To redo what was done. Then erased.
Here we go again.
My best child hood friend introduced me to blogging. I usually read his blogs on a regular basis. I have refrained from commenting on them as not to offend, but then I thought why else do I have a blog.
He recently went to a bull fight. He said that he was unsure what to think of it but that because he hunts that he figured if they ate the bull afterwards that it would probably be ok.
This is what I think:
Normal bullfight. A bunch of guys stab a bull to death while it is trapped in an arena. They have another way. I have another friend that went to a humaine bull fight. Everything is the same except the swords deliver colored chalk or something like that instead of wounds. The ulitmate goal is not to kill the bull, but to put chalk on it in all the places you would need to stab it in order to kill it, then ultimatly wear it into submition. I personally think that would probably be more of a challenge and require more skill to do it this way.
Now don't get me wrong. If I ever had an oppertunity to go to a bull fight I probably would, same with hunting (at least once). I don't fault him for going at all, or being a hunter.
Being a well rounded outdoorsman I have certain ideals that stick with me in all areas of my life. Like "Leave No Trace" and "Style". Style is what I feel is applied most accuratly here. Climbing is my passion. Style applied in the climbing/outdoors world as how you would achieve your goal. Like for instance you could climb a route by hanging off of gear, pounding protection into the rock that damages the rock, and chipping holds into the rock. All of which is considered to be extremely bad style, and in the world of climbing, other climbers will not acknowledge that you have climbed any route that has been climbed in bad style. On the other end of things you could climb a route without damaging the rock, using your body only, and using gear that will not damage the rock to protect yourself from a fall only.
What this comes down to is: Do the ends justify the means? I believe I have just shown that the "means" is everything.
I do not know the history of bull fighting, but I would assume that it was something like this. Peasants that did not have access to anything other than swords and such had to kill a bull for A. some sort of ritualistic sacrafice, B. to eat, or C. both. A bullfight was probably the safest and most practicle way of achieving this. Now with the more humaine way of bull fighting I don't see that there is a purpose for the old way. I believe it to be cruel. If the bull is used to eaten afterwards etc...you could fight him the new way then put a gun to his head and get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.
I think that the humaine way takes more skill, and is done in better style or form if you will. Otherwise hunters would just grab there guns and go to the zoo and climbers would have a helicopter drop him off at the top.
On to other things:
Guns: It is amazing how much guns dictate politics. Being in OK now I have learned alot more about guns. The assualt weapons ban for instance. Did you know that technicly assault weapons are defined as a weapon with select fire switch. This is a little switch that alows you to control the rate of fire (one round one squeeze, three rounds one squeeze, and full auto, one squeeze and the bullets don't stop untill you run out.)
What they have banned are not guns that are semiautomatic (bullets go as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.) You can still buy those. What they have banned are rifels with bayonette lugs and collapsable stocks. Honestly if you were going to commit a crime and use a m-16 are you going to use the knife on the front, or the bullets. Secondly who cares if the stock folds in. People are affraid they would be easier to conceal.
I am a firm believer that guns don't kill people, people kill people. We are told often of how these guns are used in crimes. We aren't told how many of these were obtained.
more about this later...
Faimily Circus:
Well my nephew learned a new word..."Flag" the only problem is he hasn't figured out how to include the "L" with the rest of the word. So he's running around yelling fag everytime he see's a flag. Well my sister had him at the mall the other day. There is a flag right above the entrance. Bug is pointing saying "look mama fag" and repeating himself. The funny part is that two gay guys walked out and thought bug was directing his comments at them. My sister had know idea what to say. Right aftwards she called me and we laughed about it for a while. Good times.
Sadies Corner:
Well the other day I was eating and Jess was making a sandwich. All of a sudden it starting raining peanut butter. Something hit my nose and landed in my bowl. It was a big glob of peanut butter. It was soo good. It gave me the runs for two days, but it was worth every minute of it. We have been staying inside alot because of the rain, but I'm hoping for a sunny Saturday.
Untill next time, and hopefully I won't delete this one....LOL
My best child hood friend introduced me to blogging. I usually read his blogs on a regular basis. I have refrained from commenting on them as not to offend, but then I thought why else do I have a blog.
He recently went to a bull fight. He said that he was unsure what to think of it but that because he hunts that he figured if they ate the bull afterwards that it would probably be ok.
This is what I think:
Normal bullfight. A bunch of guys stab a bull to death while it is trapped in an arena. They have another way. I have another friend that went to a humaine bull fight. Everything is the same except the swords deliver colored chalk or something like that instead of wounds. The ulitmate goal is not to kill the bull, but to put chalk on it in all the places you would need to stab it in order to kill it, then ultimatly wear it into submition. I personally think that would probably be more of a challenge and require more skill to do it this way.
Now don't get me wrong. If I ever had an oppertunity to go to a bull fight I probably would, same with hunting (at least once). I don't fault him for going at all, or being a hunter.
Being a well rounded outdoorsman I have certain ideals that stick with me in all areas of my life. Like "Leave No Trace" and "Style". Style is what I feel is applied most accuratly here. Climbing is my passion. Style applied in the climbing/outdoors world as how you would achieve your goal. Like for instance you could climb a route by hanging off of gear, pounding protection into the rock that damages the rock, and chipping holds into the rock. All of which is considered to be extremely bad style, and in the world of climbing, other climbers will not acknowledge that you have climbed any route that has been climbed in bad style. On the other end of things you could climb a route without damaging the rock, using your body only, and using gear that will not damage the rock to protect yourself from a fall only.
What this comes down to is: Do the ends justify the means? I believe I have just shown that the "means" is everything.
I do not know the history of bull fighting, but I would assume that it was something like this. Peasants that did not have access to anything other than swords and such had to kill a bull for A. some sort of ritualistic sacrafice, B. to eat, or C. both. A bullfight was probably the safest and most practicle way of achieving this. Now with the more humaine way of bull fighting I don't see that there is a purpose for the old way. I believe it to be cruel. If the bull is used to eaten afterwards etc...you could fight him the new way then put a gun to his head and get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.
I think that the humaine way takes more skill, and is done in better style or form if you will. Otherwise hunters would just grab there guns and go to the zoo and climbers would have a helicopter drop him off at the top.
On to other things:
Guns: It is amazing how much guns dictate politics. Being in OK now I have learned alot more about guns. The assualt weapons ban for instance. Did you know that technicly assault weapons are defined as a weapon with select fire switch. This is a little switch that alows you to control the rate of fire (one round one squeeze, three rounds one squeeze, and full auto, one squeeze and the bullets don't stop untill you run out.)
What they have banned are not guns that are semiautomatic (bullets go as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.) You can still buy those. What they have banned are rifels with bayonette lugs and collapsable stocks. Honestly if you were going to commit a crime and use a m-16 are you going to use the knife on the front, or the bullets. Secondly who cares if the stock folds in. People are affraid they would be easier to conceal.
I am a firm believer that guns don't kill people, people kill people. We are told often of how these guns are used in crimes. We aren't told how many of these were obtained.
more about this later...
Faimily Circus:
Well my nephew learned a new word..."Flag" the only problem is he hasn't figured out how to include the "L" with the rest of the word. So he's running around yelling fag everytime he see's a flag. Well my sister had him at the mall the other day. There is a flag right above the entrance. Bug is pointing saying "look mama fag" and repeating himself. The funny part is that two gay guys walked out and thought bug was directing his comments at them. My sister had know idea what to say. Right aftwards she called me and we laughed about it for a while. Good times.
Sadies Corner:
Well the other day I was eating and Jess was making a sandwich. All of a sudden it starting raining peanut butter. Something hit my nose and landed in my bowl. It was a big glob of peanut butter. It was soo good. It gave me the runs for two days, but it was worth every minute of it. We have been staying inside alot because of the rain, but I'm hoping for a sunny Saturday.
Untill next time, and hopefully I won't delete this one....LOL
