Should Animal Bloodsports be Legal?

[Des-Bal]

Then why is bullfighting OK? The bull didn't consent.

Because the bull doesn't consent to being killed in any case. A bullfighter killing a bull is just an extension of a person killing an animal. Forcing one animal to fight another is a different kettle of fish.

[Threlizdun]

Actually, I was referring more to warfare.

Oh...well...there goes my point...

By comparing forcing animals to fight one another to the death with humans agreeing to fight each other with rules and regulations to avoid serious injury, you never had one in the first place.

[German-Spanish Empire]

Oh...well...there goes my point...

By comparing forcing animals to fight one another to the death with humans agreeing to fight each other with rules and regulations to avoid serious injury, you never had one in the first place.

I did have a great point.

[Arkandros]

We already have bloodsports. It's called war.

That's asinine and off topic.

Exactly. My point is that our species, no matter the group, is inherently attracted to violence. Our love of violence is probably as deep as our drive for reproduction. Allowing blood sports may act as a pressure release valve, preventing worse violent crimes from occurring. Take a look at Rome. After war, when the civilian populace had a bloodlust, the coliseums were built. While they served multiple groups the draw was always the same: violence. Acting like we are above watching animals kill each other is presumptuous. If we are willing to kill one another or send others to kill each other, what difference does a domesticated animal make?

[United Marxist Nations]

Exactly! Have you heard off MMA or Boxing? Humans watch it like neanderthals! People bleed and this causes lifetime mental illnesses which can result in death.

Humans also consent to participating in such.
Animals...kind of lack that capability.

However, many humans don't consent to warfare, which is also people being forced to fight for the gain of (usually) the ruling class.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Then why is bullfighting OK? The bull didn't consent.

Because the bull doesn't consent to being killed in any case. A bullfighter killing a bull is just an extension of a person killing an animal. Forcing one animal to fight another is a different kettle of fish.

How? Either way the animal is in a fight it didn't consent to be part of.

[Threlizdun]

By comparing forcing animals to fight one another to the death with humans agreeing to fight each other with rules and regulations to avoid serious injury, you never had one in the first place.

I did have a great point.

Really now? Please explain.

[German-Spanish Empire]

Then why is bullfighting OK? The bull didn't consent.

Because the bull doesn't consent to being killed in any case. A bullfighter killing a bull is just an extension of a person killing an animal. Forcing one animal to fight another is a different kettle of fish.

They put hot metal to their testicles...

[Des-Bal]

How? Either way the animal is in a fight it didn't consent to be part of.

It's the involvement of a second animal.

[German-Spanish Empire]

I did have a great point.

Really now? Please explain.

Fine,you win...

[Des-Bal]

They put hot metal to their testicles...

Do you think that matters or are you trying to entertain us with your grasp of trivia?

[Arkandros]

By comparing forcing animals to fight one another to the death with humans agreeing to fight each other with rules and regulations to avoid serious injury, you never had one in the first place.

I did have a great point.

Let's reevaluate. War does have guidelines. Does that means everyone follows them? Sherman gave direct orders for his soldiers not to loot. Yet, somehow, soldiers came back with jewelry, watches, and all kinds of other valuables. If you are talking about boxing or fencing, then yes, rules are enforced and therefore followed. However, with most other human conflict, almost anything goes.

[German-Spanish Empire]

They put hot metal to their testicles...

Do you think that matters or are you trying to entertain us with your grasp of trivia?

Yes it does matter,it's torture that makes it animal abuse. They're forcing the bull to fight.

[Des-Bal]

Yes it does matter,it's torture that makes it animal abuse. They're forcing the bull to fight.

Meh? The testicle business has no bearing on whether or not it's being forced to fight.

[Des-Bal]

Let's reevaluate. War does have guidelines. Does that means everyone follows them? Sherman gave direct orders for his soldiers not to loot. Yet, somehow, soldiers came back with jewelry, watches, and all kinds of other valuables. If you are talking about boxing or fencing, then yes, rules are enforced and therefore followed. However, with most other human conflict, almost anything goes.

This isn't about war. War is not a sport.

[German-Spanish Empire]

Yes it does matter,it's torture that makes it animal abuse. They're forcing the bull to fight.

Meh? The testicle business has no bearing on whether or not it's being forced to fight.

Testicle burning makes it angry, just saying. So they are forced to fight.

[Geilinor]

That's asinine and off topic.

Take a look at Rome. After war, when the civilian populace had a bloodlust, the coliseums were built. While they served multiple groups the draw was always the same: violence. Acting like we are above watching animals kill each other is presumptuous.

You know, there is that concept called progress. http://awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_2/542p67.htm We also know that animals are sentient and therefore more advanced than we thought they were.

[Des-Bal]

Testicle burning makes it angry, just saying. So they are forced to fight.

It's being put in an arena who intends to fight it regardless of whether or not it's angry. NO BEARING.

[Anachronous Rex]

Yes it does matter,it's torture that makes it animal abuse. They're forcing the bull to fight.

Meh? The testicle business has no bearing on whether or not it's being forced to fight.

It's not the most intelligent of animals.

Hurting does make it react aggressively.

[Des-Bal]

It's not the most intelligent of animals.

Hurting does make it react aggressively.

That doesn't matter. It's being forced to fight whether or not it's being aggravated first.

[Geilinor]

Dude, we've had pro-paedophilia posters on here before. This is in no way a new low.

And I've never been able to make up my mind which is more important: the animals' right not to be exploited or killed, or the owners' right to do what they want with their animals.

Only allowing animals to be killed for food and some clothing is a good compromise.

[Microsol]

[i]b-but animals have rights too![i/]
No they don't. Only sentients can have rights.

[Luveria]

That doesn't require any combat abilities to do the job well.

Yes, well if the smilie didn't give it away, I'm not sure what would at this point....

I'm not sure either. Maybe add more smileys and I might get it.

Wouldn't your Libertarian ideals equally apply to slavery, were it legal?

Slavery is different because there you're balancing the rights of two people instead of a person and an animal.

Should animal abuse really be something you want legal?

[Anachronous Rex]

It's not the most intelligent of animals.

Hurting does make it react aggressively.

That doesn't matter. It's being forced to fight whether or not it's being aggravated first.

Well it wouldn't necessarily fight back otherwise, but I see your point.

[Anachronous Rex]

[i]b-but animals have rights too![i/]
No they don't. Only sentients can have rights.

Most large animals are sentient by almost any definition.

You mean "sapient"