I believe that the deliberate killing of animals for "sport" should be outlawed.

While I can appreciate that raising animals for human consumption also offends many people, I believe that causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals for sheer "fun and games" cannot be justified.

I'm speaking here of such practises as bull fighting, which serves no purpose whatsoever apart from giving humans a cheap thrill. This so-called "sport" consists of subjecting a bull to prolonged and agonising torture. Its ordeal begins hours before the well-known public spectacle in the bull ring when he faces the matador.

Before being released into the ring, the bull is weakened in various ways. It has vaseline rubbed into is eyes and is beaten over the kidneys, for example.

Then, in the ring, it faces not just the "heroic" Matador with his cape and his sword, but is also stabbed repeatedly with lances and darts to further weaken it. The whole painful bloody affair is performed purely for human entertainment.

Fox hunting, banned a few years ago in Britain but still legal in Ireland and France, involves chasing fox for miles with hounds until its lungs give out and exhaustion delivers it to the pack to be torn to pieces.

The excuse that "oh the fox is menace to lambs and hens" doesn't wash...a single shot would dispatch the fox if indeed it posed such a threat. Chasing it for miles and subjecting it to prolonged pain and suffering achieves nothing...apart from creating amusement for human cruelty lovers.

Hare coursing is another example of a cruel bloodsport that exists purely for the amusement of humans. It conists of setting greyhounds after live hares in a confined area...Hares caught by the pursuing dogs are mauled to death or severely injured.

Spectators gathered around the scene of cruelty clap and cheer and laugh as the "sport" unfolds. I've read a book called Bad Hare Days that I've already referred to in the literature forum, that exposes the barbarities of this "recreation", and the treatment meted out to anyone in Ireland who opposes it.

There are other practises too...badger baiting, cockfighting, dog fighting...I ask: how can any of these activities be permitted to remain legal?

The question of shooting should be addressed too...Killing to control numbers is one thing, but shooting animals for fun and in many cases not even killing them outright, just wounding them and leaving them to die of their wounds, is another practise that I believe ought to be outlawed.

Bloodsports in my view are relics of a dark and barbaric age that we need to put behind us. I say we should move and...ban them, imposing stiff jail terms and fines for offenders.

There seems to be little interest in debating this topic. There is not much room for debate unless one wants to justify an aspect of sport killing. Bullfighting is not such a one sided sport. It is no sport for cowards. The bullfighter is at risk and some men are killed in the process. If one would research this sport one might discover that it takes years of practice to become a bullfighter. I would not even consider getting in an arena with a raging bull armed only with a sword and a cape because the bull would make short work of killing me for sport. ( Just about one month ago a local farmer was killed by a domestic bull while tending his cattle in the state where I reside.) Bullfighting is a cultural event that is restricted to just a few foreign countries. For me to say that that sport should be outlawed in that country would be a bit meddlesome since I am not a resident of a country where bullfighting is popular. My opposition to such a sport as a foreigner could be regarded as bull shit. The animal rights activist is prone to give limited views on such activities. If a bull that is killed during a spectator sport event and the meat is utilized as food then there could be some justification to it. If the beef of a defeated bull is not utilized as food then the beast dies merely for the entertainment of the crowd. I would agree that it is a blood sport.

quote:

The animal rights activist is prone to give limited views on such activities. If a bull that is killed during a spectator sport event and the meat is utilized as food then there could be some justification to it. If the beef of a defeated bull is not utilized as food then the beast dies merely for the entertainment of the crowd.

Let us set aside your first claim for a while. Why, in your mind, does eating an animal justify killing it, especially when we don't need to kill it at all to survive?

Once you have answered that, we can hit upon that first claim. I don't consider myself an 'animal rights activist', but no doubt you consider me one. I would say the exact opposite of your claim is true: 'Animal rights activists' present a much less limited view on killing animals, in that they consider more salient factors than meat-eaters and hunters do: They consider an animal's psychology and its wishes, alongside all else.

Non-necessity meat-eaters and hunters can only maintain their consciences by

(A.) claiming that an animal has no feelings.

(B.) claiming that an animal's feelings don't matter.

(C.) declaring themselves an evil sadist.

Very few people choose C, of course, and it is not an accusation. So I maintain that non-necessity meat-eaters and hunters offer severely limited views on killing animals for sport, as they do on killing non-human animals in general.

Let me entertain you

Come to think of it when you see some of the things being done to animals, you really want to become an animal activist. Join green peace or something man. I am supporting animals in this one. Not everything I do is justified but this one I am not supporting the killing of animals for fun. I don't want to see Lion VS. Tiger or Bear VS alligator either (very much the same route with killing for sport). Go buy a playstation / x-box - play 20 hours of Grand Theft Auto or something man. Leave the animals alone.

quote:

Non-necessity meat-eaters and hunters can only maintain their consciences by

(A.) claiming that an animal has no feelings.

(B.) claiming that an animal's feelings don't matter.

(C.) declaring themselves an evil sadist.

How about (D.) accept that no animals die peacefully. They are all going out with some actions (the jungle version of Animal Grand Theft Auto) and nothing is wasted.

Bull fighting is not done in the U.S.A. Bull riding is a form of rodeo sport in the U.S. and it is very dangerous. (I have personally seen one man killed while bull riding.) People outside of the U.S. can have their opinons but their opinions should not have any affect on the sport. I don't think the people in Mexico or Spain should have to give up a long standing cultural sport just because a few animal rights activist are opposed to it. Bull fighting is dangerous and can be fatal. If I had the opportunity to go see a bull fight then I would go see one just to get a first hand impression of it and not some second hand description. If after I saw one then I could give a first hand description and not merely an opinion.

When I say that I would agree that bull fighting is a blood sport I mean to say that it is a two-way blood sport because human blood is also spilled. When I say that animal rights activist have limited views I mean to imply they would have everyone believe that only bulls are killed. The same applies to fox chasing (with dogs). I have seen fox chasing and not once have I EVER seen a dog catch a fox. Why? Because the fox is too crafty (foxy). The animal rights activist would have everyone believe that ALLfoxes are caught and devoured without a sporting chance.

Cattle are slaughtered for beef everyday (without a fighting chance). At leat a bull in the arena has a fighting chance.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phantom_Delta,

So what you're saying, PD, is that basic rights - what we would term 'morality' - is genuinely relative according to nation?

Why?

Why should 'cultural traditions' trump basic rights? Do you apply the same rules to cultural traditions that kill or hurt human animals? If not, why the exemption to kill or hurt non-human animals?

Also, define 'sporting chance'? Does this nebulous criteria apply to humans as well? Can we kill or hurt them provided we allow them a 'sporting chance'? If not humans, why not? And how does our conduct towards animals differ in any important way?

Well this topic is about cruelly killing for "sport" should be outlawed. Many forms of "cruelly killing" have already been outlawed in the U.S. Cock Fighting is illegal but it is still done here and there in remote places on an illegal basis. Trapping animals for pelts or fur is sitll legal but the demand for fur has declined largely due to the Hudson Bay Trapping Company taking a "soft" position on furs worn for fashion. (And I have never seen an ugly woman wearing a mink coat.)

What is the real issue here? Is it humane killing versus cruel killing? Or is the issue that killing animals should cease and desist altogeher? It is no secret that I am a hunter and some say that I am defined as a hunter. I kill primarily for meat but I also hunt for sport and recreation as do millions of other people in the U.S. I no longer trap unless it is a necessity to remove timber killing beavers from my land and lake. In 2007 I killed three animals, one turkey, one deer and one hog. I fired only three shots which accounts for 100% accuracy (one wiht a bow, one with a musket and one with a centerfire rifle). All the kills were clean, no reflex, kills which is about the best I can do to make the "sport" of hunting less cruel than it already is. Killing is the nature of the beast.

What else can I say except that, "Steak Eaters Rule the World!"

--Long Horn Steak House.

quote:

All the kills were clean, no reflex, kills which is about the best I can do to make the "sport" of hunting less cruel than it already is. Killing is the nature of the beast.

Those two sentences alone act as an admission that killing for sport is cruel, only 'less cruel' than it might be.

Does this really boil down to 'cruelty' ought to be legal because 'killing is the nature of the beast'?

In that case, why have compassion for anyone or anything at all? This seems quite a slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark77:
I believe that the deliberate killing of animals for "sport" should be outlawed.

While I can appreciate that raising animals for human consumption also offends many people, I believe that causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals for sheer "fun and games" cannot be justified.

I'm speaking here of such practises as bull fighting, which serves no purpose whatsoever apart from giving humans a cheap thrill. This so-called "sport" consists of subjecting a bull to prolonged and agonising torture. Its ordeal begins hours before the well-known public spectacle in the bull ring when he faces the matador.

Before being released into the ring, the bull is weakened in various ways. It has vaseline rubbed into is eyes and is beaten over the kidneys, for example.

Then, in the ring, it faces not just the "heroic" Matador with his cape and his sword, but is also stabbed repeatedly with lances and darts to further weaken it. The whole painful bloody affair is performed purely for human entertainment.

s.

Have you ever seen a bull fight in your life? Do you have any soruces to back up you claims about the treatment of the bull prior to the event or are you basing this claim on some lame information that you may have read from PETA?

So, in effect PD, you're opting to avoid answering any of the questions posed to you, and instead making cheap shots based on the presumption that everyone who speaks up for non-human animals sources their information on the petty tactics and justifications touted by PETA?

Could it be you're hammering Mark77 into a very narrow stereotype that satisfies a knee-jerk yearning to dismiss any need to reexamine yourself, your culture, and the cultures of others? You simply don't have any reason to thrust such an accusation at Mark77, and it only makes your own footing look more dubious. Take care.

Bullfights occur in a lot of different forms, the only constant being cruelty to the animal involved. In some bullfighting cultures, pre-weakening the bull is probably the norm, in others, the bull no doubt starts out fit (if stressed and agitated) and gradually weakens due to exhaustion, bloodloss and shock. In any case, even if Mark77 provides some documentation of additional cruelty, isn't that beside the point? Isn't needless cruelty alone a stirring point, without having to provide evidence of additional cruelty as well?

How many needless cruelties does it take to make an injustice?

So far, the only thing we've got here is you admitting that hunting is cruel, with no actual defence mounted of it at all. Oh, except the claim that steak eaters have supremacy. Which, forgive me, I don't find a very convincing argument. I don't find it an argument at all.

In addition to that, you haven't provided answers to the following:

Why should 'cultural traditions' trump basic rights?

If you believe that cultural traditions trump animal rights, do you also believe they trump human rights? If not, why not?

Define 'a sporting chance'.

Does this really boil down to 'cruelty' ought to be legal because 'killing is the nature of the beast'?

If 'killing is the nature of the beast', assuming from context that the 'beast' you're refering to is the hunter, why do we frown on murder?

If killing is, to paraphase, 'in our nature', does that make killing the right thing to do?

Mark 77 opened this topic. The only post that he has contributed to QL are animal rights issues. He should be allowed to repond to a question. Is he not evading the counter issues? What sources are given for these allegations or accusations for the cruel pre-treatment of the bull prior to the bullfight. I have agreed with one his points. Bullfight is a blood sport.

Before my position on this issue is twisted or distorted any further Fuzzies then I want to make my position clear.

1) Bullfighting (though not for the faint of heart) is a longstanding cultural event that is most common in the countries of Spain and Mexico should not be eliminated as a spectator sport merely because a person from a foreign country feels that it is brutal.

2) Outside intervention in such an activity is meddlesome. Meddlers tend to be trouble makers and there is often a price to pay for meddling.

3) Animal Rights Activist tend to present skewed views of animal cruelty in order to capitalize on the emotions of people that are already slanted to views of animal rights organizations. Some organizations will pick your pockets if you let them. If you openly oppose them they tend to retaliate by implying that you are a Sadist or a Nazi and that you have no compassion for any single thing in the world. There is a thing as too much compassion. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

4) A two –sided view is usually presented to a more intelligent reader than a once sided view.

5) Steak Eaters Rule the World! I didn’t ascend to the top of the food chain to be an exclusive vegetarian

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

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phantom_Delta,