The Catalans take a step forward

(SteveH) wrote in :

For only part of the year. Most cattle are brought indoors in the winter as
a) they use less energy keeping warm and therefore develop more meat, b)
the grass does not grow quick enough to satisfy demand and c) the cattle
quickly destroy a pasture if it gets very wet. They will eat mostly grass
based food such as hay & silage, supplemented by concentrates & byproducts
from food production such as sugar beet pulp.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you were using
hyperbole when you called it a lie, but I'm serious. People get
emotional about bullfights because they are a public spectacle, but I
see little difference in what happens to the animal. Certainly, before
the animal enters the ring, it is treated _better_ than food cattle. .

 

Finally, the UKRM we all know and love.
(FWIW, I ain't no bovine.)

 

That would be the pithing stick ...

 

I'm putting back the text that you conveniently removed from my post, as
this is the lie I'm referring to.

OK, to be objective:
In order to turn cattle into food, the process of ending that
animal's life should be timely in relation to the life cycle of the
animal, and as instantaneous and painless as possible, in order to
maintain the texture and flavour of the meat, and placate those of a
sensitive disposition. Good abattoirs strive to do this. Bull fighting
does not address any of these considerations, moreover, it includes an
element of torture prior to death.
This is why your statement is false.

The issue really is black and white; Either all life is sacred, in which
case you're going to starve to death, or eating other species is
acceptable. The argument is really about where, in the hierarchy of
organisms from grass to people, do we draw an arbitrary line. You draw a
line at grass, and that's fine. I draw a line at apes, and that's fine
too. Any criticism of others on this issue is hypocrisy at best.

 

You mean the UKRM where someone comes along, spouts bollocks, and is
then carefully corrected by someone that knows what they are talking about?


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

You what? What emotion, do you think, makes them go running and
charging at the brightly-coloured men who are sticking spears and
swords into it? You think they do it for fun?

In short, you're talking bollocks.

 

Are you _really_ sure?

 

Sorry, ignore this bit. For some reason my newsreader screwed up your
post.

 

The whole things a con anyway...

Im sure I recall reading an expose in one of the national papers a few
years back that showed the bulls were fixed to dissadvantage them.
They have their horns "shaved". The horns are effectively shortened a
little which alters the bulls sense of balance and aim, which gives an
added advantage to the bullfighter.

 

It's not arbitrary to draw the line at organisms that can feel pain,
which is what most vegetarians do.

 

Isn't it? Why not?

But anyway - does it mean that animals which have been humanely killed
count as honorary vegetables?

 

<predictable response>

Being humanely killed seems like an optional extra round here sometimes.

 

It's far from clear-cut even then. Crabs? Well, maybe. Snails?
Perhaps, perhaps not. There are some people who even claim that plants
can feel pain.

 

Because it's a specific choice based on an objective principle. You may
not agree with that choice, but in no way is it arbitrary.

<straight bat>

In some cases, & for some people (including myself), yes. I'm not a
veggie, but the only meat I cook at home is free-range chicken from a
known farm (i.e. proper free-range), & the occasional steak. But I'm
not remotely fanatical about it, & will eat other stuff when I go out
or get a takeaway. So I'm pretty hypocritical in that respect.

The only area I am a bit fanatical I suppose is where the animal is
deliberately tortured for either taste or religeous reasons. So
obviously I won't touch fois gras for example.

 

Sure, so drawing the line at 'animals' is the obvious & sensible choice
for those people.

Nobody worth taking any notice of though.

 

But not _all_ goose & duck farmers are religious nutters.

 

That's a sensible thing to do - thanks for updating my knowledge bank.

 

I wouldn't have thought that they would be appropriate footware for
bullfighting!

 

quite a few of those on ukrm.