As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Bullfighting banned in Catalonia

joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
edited July 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
In a landmark victory for animal rights activists, bullfighting is now banned in Catalonia after a 68-55-9 vote.

Here's the article.
BARCELONA, Spain -- Lawmakers in Catalonia outlawed bullfighting Wednesday, making it Spain's first major region to ban the deadly, centuries-old ballet between matador and beast after heated debate that pitted animal rights against a pillar of traditional culture.

Cheers broke out in the local 135-seat legislature after the speaker announced the ban had passed 68-to-55 with nine abstentions. The ban will take effect in 2012 in the northeastern coastal region whose capital is Barcelona.

Catalonia is a powerful, wealthy area with its own language and culture and a large degree of self-rule. Many in Spain have seen the pressure here for a bullfighting ban as a further bid by Catalonia to stand out from the rest of the country.

The practical effect of the ban will be limited: Catalonia has only one functioning bullring, in Barcelona, while another disused one is being turned into a shopping mall. It stages 15 fights a year which are rarely sold out, out of a nationwide total of roughly 1,000 bouts per season.

Still, bullfighting buffs and Spanish conservatives have taken the drama very seriously, seeing a stinging anti-Spanish rebuke in the grass roots, anti-bullfighting drive which started in the region last year.

But Joan Puigcercos, a lawmaker from a Catalan pro-independence party, insisted this was not about politics or national identity but rather "the suffering of the animal. That is the question, nothing more."

He said that even though attendance at bullfights is on the decline in Spain it would be morally wrong to sit back and just let the Spanish national pastime die a natural death.

However, the Catalan regional president, Jose Montilla, said Catalonia should have done just that - let social customs evolve to the point where bullfighting would vanish on its own, rather than legislate an end to it and deny people's right to choose whether to go the ring.

"I voted against the ban because I believe in freedom," Montilla said.

The result will energize animal rights groups bent on seeking bans in other regions of Spain.

"The suffering of animals in the Catalan bullrings has been abolished once and for all. It has created a precedent we hope will be replicated by other democratic Parliaments internationally, in those regions and countries where such cruel bullfights are still allowed," said Leonardo Anselmi of PROU, the animal rights groups whose signature-collecting campaign late last year forced Catalonia's Parliament to debate and vote.

Bullfighting is also popular in Mexico, parts of South America, southern France and Portugal.

The center-right Popular Party, which is fervent about the idea of Spain as a unified country run from Madrid - and also supports bullfighting - said it will fight back against the ban here.

It will press both chambers of the Spanish Parliament to pass a law giving bullfighting a protected status that will bar regions from outlawing it, said Alicia Sanchez-Camacho, president of the party's Catalan branch.

In the Madrid region, animal rights activists recently presented more than 50,000 signatures as part of a petition to force a similar debate and vote. However, there they face a tougher battle because the Madrid regional parliament is controlled by conservatives who have declared Spain's 'fiesta nacional' to be part of Madrid's cultural heritage.

The first Spanish region to outlaw bullfighting was the Canary Islands, in 1991. But fights were never that popular there and when the ban took effect there had not been a bullfight for seven years. That makes the Catalonia vote a much more potent case, even if bullfighting is not as popular there as it is in Madrid or down south in Andalusia.

Personally, I think that not torturing and murdering animals bred only for the purpose of torture and murder is a more significant gain than any cultural impact that bullfighting may have in Spain. What do you all think? Is this the start of a widespread ban, or just a fringe region that won't affect the other places in Spain where bullfighting is more popular? Do you support this ban or are you afraid it will negatively impact culture/freedom?

joshofalltrades on
«134

Posts

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Leitner on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Could be because the two activities serve different goals, but don't take my word for it.
    Also, yay, Catalonia!

    zeeny on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Could be because the two activities serve different goals, but don't take my word for it.
    Also, yay, Catalonia!

    Niether of which are required apart from personal enjoyment?

    Leitner on
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So are you saying that both should be legal, or neither should be?

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • General_WinGeneral_Win Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    General_Win on
    tf2_sig.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Oh ffs, Bull fighting =/= factory farming.

    Fact of the matter is that if they weren't capable of providing such a large quantity of nutritious matter, cattle would serve no purpose and desperatley need to be erradicated due to the fact that they are a money pit.

    On the topic at hand: Good on catalonia. Bullfighting is a pointless excercise that serves only to torment a living creature for the ammusement of the crowd.

    Gaddez on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Because?

    I mean it's a transparently feel good piece of legislation to let everyone pat their backs on how progressive they are, whilst they choke down another pork chop. It's better then nothing I suppose, but I guarantee the majority of people who will be celebrating it are still meat eaters.

    Leitner on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Because?

    I mean it's a transparently feel good piece of legislation to let everyone pat their backs on how progressive they are, whilst they choke down another pork chop. It's better then nothing I suppose, but I guarantee the majority of people who will be celebrating it are still meat eaters.

    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    Burtletoy on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Because?

    I mean it's a transparently feel good piece of legislation to let everyone pat their backs on how progressive they are, whilst they choke down another pork chop. It's better then nothing I suppose, but I guarantee the majority of people who will be celebrating it are still meat eaters.

    You're right. I am cheering the end of a senseless practice where in a large bovine is slaughtered so that a guy in a colorful suit can show how much of a man he is. No, I am not a hypocrite for enjoying a giant arby's roast beef sandwhich.

    Gaddez on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    Leitner on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    They need to do something about that Running of the Bulls. So many dipshits get killed at those.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    Have you ever seen a bullfight? Have you ever seen a cow get slaughtered? They are two very different practices.

    joshofalltrades on
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    They need to do something about that Running of the Bulls. So many dipshits get killed at those.

    If by so many you mean 15 in 100 years.

    juice for jesus on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    But eating is necessary and watching bullfighting is not.

    Burtletoy on
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Factory farming has no cultural significance. This assault on bullfighting is just a method for Catalonia to spit on the rest of Spain and assert their independence. It's not something done for the benefit of the animals; if it was they'd have more animal-friendly legislation. It's just an act of defiance against Spanish culture as a whole.

    Darkewolfe on
    What is this I don't even.
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    They need to do something about that Running of the Bulls. So many dipshits get killed at those.

    I'm fine if the bull wins.

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    If I were visiting Spain, i'd see a bullfight. Even though it's practice I'd be uncomfortable with in my own country.

    Loklar on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Banning parts of people's culture is fucking stupid

    I mean, really

    This is pretty fucking stupid, also pointless

    I mean, obviously this is on Spain but I don't think banning a practice that's been around for literally centuries is a good idea

    But whatev's, I'm not a Spaniard and if they feel like this is the right way to go more power to them

    Rent on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Banning parts of people's culture is fucking stupid

    I mean, really

    This is pretty fucking stupid, also pointless

    I mean, obviously this is on Spain but I don't think banning a practice that's been around for literally centuries is a good idea

    But whatev's, I'm not a Spaniard and if they feel like this is the right way to go more power to them

    So, how 'bout that slavery?

    Burtletoy on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    So Einstein, What exactly would you propose that we do with cattle if we don't eat them? Without there value as a food commodity they are effectivley a money pit that no one could afford to take care of on any scale, and as a species would need to be exterminated since they have no place in the wild.

    Gaddez on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    So, how 'bout that slavery?

    Man that's totally an equivocal analogy to use! Because animals are totally people!

    And did you not read the part where I said it's not my country so not my place to judge, and if they feel like they should throw away the rich history of their culture like that than more power to them? Because hey I totally wrote that

    It's write there

    In the post you quoted

    Don't let that stop you from your unnecessary snark though

    Rent on
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    Bovines aren't rational agents, and thus I feel no obligation to accord them moral status. As a result, I feel quite comfortable doing whatever I feel like to them. Be that eating them, or have them run at Spanairds in fancy costumes for entertainment.

    I'd feel differently if we were talking about, say, Dolphins or Chimpanzees whose rationality may not be as reliably doubted. But we're not - we're talking about cows.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    saggio wrote: »
    Bovines aren't rational agents, and thus I feel no obligation to accord them moral status.

    So is intelligence the only thing required for moral status? Can we then construct a hierarchy of intelligence for human beings and decide what liberties will be accorded them based on where they are on a scale?

    I'm not saying that we should not be allowed to eat cows or chickens. But I think once you make rationality the only deciding factor in treating creatures a humane way... yeah you know the rest.

    And bullfighting is pretty nasty compared to killing an animal for meat.

    joshofalltrades on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Because eating is different than watching sports.

    No shit, Sherlock. However, both are indulged with out of enjoyment not necessity, we don’t require eating animals in our diet.

    (cue um excuse me humans were designed to eat meat – if I was on a vegetarian diet I’d be sub two hundred fifty pounds and look practically anorexic!)

    So Einstein, What exactly would you propose that we do with cattle if we don't eat them? Without there value as a food commodity they are effectivley a money pit that no one could afford to take care of on any scale, and as a species would need to be exterminated since they have no place in the wild.

    If we all stopped eating cows today and turned them loose it would be an ecological disaster. The cow really isn't a good animal.

    nstf on
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    saggio wrote: »
    Bovines aren't rational agents, and thus I feel no obligation to accord them moral status.

    So is intelligence the only thing required for moral status? Can we then construct a hierarchy of intelligence for human beings and decide what liberties will be accorded them based on where they are on a scale?

    I'm not saying that we should not be allowed to eat cows or chickens. But I think once you make rationality the only deciding factor in treating creatures a humane way... yeah you know the rest.

    And bullfighting is pretty nasty compared to killing an animal for meat.

    If it's cute it gets moral status.

    Pandas, Seals, Dolphins, etc..

    Loklar on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    So, how 'bout that slavery?

    Man that's totally an equivocal analogy to use! Because animals are totally people!

    And did you not read the part where I said it's not my country so not my place to judge, and if they feel like they should throw away the rich history of their culture like that than more power to them? Because hey I totally wrote that

    It's write there

    In the post you quoted

    Don't let that stop you from your unnecessary snark though

    You said banning a something that is part of your culture is bad. You also said that banning something that has been around for a long time is bad.

    Yes, you said that you aren't in spain so whatever, but you still said you think banning things that are part of tradition are bad. You didn't say "banning things that are traditionally bad for ANIMALS AND NOT HUMANS" is bad. You said banning things from tradition is bad.

    So I was just point out how stupid that line of reasoning is. I guess I could've said "So how 'bout burning those witches" but it isn't as common an example of something from our past, a tradition if you will, that was banned for good reasons.

    Burtletoy on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    So is intelligence the only thing required for moral status?
    Not intelligence, reasoning, and yes
    Can we then construct a hierarchy of intelligence for human beings and decide what liberties will be accorded them based on where they are on a scale?
    There's no way to ethically create or administer a hierarchy for reasoning within species when members of the species that are being determinant of their capacity for reasoning are the ones adminstering the presumptive tests

    Rent on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    So is intelligence the only thing required for moral status?
    Not intelligence, reasoning, and yes
    Can we then construct a hierarchy of intelligence for human beings and decide what liberties will be accorded them based on where they are on a scale?
    There's no way to ethically create or administer a hierarchy for reasoning within species when members of the species that are being determinant of their capacity for reasoning are the ones adminstering the presumptive tests

    Better err on the side of being humane, then, in my opinion.

    Also, some humans are incapable of reasoning. No moral status for them?

    joshofalltrades on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Better err on the side of being humane, then, in my opinion.

    Well yeah that's basically what we do in general dudes
    Also, some humans are incapable of reasoning. No moral status for them?
    Rent wrote: »
    There's no way to ethically create or administer a hierarchy for reasoning within species when members of the species that are being determinant of their capacity for reasoning are the ones adminstering the presumptive tests

    Also I have literally never heard of a person being incapable of reasoning

    And even if such a hypothetical person were to exist, more than likely via being extraordinarily mentally retarded, then that special case would indeed come into being (such as is the case with extremely retarded people being unable to vote or marry etc)

    Rent on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Bullfighting bulls are eaten after they're killed. The ones that don't meet the standards to enter the ring are also killed and eaten.

    Actually, bullfighting provides the best chance for Iberian fighting bulls to not be killed. If they're judged to have performed well enough, they can be pardoned and put out to stud.

    BubbaT on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Bullfighting bulls are eaten after they're killed. The ones that don't meet the standards to enter the ring are also killed and eaten.

    Actually, bullfighting provides the best chance for Iberian fighting bulls to not be killed. If they're judged to have performed well enough, they can be pardoned and put out to stud.

    Not to mention fighting bulls actually live a damn good life up till the fight.

    nstf on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    About fucking time.

    Also, Leitner, but your comments are are pretty silly. Banning bullfighting is a good thing, regardless of whether or not we're allowing some other tangentially-related morally reprehensible practice to continue, whether that other practice is meat-eating or factory-farming or dogfighting.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent I love you so let me just ask: what larger point you are you making?

    Bullfighting is a torture blood sport. I'm not being sensationalist with that statement at all, the bull is tortured. I think you probably know all of the things that go into it but if not you should read up on what exactly happens and see some pictures. What is the value to be gained from torturing an animal? Entertainment? Can people not find some other way to be entertained?

    I hold a different set of values than you in this regard at least, and I'm willing to respect yours.

    joshofalltrades on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    So, how 'bout that slavery?

    Man that's totally an equivocal analogy to use! Because animals are totally people!

    And did you not read the part where I said it's not my country so not my place to judge, and if they feel like they should throw away the rich history of their culture like that than more power to them? Because hey I totally wrote that

    Goalpost-moving. You went from 'centuries of tradition' to 'they're not people, so it's okay.'

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent I love you so let me just ask: what larger point you are you making?

    Just to be clear I find bullfighting pretty fucked up

    But all the same it's their culture. I simply cannot make a judgement call on another country's cultural professions and I find globalization and the elimination of distinctive traits of seperate cultures the truly worrying thing, far moreso than any personal revulsion that I find in the acts contained

    I mean, ritualistic African circumcision is some of the most fucked up shit I have ever seen, but there is absolutely no way I could tolerate an outside body saying what they do is "wrong" or "taboo"

    Outside of objectively wrong acts (which bullfighting isn't for a myriad number of reasons), we shouldn't be homogenizing culturally significant acts due to any feelings of "morality" or "compassion" we have

    We just shouldn't

    Oh also I <3 you too

    Rent on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    I mean, ritualistic African circumcision is some of the most fucked up shit I have ever seen, but there is absolutely no way I could tolerate an outside body saying what they do is "wrong" or "taboo"

    Outside of objectively wrong acts (which bullfighting isn't for a myriad number of reasons), we shouldn't be homogenizing culturally significant acts due to any feelings of "morality" or "compassion" we have

    This isn't a coherent position. How do we determine what is and is not objectively wrong without posing and subsequently answering moral questions? And if something is objectively wrong, why does tradition shield it from scrutiny? It's as if traditionalists fear offending long-dead ancestors by sparing future generations.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    I mean, ritualistic African circumcision is some of the most fucked up shit I have ever seen, but there is absolutely no way I could tolerate an outside body saying what they do is "wrong" or "taboo"

    Outside of objectively wrong acts (which bullfighting isn't for a myriad number of reasons), we shouldn't be homogenizing culturally significant acts due to any feelings of "morality" or "compassion" we have

    This isn't a coherent position. How do we determine what is and is not objectively wrong without posing and subsequently answering moral questions? And if something is objectively wrong, why does tradition shield it from scrutiny? It's as if traditionalists fear offending long-dead ancestors by sparing future generations.

    Because everybody has different ideas of morality and it is never objective.

    Loklar on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Yet, if you lock the things in a box for years then eat them it's still okay.

    Torturing animals for food is different though.

    Bullfighting bulls are eaten after they're killed. The ones that don't meet the standards to enter the ring are also killed and eaten.

    Actually, bullfighting provides the best chance for Iberian fighting bulls to not be killed. If they're judged to have performed well enough, they can be pardoned and put out to stud.

    Not to mention fighting bulls actually live a damn good life up till the fight.

    Yeah, the nature of raising a fighting bull requires it be raised in conditions closer to a Kobe beef cow than standard beef cattle. 4 years of that + 15 minutes of fighting is probably a better overall life than living in a commercial feed lot shithole for 18-24 months.

    There's also an issue similar to domesticated beef cattle. Iberian fighting bulls would certainly not exist if not for their use in bullfighting. They're a man-made species bred for strength and hyper-aggression, making them extremely dangerous even in a wildlife preserve. Not even sharks display the levels of aggression that fighting bulls do. They used to be fought against lions and tigers, and the bulls would shred the predators. Similar to pitbulls bred for fighting, virtually all fighting bulls would need to be euthanized or permanently caged.

    BubbaT on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    I mean, ritualistic African circumcision is some of the most fucked up shit I have ever seen, but there is absolutely no way I could tolerate an outside body saying what they do is "wrong" or "taboo"

    Outside of objectively wrong acts (which bullfighting isn't for a myriad number of reasons), we shouldn't be homogenizing culturally significant acts due to any feelings of "morality" or "compassion" we have

    This isn't a coherent position. How do we determine what is and is not objectively wrong without posing and subsequently answering moral questions? And if something is objectively wrong, why does tradition shield it from scrutiny? It's as if traditionalists fear offending long-dead ancestors by sparing future generations.

    Morality depends on the culture. Would you eat live sushi, octopus or a frogs heart? Do you think it's wrong? Because there are a lot of people that do and don't care. Who are you to judge in this case.

    nstf on
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Damn it, I want to see a bullfight someday.

    I'll be pissed if they're all banned by the time I get around to it.

    UnbreakableVow on
Sign In or Register to comment.