Coming to the Reliant Astrodome: The Houston Animal Cruelty Festival

Eating veal, or newborn calves taken from their mothers kept in a cage and fed an iron deplete diet as to not develop any muscle, is disgusting and wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself Hayes. Hunting and fishing to feed yourself and your family is sometimes a necessary part of survival and often leads to respect of animals, God, the Earth and yourself. Obviously not in your case Hayes.

 

Funny about animal cruelty because everyone of you eat some sort of meat or have in your lifetime
Rodeo provides scholarships and learning as well not to mention the tradition that has been around way before PETA was ever mentioned.

So if it means providing a child with the much need scholarship over cooking a nice pig dinner from some rich fella who just purchased the prize winner then I will take the child and the scholarship anyday.

I do not see any type of cruelty as far as animal torture
Bulls are trained for bullriding
Horses are trained for Bronc riding

I am sorry but im a supporter for the rodeo and what it offers to the community and it is here to stay and will grow and grow in the comming years.

 

Moonbus that schedule you got is last year.
this is the correct lineup

 

You mean the calves are actually trained to be roped while on a dead run and have their four legs separated and pulled in different directions? Do all the steers prepare weeks in advance to have their necks twisted full circle until they collapse to the ground? I bet they're actually glad when they survive without injury to be twisted and pulled again the finals. Personally, I think they should ride and wrestle buffaloes. The real old west. Now those were real men. Too bad the buffalo was killed and exterminated for sport. Respect.

 

Exactly.

I have yet to see one post in this thread opposed to the rodeo that doesn't come across as condescending, derisive, and insulting towards the very large segment of Texas' population that supports the rodeo.

Essentially the argument I'm getting is: those that oppose the rodeo are smarter and morally superior to the backwards, unsophisticated "rednecks" that attend it or participate in it. Those that oppose rodeo are good for Texas-- Texas would be better perceived if everyone were like you.

What a wonderful way to try to make people see things your way-- smug self-righteousness along with intellectual and cultural snobbishness.

 

Hell, a tough steak is WRONG. Gristle and Fat are disgusting! Tender veal........mmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

I am perfectly fine with hunting if the hunter involved is lost in the woods and in need of survival. What I am against is sport hunting. I'm against people who live next to a grocery shop, but still feel the need to run out with submachine guns and kill any four-legged animal in sight. This is 2002. There is no need to go out hunting!

The rodeo? Well, my post last year sums that up. I've lived in Texas. I've been to rodeos, and I have discovered that they are nothing more than forums for insecure rednecks to prove their manhood. What they are really doing is proving that they are nothing more than total wimps when it comes to humanity.

 

My point is that saying 'if we could only talk to 'da animals, sniff, sniff' is wishful thinking. We can talk to each other, and that doesn't stop humans from killing each other. Why would it stop us from killing animals.

I don't think these examples make you part of that culture anymore than Behad witnessing people in boots and cowboy hats makes him part of that culture. My point is those people DO have a culture and part of it IS hunting and part of it IS the rodeo. You don't have any more right to ban their cultural celebrations than they do to make you eat a hamburger.

I would imagine by your use of 'macho' that you couldn't name a 'macho' activity that you support. 90s sensitivity is cool, but trashing cultural traditions you don't agree with only shows your intolerance.

I applaud your dedication. Most people won't go to those lengths, even as they hypocritically rant against 'animal cruelty,' right Behad? However, your choice to not support the meat industry is exactly that: your choice. You don't get to make my choices for me. I try to avoid synthetic materials whenever possible. Leather all the way - belts, jackets, shoes...

What is a 'man's sport,' Jeff? Again you're trying to use the language of a 'real man,' but I doubt you draw a lot of gender based distinctions in your own life (feel free to correct me) so spare us the sarcasm. Actually riding a bull IS tough, and you can get hurt. Since most of your arguments are based on the 'helplessness' of the animal, I guess bull riding is NOT on your agenda after all, since the bull certainly gets his chance to 'gore someone to death.'

One point to consider: if there are certain events at the rodeo you think could be modified or should be removed for whatever reason, put THAT on your agenda. Instead you're all ready to shut the WHOLE thing down, when there are obviously MANY MANY people who DO want the rodeo to go on. Why force YOUR agenda on everyone else by trying to build support to shut it down when you could probably PRESERVE the best parts of the cowboy heritage without some of the events you dislike in their current form? Because its easier to ban parts of someone's culture you don't care for. Everyone would be better of without the holier than thou 'you are barbarians' crap.

 

For the record, I am not a big 'trophy' hunting advocate. I do again want to note the inherent contradiction in proposing people stop hunting cause they can get meat at the grocery store. Perpetuating the industrialization of the meat production magnifies the cruelty animals experience, and the number of animals that experience it, by the millions. You don't want animal cruelty? Stop buying store bought meat and go kill it yourself.

Here's a thought...maybe they are secure in their manhood. Maybe the sensitive cryin' sharin' listenin' 90s man isn't which is why he has to push his version of 'manhood' (which is almost indistinguishable from 'womanhood') on other men.

 

I'm saying that if we all saw animals as equals, we would very likely make a societal decision to not kill them. We made a decision as a society to stop enslaving other humans because we made the decision that they were our equals.

I have little doubt that if animals were able to communicate with us and describe the pain and suffering that comes with having their species born and bred for the purpose of death at the hands of humans, our opinion would change.

I should clarify that I have no problem with hunting if that is your choice. I used to hunt. I used to fish. I grew up around people for whom that was not just a hobby, it was a lifestyle.

I realize that it is part of their culture. I'm not arguing that or even the legitimate aspects of ranching. That is their choice. I'm not asking for them to be banned.

You are right. I'm not a macho guy. I don't really want to be. However, I would submit that most of us, given the fact that we sit around arguing on an INTERNET BULLETIN BOARD, don't exactly exemplify the ideals of the macho man. Last time I checked, "geeks" aren't macho.

I'm not asking to make your choices for you. I have never ever once wanted to force my beliefs about meat on anyone. I respect everyone's choice. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

So you are suggesting I am as much girl as I am guy??? You are right. I'm really a transexual.

What I'm suggesting is that, if you want to pick what is macho, I'd choose the rodeo clowns. THAT is brave.

As for sports, I'd take rugby over rodeo any day of the week in terms of toughness.

I don't want to shut anything down, however, I don't like that one of the premier events in my city is the rodeo. I would prefer that we were known for something else. I know it is tradition. I know it is part of the culture here, but it isn't part of any culture that I care for.

 

By the way, Hayes, why are you so paranoid about this whole "90's cryin' man" thing? Last time I checked, sadness was a normal human emotion just like anger and doesn't make any guy more of a woman. Emotions don't have gender. I never get why men are so threatened by "feelings" and if a guy has them or advocates them, it makes them either a wuss or gay. Stupid.

 

Why abolish rodeos? Why isn't it proposed that they just remove the shocks and treat the animals well? Some safety features would be need to be added to protect the animals. I would like to say a way to keep the rodeo (I go for the musicians) if there was a way to do it humanely.

Sadness is an emotion. Crying is not; it shows a lack of control, and thus weakness. I learned quickly as a kid that if you cry, you will become prey. As an adult it doesn't matter much in day to day life, except if you're trying out for an NBA team, doing a job interview, etc.

 

Not crying because of the ridicule it may engender is nothing but fear. I'd rather be brave than afraid.

By the way, since when was Jesus or Ghandi or Buddha "macho?" Seems to me that they were exactly the opposite. I'd rather use them as an example of what it means to be a man.

 

I grew up in rural Texas. My great-uncle had a large cattle ranch. My next-door neighbor took me to rodeos, and I loved it. I wore cowboy boots and was really in with the entire thing...

...until I learned what it's really like. You say that Behad simply found some "quotes" to make it sound bad.

Either animals are being mistreated, or they're not. The fact is, those broncos just don't buck because they're mean creatures. They're shocked with electricity. Don't you find that problematic?

Once upon a time, certain skills were beneficial to survival. Knowing them was a matter of utility as well as pride. Now, our civilization has progressed to the point where these skills are useless.

Yet we insist on artificially tying notions of manhood and vitality with these silly exhibitions. It's artificial, cruel, and pointless.

 

Actually, that's NOT what I said. No doubt getting shocked is not pleasant. What I said was that you COULD find quotes that portray almost any 'sport' as barbaric.

As I've said, if you've got a problem with it, move to REFORM the rodeo. To deny that rodeo's have significance because you feel its 'outdated' is an imposition of your value system OVER that of the local culture. I find THAT problematic.

Using the same rule you could wipe many of the celebratory events off the map from MANY cultures, rendering us a homogenized population in your image. Would you advocate the abolition of Native American rituals because 'thost skills are useless?' I doubt it. But the 'redneck' makes an easier target 'cause anyone who voices support is 'stupid,' 'tryring to be macho,' 'outdated,' or 'insecure in their manhood.'

 

No paranoia here, just irritation that the presumption seems to be that all men should have the SAME emotional structure as women. I don't believe our emotional responses need to be homogenized, or that emotional patterns traditionally assigned to men are necessarily any worse than those attributed to women. Especially since the normally attributed 'feminine values' are being abandoned by women as they enter the workforce and move out of the home. Of course cultures are constantly in conflict with new paradigms as gender roles are redefined, especially by the West. However, I prefer not to IMPOSE those roles at the expense of cultural considerations in the absence of convincing necessity.

And I didn't say anything about your sexual preferences, although if you need to come out I'll be the first to voice my support.

I DO support your right NOT to care for the rodeo. Or even to protest outside the rodeo or take other avenues to change it if you feel so inclined. I don't support your assertions that you're an idiot 'trying to be macho.' The dismissiveness with which you present your case is condecending and goes beyond the scope of presenting your side. Its senselessly inflammatory and insulting to a large segment of the population in the area.

Personally, I've only been to the rodeo once. Didn't really find it that exciting. But I do support someone's right to engage in a cultural practice that I don't care for, as long as the practice doesn't cross a certain threshold (female genital mutilation for instance). Bulls getting shocked in the nuts doesn't, and calves getting run around and their tales pulled on doesn't meet that threshold.

 

Then the statement was irrelevant. If you had a point, then it was obviously to demonstrate that the quotes themselves were empty. If you don't find them empty, then your statement was simply a null rhetorical device. So you can either have your pick, your dissembling now, or you made a meaningless statement.

Oh, please. It's impossible not to impose one's value systems over another to a limited extent. To make an unqualified statement like that is silly. We don't allow murders, robberies, rapes, or torture.

The rodeo engages in practices that, if applied to animals in a de-contextualized sense, would be illegal. It's that simple. If you just went around shocking your own cattle for pleasure alone and broadcast it to the world, you'd be arrested. Shock an animal privately, and it's illegal. Shock one in a big arena for entertainment, and it's ok? That's absurd.

Incidentally, since you don't believe in imposing your values. Should animal torture be illegal? Under your own standards, it's not. One can argue that society requires certain laws in regards to humans and escape there... but you can't apply that to animals.

So Hayes, what is it? Ban maltreatment in the rodeo, or legalize all animal torture? Your argument doesn't allow for that distinction. Oops.

Of course it's condescending. I'm usually condescending to people so self-centered and anthropocentric as to put their entertainment above that of the general health of animals. Is it insulting? Only in so far as I find the rodeo culture devoid of ethical thinking.

Incidentally, responding so flippantly without even reasoning out the implications of your own argument is pretty damned condescending. You respond fine, but the implications trap you into corners where I don't think you want to go.

Wait, so after all this, and telling me I'm condescending, you dare to pull a threshold argument? That's laughable. So suddenly, the only difference between us is whether or not the cruelty comprised in the rodeo constitutes the passing of a certain threshold.

Even if you disagree with me, I think you can easily understand how I might come to the conclusion I did, if it's merely a matter of degree. Hence, you've just erased every single other objection you've made other than this one! All the others become irrelevant.

If you make it a matter of degree, you stipulate everything except the red-line. Thanks.

 

No, the relevance is that if your standard to act against a 'sport' is that its 'barbaric' then you'd be hard pressed to find a sport that isn't. Just looking for an even application of standards.

To some extent, sure. And I'm not a cultural relativist. The issues of murder, robbery, rape, and torture meet a particular threshold that our society says means it outweighs the cultural interest. No problem with that. Our society doesn't make that distinction with rodeos because the value of preserving the local culture outweighs the rights of the animals. You can't make hamburger out of a person legally. You can make hamburger out of a cow. Even though you don't NEED hamburger to survive, its a preference.

Not really. You can shock cattle on your ranch to get them to perform in a certain manner (move through a gate). You can shock them at a rodeo to get them to perform in a certain manner.

Again, I'm not a cultural relativist. I just think there has to be an overwhelming justification (like FGM for example) to remove a particular rite in a particular culture. And it depends on what you call torture...animal rights activists would say lab testing is torture. I don't think it should be illegal because the human interest outweighs that of the animal. Is that anthropocentric? Sure, but so is driving your car and running your a/c. You're putting your comfort above the environment shared by all beings...

Sure it does. I've explained above.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide the ethical code we all use. Society as a whole does that. And at this point I'm afraid they don't agree with you. Besides, I'm pretty sure you make plenty of 'anthropocentric' decisions yourself, so get off your high horse (uh, I know you wouldn't ride a horse but you know what I meant).

I'm prepared to defend my points, Haven, but thanks for the concern...

Not sure what this means, so if you'd like to explain further...Its condescending to call people 'stupid hicks' because you don't agree with their traditions. You can say you think they are wrong, but why perpetuate the stereotype that ranchers/rural folks are stupid?

Hmmm, not sure why that's true. I can understand how you come to dislike the rodeo. That doesn't mean your interest outweighs the interest of the participants or spectators.

 

It's still a semantic distinction. You're pressing the argument on the ability to find quotes. The substance is independent of this.

Utility, not entertainment. Huge distinction.

Everyone makes anthropocentric decisions. It's a question of threshold. Below...

Not stupid, but often ignorant. Let's face it, rural america is generally uneducated. That's just true. And while one could say that education is irrelevant... well, I'd leave that one to rimbaud .

You're not understanding my argument. It's not a simple matter of opposing interests.

You acknowledge that society has a right to socially constrain individual behavior insofar as it effects other beings. My argument is that placing the entertainment of certain people who like the rodeo over the fundamental well-being of animals is wrong and should be constrained.

You acknowledge the premise of my argument inherently, and disagree with the threshold at which one the premise is valid in a particular instance. Yet at the same time, you don't argue threshold, but rather fall back to the point at which your only substantial claim is that I individually do not have the right to restrict the pastimes of rodeo afficionados.

That's beside the point. I'm arguing in terms of ethics, while you're arguing that mass perception of rodeos hasn't reached a point at which one can socially justify shutting them down.

Ultimately, that's a power issue. And unless you're a complete relativist, you can't merely say "well, the mass of popular opinion is correct." And saying popular opinion should prevail is merely begging the question of ethical action.

If I win the ethics debate, then I subsequently win the argument that society should censure such activity en masse. At which point, you're left with no room to stand on.

So ultimately the only question is: is pain so intense that it causes an animal to go mad, temporarily... a fair price for a few seconds of amusement.

If you wish to go on the record as saying "yes," then we've reached the point where this argument is fruitless.