A regardless of the outcome has been achieved in recent months, especially in recent weeks witnessed a heated debate between supporters and retractors bullfighting. He has drawn special attention, passion for the interventions, the obvious manipulation of politicians and especially the atrocities that have been said.
Again we encounter a reality that divides society and shows that almost in most cases, the positions are already taken and are immovable, argumentese whatever, it seems that no one is willing to listen, not one is able to enter the opponent's logic to understand.
I've heard people familiar with the effort to fund each position, juggling not disqualify the opposing position, I have heard very subtle forms of insult or irony, of course the defenders of the animals were taken by idealists, disoriented and even pathetic . I listened to threats not very evening. Certainly
two languages \u200b\u200band two very different universes. Bullfighting deal speaks of pride, cast, caste, value, symbol, beauty. While the language of the defenders of animal rights, is to murder, cruelty, suffering, bloodthirsty ethic.
is difficult to summarize what the merits of the "ethical or aesthetic?
As I write this article myself, I have the temptation to show bias towards the option that I sympathize, but I prefer not to, if that's possible is it?
More importantly I think the mechanism and process that has taken place. A popular initiative, a group organizes and citizens, exercising their duty and their right, and by democratic bodies has taken her protest and disagreement in Parliament, their leaders for this motion is debated. Is an example to follow, how many really important things that managers have forgotten to deserve a similar movement stronger. Ojala take notes and learn to defend our rights, our ideas, our values, which is a project of society.
Apart from his position, would you feel capable of analyzing all the arguments for and against and, above all, be able to judge the real weight and value of the arguments.
- Bullfighting is part of English culture and has an ancient tradition.
- is one of the few remaining ancient Eastern cultures. Excommunicate would underestimate this very special part of English culture.
+ All cultures both Western and Oriental are the destructive elements. Tradition does not justify cruelty.
- Before the bullfight, the bull was treated much better than killing bulls bioindustry.
+ This is not a valid argument. The fact that there are worse situations does not justify a negative situation itself.
- Bullfighting is a sign of appreciation and respect for the strength of the animal.
+ The appreciation and respect not shown by means of torture.
- Bullfighting not seen as a sport, but as an art, dance and displays of 'manhood' (machismo).
+ That this tradition also contains other aspects, does not diminish its cruelty.
- A bullfight is for downloading collectively negative and aggressive feelings. That's healthy.
+ There are alternatives to a harmless release of tension (eg sport) to avoid any suffering to an animal.
"The bulls are a quasi-religious symbol of the struggle between good and evil. The bull represents evil.
+ Religious holidays should not be used to reduce the animals to a single symbol.
- God created the bulls to fight with the matador and die in that fight.
+ is pretentious to get in the place of God and thus have the fate of the animals.
- The bulls are only bred for their bravery during the run. The abolition of the bulls means the loss of a single animal species.
+ A you are interested in any animal bred to suffer.
- The bulls are an important part of the English tourist industry.
+ Most tourists go to the bulls just out of curiosity and out of the square upset. The bulls are bad publicity for Spain.
- Bullfighting is the national holiday. They symbolize the essence of the country. Act against the bulls is to act against Spain.
+ Spain is absurd to identify a single tradition. Many of the English themselves are against the bulls, they do not like to identify with it. We could flip the question: who wants to Spain, want the abolition of this national scandal.
Finally, one of the arguments that made me think is that if cruelty is defined very clearly and distinctly, for what can be directed to differentiate between human beings or animals, when what is at issue is individual who performs it. For there to be cruelty has to be a human being that exercise.
Is allowed to think? Or not?
0 comments:
Post a Comment