Another Bull gets it's own back.

I don't think you can say everyone deserved their injuries. Some of them might have been dragged along by their parents or tourists going to see what all the fuss is about. You could argue that paying to see such an event is part of the problem, but I don't think the crowd 'deserve' to be injured.

Matadors however...
 
Actually yeah it is bad, I'm alright with the bullfighter biting the dust because they are literally fighting but spectators? Those not neccesarily there for the sport but with others? I dunno.
Oh wait, this isn't a traditional bullfight. Erm, argh uhh.
 
ChrisJSY said:
Actually yeah it is bad, I'm alright with the bullfighter biting the dust because they are literally fighting but spectators? Those not neccesarily there for the sport but with others? I dunno.
Oh wait, this isn't a traditional bullfight. Erm, argh uhh.
Click to expand...

But without spectators, there wouldn't be bullfighting...

They're paying to watch an animal suffer, and furthermore, enjoying it.
 
PiKe said:
But without spectators, there wouldn't be bullfighting...
Click to expand...

Like I said, are the kids there of their own volition, or family members? They may not all neccesarily agree on the same level, but tagged along, the world isn't so neatly cut.
 
I don't understand why they had to kill the bull as well, they put it in that situation, then kill it for mauling people? Does that even make any sense? Why not just tranq it.
 
PiKe said:
But without spectators, there wouldn't be bullfighting...

They're paying to watch an animal suffer, and furthermore, enjoying it.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say.

While I agree that I'm sure there are plenty of people there that possibly ended up going indirectly.... ie children, business clients etc....

The fact is, if people weren't paying to go see such an event, they wouldn't exist.

I wonder whether the ticket is like Motorsport, where the back warns you that you the sport is dangerous and as a spectator you could be injured. If not, those injured spectators probably have a case to sue the organizers for inadequate protection from rampaging bulls.
 
PiKe said:
I don't understand why they had to kill the bull as well, they put it in that situation, then kill it for mauling people? Does that even make any sense? Why not just tranq it.
Click to expand...

It's a bull. Don't really need a reason to kill one.

What are you going to do? Set it free in the countryside after this?
 
tr1cky said:
crowd didnt deserve that.its like saying the crowd at a boxing match deserve to be knocked out.
Click to expand...

Not quite, as analogies go it isn't entirely the same. Spectators at a boxing match go to watch two consenting adults fight in an agreed venue who are covered by the legal maxim volenti non fit injuria (roughly translates as no harm is done to a willing participant). Spectators at a bullfight are watching an animal which has never consented to it (being unable to do so) being tormented and ultimately killed.

I take no joy from the crowd getting injured here (and this will no doubt provoke further debate about banning bullfighting in Spain) but I can't totally go along with your analogy either I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom