Whats the difference?
So The New York Times has this article about a prize bull from Spain. His owner, who is a famous bull breeder, has decided that he wants to clone him to preserve his investment. Well enough, people do all sorts of bizzare things. But how can The Times, the same paper that condemned Michael Vick's dog fighting operation, treat bull fighting as a legitimate sport, and cover this story as newsworthy?
By sending a reporter to visit and interview the owner the paper accomplishes nothing more than cementing the guise of legitimacy this barbaric activity needs to be stripped of, and reinforces a double standard for the abuse and torture of animals. What is the moral difference between breeding dogs and fighting them to the death, and breeding bulls for the sole purpose of having them elaborately and slowly executed in front of a cheering crowd? None.
The New York Times eviscerated Michael Vick in a series of articles detailing his brutal exploits with canines and every step of the subsequent police investigation, and then finished up with a feel good interactive media story called Another Chance for Vick's Dogs about how some of Vicks dogs were rescued by a group in Utah that specialized in rehabbing abused animals. Apparently, for the paper, dogs count almost as people, and bulls, well, they are something you just eat.
I am not a member of PETA and I have never claimed to be an animal rights activist. I am a well established carnivore who loves to eat beef. But bull fighting is just SICK. It is no different than torturing a cat or a dog then killing it, or forcing them to fight each other to the death, and would be identified by most psycologists as psychotic behavior. That it is a historic part of Spanish culture does not imbue it with moral supremacy. Its terribly unfortunate that The Times would consider newsworthy the use of new cloning technology to further this barbaric "sport," in which the only competition is to see how long the bull fighter can keep the crowd engaged in what is a certain, grim, bloody fate.
2 comments:
The difference can be summed up in one word, Tradition.
There is a strange human desire to keep traditions alive no matter how much we have progressed beyond the original reasoning. As long as some group has been performing a seeming absurd act for more than say 4 generations, they get a pass. Didn't you learn that rule in kindergarten? It's an addendum to the golden rule, Treat everyone like you wish to be treated, unless you have a long standing tradition of abusing them.
They also have costumes, which has worked well for the church and every other religious institution.
Oh and we don't eat dogs. Might have something to do with it....
Although it was customary to drive swords into the back of the bull, killing it at the end of the "fight," many Mexican bull-fighters no longer hurt the animal. It's actually not tolerated anymore in many areas in Mexico. As for Spain... hell if I know.
Post a Comment