The end of each one of the things is their nature. Thus, just as man is by nature a social being, there is reason to believe that the nature of the pet is the service of man. The pet has a more refined nature than the wild animal, while serving and have obtained the man's safety. However, while the ox farm reaches a certain security in exchange for working the land of man, the animal kingdom regime continues to impose its authority according to its nature. Down with the will of man at that point the prism: the male animal is more than the female. From there, they turn the buckets of the wheel, they inevitably play each his holy script. It is
nature, therefore, that the man tends to integration rather than fragmentation. The city is at the end of man, as the whole is prior to the parties, such as Aristotle wrote a second chapter of Politics. Thus, in its zeal get the service integrator of animals raised each of the steps that form the ladder complex that leads us as social beings civilization. However, do we have that position of authority Botafuegos reasons to grab and turn the ship's powder magazine whenever we please? "From which point the balance is broken? Is it in our own nature, understood as the very last, and fill vitiate vitriol different strata on which we raise our human evolution?
So, it seems more capricious than the man pet available for purposes other than service and supply of children. It's the bull case. Advocates hide behind the National Party under the umbrella of biodiversity. Contend is their litany indissolubility the conservation of pastures and the maintenance of the bull. That is, it subtracts that we are irrevocably to the tragic dilemma of having to go for bullfighting or our biodiversity will subside as does a small train of dominoes. Away from the importance of conservation of bull adehesado ecosystem should be noted that six and a half million acres of meadow which enjoys Spain, only three hundred thousand are engaged in breeding bull. Ie: only five percent. According to Professor Abad Ruíz, it takes on the order of one to six acres per head. Also emphasizes how the excess resources necessary for its operation is added as a second factor of production required the enormous human capital, doubling the forecast for beef cattle in extensive. That is why the operation of the bull is economically deficient, even enjoying a number of grants. Should not hide with an exercise in prestidigitation National Day that costs us the subsidy at around EUR 565 million aid combining different state administrations and the CAP. According to Isabel Bardají Azcarate, Professor of the School of Agricultural Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Madrid, we face a clearly distorted and involved, since the prices or protection abroad, through direct payments per hectare of crop or per head cattle. All this under the guise of a compensation system removed from the Agenda 2000 regulations, from which he began to weave a web of premiums and benefit concessions notably cattle farms by its nature deals of extensive and closed cycle. With these raw, this is a glaringly obvious that based on strictly economic, from the liberal point of view, the water where they cook the National Party is, at least, more than muddy and dirty.
course ignorance does not remove sin, but even with it, what scaffolding is left to the defense of bullfighting? Go to the farmer is played the quarterfinals losing horse betting based on their own freedom. Also pass the CAP and the various administrations of the State opened the tap of subsidies to flood the beds and gardens of social democracy in an exercise in hypocrisy and centralization obscene. Okay, we're used and give a pet octopus. It could be argued that this is a cultural event of enormous roots, art in its purest form and, moreover, a tradition that we Pyrenees flag up. Far from wanting to trivialize the bullfighting and fall into traps for children, it goes without saying that the famous urinal Duchamps is adorned with the laurels of one of the masterpieces of the century. In other words, art ends up being all that is baptized as an art. Close in spirit to the bullfighting, there are those who argue that boxing is a sport most artistic gene. Do we allow the art to the sublime or we can go through the baptismal font as all that we want to make art according to our impressions subjective? So, I might add that for me personally, art can be righteousness, shape, mechanical painfully cadence with which Michael Johnson, known as the locomotive of Waco because of the similarity of the tartan-edged their opponents in the curves of four, so insulting destroying the laws of physics and biomechanics own. No doubt that is aesthetic and emotional. Also bullfighting. Nobody in their right mind can deny the aesthetic grandeur of bullfighting, and even poetic, as a perfect allegory of the struggle of mankind for life and death in the midst of a dance macabre. Eros and Thanatos. War of symbols. Contemplating the fierceness of the charging bull while you miss the life drop by drop, the fight to the last gasp, the exchange of glances, silences that are cut with knives, make the task of pure epic, crowned with the triumphalism of the tragic loss of animal-or man, as both fight to the end: bullfighters wounded returning the ring to end the slaughter and killing bulls bullfighters dying. Counting on it and even flour batter into the majestic, "not necessarily make it art?
Another point that strikes at the water line of defense of the bull is its origin. Much has been written about the genealogy of the current bull. This is the direct descendant of the aurochs, from which to seek various physiological and temperamental changes to make it an ideal animal for bullfights. The bravery and natural rush, hyper-developed muscles, antlers forward, are all characteristics sought and found. It can be said, therefore, created a man's will to do so. But, is it justified the torture of the animal in life or death duel with a simple matter of genetics? Are we not closer to the involution aesthetic refinement and moral? It is much like holding the dobermans fighting should be allowed while an animal is also sought by different spigots and modifications in order to enhance his strength and aggressiveness. And so, with all the animals we have or have modified, to account for human beings that we have the potter's wheel that allow us to run a sort of God, altering the creation itself. And that is precisely about God's creation, which orbits one of the most blatant contradictions and hurtful in the world of bullfighting. It may agree or disagree with the issue of conservation of the meadow, just that we cling to the reason for the very genesis of the bull to justify the National Party, but faith is the man who should find less reason to justify bullfighting, it would fall in disregard for the relationship between immorality and alienation from God. Is not the animal down to the creation of God? If the Bible forbids to muzzle the ox that treads, what would be thought of torture in the square? Did not Jesus teach concern for animals and even reconciliation with wild animals representing sin? Is not the Book reads that "no hurt, no one will destroy in all My holy mountain? It is no coincidence that history is full of execration to the world of bullfighting. Just dig a little.
"In 1565, a council at Toledo for the remedy of abuses in the kingdom, declared functions bulls "very unpleasant to God," and in 1567, Pope Pius V issued the bull In Salutis Dominici Gregis, calling for the abolition of bullfighting in all the Christian kingdoms, threatening to excommunicate those who support, in 1585, Sixtus V again emphasize the immorality of bullfighting and its essence anti-Christian, Philip V, meanwhile, banned the so-called "party of the horns" in 1778 by the Royal Order of 23 March, the Conde de Aranda, Minister enlightened rule of Carlos III and President of the Council of Castile, imposed a ban on bullfighting death throughout the kingdom years later, in 1785, based on the "pragmatic sanction in the force of law "of November 9, 1785, were banned last exceptions for bullfighting, in 1786, with the Decree of 7 September 1786 consummated a total ban on all the festivities, without exception, including the bull granted temporary or perpetual to any body; In 1790, another "Real Provision of representatives of the Council" eradicated not only show version of the newly invented "modern corrida, but any conclusion that the victim had the bull as protagonist in under which prohibited "general abuse by point running through the streets steers and bulls call string and day and night "In 1805, Carlos IV signed the royal decree of Charles IV, which occurred with the abolition of bullfighting in Spain and its overseas territories'
With these cards on the table, you might think the return of bullfighting, but the preservation of a tradition, is an involution, residual and atavistic manifestation of what was once mere popular party and swept into your day. Not exactly coincidence that his second delivery took place with Felipe VII, first, and Felipe Gonzalez, later, playing the role of midwives upstart. While King Felon is snacking at La Pepa and fireworks lit up again of the Inquisition, offered evenings museums circus to their lambs to the regeneration of bullfighting, and likewise to go with Felipe Gonzalez and lounging comfortably with whom he signed the Royal Decree 145/1992 in which regulated all the Law world of bullfighting. And between one and the other Roman circus in its purest form, morphine for wounded tomato, oil in irons. To sample the editing button on Monday 14 February, 1898 de La Vanguardia. Silence, wheel: Nero, five-ton elephant, shy on the ring as the little boy steps on a new school, running around the square looking candidly oranges thrown at him from lying. At the time, Sombrerito resonate hooves treading the sand with the force of the sea hitting the breakwater. Starting gun. Thus began the fight between the bull and the elephant chained does nothing to flee while he rammed Sombrerito. The die is cast. Bestiality bare the entrails of the circus, the return to the cave. Given the success of affluence, the organizers believe in the same confrontation with an alligator. This is what happens when you open the closure to savagery. However, the show will not be repeated and that the public, including whistles and boos, you think of something decaf, too light. We turned off the cameras. and collect the gear. Hemeroteca pure and simple. Clear evidence of how blood consoles dumb. Fortunately, there is the same kind of sadism that is pursued in bullfighting. Obvious is that nobody sits on the pad to see the suffering of the bull, but an unequal confrontation in the forms, but neutral in the background. Both risk their lives. The difference is its fulcrum in the fact of the rationalization of the danger. The bullfighter heroically face death according to his freedom. Not the bull. This is where it should open another arena in which to fight launched: that of morality.
All actors in the party, directly or indirectly, act according to their freedom: the farmer, the overseer, the veterinarian, the employer of the square, the citizen who paid the entrance the bullfighter, picador, the flagman, the youth of swords, the manager. All. In theory there would be no possible objection that was not based on pure blind passion. Thousands of people exercising their freedom. The underlying problem, mushy mass, the Gordian knot lies in the fact of freedom. The liberal thinker and one of the greatest defenders of freedom throughout history, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to the conclusion that the most dangerous enemy of liberty is the ruler of prey, but immorality. Hence it came to sentencing that "nothing is more fertile than the art of being free, but nothing is harder than learning of freedom" The question is then: Do we exercise freedom? Nobody doubts that whoever steals beyond the moral limits of freedom. Equally hard to imagine that animal torture in any form, fit within that supreme freedom, undermines the moral imperative for the Liberty. The most direct consequence of this erosion is none other than moral relativism, and thus, the anything goes.
However, seeking the prohibition of the National Party but the solution does not exaggerate the problem, as triggered by the moral equal to liberty and freedom itself, as the two must be inseparable. It should be noted that may be immoral, primitive, atapuercuense if possible, but it is a portion of that society free the who exercise their freedom to live with passion deeply rooted tradition and, like many other traditions, survives without having to account moral or intellectual. It is already known: the traditions outweigh the reasons. However, it seems natural that the world of bullfighting tends to slowly crumble and disappear. This is a throwback to become a flagship and market niche for a minority holding it with tongs, it seems clear that English society is not taurine. Cafeteria is not public opinion research. The numbers speaks for itself. According to a Gallup survey-those that minimize the levels of bias-published, among others, Columbia University, puts black on white how historical interest in bullfighting has risen from 55% in 1971 to 31% in 2002. Since only 0.2% showed no opinion, one can deduce the high level of opinion about that topic. But there's more. "The differences between men and women regarding their interest in bullfighting is remarkable. 34% of men are interested in the subject, while among women the percentage is 28%. Regarding age, the differences are also significant. Are over 55 years claiming to be more interested (more than 44%), especially those over 65 years, the proportion is 51%. This interest clearly falls with age is under 24 years less interested (17%). In general, all age ranges up to 55 years, the fans dropped the bulls since 1999 "
is why it is true that Spain is a country joyously bullfighting, but even that is bullfighting. Going further, one could ask many of those who show interest in the paper, how many places have witnessed in recent times or how many runs followed by television. Also might ask how many know the world anti-bullfighting bull and based on what criteria are your opinion. A large number of those opting by either side of the balance of pure ideology do import a bullfighting mopping or animal suffering, according to the bank to defend. In my particular case, it could be described as taurine, but still less than bullfighting. From one fled and the other did not arrive. Moreover, I will be more distant from the latter than the former precisely because of its authoritarianism. Therefore, the greatest enemy of bullfighting bullfighting is not the movement, but perhaps the immorality of the race bullfighting untied moral truth of freedom. It will be all moral and aesthetic refinement of future generations who get that bullfighting falling into a better life as dry shell of a fruit. Thus, freedom will not be blocked by altering authority by force which in itself is a natural evolution, an irreversible process, a destination written on the tabula rasa of tomorrow: the death of bullfighting.
Everything else will bark at the moon. The mere custom or habit of waking up or refine the distinctive attributes of human being, call it torture by custom as to prohibit the practice itself. It is no accident that in America there is no bloodshed in bullfighting while in Spain followed the Mexican model. In the dark, so dark ...
nature, therefore, that the man tends to integration rather than fragmentation. The city is at the end of man, as the whole is prior to the parties, such as Aristotle wrote a second chapter of Politics. Thus, in its zeal get the service integrator of animals raised each of the steps that form the ladder complex that leads us as social beings civilization. However, do we have that position of authority Botafuegos reasons to grab and turn the ship's powder magazine whenever we please? "From which point the balance is broken? Is it in our own nature, understood as the very last, and fill vitiate vitriol different strata on which we raise our human evolution?
So, it seems more capricious than the man pet available for purposes other than service and supply of children. It's the bull case. Advocates hide behind the National Party under the umbrella of biodiversity. Contend is their litany indissolubility the conservation of pastures and the maintenance of the bull. That is, it subtracts that we are irrevocably to the tragic dilemma of having to go for bullfighting or our biodiversity will subside as does a small train of dominoes. Away from the importance of conservation of bull adehesado ecosystem should be noted that six and a half million acres of meadow which enjoys Spain, only three hundred thousand are engaged in breeding bull. Ie: only five percent. According to Professor Abad Ruíz, it takes on the order of one to six acres per head. Also emphasizes how the excess resources necessary for its operation is added as a second factor of production required the enormous human capital, doubling the forecast for beef cattle in extensive. That is why the operation of the bull is economically deficient, even enjoying a number of grants. Should not hide with an exercise in prestidigitation National Day that costs us the subsidy at around EUR 565 million aid combining different state administrations and the CAP. According to Isabel Bardají Azcarate, Professor of the School of Agricultural Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Madrid, we face a clearly distorted and involved, since the prices or protection abroad, through direct payments per hectare of crop or per head cattle. All this under the guise of a compensation system removed from the Agenda 2000 regulations, from which he began to weave a web of premiums and benefit concessions notably cattle farms by its nature deals of extensive and closed cycle. With these raw, this is a glaringly obvious that based on strictly economic, from the liberal point of view, the water where they cook the National Party is, at least, more than muddy and dirty.
course ignorance does not remove sin, but even with it, what scaffolding is left to the defense of bullfighting? Go to the farmer is played the quarterfinals losing horse betting based on their own freedom. Also pass the CAP and the various administrations of the State opened the tap of subsidies to flood the beds and gardens of social democracy in an exercise in hypocrisy and centralization obscene. Okay, we're used and give a pet octopus. It could be argued that this is a cultural event of enormous roots, art in its purest form and, moreover, a tradition that we Pyrenees flag up. Far from wanting to trivialize the bullfighting and fall into traps for children, it goes without saying that the famous urinal Duchamps is adorned with the laurels of one of the masterpieces of the century. In other words, art ends up being all that is baptized as an art. Close in spirit to the bullfighting, there are those who argue that boxing is a sport most artistic gene. Do we allow the art to the sublime or we can go through the baptismal font as all that we want to make art according to our impressions subjective? So, I might add that for me personally, art can be righteousness, shape, mechanical painfully cadence with which Michael Johnson, known as the locomotive of Waco because of the similarity of the tartan-edged their opponents in the curves of four, so insulting destroying the laws of physics and biomechanics own. No doubt that is aesthetic and emotional. Also bullfighting. Nobody in their right mind can deny the aesthetic grandeur of bullfighting, and even poetic, as a perfect allegory of the struggle of mankind for life and death in the midst of a dance macabre. Eros and Thanatos. War of symbols. Contemplating the fierceness of the charging bull while you miss the life drop by drop, the fight to the last gasp, the exchange of glances, silences that are cut with knives, make the task of pure epic, crowned with the triumphalism of the tragic loss of animal-or man, as both fight to the end: bullfighters wounded returning the ring to end the slaughter and killing bulls bullfighters dying. Counting on it and even flour batter into the majestic, "not necessarily make it art?
Another point that strikes at the water line of defense of the bull is its origin. Much has been written about the genealogy of the current bull. This is the direct descendant of the aurochs, from which to seek various physiological and temperamental changes to make it an ideal animal for bullfights. The bravery and natural rush, hyper-developed muscles, antlers forward, are all characteristics sought and found. It can be said, therefore, created a man's will to do so. But, is it justified the torture of the animal in life or death duel with a simple matter of genetics? Are we not closer to the involution aesthetic refinement and moral? It is much like holding the dobermans fighting should be allowed while an animal is also sought by different spigots and modifications in order to enhance his strength and aggressiveness. And so, with all the animals we have or have modified, to account for human beings that we have the potter's wheel that allow us to run a sort of God, altering the creation itself. And that is precisely about God's creation, which orbits one of the most blatant contradictions and hurtful in the world of bullfighting. It may agree or disagree with the issue of conservation of the meadow, just that we cling to the reason for the very genesis of the bull to justify the National Party, but faith is the man who should find less reason to justify bullfighting, it would fall in disregard for the relationship between immorality and alienation from God. Is not the animal down to the creation of God? If the Bible forbids to muzzle the ox that treads, what would be thought of torture in the square? Did not Jesus teach concern for animals and even reconciliation with wild animals representing sin? Is not the Book reads that "no hurt, no one will destroy in all My holy mountain? It is no coincidence that history is full of execration to the world of bullfighting. Just dig a little.
"In 1565, a council at Toledo for the remedy of abuses in the kingdom, declared functions bulls "very unpleasant to God," and in 1567, Pope Pius V issued the bull In Salutis Dominici Gregis, calling for the abolition of bullfighting in all the Christian kingdoms, threatening to excommunicate those who support, in 1585, Sixtus V again emphasize the immorality of bullfighting and its essence anti-Christian, Philip V, meanwhile, banned the so-called "party of the horns" in 1778 by the Royal Order of 23 March, the Conde de Aranda, Minister enlightened rule of Carlos III and President of the Council of Castile, imposed a ban on bullfighting death throughout the kingdom years later, in 1785, based on the "pragmatic sanction in the force of law "of November 9, 1785, were banned last exceptions for bullfighting, in 1786, with the Decree of 7 September 1786 consummated a total ban on all the festivities, without exception, including the bull granted temporary or perpetual to any body; In 1790, another "Real Provision of representatives of the Council" eradicated not only show version of the newly invented "modern corrida, but any conclusion that the victim had the bull as protagonist in under which prohibited "general abuse by point running through the streets steers and bulls call string and day and night "In 1805, Carlos IV signed the royal decree of Charles IV, which occurred with the abolition of bullfighting in Spain and its overseas territories'
With these cards on the table, you might think the return of bullfighting, but the preservation of a tradition, is an involution, residual and atavistic manifestation of what was once mere popular party and swept into your day. Not exactly coincidence that his second delivery took place with Felipe VII, first, and Felipe Gonzalez, later, playing the role of midwives upstart. While King Felon is snacking at La Pepa and fireworks lit up again of the Inquisition, offered evenings museums circus to their lambs to the regeneration of bullfighting, and likewise to go with Felipe Gonzalez and lounging comfortably with whom he signed the Royal Decree 145/1992 in which regulated all the Law world of bullfighting. And between one and the other Roman circus in its purest form, morphine for wounded tomato, oil in irons. To sample the editing button on Monday 14 February, 1898 de La Vanguardia. Silence, wheel: Nero, five-ton elephant, shy on the ring as the little boy steps on a new school, running around the square looking candidly oranges thrown at him from lying. At the time, Sombrerito resonate hooves treading the sand with the force of the sea hitting the breakwater. Starting gun. Thus began the fight between the bull and the elephant chained does nothing to flee while he rammed Sombrerito. The die is cast. Bestiality bare the entrails of the circus, the return to the cave. Given the success of affluence, the organizers believe in the same confrontation with an alligator. This is what happens when you open the closure to savagery. However, the show will not be repeated and that the public, including whistles and boos, you think of something decaf, too light. We turned off the cameras. and collect the gear. Hemeroteca pure and simple. Clear evidence of how blood consoles dumb. Fortunately, there is the same kind of sadism that is pursued in bullfighting. Obvious is that nobody sits on the pad to see the suffering of the bull, but an unequal confrontation in the forms, but neutral in the background. Both risk their lives. The difference is its fulcrum in the fact of the rationalization of the danger. The bullfighter heroically face death according to his freedom. Not the bull. This is where it should open another arena in which to fight launched: that of morality.
All actors in the party, directly or indirectly, act according to their freedom: the farmer, the overseer, the veterinarian, the employer of the square, the citizen who paid the entrance the bullfighter, picador, the flagman, the youth of swords, the manager. All. In theory there would be no possible objection that was not based on pure blind passion. Thousands of people exercising their freedom. The underlying problem, mushy mass, the Gordian knot lies in the fact of freedom. The liberal thinker and one of the greatest defenders of freedom throughout history, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to the conclusion that the most dangerous enemy of liberty is the ruler of prey, but immorality. Hence it came to sentencing that "nothing is more fertile than the art of being free, but nothing is harder than learning of freedom" The question is then: Do we exercise freedom? Nobody doubts that whoever steals beyond the moral limits of freedom. Equally hard to imagine that animal torture in any form, fit within that supreme freedom, undermines the moral imperative for the Liberty. The most direct consequence of this erosion is none other than moral relativism, and thus, the anything goes.
However, seeking the prohibition of the National Party but the solution does not exaggerate the problem, as triggered by the moral equal to liberty and freedom itself, as the two must be inseparable. It should be noted that may be immoral, primitive, atapuercuense if possible, but it is a portion of that society free the who exercise their freedom to live with passion deeply rooted tradition and, like many other traditions, survives without having to account moral or intellectual. It is already known: the traditions outweigh the reasons. However, it seems natural that the world of bullfighting tends to slowly crumble and disappear. This is a throwback to become a flagship and market niche for a minority holding it with tongs, it seems clear that English society is not taurine. Cafeteria is not public opinion research. The numbers speaks for itself. According to a Gallup survey-those that minimize the levels of bias-published, among others, Columbia University, puts black on white how historical interest in bullfighting has risen from 55% in 1971 to 31% in 2002. Since only 0.2% showed no opinion, one can deduce the high level of opinion about that topic. But there's more. "The differences between men and women regarding their interest in bullfighting is remarkable. 34% of men are interested in the subject, while among women the percentage is 28%. Regarding age, the differences are also significant. Are over 55 years claiming to be more interested (more than 44%), especially those over 65 years, the proportion is 51%. This interest clearly falls with age is under 24 years less interested (17%). In general, all age ranges up to 55 years, the fans dropped the bulls since 1999 "
is why it is true that Spain is a country joyously bullfighting, but even that is bullfighting. Going further, one could ask many of those who show interest in the paper, how many places have witnessed in recent times or how many runs followed by television. Also might ask how many know the world anti-bullfighting bull and based on what criteria are your opinion. A large number of those opting by either side of the balance of pure ideology do import a bullfighting mopping or animal suffering, according to the bank to defend. In my particular case, it could be described as taurine, but still less than bullfighting. From one fled and the other did not arrive. Moreover, I will be more distant from the latter than the former precisely because of its authoritarianism. Therefore, the greatest enemy of bullfighting bullfighting is not the movement, but perhaps the immorality of the race bullfighting untied moral truth of freedom. It will be all moral and aesthetic refinement of future generations who get that bullfighting falling into a better life as dry shell of a fruit. Thus, freedom will not be blocked by altering authority by force which in itself is a natural evolution, an irreversible process, a destination written on the tabula rasa of tomorrow: the death of bullfighting.
Everything else will bark at the moon. The mere custom or habit of waking up or refine the distinctive attributes of human being, call it torture by custom as to prohibit the practice itself. It is no accident that in America there is no bloodshed in bullfighting while in Spain followed the Mexican model. In the dark, so dark ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment