12 year old as bullfigther

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Ulc » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:11 pm UTC

Tl;Dr:

Daddy is a bullfigther, so obviously the boy began receiving training as one at five years old - then as 12 years old nearly manage to get himself killed when he falls during the animal torturing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/7809431/12-year-old-matador-in-hospital-after-being-thrown-by-bull.html

I find this activity to be incredible wrong in the first place - torturing a animal to death as a spectator show? What is wrong with people? I must admit to thinking "well done" every time I hear a bull has managed to kill it's torturer.

But allowing a 12 year old boy in this?

What The Hell!?!
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Do you eat burgers? Do you think meat cows are treated well? Is it worse to treat animals badly when you can see it?

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:25 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:I find this activity to be incredible wrong in the first place - torturing a animal to death as a spectator show? What is wrong with people? I must admit to thinking "well done" every time I hear a bull has managed to kill it's torturer.

So you enjoy people getting killed? How nice of you.

I ask you exactly the same thing as Zamfir. It's hypocrital to complain about killing bulls while eating cows with your other hand.

Czhorat
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Czhorat » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:25 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Do you eat burgers? Do you think meat cows are treated well? Is it worse to treat animals badly when you can see it?


There's a distinction between killing animals to be eaten and torturing them for public spectacle. I'll agree that there are many meat-animals which are mistreated, especially by large-scale commercial farms. I'd still argue that poor treatment as a byproduct of a capitalist system is not equivalent to torture for its own sake.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:26 pm UTC

Czhorat wrote:There's a distinction between killing animals to be eaten and torturing them for public spectacle.

You can go vegetarian, you eat meat for fun.

Kain
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:29 am UTC
Location: At the center of the observable universe.

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kain » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:29 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Do you eat burgers? Do you think meat cows are treated well? Is it worse to treat animals badly when you can see it?


There is a rather large difference between the prolonged public butchering of an animal for show, with food obtainment as the secondary goal, and a slaughterhouse which is primarily aimed at making money by selling what passes for quality meat. Not to say that one or the other is wrong, nor either right, just that a comparison between the two is rather a stretch.

In response to General_Norris, not everyone who eats meat does so for fun: I personally hate the texture, and the taste, but force myself to eat some meat here and there (two servings a week, typically) for proper nutrition.
Look, you know it's serious when a bunch of people in full armor and gear come charging in to fight a pond of chickens - Steax

Czhorat
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Czhorat » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:31 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Czhorat wrote:There's a distinction between killing animals to be eaten and torturing them for public spectacle.

You can go vegetarian, you eat meat for fun.


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

My point is that it is not the killing of an animal to which people object; it is both the method and the purpose. A bull killed in a bullfight is ritualistically tortured and dies in what must be, to the anumal, a long, painful, confusing struggle. The public torture and killing are an end to itself; it is literally a blood sport.

An animal slaughtered for meat at least could (and, in my opionion, should) be killed quickly and painlessly. The death is not an end in itself, but a means to the goal of providing food.

To me this is a fairly clear distinction.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Ulc » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Ulc wrote:I find this activity to be incredible wrong in the first place - torturing a animal to death as a spectator show? What is wrong with people? I must admit to thinking "well done" every time I hear a bull has managed to kill it's torturer.

So you enjoy people getting killed? How nice of you.

I ask you exactly the same thing as Zamfir. It's hypocrital to complain about killing bulls while eating cows with your other hand.


I don't enjoy them being killed - but I do think that it's their own bloody fault, and that they deserve it.

As Czhorat has pointed out there is a HUGE difference between killing a animal for food - and deliberately torturing for prolonged periods for nothing else than entertainment for a crowd.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:46 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:I don't enjoy them being killed - but I do think that it's their own bloody fault, and that they deserve it.

Nobody deserves death. Your idea of "justice" is twisted. No matter how evil you are, you don't deserve bad things.

Czhorat wrote:A bull killed in a bullfight is ritualistically tortured and dies in what must be, to the anumal, a long, painful, confusing struggle.

And why is the suffering of non-moral beings important? And if it is why such importance doesn't apply to killing them painlessly?

The public torture and killing are an end to itself; it is "literally" a blood sport.

No, they aren't. Compare it to hunting, the goal of hunting is not "killing" but aiming and using your skill.

The death is not an end in itself, but a means to the goal of providing food.

BUT, you can get food from somewhere else, you don't need meat. Perhaps Kain has a certain sickness that doesn't allow him to be vegetarian but that doesn't apply to the whole of the population and then, why is your life woth more than the thousands of animals you are killing for food?

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby HermanBlount » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:54 pm UTC

I'm not sure if I can defend bullfighting, since it IS essentially a gladiatorial bloodsport. Perhaps someone can offer something other than "It's ok to eat meat, so it's ok to torture animals." The best I can do is: These bulls aren't helpless and the outcome isn't assured. However, we're creating the scenario in the first place so that doesn't work too well.

It's pretty cool that a 12 year old is capable of bullfighting. I'm sure anyone here would promptly piss themselves before being gored if they made the attempt. (I mean "cool" in the sense that I'd be impressed if someone fought an orca whale with a knife and won. I don't want suicidal orca hunting to become a national past-time, thanks.)
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

User avatar
Chfan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:26 pm UTC
Location: American East Coast

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Chfan » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:23 pm UTC

Maybe we should lay off the eating vs. torturing discussion- it's one that's we've done many times before.
Just FYI, the guy isn't avatar isn't me. But he seems pretty cool.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Aikanaro » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:24 pm UTC

HermanBlount wrote:I'm not sure if I can defend bullfighting, since it IS essentially a gladiatorial bloodsport. Perhaps someone can offer something other than "It's ok to eat meat, so it's ok to torture animals." The best I can do is: These bulls aren't helpless and the outcome isn't assured. However, we're creating the scenario in the first place so that doesn't work too well.

It's pretty cool that a 12 year old is capable of bullfighting. I'm sure anyone here would promptly piss themselves before being gored if they made the attempt. (I mean "cool" in the sense that I'd be impressed if someone fought an orca whale with a knife and won. I don't want suicidal orca hunting to become a national past-time, thanks.)

Bullfighting is pansy-ass. I used to think it was, "Okay, you have a sword and a cape, and we're putting you up against a GD bull, good luck!" which would be pretty badass, if harsh. Then I found out how they slowly wound the thing, bit by bit, so that it's practically a mercy-killing at the end. If it were purely sword-and-cape-vs-bull, I could see it being more of a sport, but as it's a drawn-out affair of pain and blood, I can definitely see it as more animal torture.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby HermanBlount » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:45 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:Bullfighting is pansy-ass.


As I understand, they don't wound the animal before the fight begins. So, yes it is a combat between a bull and a human and that would be a frightening position to find yourself in. Would bullfighting be more acceptable if the bullfighter went right for the kill instead of the more prolonged method?
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

User avatar
olubunmi
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby olubunmi » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:08 pm UTC

HermanBlount wrote:
Aikanaro wrote:Bullfighting is pansy-ass.


As I understand, they don't wound the animal before the fight begins. So, yes it is a combat between a bull and a human and that would be a frightening position to find yourself in. Would bullfighting be more acceptable if the bullfighter went right for the kill instead of the more prolonged method?


I don't know. But it would also be less appealing to the public, so that's not going to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I find bullfighting cruel and completely pointless. But sadly there are people out there who actually like it, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:21 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Ulc wrote:I don't enjoy them being killed - but I do think that it's their own bloody fault, and that they deserve it.

Nobody deserves death. Your idea of "justice" is twisted. No matter how evil you are, you don't deserve bad things.


If you are willingly killing/hurting someone/something, and they fight back, any injury you incur from their self defense, up to and including death, is deserved.

If you are trying to kill a bull, and the bull kills you, you deserved to die. If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

General_Norris wrote:
Czhorat wrote:A bull killed in a bullfight is ritualistically tortured and dies in what must be, to the anumal, a long, painful, confusing struggle.

And why is the suffering of non-moral beings important? And if it is why such importance doesn't apply to killing them painlessly?


killing painlessly doesn't cause suffering.

Also, who decided that bulls are non-moral beings? And I don't mean in the "well, there is this school of thought", kind of way. I mean, is there any scientific evidence that bulls are non-moral beings? Because if not, it is perfectly justified to consider them moral beings.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Telchar » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:39 pm UTC

According to my sciency textbook, bovines rank between 43 and 67 on the Kleischenscheimer morality strip test.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Glass Fractal » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

HermanBlount wrote:
Aikanaro wrote:Bullfighting is pansy-ass.


As I understand, they don't wound the animal before the fight begins. So, yes it is a combat between a bull and a human and that would be a frightening position to find yourself in. Would bullfighting be more acceptable if the bullfighter went right for the kill instead of the more prolonged method?


They keep it in the dark so it can't see properly when it comes out and they shave the horns so it can't gauge distance properly. Before the bullfighter gets involved men on horseback stab the bull repeatedly in the neck to weaken it and then force it to run around the ring for a while to tire it out and anger it. So the idea that it's the matador vs the bull is something of a romantic ideal.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:If you are willingly killing/hurting someone/something, and they fight back, any injury you incur from their self defense, up to and including death, is deserved.

So if you try to kill someone with a bat I'm allowed to shot you dead in the spot?

If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

Also, who decided that bulls are non-moral beings? And I don't mean in the "well, there is this school of thought", kind of way. I mean, is there any scientific evidence that bulls are non-moral beings? Because if not, it is perfectly justified to consider them moral beings.

Then if you think they are moral beings why do you kill them for food? Why not kill humans instead?

Is blowing up puppies with Dynamite wrong? You kill them painlessly.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:24 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:If you are willingly killing/hurting someone/something, and they fight back, any injury you incur from their self defense, up to and including death, is deserved.

So if you try to kill someone with a bat I'm allowed to shot you dead in the spot?


Yes

General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.


In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

General_Norris wrote:
Also, who decided that bulls are non-moral beings? And I don't mean in the "well, there is this school of thought", kind of way. I mean, is there any scientific evidence that bulls are non-moral beings? Because if not, it is perfectly justified to consider them moral beings.

Then if you think they are moral beings why do you kill them for food? Why not kill humans instead?


Good question. Might want to ask the people who kills them for food. In my case, I only eat them, not kill them. Which is also morally wrong, but I value my enjoyment over some moral wrongs.

Killing humans is:
a) illegal... this kind of makes it hard to kill them for food

b) more dangerous... they tend to fight back. And form groups. And act intelligently.

c) more morally wrong than killing animals. Not all moral wrongs are equal.

General_Norris wrote:Is blowing up puppies with Dynamite wrong? You kill them painlessly.


Yes, it is wrong. It is a massive waste of money.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:30 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

Good question. Might want to ask the people who kills them for food. In my case, I only eat them, not kill them. Which is also morally wrong, but I value my enjoyment over some moral wrongs.

Killing humans is:
a) illegal... this kind of makes it hard to kill them for food
b) more dangerous... they tend to fight back. And form groups. And act intelligently.
c) more morally wrong than killing animals. Not all moral wrongs are equal.

You support animal killing by eating them. In fact, I could use the same example "I don't kill bulls, I only pay to see them get killed". Also you seem to value your enjoyment above the death of the dozens of animals you will eat while you live.

Danger and legality are irrelevant and don't make it wrong. And why are some animals more equal than others? What kind of difference there is if both are moral beings?

General_Norris wrote:Is blowing up puppies with Dynamite wrong? You kill them painlessly.

Yes, it is wrong. It is a massive waste of money.

Dynamite is cheap, I can afford it instead of buying that new console.

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby HermanBlount » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:36 pm UTC

Before the bullfighter gets involved men on horseback stab the bull repeatedly...


Then my understanding was incorrect and a 12 year old bullfighter isn't particularly impressive...although

Image

It may be stupid and cruel, but the main pansy-ass element would be the matador's outfit. While it looks like the human competitor rarely dies, they get maimed often enough that people who root for the bull might actually enjoy the show.

There's a nice collection of crazier pictures here: http://completeall.com/Informative-general/Bullfighting-Dangerous-Entertainment.html
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:38 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

In my opinion, for the duration of an attempted murder (while you are trying to kill someone), you temporarily forfeit your right to live.

I don't support the death penalty. On principle it is a good concept, but the system has too many faults

General_Norris wrote:
Good question. Might want to ask the people who kills them for food. In my case, I only eat them, not kill them. Which is also morally wrong, but I value my enjoyment over some moral wrongs.

Killing humans is:
a) illegal... this kind of makes it hard to kill them for food
b) more dangerous... they tend to fight back. And form groups. And act intelligently.
c) more morally wrong than killing animals. Not all moral wrongs are equal.

You support animal killing by eating them. In fact, I could use the same example "I don't kill bulls, I only pay to see them get killed". Also you seem to value your enjoyment above the death of the dozens of animals you will eat while you live.


I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.

General_Norris wrote:Danger and legality are irrelevant and don't make it wrong. And why are some animals more equal than others? What kind of difference there is if both are moral beings?


Some animals aren't more equal than others. If two animals are equal, they are equal. I simply don't believe that all animals are equal. Since we are humans, it is perfectly natural for us to treat our own species as being superior. Even if that treatment is wrong.

General_Norris wrote:
General_Norris wrote:Is blowing up puppies with Dynamite wrong? You kill them painlessly.

Yes, it is wrong. It is a massive waste of money.

Dynamite is cheap, I can afford it instead of buying that new console.


That... is really disturbing.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Ulc » Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:39 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Nobody deserves death. Your idea of "justice" is twisted. No matter how evil you are, you don't deserve bad things.


If you willingly and with your own full choice, puts something in a situation where it has no choice; either to kill you or to be killed, and then proceed to torture said creature for a long time - and it ends up succeeding. Then yes, you did deserve it. It was your own choice and the ability to avoid the situation was completely within your reach.

It has nothing to do with justice, but with consequences for ones own actions.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Glass Fractal » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:26 am UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

In my opinion, for the duration of an attempted murder (while you are trying to kill someone), you temporarily forfeit your right to live.

I don't support the death penalty. On principle it is a good concept, but the system has too many faults.


So killing someone without a trial is okay but killing someone after giving them a trial is wrong?

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:34 am UTC

Glass Fractal wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

In my opinion, for the duration of an attempted murder (while you are trying to kill someone), you temporarily forfeit your right to live.

I don't support the death penalty. On principle it is a good concept, but the system has too many faults.


So killing someone without a trial is okay but killing someone after giving them a trial is wrong?


Killing someone for having killed, is okay. Killing someone who is guilty, to stop them from taking another life is okay.

Trial or no trail doesn't have jack to do with it. It is about certainty. Even if someone is convicted guilty in a trial, there is a good chance they are innocent. I'm having a hard time imagining a realistic situation where someone with a knife rushes at you, trying to stab you, but have no intentions of harming you.

Besides, when someone is attacking you, there should be no burden on you whatsoever to ensure the attacker's health. You have a right to life, and if someone tries to take that from you by force, you are perfectly justified in utilizing excessive force to defend your life.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby meatyochre » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:00 am UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
Glass Fractal wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

In my opinion, for the duration of an attempted murder (while you are trying to kill someone), you temporarily forfeit your right to live.

I don't support the death penalty. On principle it is a good concept, but the system has too many faults.


So killing someone without a trial is okay but killing someone after giving them a trial is wrong?


Killing someone for having killed, is okay. Killing someone who is guilty, to stop them from taking another life is okay.

Trial or no trail doesn't have jack to do with it. It is about certainty. Even if someone is convicted guilty in a trial, there is a good chance they are innocent. I'm having a hard time imagining a realistic situation where someone with a knife rushes at you, trying to stab you, but have no intentions of harming you.

Besides, when someone is attacking you, there should be no burden on you whatsoever to ensure the attacker's health. You have a right to life, and if someone tries to take that from you by force, you are perfectly justified in utilizing excessive force to defend your life.


Doesn't "killing someone who has killed" involve passing judgment on a person while removed (temporally and/or geographically) from the "killed" situation? I'm not comfortable with you acting as the judge and jury in this case.

Or are you exclusively referring to instances where the would-be vigilante has personally witnessed a recent crime and is 100% sure that the same person is standing before him?
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:30 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
Glass Fractal wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
General_Norris wrote:
If you didn't deserve the death, that would mean the bull wasn't allowed to fight back. Which is ridiculous.

You are allowed to fight back and even kill the attacker. That doesn't mean he deserves to die because he attacked you or tried to kill you.

In my view he did deserve to die. He either deserved to die, or others are morally allowed to complain about your actions. Self defense should never be morally wrong.

So you assume he doesn't have the right to live because he tried to infringe your right to life? Do you favor death penalty?

In my opinion, for the duration of an attempted murder (while you are trying to kill someone), you temporarily forfeit your right to live.

I don't support the death penalty. On principle it is a good concept, but the system has too many faults.


So killing someone without a trial is okay but killing someone after giving them a trial is wrong?


Killing someone for having killed, is okay. Killing someone who is guilty, to stop them from taking another life is okay.

Trial or no trail doesn't have jack to do with it. It is about certainty. Even if someone is convicted guilty in a trial, there is a good chance they are innocent. I'm having a hard time imagining a realistic situation where someone with a knife rushes at you, trying to stab you, but have no intentions of harming you.

Besides, when someone is attacking you, there should be no burden on you whatsoever to ensure the attacker's health. You have a right to life, and if someone tries to take that from you by force, you are perfectly justified in utilizing excessive force to defend your life.


Doesn't "killing someone who has killed" involve passing judgment on a person while removed (temporally and/or geographically) from the "killed" situation? I'm not comfortable with you acting as the judge and jury in this case.

Or are you exclusively referring to instances where the would-be vigilante has personally witnessed a recent crime and is 100% sure that the same person is standing before him?


There is a reason I don't support capital punishment. If a would-be vigilante is presently witnessing a crime, that is one thing. Otherwise, even if it is morally right to kill a killer, there is a good chance that the would-be vigilante will kill an innocent. At which point, the killing of the target needs to be legally wrong. And yes, it is possible in my book for an action to be legally wrong, morally right, and there to be nothing wrong with the law.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby meatyochre » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:49 am UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
meatyochre wrote:Doesn't "killing someone who has killed" involve passing judgment on a person while removed (temporally and/or geographically) from the "killed" situation? I'm not comfortable with you acting as the judge and jury in this case.

Or are you exclusively referring to instances where the would-be vigilante has personally witnessed a recent crime and is 100% sure that the same person is standing before him?


There is a reason I don't support capital punishment. If a would-be vigilante is presently witnessing a crime, that is one thing. Otherwise, even if it is morally right to kill a killer, there is a good chance that the would-be vigilante will kill an innocent. At which point, the killing of the target needs to be legally wrong. And yes, it is possible in my book for an action to be legally wrong, morally right, and there to be nothing wrong with the law.

So you think it's morally right to kill someone who may be innocent of a crime, as long as the crime is murder?

What about if someone witnessed you killing the killer? Would it be morally right for the witness to kill you? After all, you're committing murder.

(removed some quotage to shorten the post)
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:16 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
meatyochre wrote:Doesn't "killing someone who has killed" involve passing judgment on a person while removed (temporally and/or geographically) from the "killed" situation? I'm not comfortable with you acting as the judge and jury in this case.

Or are you exclusively referring to instances where the would-be vigilante has personally witnessed a recent crime and is 100% sure that the same person is standing before him?


There is a reason I don't support capital punishment. If a would-be vigilante is presently witnessing a crime, that is one thing. Otherwise, even if it is morally right to kill a killer, there is a good chance that the would-be vigilante will kill an innocent. At which point, the killing of the target needs to be legally wrong. And yes, it is possible in my book for an action to be legally wrong, morally right, and there to be nothing wrong with the law.

So you think it's morally right to kill someone who may be innocent of a crime, as long as the crime is murder?


Depends on how we define may be innocent. I'm thinking of it in terms of, based only on evidence that you can be dead certain of, there is no way in hell the other person may be innocent. Some of that evidence may not stand up in a court of law (for example, "I saw him do it", would not automatically convict someone. But if you saw someone do it, then as far as you are concerned, they are guilty).

meatyochre wrote:What about if someone witnessed you killing the killer? Would it be morally right for the witness to kill you? After all, you're committing murder.


Depends on how they witnessed the event. If they saw me be assaulted by another person, and in self defense I killed them, it would not be morally right for them to kill me. Now, if I broke into the home of my mother's killer, and killed him in his sleep, and someone saw that, they would be morally justified in killing me. By choosing to kill him myself, instead of exhausting the legal avenues available, I'm accepting the risks that come along with it.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby General_Norris » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:36 am UTC

Kayangelus wrote:Killing someone for having killed, is okay.

So you create even more pain? What puporse does it have other than revenge? None.


Kayangelus wrote:I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.

Then don't complain about bullfighting. It's that simple.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:45 pm UTC

Chfan wrote:Maybe we should lay off the eating vs. torturing discussion- it's one that's we've done many times before.

Is there a godwin's law version for meat vs torture arguements? McDonald's law or something :roll:

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby jakovasaur » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:58 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.

Then don't complain about bullfighting. It's that simple.

Kayangelus is (I think) arguing that bullfighting is a more serious moral wrong than eating animals. Are you trying to say that anyone who commits immoral acts is forbidden from drawing attention to more egregious displays of immorality? I can think of many examples where people do immoral things to a certain degree (e.g. lying) and are completely justified in criticizing someone who commits a similar offense to a greater extent (e.g. politicians lying to constituents).

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:49 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:Kayangelus is (I think) arguing that bullfighting is a more serious moral wrong than eating animals. Are you trying to say that anyone who commits immoral acts is forbidden from drawing attention to more egregious displays of immorality? I can think of many examples where people do immoral things to a certain degree (e.g. lying) and are completely justified in criticizing someone who commits a similar offense to a greater extent (e.g. politicians lying to constituents).


The point I believe was that killing and "torturing" (due to the way they are kept) animals for food pleasure is pretty much the same thing as torturing and killing animals for entertainment pleasure. I suppose we could distinguish the people who like watching bullfighting BECAUSE of the torture from those who watch it for whatever else they find entertaining in it (skill, risk whatever). In making such a distinction I have no issue with saying that those who like watching bullfighting because they like torture are more immoral than those watching it because they like to watch the skill of the bullfighter. I mean similarly I'd make the same distinction for those who eat meat because they like killing animals compared to those who simply like the taste of meat.

The issue is I don't think there are many people who fall into the first categories in each case. I don't know anyone who eats meat because the like to kill animals. I don't know anything about bullfighting but I can't imagine the number who like to watch it specifically because of the torture is very large.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:50 pm UTC

You can't consider bullfighting and eliminate the massive cultural element, It's more than just sport, it's a massive and important part of Iberian and Latin heritage too.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby HermanBlount » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:18 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.


So, you are willing to make an exception to your moral code in order to increase your enjoyment. Isn't that exactly what bullfighting spectators are doing? Even if the answer is yes in many cases, there probably are spectators who DON'T have a moral conflict with this particular kind of animal cruelty. Just as there are people who don't have a moral conflict with eating animals.
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby big boss » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:18 pm UTC

humans are omnivores and are designed for meat as well as plant consumption, get over it, eating meat is natural
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:29 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:Killing someone for having killed, is okay.

So you create even more pain? What puporse does it have other than revenge? None.


Why do you ask a question and then assume my answer? Are you training to be psychic? If so, you are doing rather poorly.

One purpose is justice. Another would be, making sure it doesn't happen again. Revenge is there too, but what is wrong with revenge? If someone hurts you, what is wrong with hurting them back? If they aren't intelligent enough on their own to figure out not to hurt you once, you can't depend on them to magically become intelligent enough. When people kill, well, they are a threat to society at large.

General_Norris wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.

Then don't complain about bullfighting. It's that simple.


You are missing an argument here, and jumping straight to the conclusion.

I consider bullfighting to be a lot worse than eating meat. Bullfighting scores a lot higher on my list of moral wrongs than eating does. The same way that just because I lie doesn't mean I'm not disgusted by a rapist, me eating meat doesn't mean I'm not disgusted by this activity.

HermanBlount wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:I already said eating them is morally wrong. And yes, I value my enjoyment over the lives of dozens of animals. It is morally wrong, but that isn't my biggest fault.


So, you are willing to make an exception to your moral code in order to increase your enjoyment. Isn't that exactly what bullfighting spectators are doing? Even if the answer is yes in many cases, there probably are spectators who DON'T have a moral conflict with this particular kind of animal cruelty. Just as there are people who don't have a moral conflict with eating animals.


Not making an exception to my moral code. Breaking my moral code. There is a difference.

Just because some spectators don't have moral issues with bullfighting, doesn't mean it isn't an immoral activity based on my moral code. Nor does it mean that if the bullfighter gets hurt or dies, he did not deserve it. Than again, that last bit has very little to do with the morality of the event itself.

User avatar
HermanBlount
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:17 pm UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby HermanBlount » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:58 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:Not making an exception to my moral code. Breaking my moral code. There is a difference.


Could you elaborate on what that difference might be? I'm not seeing it.
It's AFTER the end of the world. Don't you know that yet?

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:02 pm UTC

HermanBlount wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:Not making an exception to my moral code. Breaking my moral code. There is a difference.


Could you elaborate on what that difference might be? I'm not seeing it.


Making an exception would be, if I rewrote my moral code so that specific action was okay. And than I can be satisfied with myself by pretending I'm a moral person

As is, I at least acknowledge the flaw, even if I don't do anything about it.

User avatar
Dibley
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 pm UTC
Location: Napa Valley, California
Contact:

Re: 12 year old as bullfigther

Postby Dibley » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:12 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:According to my sciency textbook, bovines rank between 43 and 67 on the Kleischenscheimer morality strip test.

What is this? The only google result for "Kleischenscheimer" is this thread.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests