Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27507414

A major event in Madrid's bullfighting season had to be cancelled after all three matadors were gored by bulls.

David Mora suffered the worst injuries, as one of the animals rammed its horn into his leg and tossed him into the air at the Las Ventas bullring.

He was said to be in a serious but no longer life-threatening condition.

The organisers of the prestigious San Isidro festival said it was the first time in 35 years that the event had had to be suspended.

About 2,000 bullfights are still held every year in Spain, but the numbers are falling. In 2010, Catalonia became the second Spanish region after the Canary Islands to ban the tradition.

Opponents describe the blood-soaked pageants as barbaric, while fans - including Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy - say the tradition is an ancient art form deeply rooted in national history.

'Horrific, shocking, chilling'
Mr Mora, who opened the programme, fell to the ground after being knocked over by a 532kg (1,172lb) bull.

A shocked crowd watched in horror as he was gored and thrown through the air. Mr Mora sustained a large gash in his thigh and another in his armpit, bullring officials said.

Spanish newspaper El Pais described the somersault as "horrific, shocking, chilling".

The second matador, Antonio Nazare, injured his knee when a bull dragged him along the sand in the bullring. And the final headlining act, Jimenez Fortes, was skewered in the right leg and the pelvis.

Both men were treated for their injuries and due to be released from hospital on Wednesday.

Bullfighting dates back at least 4,000 years and is thought to have been popularised by the Romans.

The corrida, as it is known, is still permitted in a majority of Spanish regions despite growing criticism.

Last year, Spain's congress granted the tradition cultural heritage status in order to protect it from further bans.

The move was condemned by international animal welfare groups.

I am rather happy at this turn of events. Three dumb humans had their delicate asses thrown around a sandy ring by some bulls. Good. I'd love for every bullfight to end in tragedy for the human participants and I am rather pleased to learn that public opinion on bullfighting is starting to change in Spain. Good on them, hopefully the momentum to ban the "sport" keeps up and bullfighting will become an ugly footnote of the past.

I'm not sure taking joy in humans getting mutilated/killed is any better than taking joy in animals getting mutilated/killed.; you don't come across much better than the people you are upset with.

People who torture and mutilate animals are monstrous. I have no problem with them being culled from the herd.

Just because humans are suffering doesn't mean they get a pass for the circumstances that caused that suffering. Of the two contenders in the bullfight who decided to enter than ring and who was forced?

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure taking joy in humans getting mutilated/killed is any better than taking joy in animals getting mutilated/killed.; you don't come across much better than the people you are upset with.

Come on, Ahtman! It's not ACTUAL violence if you are self-righteous about it! I mean, if we can't take sick cruel pleasure in suffering with our morals intact, we'd have to actually have to, y'know, not revel in self-righteous violence or something!

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure taking joy in humans getting mutilated/killed is any better than taking joy in animals getting mutilated/killed.; you don't come across much better than the people you are upset with.

Thats not true one was thrown in to die the other jumped in to kill. So seeing a murder get killed is funny.

Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I feel "joy" at the humans being harmed, so much as grim satisfaction that they've received their just desserts for their folly. Don't start nothing (with a bull), won't be nothing.

Besides, it wouldn't be a sport if the bulls didn't get someone once in a while, it would just be a really bizarre way of ritually slaughtering an animal in a prolonged fashion.

I have respect for Matadors, unlike most forms of hunting the prey has a fair chance of comeback.

That being said, I have no problem with most blood sports also. Humans are predators, predators hunt. Its a rural culture thing, and townies really ought to not impose their views on them.

 Orlanth wrote:
I have respect for Matadors, unlike most forms of hunting the prey has a fair chance of comeback.

Even fighting pre-wounded/blind/hobbled prey? Is that worthy of respect and admiration?

http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk/facts.htm

The bull is not an aggressive animal, and the reason he is angry and attempts to charge at the matador whilst in the bullring is mainly because he has been horrendously abused for the previous two days. In fact, what spectators see is not a normal, healthy bull, but a weakened, half-blinded and mentally destroyed version, whose chances of harming his tormentors is virtually nil. The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals. Also, a strong caustic solution is rubbed onto his legs which throws him off balance. This also keeps him from lying down on the ground. In addition to this, drugs are administered to pep him up or slow him down, and strong laxatives are added to his feed to further incapacitate him. He is kept in a dark box for a couple of days before he faces the ring: the purpose of this is to disorientate him. When he is let out of the box, he runs desperately towards the light at the end of the tunnel. He thinks that at last his suffering is over and he is being set free — instead, he runs into the bullring to face his killers and a jeering mob.

I wouldn't say I'm happy by this turn of events. BUT, if this reduces the number of bull fights and/or discourages bull fighting, then that's a good thing. I can't say I'm a fan of the practice.

 Orlanth wrote:
I have respect for Matadors, unlike most forms of hunting the prey has a fair chance of comeback.

That being said, I have no problem with most blood sports also. Humans are predators, predators hunt. Its a rural culture thing, and townies really ought to not impose their views on them.

This right here..

And frankly, these "animals have more rights than humans" groups piss me off.

Next you'll tell me that the Native Americans who have special permission to hunt whales in the US will lose that, because killing a whale with a spear is too inhumane.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

The bull is not an aggressive animal

Look, I really don't know much about cattle, but... is this true? I thought bulls were pretty damn aggressive as a normal state.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Next you'll tell me that the Native Americans who have special permission to hunt whales in the US will lose that, because killing a whale with a spear is too inhumane.

I'd argue the distinction is that Native Americans harvest a whale with a spear, rather than simply killing it. Their goal is to kill it as quickly as possible so they can harvest it, whereas with bullfighting the goal is to kill it as ritualistically as possible, and any harvesting of the carcass is secondary.... I think intent matters.

They aren't crazy "I'm gonna rock over there and kick you around" aggressive, but they are certainly dangerous if you get a rise out of them.

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I feel "joy" at the humans being harmed, so much as grim satisfaction that they've received their just desserts for their folly. Don't start nothing (with a bull), won't be nothing.

Besides, it wouldn't be a sport if the bulls didn't get someone once in a while, it would just be a really bizarre way of ritually slaughtering an animal in a prolonged fashion.

To be clear I have no sympathy for them, but I see taking joy and happiness in their deaths a bit hypocritical when you are lambasting them for taking joy and happiness in the deaths of the bulls. Becoming the thing you hate and all that.

Ancient Texas saying:
"Mess with the bull, you'll get the horns."

Taking Cali friend to tiny local rodeo: $6
Buying beers for both: $2 (it was a while ago)
Watching his face when a bull crushes the flimsy chainlink fence between us and him sending us hauling ass.
Priceless

Well, to be sure, I'm no one of those "i love animals more than people" types; I just have little sympathy for people who were so aggressively the authors of their own misfortune.

I shout to the heavens that I love animals more then people. OK I'll be honest I don't like people.

if its a choice between people and mosquitoes its a real touch and go situation for me. . .

 Frazzled wrote:
I shout to the heavens that I love animals more then people. OK I'll be honest I don't like people.

if its a choice between people and mosquitoes its a real touch and go situation for me. . .

I think you like some animals more than some people. I bet if it were between SWMBO and a mosquito it wouldn't be much of a question.

Well yea. The rest of humanity, not so much...

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I feel "joy" at the humans being harmed, so much as grim satisfaction that they've received their just desserts for their folly. Don't start nothing (with a bull), won't be nothing.

Besides, it wouldn't be a sport if the bulls didn't get someone once in a while, it would just be a really bizarre way of ritually slaughtering an animal in a prolonged fashion.

Yeah, I'm not much against this "sport". As a hunter, I take much fewer chances with my personal safety then these guys do. I doubt the OP would squeal with glee if I got gored by a buck I shot, at least I'd hope not. These bulls have a much fairer chance at taking their matador with them, then most game animals do.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk/facts.htm

The bull is not an aggressive animal, and the reason he is angry and attempts to charge at the matador whilst in the bullring is mainly because he has been horrendously abused for the previous two days. In fact, what spectators see is not a normal, healthy bull, but a weakened, half-blinded and mentally destroyed version, whose chances of harming his tormentors is virtually nil. The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals. Also, a strong caustic solution is rubbed onto his legs which throws him off balance. This also keeps him from lying down on the ground. In addition to this, drugs are administered to pep him up or slow him down, and strong laxatives are added to his feed to further incapacitate him. He is kept in a dark box for a couple of days before he faces the ring: the purpose of this is to disorientate him. When he is let out of the box, he runs desperately towards the light at the end of the tunnel. He thinks that at last his suffering is over and he is being set free — instead, he runs into the bullring to face his killers and a jeering mob.

This would be the only thing I have against the event, assuming the source is correct.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Next you'll tell me that the Native Americans who have special permission to hunt whales in the US will lose that, because killing a whale with a spear is too inhumane.

I'd argue the distinction is that Native Americans harvest a whale with a spear, rather than simply killing it. Their goal is to kill it as quickly as possible so they can harvest it, whereas with bullfighting the goal is to kill it as ritualistically as possible, and any harvesting of the carcass is secondary.... I think intent matters.

I agree that intent does matter, but the problem, as I see it, is that most "save the fluffy animals" groups DON'T see that distinction, they only see the "suffering"


On a scale of animal fighting:

Bullfighting: A-OK, because, as it's been pointed out, the bull can get his
Cockfighting: Meh... I'm indifferent, because while there are certainly those who raise their chickens in a humane manner, there are those who dont... and after the fightin' is done, there is the potential for a fry up or something.
dog fighting: feth that, and feth anyone who supports it, or participates in it. Sure, dogs aren't good for livestock (as in eating), but they do offer so much more to people than even some people do to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk/facts.htm

The bull is not an aggressive animal, and the reason he is angry and attempts to charge at the matador whilst in the bullring is mainly because he has been horrendously abused for the previous two days. In fact, what spectators see is not a normal, healthy bull, but a weakened, half-blinded and mentally destroyed version, whose chances of harming his tormentors is virtually nil. The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals. Also, a strong caustic solution is rubbed onto his legs which throws him off balance. This also keeps him from lying down on the ground. In addition to this, drugs are administered to pep him up or slow him down, and strong laxatives are added to his feed to further incapacitate him. He is kept in a dark box for a couple of days before he faces the ring: the purpose of this is to disorientate him. When he is let out of the box, he runs desperately towards the light at the end of the tunnel. He thinks that at last his suffering is over and he is being set free — instead, he runs into the bullring to face his killers and a jeering mob.

This would be the only thing I have against the event, assuming the source is correct.

I had done some reading on the more old school, "traditional" methods, the multi-stage bullfight, if you will... and it seems much more humane, and a bit more "even" than what this is saying (again, assuming it's correct)

Who would have thought that it's dangerous to play with a massive animal? Pretty sure noone saw that coming!

Looks like they won't be...

...wait for it...

...getting the horn again anytime soon!

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I feel "joy" at the humans being harmed, so much as grim satisfaction that they've received their just desserts for their folly. Don't start nothing (with a bull), won't be nothing.

Besides, it wouldn't be a sport if the bulls didn't get someone once in a while, it would just be a really bizarre way of ritually slaughtering an animal in a prolonged fashion.

Yeah, I'm not much against this "sport". As a hunter, I take much fewer chances with my personal safety then these guys do. I doubt the OP would squeal with glee if I got gored by a buck I shot, at least I'd hope not. These bulls have a much fairer chance at taking their matador with them, then most game animals do.

Op might not, but I wouldn't weep. Horse and hound Hunter gets thrown and crippled/ dies, matador gets gored, shooty Hunter screws up and gets a self inflicted gsw. None of these things saddens me. Does this make me unpleasant? Probably. Honest about which side I take? Yes.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Speaking for myself, it's not so much that I feel "joy" at the humans being harmed, so much as grim satisfaction that they've received their just desserts for their folly. Don't start nothing (with a bull), won't be nothing.

Besides, it wouldn't be a sport if the bulls didn't get someone once in a while, it would just be a really bizarre way of ritually slaughtering an animal in a prolonged fashion.

Yeah, I'm not much against this "sport". As a hunter, I take much fewer chances with my personal safety then these guys do. I doubt the OP would squeal with glee if I got gored by a buck I shot, at least I'd hope not. These bulls have a much fairer chance at taking their matador with them, then most game animals do.

I'm picturing some kind of 1v1 Hunger Games type arena

I could never bullfight. I'm just not secure enough in my masculinity to be seen in that kind of getup.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, I'm not much against this "sport". As a hunter, I take much fewer chances with my personal safety then these guys do. I doubt the OP would squeal with glee if I got gored by a buck I shot, at least I'd hope not. These bulls have a much fairer chance at taking their matador with them, then most game animals do.

It depends. If you were hunting in the wild and not tampering with the animals you were hunting to give you an advantage, then no I wouldn't be happy, instead if you were gored by a buck I'd think you zigged when you should have zagged. I.e. the buck defeated you as a hunter and if you survive you will learn something. If you don't, well, that is part of the risk of hunting isn't it?

However, if your hunt included:

Physically sabotaging the game animals to give you an advantage.
A crowded spectacle with an audience reveling in your kill.

Then I'd be cheering on that buck.

Bullfighting is so far removed from hunting that it seems disingenuous to even try and use the one as a counter point to the other in this discussion. Same goes with whale hunting. Or any other situation that pits a hunter versus prey and forces the two to rely on their wits and abilities to eat or survive.

Bullfighting does not include any of that. It is not a natural event that pits man versus beast in a setting that could have been found in ages past. It is a bloody spectacle where humans stack the deck in their favor to butcher an animal in front of an audience. They are two completely different things.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

The bull is not an aggressive animal, .

Total BS.

Bulls can be one of the most dangerous animals on the planet, especially if their hormones are up or are a particularly aggressive breed(dairy bulls especially)

Beef cattle are fairly docile, but other breeds are extremely aggressive. Those things would certainly be horrible, but I doubt even half of them are true. There are far easier ways to get a bull riled up for blood.


I probably wouldn't personally participate in bullfighting, except maybe just for the novelty of seeing one at least once, but nor would I condemn it. Animals are ours to do what we please with ultimately.

Should we be unnecessarily cruel? No. But you must ask yourself if this is truly all that cruel.

The Bull is engaging his natural aggressive instincts to a threat. A threat which is frankly in far more danger than the bull is. All he has between him and a very painful death is some cloth and skill, which is hardly a fair fight.

There could probably be a compromise with having the bulls not get killed or injured.

I'm certainly glad it wasn't turtles.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Animals are ours to do what we please with ultimately.

That is nonsense. We are animals no matter what some story books say. Our higher intelligence requires of us a role of stewardship for the other animals on our planet. Slaughtering them for senseless entertainment value is poor stewardship on our part and should be an embarrassment to every human if merely for misusing the resources made available to us. Doubly so if you think those resources were gifted to us by a divine being.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Should we be unnecessarily cruel? No. But you must ask yourself if this is truly all that cruel.

Yes, killing animals for sport is cruel. It is unnecessary as we are the apex predator on the planet. These bulls aren't being killed for food (though I understand some parts of the bull are served, that is definitely NOT the point of the fight), or because they are menacing a village (which I believe is what the "bulls are not aggressive" line is referring to-they don't go marauding through the countryside picking off the weak) they are being killed for entertainment. That is cruel. Killing without purpose is cruel.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Bull is engaging his natural aggressive instincts to a threat. A threat which is frankly in far more danger than the bull is. All he has between him and a very painful death is some cloth and skill, which is hardly a fair fight.

I know you are discounting much of the site I cited as BS, so please provide a source indicating that a bullfighting bull is not molested in any way before the fight and is just released into the arena to fight the armed Matador. I would be genuinely curious if any such resource exists because everything I have read about bullfighting indicated that the bull is wounded and or hindered in some way to prevent the fight from ending in the bull's favor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There could probably be a compromise with having the bulls not get killed or injured.

Okay. Maybe, but it begs the question of WHY do it in the first place. Why do we need to see humans engaging in mortal combat with animals for entertainment? And do you honestly believe that if bullfighting became a softer, gentler event, let's say bull-flag-fighting where the matador just tries to pull flags off the bull's frame, that it would still have the same appeal? I doubt it would. People watch bullfights for carnage which is fine. Watch boxing. Watch MMA. Watch a demolition derby. All those violent sports have willing participants. What I find problematic is the use of unwilling animals who are tortured before and throughout the spectacle merely to entertain.

Animals ARE ours to do with what we wish. Do you think the lion stops and thinks about the ethical implications when he kills a zebra? And we're higher up on the food chain then that.