Star bullfighter Jose Tomas gored in Mexico

On Apr 25, 10:23*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave



wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:37 pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:16 pm, abelard wrote:

snip

is non-perverse enjoyment ok?

Tell us what it is that you enjoy and we'll tell you.

watching idiots like you chase your own tails

Not much joy in your life then...

it's a lot more entertaining and enlightening than
* *watching people chasing bulls...

but it does make it more interesting if the idiot
* * has some personality or special idiot-syncrazies

So, pretty dire really? Do you cry much?

UD

On Apr 25, 7:39*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave



wrote:
On Apr 25, 6:02*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 4:19*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:02:18 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 1:52*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 12:18*pm, Holly Buddy wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8642637.stm

hardy ****in ha!

Nice one.

A colleague of mine had a good idea about bull fighting. *He said he
wouldn't mind so much if they evened it up a bit and made the matador
drink a bottle of vodka before going into the ring so he wouldn't know
which bull to torment. *It would be funny too - I think it lacks
humour in its current "a bunch of cruel *******s mindlessly abusing
animals" format.

are you on the side of the islamofascists as well?

So you approve of cruelty to animals then? *Looking forward to
reinstating hunting and bear baiting are you?

answer the question

What is an "islamofascist"? *I rather suspect you made the term up
because I can't find a candidate standing here.

answer the question

Ask away Bridge Keeper, I'm not afraid.

good...so you can stop running and answer the question

Which is?

UD

On Apr 25, 10:36*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:25:49 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave



wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:23*pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:37 pm, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 7:16 pm, abelard wrote:

snip

is non-perverse enjoyment ok?

Tell us what it is that you enjoy and we'll tell you.

watching idiots like you chase your own tails

Not much joy in your life then...

it's a lot more entertaining and enlightening than
* *watching people chasing bulls...

but it does make it more interesting if the idiot
* * has some personality or special idiot-syncrazies

So, pretty dire really? *Do you cry much?

you have strange concerns...

Well, that's because you're a strange person, and it concerns me.

Why are you scared of capital letters? Did you have an unfortunate
alphabetic incident as a child? Were you scalded by a pan of red hot
Alphabetti Spaghetti? Did your stack of toy blocks spelling out the
word "socialist" fall on you? Is there a name for your condition?
Majusculeophobia? Uppercaseosis? Abelard's Syndrome? Or are you
simply miniscule? I think we should be told...

UD

On 25 Apr, 21:11, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter



wrote:
On 25 Apr, 19:15, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:55:20 -0700 (PDT), McKevvy

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 16:20, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 3:19*pm, "James Silverton"
wrote:

snip

I've never seen a bull-fight but, from TV shows, it does seem usually to
be rather dangerous for the matador

Anyone familiar with them will tell you that most bulls are docile and
won't hurt a fly. *They get a bad press and different breeds do behave
differently, but I used to happily walk alongside them as a kid being
born and raised on a farm. *One particulr one - a cuddly Hereford -
insisted on going in to the milking shed with the cows, so he could
get some feed. *It was quite funny. *I have met a few big buggers in
my time but, make no mistake, there is nothing brave about facing a
dumb animal who has no idea about what is going to happen. *Any human
with their wits about them would survive a bullfight, though few are
so cowardly as to kill such a magnificent animal in ruthless cold
blood for the perverse enjoyment of others.

does your bleeding heart extend to slaughterhouses?
Theyre not tormented to fee-paying public in slaughterhouses. Theyre
killed quickly, painlessly and humanely

perhaps you'd better read up on slaughter houses...

for meat and by products.

for your 'enjoyment' as another concerned poster put it...

is it better when no entrance fee is paid....other than to
* * your favourite restaurant?
a part of your fee of course goes towards the slaughterman...
* * so's you don't have to get your hands dirty....
a part of your tv fee goes towards the discussed entertainment

are you claiming it's ok for your steak enjoyment but not for
* * your neighbours viewing enjoyment?

I think farming animals for food is defensible as long as the animals
are treated compassionately.

so, you're into murdering billions of defenseless animals....as
* * long as you murder them compassionately....

To eat or as euthanasia or pest control, yes. For sport, no.
In any case there's nothing compassionate about bullfighting.

My reasoning is that it (probably)
wouldn't actually be desirable if their were no predators in an
ecosystem and why shouldn't man fill this role.

but he mustn't chase them like a lion...but it's ok to sneak up on
* * them like a pussy cat...

Correct. He must kill in a way that does not cause unnecessary
suffering.

In bull fighting
the bull is tormented for the sake of it. It is inexcusable.

but the bull has a chance to get revenge....
and cheers for which the cowardly clown would grovel....

I fail to see why this is relevant.

do you make up your rules by consulting a moral compass?

I form my moral opinions by a combination of emotion and reason.

Good

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 26 Apr, 02:37, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:43:11 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter



wrote:
On 25 Apr, 21:11, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 19:15, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:55:20 -0700 (PDT), McKevvy

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 16:20, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 3:19*pm, "James Silverton"
wrote:

snip

I've never seen a bull-fight but, from TV shows, it does seem usually to
be rather dangerous for the matador

Anyone familiar with them will tell you that most bulls are docile and
won't hurt a fly. *They get a bad press and different breeds do behave
differently, but I used to happily walk alongside them as a kid being
born and raised on a farm. *One particulr one - a cuddly Hereford -
insisted on going in to the milking shed with the cows, so he could
get some feed. *It was quite funny. *I have met a few big buggers in
my time but, make no mistake, there is nothing brave about facing a
dumb animal who has no idea about what is going to happen. *Any human
with their wits about them would survive a bullfight, though few are
so cowardly as to kill such a magnificent animal in ruthless cold
blood for the perverse enjoyment of others.

does your bleeding heart extend to slaughterhouses?
Theyre not tormented to fee-paying public in slaughterhouses. Theyre
killed quickly, painlessly and humanely

perhaps you'd better read up on slaughter houses...

for meat and by products.

for your 'enjoyment' as another concerned poster put it...

is it better when no entrance fee is paid....other than to
* * your favourite restaurant?
a part of your fee of course goes towards the slaughterman...
* * so's you don't have to get your hands dirty....
a part of your tv fee goes towards the discussed entertainment

are you claiming it's ok for your steak enjoyment but not for
* * your neighbours viewing enjoyment?

I think farming animals for food is defensible as long as the animals
are treated compassionately.

so, you're into murdering billions of defenseless animals....as
* * long as you murder them compassionately....

To eat or as euthanasia or pest control, yes. For sport, no.
In any case there's nothing compassionate about bullfighting.

My reasoning is that it (probably)
wouldn't actually be desirable if their were no predators in an
ecosystem and why shouldn't man fill this role.

but he mustn't chase them like a lion...but it's ok to sneak up on
* * them like a pussy cat...

Correct. He must kill in a way that does not cause unnecessary
suffering.

In bull fighting
the bull is tormented for the sake of it. It is inexcusable.

but the bull has a chance to get revenge....
and cheers for which the cowardly clown would grovel....

I fail to see why this is relevant.

do you make up your rules by consulting a moral compass?

I form my moral opinions by a combination of emotion and reason.

why do you believe others don't share your sensibilities?

I'll let them talk for themselves...

* * clearly your view is not shared by many spaniards...

That sounds like an appeal to popularity...

or
why do you have such sensibilities?

I believe wilful, deliberate subjecting a creature to experiences it
finds unpleasant for no other reason than entertainment is wrong.
I can't put it any better than that. Either you agree with me or you
don't.

is it because you are a superior human being?

I believe people who fight bulls or pay others to fight bulls
are behaving immorally. I'm sorry if that sounds sanctimonious to
you.
I'm not claiming my moral judgement is superior to anyone elses.
I'm just stating my opinion.

but you seem not to mind the sordid process of the
* * slaughter house...

No doubt there is room for improvement.

On 26 Apr, 18:47, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter



wrote:
On 26 Apr, 02:37, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:43:11 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 21:11, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Floating Voter

wrote:
My reasoning is that it (probably)
wouldn't actually be desirable if their were no predators in an
ecosystem and why shouldn't man fill this role.

but he mustn't chase them like a lion...but it's ok to sneak up on
them like a pussy cat...

Correct. He must kill in a way that does not cause unnecessary
suffering.

In bull fighting
the bull is tormented for the sake of it. It is inexcusable.

but the bull has a chance to get revenge....
and cheers for which the cowardly clown would grovel....

I fail to see why this is relevant.

do you make up your rules by consulting a moral compass?

I form my moral opinions by a combination of emotion and reason.

why do you believe others don't share your sensibilities?

I'll let them talk for themselves...

so your moral opinions are purely personal preferences?

I don't see it that way. My moral opinions can not be proven
objectively true but neither are they purely subjective matters
of personal preference in the way that, for example, the music
I chose to listen to is.

if so, why would anyone else care?

clearly your view is not shared by many spaniards...

That sounds like an appeal to popularity...

it is a statement of fact

or
why do you have such sensibilities?

I believe wilful, deliberate subjecting a creature to experiences it
finds unpleasant for no other reason than entertainment is wrong.
I can't put it any better than that. Either you agree with me or you
don't.

i'm not looking for 'agreement' or 'disagreement'
i'm much more interested in why you drift in the directions
* * you assert..

I don't believe any moral judgement can be proven correct by
pure reason from matters of fact so I assert the moral postulate
that one should show compassion towards any entity that has
an emotional life and work from there.

*much more* why you seem to believe it is your
* * right to impose those views on others

I have no special moral authority to impose my views on others.
I don't need any special moral authority to declare what my views
are.

is it because you are a superior human being?

I believe people who fight bulls or pay others to fight bulls
are behaving immorally. I'm sorry if that sounds sanctimonious to
you.

it doesn't 'sound' anything to me...
what interests me is why you have a view about the behaviour
* * of others in that context

Do you have a view on whether or not it is OK to rape little
children?
If so, why does it puzzle you that I have views about the behaviour
of others in different contexts?

this becomes even more mysterious in your comment above
* * where you say you'll let other talk for themselves!!

I don't care to explain the logic behind positions I don't advocate.
If anyone wants to advocate bullfighting I will let them explain why.

I'm not claiming my moral judgement is superior to anyone elses.
I'm just stating my opinion.

so your 'moral judgement' is irrelevant outside of yourself....

My moral judgement governs how I behave. It also governs how
I believe others ought to behave.

yet...yet...

you see a purpose in broadcasting it

Maybe I just enjoy debate....

as you claim that you don't claim that your 'moral judgement'....

does that mean that the moral judgement of bull fighters and
* * *aficionados have a pov precisely equally relevant and
* * *praiseworthy as your own???

Not quite. From the fact that I disagree with their POV it follows
that I believe their POV is wrong. All I'm saying is that I am no
more qualified to make moral judgements than they are.

but you seem not to mind the sordid process of the
slaughter house...

No doubt there is room for improvement.

now that could indeed be easily be argued...

And unless I've missed something the best attempt at
justifying bullfighting in this thread so far is that there
is no relevant difference between that and eating meat.
This fails because even if you don't accept my attempted
justifications for meat eating, one evil does not justify
another.

I believe people who fight bulls or pay others to fight bulls
are behaving immorally. I'm sorry if that sounds sanctimonious to
you.

it doesn't 'sound' anything to me...
what interests me is why you have a view about the behaviour
* * of others in that context

Do you have a view on whether or not it is OK to rape little
children?

so now you equate fighting bulls with children...
and bull fighters with paedophiles...

Not at all.

to me that indicates that your moral position a very great deal
* * more dubious than was previously apparent...

or you merely trying to change the subject in a 'strange'
* * and desperate manner?

The point of bringing paedophilia into the discussion was my
attempt to help you understand why I believe I am entitled to have
a view of the behaviour of others. If you have a view regarding
whether or not it is OK to rape children then you also make moral
judgements upon other people. Either it's reasonable to make moral
judgements on other people's behaviour or it isn't afaics.

If so, why does it puzzle you that I have views about the behaviour
of others in different contexts?

see above....
meanwhile your views appear to go beyond views to attempting
* * *to control the behaviour of others

it seems to me you have a choice....

either make it clear you wish to run other people's lives as do
* * most leftists....

You can look at it as a wish to control other people's lives if you
want. I look at it as a wish to prevent them from controlling the
bulls life in that manner.

or

give up your mad relativism...

I am not a relativist, at least not in the way I understand the term.
I believe that some moral codes are better than others. However the
only faculties I have to compare the relative strength of different
moral
codes are reason, emotion and experience. Undoubtedly other factors
like social
conditioning have an influence over me but the point is other people
also have reason, emotion, experience, social conditioning, etc. so I
can not
provide a reason why you should consider my PoV more important than
anyone elses.

i don't see how you can hang on to both those dubious positions...

neither do i see any route to you reasoning sanely while holding
* * either of your 'weird' axioms...let alone both of them

Well I hope my answers above will help clear things up for you.

On 25 Apr, 19:10, abelard wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:28:34 +0100, AlanG wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT), aquachimp
wrote:

On Apr 25, 4:06*pm, AlanG wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave

wrote:
On Apr 25, 12:18*pm, Holly Buddy wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8642637.stm

hardy ****in ha!

Nice one.

A colleague of mine had a good idea about bull fighting. *He said he
wouldn't mind so much if they evened it up a bit and made the matador
drink a bottle of vodka before going into the ring so he wouldn't know
which bull to torment. *It would be funny too - I think it lacks
humour in its current "a bunch of cruel *******s mindlessly abusing
animals" format.

I've never seen a bullfight until recently. Was on holiday in spain
and got stuck in the hotel room for a few hours while it ****ed down
outside. I flicked through the tv channels and spotted a bullfight.

There is very little bravery in facing a tormented animal that is
weakened and bleeding to death from blades stuck in it.

Adding to which, a link within that page is headlined as "Matador aged
11 kills six bulls"
but the video shows the "bull" *to be about calf sized.

I didn't follow the link. Bullfighting disgusts me and I'm not
squeamish. I belonged to the fishing, shooting fraternity for a long
time and have no poblems with killing an animal cleanly but tormenting
one while it bleeds to death is just torture.

so what is your position on halal?

I've read that halal is a humane slaughter method. That was on a pro-
Islam site
so I don't know if I should believe it but the explaination was much
better than
I could find on any of the anti-Islam sites that claimed it was cruel.
I haven't
found a credible source to suggest that it is cruel, unless you
consider slaughter
to be cruel per se.

whaling?

My second hand sources say it is impossible to humanely kill a whale.
If true it is a serious AW issue.

foxes killing chickens?

How can foxes be subject to human moral codes? AFAICs the question is
only relevant if we want to consider exterminating all predators. I
see
no reason to advocate such a policy.

cats playing with mice?

Nature is cruel. That doesn't justify humans in being cruel IMHO.

and fluffy bunny rabbits?

They're fluffy...

regards

On Apr 27, 1:54*am, abelard wrote:

snip

so again you equate bulls with humans...?

I do. They're both full of ****.

UD