News Stories

[Zu Ra]

It is their CULTURE....bullfighting has been around for over a few hundred years since the 1700s in Portugal and Spain, and probably even more since the times of Rome where man-vs-animal are part of the goreplay in Colosseum.

Culture or LACK OF IT ?? .

Dont even get started on gross human right abuses done by Conquistadors . Or a whole continent speaking a foreign tongue . If some evil is part of anyone culture they need to expunge it make up for it ,


Bull Fighting or Running of the Bulls just goes to show lack of class or sophistication . The same cultural and heritage excuse is used to propagate white supremacy justification to hurl the confederate flag . Unfortunately you sound like someone from the Micheal Vick Fanclub . Out of all Blood Sports currently practiced this is the only one celebrated with such gusto .


It would be a test of courage or skill . If the Bull was healthy and the matador would be carrying just 2 Knives to combat horns . Regarding Hunting , Hunting for food is A okay but Hunting for Game/Entertainment is facepalm worthy

Originally Posted by DjTrizz

RIP Gary Coleman

Ouch he will be missed I have watched parts of his 70s show Different Strokes and he was so adorable in that .

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

Culture or LACK OF IT ?? .

Dont even get started on gross human right abuses done by Conquistadors . Or a whole continent speaking a foreign tongue . If some evil is part of anyone culture they need to expunge it make up for it ,


Bull Fighting or Running of the Bulls just goes to show lack of class or sophistication . The same cultural and heritage excuse is used to propagate white supremacy justification to hurl the confederate flag . Unfortunately you sound like someone from the Micheal Vick Fanclub . Out of all Blood Sports currently practiced this is the only one celebrated with such gusto .


It would be a test of courage or skill . If the Bull was healthy and the matador would be carrying just 2 Knives to combat horns . Regarding Hunting , Hunting for food is A okay but Hunting for Game/Entertainment is facepalm worthy

Confederate Heritage Month, ENOUGH SAID.

Although I completely agree that bullfighting is antiquated, to say that it is on the level of supporting racial undertones that ravaged America to this day is still a little bit of a stretch.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

this isn't even close to being Man-vs-animal

a day before the fight the bull is denied food and is force to run around sapping it of energy. And the night before the actual fight, needles are inserted into the bulling bleeding it all the while it is kept in a enclosure with no light.

What the matador is facing isn't a animal at full strength but a weaken and disorient animal that was strave, bleed and keep in a dark room. The only advantage the matador didn't have was someone to hold the bull while he killed it.

looking at the pic, i say thumbs up for the bull.

Well, yes. Species solidarity be damned. I, too, feel compelled to root for the underdog.

[Zu Ra]

]to say that it is on the level of supporting racial undertones that ravaged America to this day is still a little bit of a stretch.

No they are absolutely unrelated . But the same Culture/Heritage excuse is used to justify lot of nonsensical stuff that goes on .

Ever wondered how the Confederate Flag is hurled down South on Govt buildings despite the Union winning ....

The Excuse it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery just celebration of our Heritage .

[Nosauz]

yes but dominance over animal is man's domain, if your going to say bull fighting is arcahic classless, and uncivilized then every single person who eats meat not produced on a truly sustainable farming method is just as barbaric, I mean eating things that basically wallow in their filth before their slaughtered, it just seems a bit impractical to deride a much smaller mistreatment of animals without even mentioning the atrocities of the industrial food/meat industry that feeds the modern world.

Out of mind, out of sight?

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

yes but dominance over animal is man's domain, if your going to say bull fighting is arcahic classless, and uncivilized then every single person who eats meat not produced on a truly sustainable farming method is just as barbaric, I mean eating things that basically wallow in their filth before their slaughtered, it just seems a bit impractical to deride a much smaller mistreatment of animals without even mentioning the atrocities of the industrial food/meat industry that feeds the modern world.

Out of mind, out of sight?

Not to mention all the worms and insects who are shredded alive or poisoned due to modern farming methods.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

No they are absolutely unrelated . But the same Culture/Heritage excuse is used to justify lot of nonsensical stuff that goes on .

Ever wondered how the Confederate Flag is hurled down South on Govt buildings despite the Union winning ....

The Excuse it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery just celebration of our Heritage .

That is culture misrepresented as history. Similar to the fact of how history is taught differently in Japanese schools, culture can be used an an excuse to substantiate for aggression. So wrong article, tubbo.

Culture and heritage preserved through decades of practice has got no relation to human conflicts, but rather gives a unique trait to each and every race. It is only a part of history, and isn't used to define history on entirety itself.

Otherwise what Nosauz has put it, practicing "out of sight, out of mind" by just focusing on a small part over a large issue of animal rights is downright hypocritical. Besides, I don't think that bullfighter would have stood a chance against a healthy but angry raging bull with anything less than a MATADOR in his hands.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is culture misrepresented as history. Similar to the fact of how history is taught differently in Japanese schools, culture can be used an an excuse to substantiate for aggression. So wrong article, tubbo.

Culture and heritage preserved through decades of practice has got no relation to human conflicts, but rather gives a unique trait to each and every race. It is only a part of history, and isn't used to define history on entirety itself.

Otherwise what Nosauz has put it, practicing "out of sight, out of mind" by just focusing on a small part over a large issue of animal rights is downright hypocritical. Besides, I don't think that bullfighter would have stood a chance against a healthy but angry raging bull with anything less than a MATADOR in his hands.

Hypocrisy is easier when the big picture is blinding. Not that I support the bullfighting.

[Frenchie]

That picture of the bull goring the matador made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. The bull should be canonized.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by El_Frenchie

That picture of the bull goring the matador made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. The bull should be canonized.

I agree. Nice to see the Bull get a lucky shot in.

[Nogitsune]

As far as I'm concerned, it's only hypocrisy if there is no difference at all and the one complaining really should be aware of that. However, taking pleasure in something an animal suffered for (like factory farmed meat) is not the same as taking pleasure in watching an animal suffer. In fact, most people who eat factory farmed meat do not want to see the animals' suffering.

Does that make it better? No, I don't think so. But I believe it's not hypocritical, as one could draw the line between callousness and cruelty right there.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Hypocrisy is easier when the big picture is blinding. Not that I support the bullfighting.

Neither do I. But it is more of a "respect for others culture" thing that I am pretty much practicing here.

[Arbitres]

Does that make it better? No, I don't think so. But I believe it's not hypocritical, as one could draw the line between callousness and cruelty right there.

No. But it does make it easier. That is how the world works, it's moral ambiguity at it's best when it's this sort of thing. People tend to be unfeeling when it's for themselves -- entertainment, nourishment, so on. Cruelty is just a byproduct on 'the most effective/less expensive way'.

In fact, most people who eat factory farmed meat do not want to see the animals' suffering.

I expected you to argue people do the exact opposite and enjoy seeing animals suffer.

Neither do I. But it is more of a "respect for others culture" thing that I am pretty much practicing here

Since you seem to respect culture so much, do you openly respect seppuku? It's an atonement suicide and is a rather old tradition among the Japanese (this is where someone argues that samurai only did it.)

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

No. But it does make it easier.

Agreed.

I expected you to argue people do the exact opposite and enjoy seeing animals suffer.

No, no, no - that's not at all what I believe, or claim.
It's not like every time someone sits down to eat a steak, they say, "ah, it's so awesome one more poor little cow had a horrible life and painful death!" Only someone who is extremely ignorant could believe that. It would also be pretty disturbing, considering most of my friends and family eat meat, and that I used to eat meat myself.

I'm all for animal rights, but I'm very much aware that factory farming exists because people don't care enough, not because they think torturing animals is fun.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

Since you seem to respect culture so much, do you openly respect seppuku? It's an atonement suicide and is a rather old tradition among the Japanese (this is where someone argues that samurai only did it.)

Why not? At least they kill themselves rather than other people, like what the Taliban did.

Besides, I take my hat off to them because they understood that personal honour can implicate your kin, thus suicide for redemption.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

No, no, no - that's not at all what I believe, or claim.
It's not like every time someone sits down to eat a steak, they say, "ah, it's so awesome one more poor little cow had a horrible life and painful death!" Only someone who is extremely ignorant could believe that. It would also be pretty disturbing, considering most of my friends and family eat meat, and that I used to eat meat myself.

I'm all for animal rights, but I'm very much aware that factory farming exists because people don't care enough, not because they think torturing animals is fun.

I proudly proclaim the person who thinks like that an airhead : 70% of the human population live in hunger, and when these people have food to eat, they complain.

Kind of shameful that they can't even take care of their own species, yet still want to advocate for "animal rights" just to make themselves feel better.

[Nosauz]

Also lets not forget that after the bullfight the bull is then eaten too, so to me bullfighting is INFINTELY better than say sport hunting, which to me is assinine, if your going to kill something you better damn eat it, hence even though sometimes i'm a little digusted by people eating road kill, I don't really think its that disgusting because food is food.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I proudly proclaim the person who thinks like that an airhead : 70% of the human population live in hunger, and when these people have food to eat, they complain.

Well, to be fair, most factory farming does not benefit people who are in danger of starving. But yeah, if someone believes that the majority of people who eat meat like to see animals suffer, they can't have thought about the issue for very long.

Kind of shameful that they can't even take care of their own species, yet still want to advocate for "animal rights" just to make themselves feel better.

There's no reason why someone can't fight for human and animal rights at the same time. It can just be difficult to find the balance.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Also lets not forget that after the bullfight the bull is then eaten too, so to me bullfighting is INFINTELY better than say sport hunting, which to me is assinine, if your going to kill something you better damn eat it, hence even though sometimes i'm a little digusted by people eating road kill, I don't really think its that disgusting because food is food.

I learnt it the hard way with packed rations : had been eating them a whole 2 weeks in a row, and by the fifth day, I ate meals through the next week with a Friday face.

And I thought in sport hunting you get to eat the stuff you poached.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

There's no reason why someone can't fight for human and animal rights at the same time. It can just be difficult to find the balance.

Being a nihilist that I am, I would say that the food chain follows a logical and rational cycle, be it literally or laterally, so there isn't really such a thing as "animal rights". Like how bigger corporations buy up small companies to maintain market share, bigger animals eat smaller ones to live. And that humans are "bigger" than other animals in the animal kingdom because of their ability to think, so it gives them a distinct advantage to shift higher up the food chain most of the time.

But what nature allows, of course, we get to feed ourselves to animals like sharks and tigers. Colloquially it is called "bad luck", "misdemeanor" or "accident" in the human context, or in politically correct speech "negative natural causes".

[Nosauz]

Shooting wolves via helicopter, sport hunting is implies your killing for sport not for food, it implies the killing is not out of necessity or sustanace but for pleasure. I do think we have dominion over all animals but I also do think we should honor them in the food and products they provide for us, there no reason to not respect the things you depend on. But yea for the most part sport hunting doesn't actually refer to eating the kill.

[SaintessHeart]

Thought I would never read as BAD news as this on a Sunday......

Business Books: Why Russia and China will eat your lunch

(Reuters) - The Western multinationals that have dominated global trade for decades are going to have their lunch eaten in China and elsewhere, and many are unaware it's about to happen.

That's the warning in "The End of the Free Market" (Portfolio, $26.95), a new book by political risk expert Ian Bremmer.

Bremmer, known for showing the effect of political turmoil on financial markets, argues that China, Russia and other emerging markets have developed a new economic model -- state capitalism -- that clashes with the free-market system of the West.

State capitalism is not the rebirth of socialist central planning, he writes. It is a system in which authoritarian states dominate markets primarily for political gain. In the process, they favor national enterprises over foreign competition.

A grasp of state capitalism is essential if Western businesses are to understand its potential effect, argues Bremmer, the founder of political risk consultants Eurasia Group.

Many Western corporations -- Eurasia counts about 100 of the Fortune 500 as clients -- are unprepared for what they face.

"I would say that a quarter of them, max, have China strategies that are sustainable for five years. Of the ones that don't, maybe half are aware of it, and that's a serious problem," Bremmer said in an interview.

"They're going to get crushed," he said, although he noted that the situation is hard to predict beyond five years.

Western multinationals increasingly rely on foreign sales, especially in emerging markets, where state capitalism has many sympathizers. At least half the revenue of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index is generated abroad.

Bremmer doesn't see dramatic Cold War standoffs like the Berlin airlift or the Cuban missile crisis. But state capitalism can have far-reaching consequences, compromising a country's security and the global economy.

Bremmer notes that state capitalism is not an economic model like free enterprise, but a tool elites will use to stay in power.

"(It's) not a formula for producing more efficient or more equitable economic performance," he writes.

Writing before Google's run-in with China in March, Bremmer asks what happens when the day comes that China no longer needs foreign investment to develop and decides to shelter local companies from foreign competition.

Google's decision to close its China-based search service and redirect traffic to Hong Kong underscores a failure to understand the politics behind the spat. It was favoritism of Google's Chinese rival, Baidu, not censorship, Bremmer said.

"Google really believed that they were on the side of the Chinese people against the Chinese government," Bremmer said. "That's ridiculous."

Something else that people have failed to grasp about China is that while the United States clearly has a divided political system, the Chinese people are fully behind their government in China's ascension as a world power, he said.

The subtitle of Bremmer's book is "Who wins the war between states and corporations?" Asked for an answer, Bremmer finds the West still holds advantages in terms of size and resilience, and because China, long-term, looks "bubble-like."

But the jury, he says, is still out.