being shot from a distance or the opportunity to defend yourself?
Click to expand...
I would prefer to be shot at a distance rather than tortured to death while people cheered and somehow got off on my suffering and death and treated my killer as if he was a sexy little god and an artist.

Besides a bullfight is further from the spirit of halal since the animal must indeed suffer, whereas a shot through the brain or heart, while not halal, certainly has minimal animal suffering. So I would have thought you would be rather heartily against bullfighting.
 
I think the concept had potential but the spanish have fucked it up, there's even recently been an expose' uncovering the reality that the bulls are often drugged to make them a bit lethargic. It should be more fair, made so the bull is naturally more likely to win, so the matador can honestly own his claim of being brave and manly, and more- a true sporting gentlemen.
And bulls who win should be cherished and prized as heroes, killing them should be a serious crime.

I am always hoping the bull kills the matador, ofcourse, BUT I don't see it as inherently cruel as many people do.
I don't blame people for "anthropomorphising" animals, because the difference certainly isn't as huge as most people think, but why do we attribute them with the personalities of babies or liberals?
The reality is the spanish bull is a rough tough fighter by nature. It actually lives to fuck things up, it loves it.
It's just not accurate to imagine this terrified tortured animal running away from this scary lecherous matador, they're so genuinely enraged through the ordeal they probably don't feel pain untill the brink of death, not because they are "simple animals", but rather because they aren't that different to people and their experience of engaging in battle does not differ so much from ours.

The spanish have fucked it up, but I agree it's certainly no worse than shooting a cow, or keeping cows in little stalls. At least before death the bull gets to express itself as a bull should, and the chance (even if too slim) to avenge the treatment of it's bretheren.
It's sad that this is the case, but they truely are priveledged as far as bovine go.

I agree clean it up, so it can truely be a sport (aka a fair contest), but I think sometimes our anti-animal-cruelty sentiments are misplaced. From our perspective this is crueler than being a commercial farm cow, but that's only because we've never had to live as a commercial farm cow (a far more profoundly torturous ordeal than being stabbed in the heat of battle), and we're for the most part pussies.
Bulls aren't pussies, they're tough rough balls of testosterone who would definately choose to fight matadors rather than lead the lives of most cattle if they could speak.

"Killing things for sport" shouldn't be a dirty phrase, it's really about giving what you kill a fighting chance, rather than not. The better it's chance, the more "sporting" the pursuit. The ultimate gentlemen would fish with no bait. I personally hunt swift game with mastiff type dogs, haven't caught anything yet but had some surprisingly close calls, now that is sporting.

If you truely care about the animal's perspective making the kill "sporting" is far more important than whether you eat it afterwards or whether the killing is for a good cause.
It doesn't give a shit about those things, it only wants a really good chance to win and/or get away, and when it succeeds in these things, when it exercises the attributes it inheritted to succeed as whatever it is and proves them to be in the adequate to excellent range, it quite thoroughly enjoys itself and feels very satisfied indeed. It would rather have these opportunities to exhibit it's prowess as an "animal x" than be left alone.
The bull in those images is feeling a sensation so thrilling and satisfying as it rucks and gores into that man, that any fat bull in a meadow would die 100 times to feel it once.

But, still, I don't think the bullfight has stayed true to it's sporting premise, and it should be revised.
 
Much as I dislike bullfighting watching a bullfight is not nearly as bad as eating veal or any of a number of other meat products produced by factory farming in terms of suffering generated.
 
The idea of the bull fight is incredibly romantic.

That being said, some of the practices take away from the manliness: Sometimes the bull is all ready injured before the final fight.

I love the idea of man v. a beast of such power. Matadors and toreadors are brilliant men.
 
Prince_James said:
The idea of the bull fight is incredibly romantic.

That being said, some of the practices take away from the manliness: Sometimes the bull is all ready injured before the final fight.

I love the idea of man v. a beast of such power. Matadors and toreadors are brilliant men.
Click to expand...

lol I assume this is meant to be sarcastic..
 
Simon Anders said:
I would prefer to be shot at a distance rather than tortured to death while people cheered and somehow got off on my suffering and death and treated my killer as if he was a sexy little god and an artist.

Besides a bullfight is further from the spirit of halal since the animal must indeed suffer, whereas a shot through the brain or heart, while not halal, certainly has minimal animal suffering. So I would have thought you would be rather heartily against bullfighting.
Click to expand...

Killing for sport is not halal. In fact, cruelty to animals is not halal. Caging birds, using anything live as a target, using anything live for sport, stealing babies from animals, is all considered abominable under Islam.


Even the process of slaughter deems that the animal must not suffer; it is very similar to the Jewsih process of Kosher meat.

The "Shochet" - slaughterer - uses a special knife which has to be incredibly sharp and completely smooth (any nicks in the blade might tear the animal's flesh on the way down and cause pain). The knife should be able to cut smoothly and cleanly through the neck. The cut is made in a specific place in the neck, and although death isn't instantaneous (no method of slaughter is), the animal loses consciousness immediately due to the sudden drop of blood pressure in the head. Complete death results shortly after. As a comparison, let's look at some other methods of slaughter which are used. The "Captive Bolt Gun". Imagine a normal gun, but the bullet has a string attached to it so it flies out of the barrel, but can be reset and re-loaded again leaving nothing behind. Now take an animal, press this up against its skull and fire. Bolt goes into skull and pulled out again. Requires 4-5 shots normally to cause complete death, during which animal is in agony. Electrocution. Let's compare this with human executions in the electric chair. There have been cases where people being killed in the chair have caught fire and had smoke coming from their heads while still showing signs of life. Witnesses have been sick from the stench of burning flesh. Some researchers have said that being killed by electrocution would kill you by oxygen starvation (you couldn't breathe due to paralysis from the electricity), while at the same time being burnt alive. So much for a painless death! As long as people wish to eat animals (don't get me wrong, I'm a steak lover), we have to kill them first. And I truly believe that "Shechitah" - the method of slaughter for Kosher food - is the least painful for the animal concerned.
Click to expand...

Since the animal is not stressed, the meat tastes better.

I think the factory method is automated decapitation, which of course necessitates the animal holding his or her head in a specific manner, so as to avoid just having half the face chopped off, the animal still conscious. Not to mention the effects on the animals coming up behind them.
 
Last edited:
Actually I think the description of the use of bolt guns or electricity is kind of misinterpreted. Decapitation is afaik only done to chickens which are numbed by electrocution beforehand. Pigs or cows are only electrocuted or bolted, respectively to numb them, then both are cut and bled to death as in Islamic or Jewish tradition. They are not used as a means of killing.
What I find strange is that fact both (well especially in the Jewish tradition, it appears that there is no strict consensus in the Islamic population) object to means of numbing the animals prior to cutting their throat.
Also the method of slaughtering for Kosher food only is less stressy if it is done in low quantities. If you somehow do the same for hundreds of cows a day you will also at some put them under stress.
 
I think Muslims object to the numbing because it usually involves giving an electric shock to the animal's skull. I know that is the practice in some western countries where they are squeamish about bleeding out the animal. I've seen the kosher killings but not the electrocution. So I could not tell you which is better.

However, where I have been, it is not a practice to kill one animal in front of another [that is also not permitted in Islam, though probably not as rigorously followed] and I have cut myself with a scalpel enough times to know that a really sharp blade gives a fine and painless cut.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top