From the BBC:
A shocked crowd watched in horror as [matador David Mora] was gored and thrown through the air. Mr Mora sustained a large gash in his thigh and another in his armpit, bullring officials said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais described the somersault as “horrific, shocking, chilling”.
The second matador, Antonio Nazare, injured his knee when a bull dragged him along the sand in the bullring. And the final headlining act, Jimenez Fortes, was skewered in the right leg and the pelvis.
Very sad, very shocking. But here is my question: If it is a bullfight, i.e. a fight with a bull, why do they cancel the fight when the bull starts winning?
Granted I’ve never been to a bullfight, but from what I understand, the bulls don’t get to cancel the event when they get gored. These men chose to fight these animals, and it doesn’t seem sporting to take their proverbial ball and go home when the other team starts beating up on them. Or goring them, in this case.
Yes, it would be a so much better idea to let it continue and have more bullfighters kill bulls when the bulls didn't chose to fight them. Brilliant.QuoteThese men chose to fight these animals, and it doesn’t seem sporting to take their proverbial ball and go home when the other team starts beating up on them. Or goring them, in this case.
Very rarely, if the public or the matador believe that the bull has fought extremely bravely, the event's president may be petitioned to grant the bull a pardon (indulto). If the indulto is granted, the bull's life is spared; it leaves the ring alive and is returned to its home ranch. There the bull becomes a stud for the rest of his life.Under any other circumstance, the animal dies.
From what I understand, this sacrifice is during the bullfight itself. What if the bull didn't die during the fight and the fight was interrupted ? For instance, from the goring of the matador. I can't read the link at work (page doesn't load) so I don't know if they put the bull to death following the goring, did they ? And if they didn't, he got out of the ring alive, didn't he ? So he's out of the sacrifice deal.In most of the cases, appears another torero to fight or just simply the animal is killed after that in front of all the public
What's next? Rodeos should have cowboys get trampled when something goes wrong because we are all wannabe homicidal shits? Someone getting food poisoning from meat should be left to die because they knew some animals died for that meat so its only fair?a lot of these analogies are really bad because the activity you describe does not involve the active murdering of another living being
People practicing rock climbing should be left to die if injured because they knew where they were getting into?
Someone hunting should be left to the wolves because hey its only fair, them wolves trapped him fair and square, also they have guns.
"Saltadores" on the other hand, i like better, they perform acrobatics over the Bulls and evade them with grace, they dont hurt the animal either.
both rodeos and bullfighting end with the animals being killed for its meat.Uh what ? Never heard anything like that in rodeo. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeo) and that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_treatment_in_rodeo) don't say anything about it, at most that some calves and such sometimes get injuries bad enough that they die, but not that the animal is systematically killed for its meat at the end, or at least not any differently than if they didn't have the rodeo. It's a competitive sport.
But as some say, and i agree, this species of bulls would be extinguised if people would not raise them for Bullfighting.
Nobody except maybe some Animal protectors would take the risk of protecting and caring this animal with no future profits in mind.
i would wager most endangered species offer no real benefits to humans
in the same vein the rodeo animals are animals that are then processed for their meat ( except on specific situations like specific "celebrity" animals)That's a pretty big mental shortcut here. The rodeo has nothing to do with the animal being later killed, they're just not doing rodeos on animals they don't own, and if they own these animals, they're probably going to kill them at some point unless they specifically use it for breeding or something. But that has nothing to do with the sport of rodeo. Whereas the act of bullfighting itself is directly tied to the killing of the animal. Rodeo isn't.
And I assume that when they're protected, it's by "animal protectors", right ?i think i misunderstood something so disregard what i said on that subject
(not that it makes a lot of sense to say "only animal protectors protect animals" but it's not exactly wrong)
But it wouldn't be any different without the rodeo, so the rodeo is irrelevant to the fate of the animal. Bullfighting is specifically to "sacrifice" the bulls, and according to what was said earlier, the species would even be extinct if they weren't raised for bullfighting (as opposed to all the ones just raised to be eaten).Cant really speak for spain, but here they supposedly treat those animals like kings before getting to the arena.
The irony is that a practitioner of this "thing" is even called a "matador", which translates literally as "killer, assassin, slaughterer".