UKC

My wife's boss has just come back from a trip to Spain where he has completed a bucket list entry by going to a bull fight.  I was listening to the description and had to stop my wife from explaining any further.

I know we have to access the world's different cultures but surely, in 2018, an activity so barbaric and painful to a large sentient creature should be outlawed in a developed, advanced country such as Spain?

I agree. If you treated a pet in the same manner you'd be in jail. 

I should add that it should be outlawed in all countries, globally, but Im surprised that its still allowed in a more 'developed' nation.  

When my Dad returned from a trip to Spain, he told me he had gone to see a bullfight. He likened it to going to the Opera, describing it as artistic, skilful and beautiful. I adore my father and was shocked that he had attended, let alone that he found what I consider an horrific event to be acceptable and aesthetically pleasing to watch.

It's not just Spain the South West of France have them too, I suppose it's the Basque culture. Absolutely barbaric. 

Fully agree but it’s grwat when the picadors get some of their own medicine.

You just described boxing pretty well.

And please, no-one start waving around the red herring of "consent". It doesn't apply in a pub car park so it shouldn't apply inside a rope square.

WTF has that got to do with torturing animals for sh*ts and giggles? If you don't like boxing start your own thread

The veneer of civilisation is very thin.  

I immensely dislike bull fighting and the running of the bulls.  Does it make me a bad person that my veneer things and I’m happy for the bull when it gets a human at either event?

Bull fighting fans wouldn't accept that the bull is being tortured. They would see it as a fairly equal match between two willing and courageous combatants, one which almost becomes an art. A noble art.

I don't need to start a new thread. This one suits me down to the ground, since I am very interested in both bull fighting and boxing. I don't need to approve of either to have an interest.

I know you're not arguing that case, but I'm left wondering how the statistics stack up for each side in this "fairly equal match".

What do you think the bulls think of it? Do you reckon they consent?

Industrial live stock production is more widely accepted, however not less barbaric. The fighting bulls have a long life on open range ranches, while beef cattle live their short lives indoor under cramped conditions.

Well , not too good for the bull in the sense that, even if he manages to gore the matador and thereby win the contest, he will still be butchered shortly after, the same fate as all supermarket beef.

And of course it's only equal because the other assistants have already weakened the bull by letting his blood and weakening his shoulder muscles. 

Except of course, that one of them hasn't been stabbed repeatedly before going into 'combat'.

I'm happier thinking the meat i eat hasn't been deliberately mistreated.

Two blokes battering each other in the ring? As long as they both consent that's fine.

I hate having to labour the point but I don't see how consensually killing someone inside a rope square is different from consensually killing someone outside a rope square.

They may well say that but they’d be wrong. I reserved judgement until I’d been to seen a bullfight myself. 

There are rumors that they drug the bulls before the fight. I can’t vouch for that. But What I did see was that while the bullfighter is still in the changing rooms getting his shiny trousers on, the bull is already in the ring getting softened up by dudes on horses sticking spears into it. Each time their horses get tired they swap. They swap horses  two or three times and by the time  the bullfighter gets to work the bull already has a few spears sticking out of his back and is pouring blood.

There is no way that it is an equal match - every single bull fight the bull ends up dead. When a bullfighter gets gored and goes to hospital it ends up in the news. It’s also inthe news when he comes out of hospital and gets back in the ring.

Honestly, it’s vile. 

That's ok, I have no problem accepting your opinion that there should be no distinction between boxing and bullfighting or boxing and assaulting a stranger in a dark alley.

I haven't said a word in defence of bull fighting and never will. I simply pointed out that its followers don't see it in the same way as most British people do. As a nation we pride ourselves on being fair minded, civilised, averse to brutality and barbarism.

Except where boxing is concerned. Consensual, innit?

We  engage in healthy activities and when medical advice is given, be it about smoking, excessive drinking or whether we should wash our poultry before eating it, we take it on board because by and large , we believe that the medical profession talks sense.

Except where boxing is concerned. Then it's; "Doctors. What do they know.? Anyway, consensual , innit?"

Can we swap "assaulting a consenting opponent in a pub car park" for surprising a poor stranger in a dark alley because that's a fairer comparison and it's all about fairness, isn't it?

Or maybe not. 

Just as it seems a bit harsh for the bull to put the matador out of action  then get slaughtered anyway after having won the contest, we get the case of Scott Westgarth earlier this year, won his bout fair and square but still died from the brain damage he incurred providing entertainment for a bloodthirsty mob.

You can if you like, it makes at least as much sense as your contention that everyone has given up drinking too much and smoking because they've been told it's bad for them.

My use of the phrase "by and large" was meant to concede that some people haven't seen the light yet ...sorry if it didn't work

There's no need to apologise. Is your issue that it's someone else causing the damage? Surely not, plenty of sports where people get injured or killed by the opposition. Is it that the sole intention is to injure the opponent?

Yes.

In boxing, as in a lot of martial arts, the objective is to injure the opponent. Injuries in climbing and motor racing, for instance, are not caused deliberately by another participant.

Points scored from body blows are enough to win a bout but a knockout is more attractive to the audience.

All the risk in boxing could be taken away with a simple ban of blows to the head.But then boxing would cease to be as popular.

Unfortunately the tide seems to be going the wrong way . What I have seen of MMA is even more barbaric than boxing and there are moves afoot to legitimise some type of bareknuckle fighting. 

I would have been a great disappointment to my father, whose hero was Randolph Turpin but I can't get het up about fox hunting, grouse shooting and the like while young men are pummelling each other unconscious for the entertainment of others

Rugby, and other contact sports, must be a bit of a grey area then?

Is the consent not relevant to you? Why can I consent to damage myself and not consent to be damaged by someone else?

Well, you can consent to be damaged by someone else, of course you can.

Take the brawl in a pub car park scenario.

Two men fall out in a pub, both consent to go outside and sort it out with their fists.

Unfortunately one delivers a blow which kills the other.

Would there be criminal proceedings, do you think?

Rugby is a bit of a grey area, ice-hockey less so. The mayor of at least one major American city agreed with me.

(Must have been a short lived thing followed by a quick volte face when he realised what it would do to his career)

And isn't that what happens in boxing?

I guess there would at least be an investigation.

And when you agree that you can consent to being damaged by someone else, are you saying that shouldn't be the case?

I guess you are right

I suppose I would be in favour of saying that I consented to my own euthanised death if my mind was working more or less properly but I'm a lot less happy about a couple of teenagers consenting to fight each other to death, whether it be in a legalised boxing bout, a Friday night brawl or a in a gang knife fight.

A lot of 'whataboutery' going on in this thread. I thought it was about bullfighting and it being barbaric. To consign it to history there has to be a public will. As it stands there is less bullfighting in Spain than 25  years ago but there is still  not the public will to ban it completely. Its seen as part of their culture and criticism from outside might be noted but the change has to come from within.

Is it ok for people older than teenagers? Is it now an age thing for you? Fair enough, I've no problem making it over eighteens.

I think I'm on the ropes now .  Towel well and truly thrown in.   

No harm done, just a couple of consensual adults sparring.

Good point. Not much point a bunch of foreigners getting het up over it, then.

Paul Scott, "The corrida at San Feliu"

good book

You really think the bull is a willing combatant, you might have taken too many punches to the head.

There's no equating boxing and bull fighting at all. For one, one of them is going to die, if the odds of that were anywhere near 50-50 you might, but it is only might, have a point. But it isn't, and you haven't.

Boxing isn't always about knocking you opponent out, it's about playing them, tiring them out and not getting hit yourself.

It compares to just about nothing you've compared it above. I know it's dangerous, but no one make you get in the ring and you can always stay down or throw the towel in.

You apathy toward fox hunting, etc. because boxing is still allowed says more about you than about society. Why do you have to have a league table? Worse still why do you have to get rid of you particular pet hate first, before you're allowed to speak out about number 2 in the list?

You've truly baffled me here.

Boxing can be very beneficial especially in deprived areas, I grow up in Hartlepool it had around 10 boxing gyms when I was a lad. It kept people fit, taught them some discipline and kept them out of trouble by giving them something to do. It gave "no hopers" something to strive for and something they we good at and could take pride in.

The bull in your comments above gets none of this.

I don't think Bullfighting informs the debate on boxing. The two are so different, there is no automatic incoherence in being in favour of one but not the other. 

I do think consent is a significant point in the case of boxing, but its not the only point. Public order and risk limitation are other points. 

In UK law you can consent to another causing you harm. There was a case a few years back when a man had branded his wife's buttock and argued it was consent.

What you can't do is use consent to absolve someone of committing a crime. This is the exception in the case of boxing. 

You can see why you would not want to give carte blanche to people to beat each other up in car parks on the basis that they were both consenting adults. Doing so would be a public order problem - but it would also lie open to escalation. Boxing is regulated so if floyd mayweather picks up a chair and starts beating it over Manny whatsisnames head, the fight gets stopped. Similarly a rabbit punch to the back of the head is not allowed etc.

In short, boxing and fighting in pub car parks are sufficiently different from each other that I think you can make an argument that one is ok and the other isn't. 

Personally i don't know where i stand. On balance I'm probably ok with where the current law lies.  

I don't often agree with your views on many things, but that was an excellent post.

You  obviously misunderstood the bit where I wrote "Bull fighting fans would say...", assuming I counted myself among them.

My antipathy towards boxing is because I value human life above that of any animal. 

Banning bareknuckle boxing in the old days was a step in the right direction , in my opinion. The same goes for dog fighting, cock fighting and bull baiting.

No one made the bareknuckle boys do it, they were willing combatants, but it was deemed uncivilised enough to be made illegal.

We' will have to disagree on the pub car park thing I suppose. What do you think about gypsy type bareknuckle fights ( still illegal as far as I know) and duelling(similarly illegal, I think) but both completely consensual.

And your point about risk limitation in boxing is well made. So why not equip the opponents with head guards, as is usually the case in other sports where head injury is a likelihood. After all, boxing "isn't always about knocking your opponent out."

Can I interest you in supporting Labour?

Cheers.

Where do you place informed choice in your system of antipathy. Climbing, particularly high mountain climbing is probably on of the most dangerous sports, closely followed by horse riding, base jumping, any number of sports are dangerous, but people have a choice.

Actually gloves made the sport more dangerous (at least of dying), but less brutal, you simply can't punch with the same force without gloves. gloves themselves have a mass which is added to the force of the punch, thereby making a blow more forceful but more cushioned, which is worse for brain injuries.

That fact you can't "get het up about fox hunting, grouse shooting and the like while young men are pummelling each other unconscious for the entertainment of others".

I still don't see why you obviously have a league table, "boxing first then maybe fox hunting, followed by bull fighting", Why not hate boxing and want it banned while hating bull fighting and wanting it banned? This is the same argument we see for not condemning wars or injustices around the world. "Well that's worse over there", "look what they are doing", "at least it's not boxing". If something isn't right, for you, then it's not right for you!! Speak up about it, and do you hardest to stop it if that's your choice, but don't hid behind something else so you can excuse it.

I think the thrust of Tom V's position (apologies if I am misrepresenting it) is that we all (that is, large segments of British society) think bullfighting is barbaric and dismiss arguments defending it as ridiculous [1], whilst simultaneously defending boxing with arguments that we think are perfectly reasonable [2]. Yet to an outside observer our arguments in favour of boxing are just as contrived and ridiculous as those defending bullfighting (or hunting etc). The point is not that the sports are equivalent, but that the mindset of their supporters is very similar.

One argument in favour of boxing is that it is valuable in underprivileged areas [3], the implication being that this benefit outweighs the damage done to some individuals. In general as a society we try not to allow harm to small numbers of people for the greater good. Additionally this logic could equally apply to bullfighting, for example one could argue that the benefit to society of maintaining traditions outweighs the cost to the bulls. NB this is not an argument I endorse.

For interest, the legal issues of boxing vs street fighting are quite interesting, for comments on the case law see this reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/9clgq9/whats_the_legality_o...

[1] See the various responses to "Bull fighting fans wouldn't accept that the bull is being tortured. They would see it as a fairly equal match between two willing and courageous combatants, one which almost becomes an art. A noble art."

[2] For example "Boxing isn't always about knocking you opponent out, it's about playing them, tiring them out and not getting hit yourself."

[3] "Boxing can be very beneficial especially in deprived areas, I grow up in Hartlepool it had around 10 boxing gyms when I was a lad. It kept people fit, taught them some discipline and kept them out of trouble by giving them something to do. It gave "no hopers" something to strive for and something they we good at and could take pride in."

Both should be illegal. 

I'd be in favor of head guards. 

Very interesting , thanks for the link. 

And thanks for expressing my point of view better than I was able to do myself.

Don't push it

That's exactly what we do in all sorts of things, such as weighing the risks of driving, nuclear power plants and hazardous industrial process against societal, rather than individual, risks and benefits.

I just don't see how this argument informs the debate. If an outside observer thinks the arguments in favour of boxing are contrived then pick them apart. But pointing to bullfighting adds nothing.

I think bullfighting should be banned because it is cruel, not because I don't like the mindset of people who follow bullfighting. 

But it's not just a benefit to society, but to the individual, so your arguments doesn't really stand up.

I'd say the benefit tot he individual can be immense, a feeling of self worth, simple fitness and the ability to take and understand criticism. The benefits to society are really only by products.

But boxing isn't only for the poor and the thick, most public schools had / have a boxing team.

The point about  boxing is it's cheap to get into, you can do a lot of training on your own with minimal equipment. It them becomes about you and what you want to achieve.

Over riding all of that though is personal choice, and the choice, to back out at any point, not just that a good corner-man / trainer will pull you out if the balance isn't right or if you're in trouble.

It's not about being an outsider looking in or trying to defend something, the two are total different, one's cruelty to another who has no choice and the other isn't. There's no body looking out for the fox or the bull trying to limit any damage.

It informs the debate because it allows us to see that the people who support bullfighting do so for reasons that they consider to be valid. This is important because it allows us to break out of the train of thought that goes: I think bullfighting is barbaric, these people support bullfighting, therefore these people must be barbaric.

I personally think that bullfighting is deplorable, and I don't believe that any of the arguments in its favour are valid, but I understand why someone from the Basque region would be upset if I tried to intervene (in much the same way as a British supporter of boxing would be upset if someone from a country with no history of boxing tried to stop that).

In reply krikoman:

I apologise that my previous comment read as an attack on boxing, this was not my intent. I think that the comparison with boxing is now becoming unhelpful because it is too loaded. While I have no intention of participating myself, I do understand its appeal.

I’ve long wondered how such blood sports as bull fighting manage to avoid one or more of the EU laws on animal cruelty.  They certainly don’t fall under Regulation 2010/63 which covers lab animals, but don’t farm animals have some significant degree of protection.  After all, if a farmer were to start sticking pointy spears into a bulls neck for fun surely that would be illegal across the EU, though farm animal protection isn’t my area.

Of course they do. Pretty much no-one revels in their own cruelty. They find ways to excuse it. 

And, by the way, there is at least one valid reason for bullfighting: people want to watch it. In general my starting point is that people should be able to do what they want; then we start applying limitations / restrictions based on harm to others / cruelty etc.  The problem for me is that the reasons to ban it are much stronger. 

Right but my chain of thought stops at the first link: I think bullfighting is barbaric (actually i would say cruel). 

That's all fine and understandable but it isn't the argument Tom V was making. He seemed to be saying, unless I misunderstood, "If you don't like bullfighting you should also not like boxing".  

I don't understand why there is a to-do about bull-fighting if raising billions of animals in order to kill them then and eat them is accepted. However nicely you raise an animal, it's not nice to kill it. Imagine if you were a chicken and knew the end game.

It's why I puzzle, in my neck of the woods, about the prevalence of sanctuaries for seals, monkeys, owls and the like in amongst a far greater number of abattoirs, of shops that peddle their wares, and, especially, of households that buy and eat them.

In a nutshell, yes.

The thread started off with someone wondering how a particular barbaric activity could be condoned in a civilised country in this day and age.

I replied trying to point out that we, too, have our own barbaric activities which are condoned by the majority of our population.

And I do see some similarities in the mindset of people watching either "sport" who find pleasure in watching the gradual wearing down and weakening of one combatant culminating with a knockout punch/sword between the shoulder blades.

Agreed, the knockout punch is not supposed to be fatal in boxing, but the ability to hit someone with just enough force to put him out for  half a minute without actually killing him is something dreamed up in the early days of Hollywood.

OK, yes. In the context of the OP, (and having re-read the thread) I now see how your point is relevant. 

I see very high-level parallels. But the degree of pain, cruelty and consent is relevant. Imagine a "sport" where one man drove swords into another man until he died. That is an order of magnitude more gory and barbaric than boxing. Similarly, going in the other direction, one of the most exciting parts of a rugby match is someone making a huge tackle. 

In a way boxing is an interesting example because it sits at the limit of what I think is acceptable. 

I din't see it as an attack, it's just not a good comparison, either to the sport itself or the spectators.

Like I said, the bull has no choice or anyone looking to protect it, boxers do on both counts.

I imagine there are millions of people in Spain who feel exactly the same way about bullfighting.

Not all boxing matches have to have a KO by the way either, one of the best amateur fights I've seen included two rounds where neither boxer landed a punch, their equal mastery of boxing skills was brilliant.

Like tennis, squash, Taekwondo, judo or any many other sports, isn't it about being fitter than your opponent(s). Doesn't being in condition allow you a better chance?

It doesn't matter how fit the bull is, it's not going to win.

Your comparison is at best tenuous.

It also doesn’t have to live in Hartlepool...

(otherwise I agree with all your points)

As a thought. If people are against bullfighting then logically they should be against the meat industry too. The cruelty inflicted upon animals by fatory farming is if anything worse than that in the bullring. Vegetarianism or veganism is surely the only morally correct stand point. From the animals viewpoint does it matter if it is killed in the ring for entertainment or kept confined in a cage until the day someone puts an electric shock through its head?

I know that not all boxing matches end in a knockout; I'd prefer it if none did. Perhaps banning blows to the head and winning by skilfully scoring points from body blows might be an option?

So if I want to eat a chicken or have a piece of steak then there's no point in killing it as quickly and painlessly as possible, I may as well torture it for a few hours/days as the end result is the same?

May as well start burning people who'll die in hospital/prison in cages then?

If farming was regulated to the level of lab animals 95% of people would be vegetarian due to the cost of meat.

Likewise horse racing, dog racing, hunting and blood sports would be long gone...

I’m sure there are - doesn’t make it right.

Portuguese bullfighting seems less barbaric. 

Yup. That’s how all slaughterhouses operate. Chasing the cow around on horseback while sticking it will spears and eventually, after it’s bled for an hour, severing it’s spine....

or in the real world the two aren’t comparable in the slightest. 

Couldn't agree more. Having a very vocal bunch of supporters doesn't justify a barbaric activity's existence.

Yes they are. If you told me I could choose between the guillotine or being fed to the lions, one may sound  a cleaner death than the other, but both are violent deaths that I don't want. In both, you kill me. My life stops, I am no more and that is the main horror of it.

To carry on Krik's posts, I wonder how many lives have been saved from drug overdoses, beatings, stabbings and shootings by the very people he describes, from having had their aggression channeled into boxing and being given an aim in life?

And never forget the prize, multi millions and world titles (for the few) compared to a life of crime, years behind bars or endless dead end jobs or long term dole.

If I were in that position and had the talent, I'd do boxing full well knowing the risks.

The main point is that , by eating it, you kill it. If you told me that you were going to eat me for dinner, the impending end of my life would be the main thing, the manner of it only important once the decision is made to kill me, but secondary to that decision. That is why arguments against the death penalty don't fanny around with how it is carried out. It's all barbaric. Just stop it.

In the real world cows, pigs and chickens are kept in conditions they can barely move in, sleeping in their own shit, until the day they are killed. To me that sounds as bad as being chased and speared.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/uk-has-nearly-800-lives...

Hate the practice but bulls aren’t sentient...

So which would you prefer? To be chased with the possibility that you might at least gore the person torturing you or have someone blast a bolt into your forehead while you are held?

My point is that many people are quite happy to allow animals to be killed for their table, often without even considering how they arrived in their plastic packaging in Tescos but kick up a fuss when confronted with the reality of killing something.

I don't agree with that in the slightest. Why then do we bother with palliative care, or at the other extreme why did IS bother with devising and filming the most painful ways possible of killing people?

In the sense that they can feel pain, they are sentient.

Which is why I said I can see why 2019/63 doesn’t apply, but wonder whether there isn’t other EU legislation which should, surely there is something relating to cruelty to farm animals, which surely bulls, fighting or otherwise are!

Which is why I said I can see why 2019/63 doesn’t apply, but wonder whether there isn’t other EU legislation which should, surely there is something relating to cruelty to farm animals, which surely bulls, fighting or otherwise are!

As are fish......     

I'd prefer the bolt gun TBH.

Torturing animals for fun and entertainment, or deliberately using inhumane practices in livestock rearing and abbatoirs has nothing to do with killing for food. 

Except animals can’t contemplate their oncoming doom in the same way. 

Why?

We all die and I don't know about you but I am not quite sure how to square up to that, but what I am getting at is the idea that if someone determines that I am to die when I don't need to, then however they choose to do it, it is already horrible. If you disagree, imagine I were to pick you out for a painless death in one hour's time. Would you feel relaxed about that? If I said I was going to cut your head off slowly with a small knife, it would add layers of horror, but however it is done you would still face the basic fact of your end and be horrified by it, I wager. 

Palliative care is offered to people who are dying, who no-one is making die. It is an intrinsically compassionate act and it seems to me bizarre to compare the choice of whether to offer it or not to that of how grizzly a means of killing someone one chooses.

While it sounds like it should be purely an animal welfare issue, inviting comparisons wirh livestock treatment, I think it's really more an issue of moral education, specifically that it isn't ok to torture or harass animals for fun. Comparisons with the meat industry then become pretty much irrelevant, although comparisons with hunting become far more relevant. That's not to sat that livestock farming doesn't somtimes involve horrific practices, but that such practices are differently motivated and should be considered separately.

Not a definition of sentience

So you agree that the method of death determines the level of horror you feel?

Edit:  “If I said I was going to cut your head off slowly with a small knife, it would add layers of horror, but however it is done you would still face the basic fact of your end and be horrified by it” could easily be applied to warfare. If war is horrific, then once engaged in warfare then there is little point in limiting the horror?

Going back to your earlier post, the fact that the person is dying is the horrible thing to them, therefore applying the same logic then the method of their death is secondary. So why bother with palliative care? In pact palliative care often shortens the persons life, so does that makes their death more horrific as they're going to die before they need to?

Sentient: "Able to perceive or feel things." Oxford Dictionary .

What is your definition?

Why what? Why is a less painful death preferable or why is it wrong to torture animals?

Why is killing for fun less preferable than killing for food to the animal being killed?

You would prefer the bolt through the head I would prefer to go down fighting in the ring. Which is right?

But the real point is that while most people declare that intense farming is wrong and killing for pleasure is wrong. They still go to the supermarket and buy their cheap meat and convince themselves with zero evidence that it has been dispatched ethically because that is convenient to them.

For the record I am playing devils advocate I am ambivalent about death be it human or animal

Indeed. Not to mention cats, tapirs and owls...

torture enough, I think

there are bulls there, though not many monkeys

Then truly you have achieved enlightenment, Grasshopper.

Really?

You can't be serious about this, let's take this to extremes; you have the choice of being slowly spit roasted  (in the old sense of the term, not the "hey I'm on holiday that sounds like a good idea" sense) slowly barbecued over a couple of days, or being put to sleep with a lethal injection.

You think they are both the same, and it wouldn't matter to you, you'd say "not bothered really, you choose"?

He may have been influenced by Hemingway and his book "Death in the Afternoon"

Even if the lethal injection was tomorrow and the spit roast in ten years time, I think I'd still take the injection!

There is an argument that tourists "going to see what a bullfight is all about" perpetuates the practice, especially in high tourist areas. Without the tourist patrons it might well die out in these regions.

I don't need to go to a dog fight to realise it's going to be barbaric and cruel.

I remember seeing a TV programme following a British man who was totally opposed to bullfighting who agreed, openmindedly, to be educated about it's traditions by a Spanish expert and attend a fight. He came away with a genuine appreciation of it's artistry and cultural significance, though he still thought it cruel.

Unlike you, the animal would have no idea of the context of why it was in the ring. It would have no concept of a "heroic" death that some humans seem able to convince themselves of. It would merely be in pain, panicking and very very scared.

Seems like b*ll*cks to me. I walk past the Madrid bullring every day and during the bullfighting season (May / June) its heaving with Spaniards. Sure that some are tourists but at a guess it's less than 5%. 

Much more significant is the funding that the bullfighting schools receive from government and the farms receive from the EU. 

Like every wildebeest, antelope, zebra, etc, etc on the serengeti. its a natural state, not a nice one I'll grant you. You are making an assumption about what an animal would choose. Slaughter house animals are in a state of panic too and probably very very scared.

Basically it is the choice between The colosseum or Auschwitz. If you are going to be indignant about one then you might as well be indignant about the other

But you are saying that in the full knowledge that there is no lethal injection tomorrow.

However it is an interesting point. I have known people who chose the lethal injection and those who chose the agony of a slow death in full jnowledge of their choice and that really is the key. It is not the manner of your death but how you choose to face it. Granted we don't always get that choice but where we do people often choose very different things. I am thinking specifically of buddhist monks who set themselves on fire deliberately as a protest against Chinese occupation of Tibet.

No, I would be saying it in the full knowledge that there was!

But that puts a very different slant on it - the agony is a big part of the protest; quietly injecting oneself and laying down to die peacefully doesn't make such a good thought provoking spectacle.

You're the one who thinks they would choose to "die fighting".

You can anthropomorhasise as much as you like, but the choice is actually between a) not knowing what's going on, and yes being scared, before being killed before you know it, or b) being stabbed repeatedly over a long period of time, surrounded by hundreds of baying humans, being made to fight until you can barely stand up and then being run through with a sword.

Do you think the words "Auschwitz" or "Colloseum" hold any resonance for livestock? If not, why are you using them?

Have you spent much time in a slaughter house?

The animals do not panic in well run modern abattoirs.

You seem to think that slaughtered animals don't know what is going on. To me they seem as bad as each other.

I just assumed it would be their first time in an abatoir. Could be wrong.

I am sure they don't but I work near a slaughter house and I hear the screams of the pigs and the cattle that go in. Maybe they are happy screams?

But isn't all this just the lie we tell ourselves? That we are different because we treat animals humanely and we take it as read that every cheap cut of meat, or chicken McNugget, or beef curry in a restaurant ended its live in a humane manner. And that is without factoring in the sort of life they have up until the moment they go to slaughter. Do you check everytime that you buy a piece of meat that it had a happy life and died in blissful ignaorance? I know I don't. It would be a logistical nightmare. The only logical conclusion is that somewhere in the mix we are financing the suffering of animals and as long as we remain in ignorance we are ok with that. We are happy to rail against bull fighting because it doesn't affect us but we concoct fictions about the lives of the animals we consume so that we can live with it on our concious

So you think killing an animal is OK as long as you can tell yourself that it died happy. Do you therefore only by meat from the friendly farmer up the road who goes out and strokes his cows every morning and then takes them of to the super clean slaughter house? You never ever by a cheap cut of meat or go out to a restaurant or accept meals from people without knowing where they came from, you never buy street food abroad or eat out in a chain pub without first checking the ethical supply of their meat. Or do you like me never really give more than a passing thought and just plumb for what is handy?

I won't even go into leather and glycerine in icecream or medical experiments

So you are definitely going to have a lethal injection tomorrow. Well best of luck it was a pleasure knowing you.

So you admit that some people would choose an agonising dead over a peaceful one?

Recap: you said if you were an animal you'd prefer to "die fighting" than in an abattoir. I merely pointed out that your notion of conscious choice in this matter doesn't transfer very well to an animal, who know nothing but what they have experienced to date.

The rest is you assuming what I think and arguing with it.

Ha ha ha especially the Koser and Halal ones 

To be more precise

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively

Which isn’t a cow or else we wouldn’t eat them

No. I've absolutely no idea what you're on about. You asked a hypothetical question - presumably definitely one or the other since you didn't say otherwise.

Yes, of course, in very specific circumstances.

(Some of us) eat oysters while they're still alive.

Whether a cow feels pain at its slaughter, by whatever method, must be pretty low on our list of priorities, unless we are vegan.

I fail to see how it is even half as bad as the horrific conditions of beef cattle or dairy farming, where millions of animals are subjected to lifelong stress.

But is are you not also laying your expectations on an animal? I don't know whether an animal would prefer fighting to a lethal stun gun but then neither of us does.

I am saying that you hypothetically said you would take an injection tommorrow over a roasting ten years down the line. But that is a hypothetical position that might not square with the reality if someone were to offer you such a choice.

Every circumstance and individual is special. I have seen people die in pain and people who passed in their sleep and have personally decided that it doesn't make any difference. Either is as good as the other for me. The end is the same.

You've completely lost me. What is the point of a hypothetical question if I'm not allowed to answer it!

So if I offered you a painless lethal injection or being burnt at the stake right now, you'd be happy to make the choice by tossing a coin?

But that's exactly my point, I wouldn't need to go and see it to realise all of that, obviously there's skill involved, likewise there's obviously a lot of cruelty involved.

I fail to see why, and there are plenty of farmers who would disagree with you.

Collins dictionary

sentience

sentiency

noun

1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness

2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

So simply the capacity to feel is sufficient. I think we can all agree cow's feel stuff, maybe not sadness (who knows on that score) but they can certainly feel flies trying to bite them.

Have you visited a modern prestun Halal abattoir?

You're right, actually, and I've given up with oysters anyway since they really do know how to fight back.

You do take them out of their shells don't you?

That's the point! It is a hypothetical question that may have no bearing on the reality. Like saying when do you want to die? You can say oh in 20 years time but in 20 years you might change your mind.

What? No give me the roasting. The thing is I find (through various practices I won't go into here) that I actually enjoy pain. Have you not ever held your hand over a flame or pushed a needle into your skin? It is the most intense experience you can have.

I never suggested getting burnt at the stake wouldn't be a pretty intense experience. You're welcome to it. Can I light the pyre please?

You may laugh, but I recently bought some Lidl "Spanish Week" roasted and salted sunflower seeds and found them as much fun as eating a gorse bush till someone pointed out my mistake.....

 "It is the most intense experience you can have."

Michael Hutchence might have disagreed. If he had still been around.

Or David Carradine.

No. Have you ever visited a modern non Prestun Halal or kosher  abattoir  or a co2 pig slaughter House? 

https://halalhmc.org/resources/issues-of-mechanical-slaughter-and-stunning/

Have a read of this Cha you couldn't make it up  

The same could be said about climbing.

What are you even going on about you fairy? Boxing is a pretty tame sport. MMA is far far better 

P.s I really f*cking hate bullfighting, bull fighters, bull fighting supporters and anything to do with that torture. I am grateful when the little Spanish pricks get a horn to the stomach 

Small pricks = big words.

Completely agree that bullfighting and the meat industry have no logical comparisons. But you're wrong to say that hunting does. 

I think a lot of people confuse 'sentient' with 'sapient'.

I can't do links but if you google "junkies bastard" you'll find a bloke who probably thinks MMA is for hairdressers.

I am not them

That is pretty much my argument. We are selective in our moral stances which are dictated by our culture and background.

We can be outraged by bull fighting but still eat meat with indifference. Which in turn means that our consumption of meat for food outrages other people. I have heard vegans declare with great passion that people who eat meat are essentially evil and deserve to die. (not all vegans)

You may make a distinction between bullfighting and the food industry but not everyone does. They still see it as murder and if they could would punish it as such. (Just to be clear I am not talking about all vegans, just one or two I have heard on the radio over the past years). You can justify it to your self but others will not accept that justification and still see any killing of animals as morally wrong.

Just as the Spanish supporters of bullfighting don't see anything morally wrong in what they do.

We have come from thinking cock fighting and bear baiting is great to become a very anti-kill-for-pleasure country. But that view is not universal. Morals are not absolutes, even though they may be shared by many