Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Let's arrest a primary consumer because he killed a secondary consumer.
I know you said that they're being killed for two different reasons, but the thing is, at least killing cows for beef is actually helping someone. When we kill them for beef, they come to us for food thus serving a reason behind their deaths. When we pit bulls against each other, we're just creating violence for absolutely no reason besides to entertain people.
Lets also arrest one species from taking dominance over another. A completely natural process.
So would you think it was right or wrong if I had a tiger attack you just so "it could be fed."?
Do you then consider hunting to be ridiculous as well? I've seen no one bring hunting into question when it's basically the same thing. Humans killing animals for sport.
And that's exactly the parallel I'm making between calling bullfighting wrong and then experiencing what happens in nature. The reasons are different but it doesn't change the fact that the action happened. An animal was killed against its wishes for the gain of another animal.
Well, humans are dominant over cows and the latter are killed against their wish. Based on that argument of yours, we should really be arrested.
True, but only if bullfighting were actually wrong as people are asserting it is. Which is exactly the point I'm driving at. It's a ridiculous idea to arrest someone for killing a cow to make beef. Essentially we've taken dominance over the cow and have used it for our purposes.
Blood sport.
What difference does that make? That would only mean something if animals had rights. And I don't believe they do, humans included, and killing a cow for beef is also violence towards an animal.
Would you be so kind to elaborate? Why don't you believe they have rights? I would like to see your thoughts.
I'm more interested in his human rights thoughts, but the "non-human" animal rights ones would also be good to read, because I have read the article from Wikipedia(listed in the OP) before posting this thread and mostly agree with it.
Herbert Spenser put it like this: "survival of the fittest"
Bullfighting serves as much of a purpose as the gaming, music, and theater industry-keeping us entertained. If viewership started to dwindle, then I'd start arguing against it, but it serves a legitimate purpose.
And bam, just like that you've violated that animal's so called "rights".
So entertainment isn't purpose to be met anymore?
So? With beef production "YOU'RE FORCING" a cow to die. Same action.
Any form of homicide is against the law and tried in court.
Cool stuff. So, I assume you are against bullfighting's prohibition. Am I right?
You are right.
Oh, I see. Asked that because I got a little confused due to your first post in this thread and the other ones. :S
There are two principles in play here: loyalty and harm reduction. Loyalty, in and out group behavior, denotes that we should be loyal to our own, do what benefits our own group, in this case, our own species. However, these boundaries are arbitrary. At what level of community should we be loyal to? A bull, ape, homo erectus, homo sapien, racial, tribal, or religious ties? Reducing harm transcends these boundaries against the tradition of loyalty.
Ah, so you'd rather care about your lazy entertainment fix than a living thing's life.
That's the kind of thinking that got us into this ecological crisis.
This isn't true. Buzzards and every other animal that can eat our body after we are dead is above us in the food chain. However, they do not determinate the rules because being at its top doesn't give them the power to do so.
While earlier I may have said that I believe animals have no rights. I did not say how exactly we should treat them. Animals outside of ourselves do a lot to keep us going. My overused example of the cow, if we don't nurture the cows, we're not going to get top quality beef, we might not get as much milk and other things, same for the pigs. Rodeo's would be dirt poor if the bull's were malnourished. If we kill off the animal kingdom with wild abandon we end up throwing off animal populations as well.
Probably not. If someone could show me the environmental consequences of bullfighting and whether or not it has a negative impact then I would reconsider where I am in it. I still wouldn't call bullfighting wrong, but I would support a ban if I saw how it would negatively influence the environment.
The only problem here is that's assuming that bulls aren't bred. Just like we breed cows so that we will never run short of them and still have some to kill for beef. The same can happen with the bulls they use for bullfighting.
Ah, I see (didn't know about the beef part). However, do you have any proof that they are breeding bulls to replace the ones in a bullfight?
There's not exactly proof unless you could go to Spain and see for yourself. All we can do is use common sense.
The japenese had a trdition involving dolphin hunting (Source), and it has been tried to be stopped. Why can't we try and stop this tradition?
I know, I used the vick example because it is still at least one animal fighting.
I'm against the way it's used as a supporting reason.
The difference between dolphin hunting and bull fighting is that the Japanese were engaging in this tradition excessively and they weren't breeding dolphins so as to the animal population at a normal level, their actions would throw off an ecosystem. Whereas here, with bulls being bred the number stays at a certain level so there is no throwing off an ecosystem there.
