Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Is their a land animal ever that could PREDATE on the SPANISH BULL? (no dinosaurs)
Topic Started: Jan 13 2017, 09:07 PM (7,833 Views)
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
No you are just talking that sword is better than spear when fighting animals.


No, I'm not. Of course spears are better, but swords are still absolutely deadly to any animal in the size range we're talking about.

Quote:
 
Yeah, no shi.t. Just because it's worse than a sword doesn't mean it's bad. It's still better than any natural weapon.


If you're referring to this it was obviously a mistake and should read "Just because it's worse than a spear" which should be clear from the context.

Quote:
 
And you last pathetic sentence... Do you even understand what I wrote? I´m writing about their ´dangerousness.


What you mean is aggressiveness and you are shifting the goalposts again. You claimed the bulls aren't impressive because they can be killed by "short spanish guys with swords". I've shown you that "short spanish guys with swords" can also kill grizzlies and that regular untrained people with knives, swords and even carpenter axes can also kill brown bears, cougars, leopards, lions and tigers and so by your weird definition all of these animals would also be "unimpressive".
I'm not saying the bulls are more dangerous than these animals, I'm not saying killing such beasts with only a sword is a smart or easy thing to do and I'm not saying that it's better than a spear, just that your criterion is a stupid one considering how swords can even kill freaking elephants with one blow under the right circumstances.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Quote:
 
7 percent rate is really big...


It is if only the half of these are potentially lethal considering that the fights highly favour the matador who are professionals.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The All-seeing Night
Member Avatar
You are without honor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
No you are just talking that sword is better than spear when fighting animals
Another strawman.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 28 2017, 05:34 AM
Quote:
 
No you are just talking that sword is better than spear when fighting animals.


No, I'm not. Of course spears are better, but swords are still absolutely deadly to any animal in the size range we're talking about.

Quote:
 
Yeah, no shi.t. Just because it's worse than a sword doesn't mean it's bad. It's still better than any natural weapon.


If you're referring to this it was obviously a mistake and should read "Just because it's worse than a spear" which should be clear from the context.

Quote:
 
And you last pathetic sentence... Do you even understand what I wrote? I´m writing about their ´dangerousness.


What you mean is aggressiveness and you are shifting the goalposts again. You claimed the bulls aren't impressive because they can be killed by "short spanish guys with swords". I've shown you that "short spanish guys with swords" can also kill grizzlies and that regular untrained people with knives, swords and even carpenter axes can also kill brown bears, cougars, leopards, lions and tigers and so by your weird definition all of these animals would also be "unimpressive".
I'm not saying the bulls are more dangerous than these animals, I'm not saying killing such beasts with only a sword is a smart or easy thing to do and I'm not saying that it's better than a spear, just that your criterion is a stupid one considering how swords can even kill freaking elephants with one blow under the right circumstances.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Quote:
 
7 percent rate is really big...


It is if only the half of these are potentially lethal considering that the fights highly favour the matador who are professionals.
Yes. And are those guys with knifes and/or swords killing grizzlies, tigers and lions in thousands every year with 7 percent injury rate, with only one guy die every 15 years like toreadors? Are people generally running with lions, tigers and grizzlies with that small injury and dead rate as when people run every year with spanish bulls? And why you ignore that article I wrote about hockey players having dozens times bigger injury rate than toreadors?

And about the superior medical care toreadors get,
´Fifty-two matadors have been killed in the arena since 1700.´
Yeah, 1700 to 1800 is age of great medical care. If you wanna discuss with me, READ articles what I post. At least what I quote. If you can´t do this, than end with discussion, because you can´t do it properly.

To allseeting night: feel free and tell me your personal experience about differences with fighting with spear and with sword. You sure have plenty.
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 28 2017, 06:28 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And are those guys with knifes and/or swords killing grizzlies, tigers and lions in thousands every year with 7 percent injury rate, with only one guy die every 15 years like toreadors?


I have no idea considering people don't fight that often against bears and tigers with knives.
You're again shifting the goalposts. In your first post it was only about the fact that bulls get killed by "short spanish guys with swords".

Quote:
 
Are people generally running with lions, tigers and grizzlies with that small injury and dead rate as when people run every year with spanish bulls?


No, but they are swimming with Great White Sharks. I guess that makes these "unimpressive" as well.

Quote:
 
And why you ignore that article I wrote about hockey players having dozens times bigger injury rate than toreadors?


Seriously?

Quote:
 
And about the superior medical care toreadors get, you wrote about it... ´Fifty-two matadors have been killed in the arena since 1700.´ Yeah, 1700 is age of great medical care. If you wanna discuss ith me, READ articles what I post.


What's the primary source for this? I'll rather trust an expert:

Quote:
 
Alexander Fiske-Harrison, author of Into The Arena: The World of the Spanish Bullfight, cites records showing that 533 professional bullfighters have been killed in Spain since 1700. However the records may be incomplete, he says, as bullfighting has only been regulated for 100 years.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
I have no idea considering people don't fight that often against bears and tigers with knives.
You're again shifting the goalposts. In your first post it was only about the fact that bulls get killed by "short spanish guys with swords".


No. But fight spanish bulls with rate of ´The World Society for the Protection of Animals estimates that around 40,000 bulls are killed each year in European bullfights (Spain, Portugal and France). In Spain, 3,200 official bullfights take place annually. About 210,000 bulls die every year in Latin American bullfights (Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela).´

I do the math for you. That´s 250, 000 fighting bulls killed every year. That´s 250,000 fights with short spanish guy vs. fighting bull EVERY YEAR.

With 53 or 533 (which source you consider trustworthy) deaths. 316 years of fighting - 53 or 533 deaths.

Oh, 22 people a year are killed by cows every year only in USA. USA don´t have bull fights.

SOURCE: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/11-animals-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-sharks.html

Bullfighting numbers:
SOURCE: still http://iberianature.com/spain_culture/tag/how-many-bullfighters-have-been-killed/
You can find same or similar numbers in: http://www.hsi.org/issues/bullfighting/, here http://www.hsi.org/issues/bullfighting/facts/bullfighting_europe.html , here: http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/bullfighting/ etc.


Quote:
 
No, but they are swimming with Great White Sharks. I guess that makes these "unimpressive" as well.


Funny if you consider shark attack rate at human. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack#Statistics
And, as you can read (read it? or just ignore it like before?) great white sharks are one of the four species most responsible for most attack on humans - tiger, bull, whitetip and great white. But they don´t consider us a prey and mostly bite and leave when attack human. Yes, they are impressive, but they don´t kill human and are not forced to fight them like bulls and even numbers of people killed by them are low - only few a year. Which made your comparison useless.

Quote:
 
And why you ignore that article I wrote about hockey players having dozens times bigger injury rate than toreadors?



Seriously?


Yes, seriously, why you ignore it? That´s showing you how big are injury rate in seriously dangerous sport. Oh, you know what is interesting? That number of hockey players who died on ice ARE actually bigger from 1896 to 2016 than number of toreadors who died in arena from 1896 to 2016.

SOURCE of hockey player who ided on ice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_during_their_playing_career

Quote:
 
nd about the superior medical care toreadors get, you wrote about it... ´Fifty-two matadors have been killed in the arena since 1700.´ Yeah, 1700 is age of great medical care. If you wanna discuss ith me, READ articles what I post.



What's the primary source for this? I'll rather trust an expert:

Quote:


Alexander Fiske-Harrison, author of Into The Arena: The World of the Spanish Bullfight, cites records showing that 533 professional bullfighters have been killed in Spain since 1700. However the records may be incomplete, he says, as bullfighting has only been regulated for 100 years.


This one don´t seem like an expert to me, more like someone who fight to death for illusion of ´dangerous bullfighting.´ But ok, I´m not like you and I´m not ignoring sources which I don´t like. Still, do your math:

There´s 533 matadors (toreadors, short spanish with swords, etc.) who died in bullfights for 316 years. That´s 0,57 toreador a year. Don´t correspond with last toreador´s deaths in arena - in 1985 and in 2016, which is 31 years apart. But ok, I suppose that bulk of this deaths happen in 1700 - 1900.

170 hockey players died on ice since 1896.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_during_their_playing_career

That´s 1,4 hockey player a year.
Compare it to 0,57 matadors a year.
Most toreadors died in 1700 - 1900, I suppose because they don´t have superior medical care as they have in 1900 +.
That´s 170 hockey players died in 1896+, most of them HAVE that superior medical care

Yeah, even when I don´t ignoring your sources (like you mostly do with mine), still are toreadors pussies compared to hockey players.
Which play really dangerous sport.

With bigger chance that they die.

:)
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 28 2017, 08:21 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
In just one day 400 lions and 300 bears were stabbed to death in a games thrown by Emperor Probus in 280 AD.
Egyptian hippoes were completely erradicated by men with swords.

I guarantee in general the numbers killed of any wild species you care to think up by little men with swords during the ancient roman empire would dwarf those figures of bulls killed. Lions, tigers, leopards, hippoes, rhinos, elephants (well elephants maybe not, because apparently crowds would boo when they were slaughtered, but most games did it anyway). No wild animal made it out of the arenas alive, all were stabbed to death by little men with swords(who were quite probably wearing skirts). Thats millions upon millions of basically every animal in eurasia and africa.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
With 53 or 533 (which source you consider trustworthy) deaths. 316 years of fighting - 53 or 533 deaths.


The 533 deaths are only for spain...



Quote:
 
Funny if you consider shark attack rate at human. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack#Statistics
And, as you can read (read it? or just ignore it like before?) great white sharks are one of the four species most responsible for most attack on humans - tiger, bull, whitetip and great white. But they don´t consider us a prey and mostly bite and leave when attack human. Yes, they are impressive, but they don´t kill human and are not forced to fight them like bulls and even numbers of people killed by them are low - only few a year. Which made your comparison useless.



It's so endlessly tiring discussing with you since you're once again shifting the goalpost.
You somehow wanted to prove that these bulls aren't dangerous since humans can run with them and only few die or are injured. I pointed out to you that humans can swim alongside GWS and even touch them without anything happening, so only god knows what you wanted to show with your example.
Instead you tell me that GWSs belong to the most dangerous species of sharks and explain why they don't eat humans. You're jumping around between topics without knowing yourself what you're actually trying to say.


Quote:
 
Yes, seriously, why you ignore it?


Oh my. You said the bulls are unimpressive because they could be killed by short guys with swords and when I demonstrated that you can kill tigers, lions, leopards, cougars, grizzlies and even elephants with a sword you start talking about hockey.
Little hint: There are a few more ice hockey players in the world than matadors. By your logic any grandma who drives a car would be the most badass person ever.

Quote:
 
According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010.


Quote:
 
Yeah, even when I don´t ignoring your sources (like you mostly do with mine), still are toreadors pussies compared to hockey players.


If I didn't know better, I'd say you're biased and are following an agenda. But surely this can't be the case.
Go ahead and rather fight a bull than play hockey.

Quote:
 
Bullfighting is a "supremely dangerous art", says Garry Marvin, professor of human-animal studies at Roehampton University. "If a normal person got into the ring with a fighting bull, I'd expect them to be severely gored or dead in a few moments." Matadors are highly skilled, however, and may go several seasons without injury.


Not that it was ever about "dangerousness", you brought that up to cover up your ridiculous claim that it would be somehow "unimpressive" if an animal can be killed by a man with a sword.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 28 2017, 10:04 PM
Quote:
 
With 53 or 533 (which source you consider trustworthy) deaths. 316 years of fighting - 53 or 533 deaths.


The 533 deaths are only for spain...



Quote:
 
Funny if you consider shark attack rate at human. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack#Statistics
And, as you can read (read it? or just ignore it like before?) great white sharks are one of the four species most responsible for most attack on humans - tiger, bull, whitetip and great white. But they don´t consider us a prey and mostly bite and leave when attack human. Yes, they are impressive, but they don´t kill human and are not forced to fight them like bulls and even numbers of people killed by them are low - only few a year. Which made your comparison useless.



It's so endlessly tiring discussing with you since you're once again shifting the goalpost.
You somehow wanted to prove that these bulls aren't dangerous since humans can run with them and only few die or are injured. I pointed out to you that humans can swim alongside GWS and even touch them without anything happening, so only god knows what you wanted to show with your example.
Instead you tell me that GWSs belong to the most dangerous species of sharks and explain why they don't eat humans. You're jumping around between topics without knowing yourself what you're actually trying to say.


Quote:
 
Yes, seriously, why you ignore it?


Oh my. You said the bulls are unimpressive because they could be killed by short guys with swords and when I demonstrated that you can kill tigers, lions, leopards, cougars, grizzlies and even elephants with a sword you start talking about hockey.
Little hint: There are a few more ice hockey players in the world than matadors. By your logic any grandma who drives a car would be the most badass person ever.

Quote:
 
According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.25 million deaths worldwide in the year 2010.


Quote:
 
Yeah, even when I don´t ignoring your sources (like you mostly do with mine), still are toreadors pussies compared to hockey players.


If I didn't know better, I'd say you're biased and are following an agenda. But surely this can't be the case.
Go ahead and rather fight a bull than play hockey.

Quote:
 
Bullfighting is a "supremely dangerous art", says Garry Marvin, professor of human-animal studies at Roehampton University. "If a normal person got into the ring with a fighting bull, I'd expect them to be severely gored or dead in a few moments." Matadors are highly skilled, however, and may go several seasons without injury.


Not that it was ever about "dangerousness", you brought that up to cover up your ridiculous claim that it would be somehow "unimpressive" if an animal can be killed by a man with a sword.
Which means... You think that if bulls was replaced by lions, tigers and bears, with 40 000 fights at every year only in Spain, you still end up with 2 casualties after 31 years?

2 casualties after... 40 000 fights x 31 years = 1 240 000 fights.

You think that if those short spanish guys with swords (matadors, toreadors) will fight 1 240 000 fights against lions, bears and tigers, instead of 1 240 000 figthts against bulls, only two of them die after nearly million and a quarter fights?

Just answer this question.
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 29 2017, 02:59 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Wyvax
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I've tried to keep up with the argument between you two but all honesty I think I've lost track of what the argument is. Correct me if I'm wrong but hawkkeye is saying that Spanish bulls are unimpressive because they can be killed by short Spaniards with swords, and in extension saying that swords are a bad weapon against animals right, whilst Spartan is saying that a sword in a competent person's hand is extremely dangerous to any animal that isn't to massive so calling an animal unimpressive because it can be killed with a sword is unfair to the animal. Correct?

At Grazier: Those boar swords are pretty extravagant, but they're legit. They were never used outside of boar hunting however, and weren't wielded in the typical way, they literally held them out like a spear in front of them and "helped" the boar impale itself on the blade when it charged the hunter, the hogs momentum kept it going so they needed really, expansive, impressive guards or a transverse bar mid way down the blade lest the hunter would still be gored.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Wyvax
Jan 29 2017, 12:03 PM
I've tried to keep up with the argument between you two but all honesty I think I've lost track of what the argument is. Correct me if I'm wrong but hawkkeye is saying that Spanish bulls are unimpressive because they can be killed by short Spaniards with swords, and in extension saying that swords are a bad weapon against animals right, whilst Spartan is saying that a sword in a competent person's hand is extremely dangerous to any animal that isn't to massive so calling an animal unimpressive because it can be killed with a sword is unfair to the animal. Correct?

At Grazier: Those boar swords are pretty extravagant, but they're legit. They were never used outside of boar hunting however, and weren't wielded in the typical way, they literally held them out like a spear in front of them and "helped" the boar impale itself on the blade when it charged the hunter, the hogs momentum kept it going so they needed really, expansive, impressive guards or a transverse bar mid way down the blade lest the hunter would still be gored.
Actually, made my statement ´idiotproof,´ it would be: ´I have no respect for an animal what can kill be killed 1 240 000 times by short spanish guys with swords, yet only managed to kill 2 of that short spanish guys.´

My longer opinion is that bullfights are staged theater - with killing of frightened animals, about which bullfighting industry is trying to create an aura of dangerousness. As you could see in this discussion, it´s working.

Quote:
 
In just one day 400 lions and 300 bears were stabbed to death in a games thrown by Emperor Probus in 280 AD.
Egyptian hippoes were completely erradicated by men with swords.

I guarantee in general the numbers killed of any wild species you care to think up by little men with swords during the ancient roman empire would dwarf those figures of bulls killed. Lions, tigers, leopards, hippoes, rhinos, elephants (well elephants maybe not, because apparently crowds would boo when they were slaughtered, but most games did it anyway). No wild animal made it out of the arenas alive, all were stabbed to death by little men with swords(who were quite probably wearing skirts). Thats millions upon millions of basically every animal in eurasia and africa.


As I post in previous posts, beastiaries killed animals with spears. There´s only one depiction of them killing animals with sword and shield - all other show them with spears. Animals wasn´t eradicated by men with swords, but men with spears. As I say before - don´t be selectively ignorant, but read sources I post. You educate yourself and maybe after some time, you come with not so laughable and unsourced opinions.
You´re welcome.

EDIT: in only depiction of bestiaries killing animals with shield and sword, it´s actually not sword, it´s gladius, which is shorter than traditional medieval sword (gladius have 60 cm blade lenght), and for close combat with animal, as I say, are shorter blades better than longer, like for example medieval longsword. Before medieval, only longer swords was actually only by Thracian and Dacian people used falx and rhompaia, there´s no accounts of killing animals with them.


My question for SPARTAN:

Which means... You think that if bulls was replaced by lions, tigers and bears, with 40 000 fights at every year only in Spain, you still end up with 2 casualties after 31 years?

2 casualties after... 40 000 fights x 31 years = 1 240 000 fights.

You think that if those short spanish guys with swords (matadors, toreadors) will fight 1 240 000 fights against lions, bears and tigers, instead of 1 240 000 fights against bulls, only two of them die after nearly million and a quarter fights?
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 29 2017, 09:13 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Bullfighting is an illusion basically, spanish bulls are genuinely extremely aggressive extremely dangerous animals, however the trained humans that fight them know precisely how to manipulate their instincts by freezing into a statue and waving a cape just off to the side of their body, knowing that bulls (as would bison, buffalo, rhinos, etc) target movement, so the frustrated bull keeps aiming just off to where it wants to hit.

It doesn't mean the bull is any less dangerous to a normal person, or any other random animal you care to choose. None of the above will know how to "trick" it in this way or be inclined to do so. Instead they will be brutalised because they will naturally be moving slightly at any given time which is all the bull needs to zero in on it's target.

My other post, yet to be "approved" (maybe never to be? I don't know how this works) talks about the fact that when wild animals fought men in the way spanish bulls still do (in the roman arenas) they died, always, by the tens of thousands per year, per species of every exotic wild animal you can imagine on the eurasian/african landmass. All stabbed to death by some loser guido, who was most likely wearing a skirt.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I've tried to keep up with the argument between you two but all honesty I think I've lost track of what the argument is. Correct me if I'm wrong but hawkkeye is saying that Spanish bulls are unimpressive because they can be killed by short Spaniards with swords, and in extension saying that swords are a bad weapon against animals right, whilst Spartan is saying that a sword in a competent person's hand is extremely dangerous to any animal that isn't to massive so calling an animal unimpressive because it can be killed with a sword is unfair to the animal. Correct?


Yes.


Quote:
 
As I post in previous posts, beastiaries killed animals with spears. There´s only one depiction of them killing animals with sword and shield - all other show them with spears.


There was a shift towards equipping venatores more like gladiators (read: with sword and shield) towards the end of the Roman Republic.

Quote:
 
You educate yourself and maybe after some time, you come with not so laughable and unsourced opinions.
...
it´s actually not sword, it´s gladius


The irony. A gladius is a sword. It even literally means "sword" in latin.


Quote:
 
You think that if those short spanish guys with swords (matadors, toreadors) will fight 1 240 000 fights against lions, bears and tigers, instead of 1 240 000 fights against bulls, only two of them die after nearly million and a quarter fights?


It doesn't matter what I think and you still haven't gotten it. I don't care how dangerous bullfighting is in the end or if it's more or less dangerous than fighting other animals. My sole point is that it's stupid to badmouth an animal because it can be killed by "short spanish guys with swords" when in fact every single terrestrial animal can be killed by guys with swords. That's all.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 29 2017, 10:22 PM
Quote:
 
I've tried to keep up with the argument between you two but all honesty I think I've lost track of what the argument is. Correct me if I'm wrong but hawkkeye is saying that Spanish bulls are unimpressive because they can be killed by short Spaniards with swords, and in extension saying that swords are a bad weapon against animals right, whilst Spartan is saying that a sword in a competent person's hand is extremely dangerous to any animal that isn't to massive so calling an animal unimpressive because it can be killed with a sword is unfair to the animal. Correct?


Yes.


Quote:
 
As I post in previous posts, beastiaries killed animals with spears. There´s only one depiction of them killing animals with sword and shield - all other show them with spears.


There was a shift towards equipping venatores more like gladiators (read: with sword and shield) towards the end of the Roman Republic.

Quote:
 
You educate yourself and maybe after some time, you come with not so laughable and unsourced opinions.
...
it´s actually not sword, it´s gladius


The irony. A gladius is a sword. It even literally means "sword" in latin.


Quote:
 
You think that if those short spanish guys with swords (matadors, toreadors) will fight 1 240 000 fights against lions, bears and tigers, instead of 1 240 000 fights against bulls, only two of them die after nearly million and a quarter fights?


It doesn't matter what I think and you still haven't gotten it. I don't care how dangerous bullfighting is in the end or if it's more or less dangerous than fighting other animals. My sole point is that it's stupid to badmouth an animal because it can be killed by "short spanish guys with swords" when in fact every single terrestrial animal can be killed by guys with swords. That's all.
How did you guys go to bullfighting? I thought that this thread was about animal predation on Spanish fighting bulls.
Wyvax
Jan 29 2017, 12:03 PM
I've tried to keep up with the argument between you two but all honesty I think I've lost track of what the argument is. Correct me if I'm wrong but hawkkeye is saying that Spanish bulls are unimpressive because they can be killed by short Spaniards with swords, and in extension saying that swords are a bad weapon against animals right, whilst Spartan is saying that a sword in a competent person's hand is extremely dangerous to any animal that isn't to massive so calling an animal unimpressive because it can be killed with a sword is unfair to the animal. Correct?

At Grazier: Those boar swords are pretty extravagant, but they're legit. They were never used outside of boar hunting however, and weren't wielded in the typical way, they literally held them out like a spear in front of them and "helped" the boar impale itself on the blade when it charged the hunter, the hogs momentum kept it going so they needed really, expansive, impressive guards or a transverse bar mid way down the blade lest the hunter would still be gored.
So basically the argument is that if Spanish bulls have such a high death rate when fighting men with swords, this means they will also be weak in an ecosystem against predators. I find this a stupid argument. It reminds me of predator-prey relationship.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Jan 30 2017, 12:54 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
As I post in previous posts, beastiaries killed animals with spears. There´s only one depiction of them killing animals with sword and shield - all other show them with spears.


Where you find it? Post source.

Quote:
 
The irony. A gladius is a sword. It even literally means "sword" in latin.


Yes it is. But we are talking about sword of matadors - this, https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6e/29/62/6e2962e4bb3747774257056c448fecf4.jpg .
You could actually see that this is much longer and much more looking like crossbread between rapier and medieval longsword than gladius. And, as even people without fencing experience could easily see, that´s a lot of diferences between them, which means that fencing style with gladius and with this sword is different, too. In blade lenght, gladius is short sword - something which is between knife and proper medieval sword. Yes, in his time was calling it literaly a sword - because there wasn´t much longer swords than gladius (only spatha and the ones I say post before). In my post, when I using name gladius, I mean by this roman short sword gladius, not latin word for sword. When I use sword, I mean matador´s sword. Now you get it?
Yet, still people show me venatios which rarely used gladius + shield and are telling me that killing with them is the same as killing with matador´s swords.

Quote:
 
It doesn't matter what I think and you still haven't gotten it. I don't care how dangerous bullfighting is in the end or if it's more or less dangerous than fighting other animals. My sole point is that it's stupid to badmouth an animal because it can be killed by "short spanish guys with swords" when in fact every single terrestrial animal can be killed by guys with swords. That's all.


Why you are selective ignore my posts? What of this sentence you don´t understand: ´I have no respect for an animal what can kill be killed 1 240 000 times by short spanish guys with swords, yet only managed to kill 2 of that short spanish guys.´
I even wrote that I´m trying made my opinion idiotproof. Yet, I still not count with you :(

Answer this. And not selectively ignore it, or don´t answer it at all like previous question.
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 30 2017, 03:44 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Where you find it? Post source.


What do you mean? You quoted yourself.


Quote:
 
Why you are selective ignore my posts? What of this sentence you don´t understand: ´I have no respect for an animal what can kill be killed 1 240 000 times by short spanish guys with swords, yet only managed to kill 2 of that short spanish guys.´
I even wrote that I´m trying made my opinion idiotproof. Yet, I still not count with you :(

Answer this. And not selectively ignore it, or don´t answer it at all like previous question.


I don't care about this opinion. We were talking about this statement:

Quote:
 
Yes, I don´t have respect for animal that can be easily avoided and killed be short spanish guys with swords.


Good to see that you finally acknowledged how flawed this "reason" was.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic