Spoiler File
(101.7KB, 900x600) >>3135
There are people that argue that even owning a cat is abuse because a home can never be as large as needed for a cat. Some people think that even taking videos of their pets and making money off of it is abusive (since you're exploiting your pet and they can never consent). I have heard these arguments before. Before you cry out that this is retarded, I only point this out because if you sit on this side of the argument, nothing I can say about bullfighting will ever make you think differently. If you think like this, then don't even bother reading the rest.
>That doesn't contradict any of the criticisms though
I'm not the person who wrote the text, but I have read the book. The argument anon was making is that bullfighting is a cultural tradition that goes beyond killing the bull. More succinctly, bullfighting is a representation of life and death. Reducing the argument to "bulls consent to be... playthings because they're territorial" is essentially demeaning the whole process, which is what the anon was trying to argue (and why he was comparing it to boxing where people also argue it's simply beating the shit out of each other for no purpose).
The other argument he was making is that this is in the bull's nature. Not just that they're territorial, but they are bred to be aggressive and strong. They will defend themselves to the point of death. The bulls AND the cows are mean. Kids will go in the ring with the female cows and the cows will try and ram the shit out of them (but with no horns, the kids aren't getting gored).
Basically, >>3147 - sure, but these cows are not the same cows you see in a pasture on the side of the highway. They are majestic, but in a way that you don't want to mess with them.
There can be no consent from the bull since it's an animal - just like children can't consent. But it's not clubbing a seal either - the bull has the ability to wound and kill a man (and this happens very, very often - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/18/world/spanish-matador-gored-to-death/index.html). The stabbing of the bull initially is not to kill it, but to help predict its movements in the ring so the matador has a chance. Otherwise, throw a man and a bull in at the same time and the bull will win 100%.
Why did this tradition start in the first place, then? Like boxing, it was for poor men to have a chance at getting out of poverty and making a name for themselves (which is very similar to boxing). If the bull is also believed to be a particularly noble bull, he will be left to live and procreate for a new generation of great bulls. Albeit rare, it is possible. Even though this is different today (modern bullfighters tend to come from a bullfighting family, similar to how famous boxers generally have parents in the sport), you still can't act like a pansy in the ring or you will get shot down in the community.
Anyway, as >>3133 said, read the book if you want more details.
I won't bother replying anymore about the topic since I want to talk about movies here, not argue about bullfighting. But I thought I'd throw in my two cents.