Those who support bull fighting are backwards and ignorent, or simply selfish and cruel. Or all.

Thank you for your response. Firstly I assumed that my opponent would understand that by 'ignorant' and 'selfish' I didn't meant that in every single aspect of their lives. Human beings are complex, and its obviously foolish to assume that every person who supports bullfighting is selfish, or ignorant, in every aspect of their lives and to every thing in their life. For instance, Hitler had people he cared for, and considered himself a good person (presumably). People are not altogether evil in a simplistic sense. I admit I was rather rash in my wording, I should have said 'supporting bull fighting is ignorant or selfish'. However, if we are going to be scientific and specific, then I can still put a case forward. For everybody fits into the category of 'ignorant' - as everybody is ignorant to some extent. Also everybody who supports bullfighting can be considered 'selfish', by the definition of the word, as they encourage the suffering of one creature for the pleasure of themselves. My opponent stated that 'selfish' meant to be primarily concerned with ones well being other that of others. But to make someone suffer and die for the mere entertainment that one receives, is by any definition of the word, 'selfish'. This is indisputable by definition. I look forward to see how my opponent can make the act of making one suffer for mere entertainment not selfish, and if he can do so, then I'm interested how he defines selfishness. He can list people who he has never met and assume their characteristics all day, but this escapes the real issue. For instance, Aristotle and Hippocrates believed that some people are born slaves, you would not then say that slavery is not a reflexion of ignorance and selfishness just because Aristotle is okay with it! One should instead assume that such culturally accepted practices (slavery, or in this case bullfighting) are reflections of a cultural ignorance or a cultural selfishness. Aristotle was cleverer than I, but he was still more ignorant to mankind if he believes slavery is acceptable, because he has not been brought up around the same, more 'socially forward', philosophies that I have been brought up around. Likewise I'm sure Winston Churchill was very clever indeed, but he still didn't think women should vote. So my opponents attempts to prove his point with individuals is flawed, because human beings are flawed! Just because the people my opponent mentions might be 'clever' or 'kind' in some respects, doesn't mean they are perfect and thus free from ignorance or selfishness in regards to their support of bullfighting. So, if we argue in a literal sense, my case is: Ignorance definition is: 'lacking knowledge or information'. So everybody can fit in this definition, because nobody knows everything. And 'selfishness': 'concerned with own interests regardless of others'. I explained above how tormenting and slaughtering someone for entertainment kind of fits the definition of selfishness quite effectivly. The rest of the argument I'm going to focus on the supporting of bullfighting as reflecting selfishness and/or ignorance, as this is the only way we can clarify anything. So I'm going to try an convince you that supporting bullfighting means your ignorant-in reguards to the bull or animals in general. I know that confirming a human to be entirely 'ignorant' and 'selfish' is impossible, but I am showing that one who supports bullfighting could rightly be assumed to be ignorant to animals suffering. This is presuming that they are not willing to make someone suffer for their own enjoyment- for if their happy to make someone suffer for their enjoyment then their exempt from the ignorance argument because they are fully aware of their actions consequences. So, simply put: If you don't want to make someone suffer for your own enjoyment, then you must be ignorant to the fact that your doing just that. I think that's indisputable, is it not? People may not be ignorant to other things, but if they are not selfish then they must be ignorant to the fact that they are causing suffering, or else they wouldn't enjoy it. My opponent does not explain how this is not the case, he merely lists people that he considers not to be ignorant to certain things. I don't dispute what my opponent says here, its just that he doesn't make it relevant to the support of bull fighting and its psychological ramifications. I believe most bull fighting supporters fit into this category (ignorance). This is because I think most people are good natured, but also we have a tendency to be self-centred in the sense that we have difficulty seeing the world from the perspective of others. Racism, slavery, war, genocide, oppression of marginalised groups in society: these are all far too common in human history and are testimony to our inability to see the world from the perspectives of others and recognise their needs. Animal cruelty is the biggest one of all, its so big that it's not even a concern for most people, because ignorance to the perspectives of animals is still with us and engrained in our cultures. I'm sure many of the readers are members of a small number of us in the world, ahead of the current culture, aware and concerned for, the well-being of a wider group. But this group in over-represented in educated social groups and websites such as these, the reality is that most people/cultures are ignorant to the needs of animals. Remember that slavery was justifiable to good people, and genocide and war also deemed acceptable by good, law abiding people, bull fighting is also accepted by good and clever people. But, this does not change the fact that these people where brought up in a culture that was less enlightened, and thus they themselves where more ignorant, due to their culture. So my opponent can list people all day, I could also list intelligent, social reformers all day who all agreed with slavery, female oppression, animal cruelty and war. This does not make these culturally accepted practices, or support for them, any less ignorant or selfish. The selfish part is quite simple. If you know what your doing, and what your doing is torturous to one, for the pleasure of another, then your selfish to support such cruelty merely for your own enjoyment. The definition of 'selfish' fits this act perfectly without any grey areas. I'm keen to see how my opponent is going to dispute it. So, selfishness is to be concerned with ones own 'enjoyment' (or gain) with disregard for others (say for instance, ignoring the suffering of a bull). So to be at ease with cruelty towards one, when it brings one pleasure, is by definition, 'selfish'. I think the real issse is ignorance and the sheep-like behaviour of human beings. I think most people are unaware of the psychological capacity of non-humans, and humans have tendency to treat things they don't understand like objects. This doesn't need referencing (just look at slavery, animal welfare, women's rights, oppression). Alongside this general ignorance about the pychological capacity of non-humans, we have a tendency to copy those around us and 'go with the flow'. This has been proved the world over by psychological research. I think most people just go along with it because everybody else does. This view is supported by the fact that many Europeans are disgusted at bullfighting because people they don't understand are doing it. They support animal cruelty when it comes to food, but its easy to condem others, and particularly others from another country. So they see this thing (bullfighting) and they recognise its barbarism and cruelty and condem it, but when most Spaniards are introduced to it, its when they are young and manipulable and there social group all support it. I think also, many people just don't like to admit it, from personal experience. I used to eat meat, and although I didn't like to admit it, I accepted that I was being selfish and also that I must of been somewhat ignorant to the suffering I was supporting. I admitted I was being selfish, and that before it was a concern for me, I must have been ignorant. I knew these things all along (obviously not when I was ignorant!) but I didn't want to admit them because I loved meat so much. Admitting these things would compromise my character if I continued to eat meat, and I really didn't want to give up meat, so I denied it. I think it's much the same with bull fighting, people either don't think it's wrong (ignorance) or know its wrong and do it anyway (selfish). Thank you Ps. Conduct for con should be questioned due to his insult regarding my use of the phrase 'philosophical perspective'. He assumes: "A pseudo-intellectual statement which allows people to provide the appearance of depth to their beliefs, without actually adding substance." This is due to his lack of understanding of such a phrase, this perhaps reflects why he doesn't understand why bullfighting is wrong, I will attempt to explain anyway below. Pps. My opponent is struggling with the 'philosophical perspective' term when talking about intelligence. I will try to enlighten the readers if any are also struggling: I'm talking about spiritual intelligence, wisdom, morallity and social: not for instance, mathematical or scientific intelligence. An intelligence and wisdom of all things rather than specific things, Stephen Covey says "Spiritual intelligence is the central and most fundamental of all the intelligences, because it becomes the source of guidance for the others"(1). For me, this kind of intelligence is what brings societies forward and makes social change. The welfare of animals is the next step-we already have laws protecting animals in the UK-so those who support animal cruelty could be considered to be more lacking in spiritual intelligence than somebody who is aware of it all. (1) Covey, Stephen, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (Simon and Schuster, 2004, p.53)