Bull Schadenfreude
Normally I don’t enjoy watching violence. The exception is when a bull wins a bullfight. When one of those videos pops up on the Internet, I’ll watch it two or three times. I don’t mind saying it makes me happy.
I realize I’m supposed to be rooting for the sadistic asshole that’s dressed like a waiter on acid. But I have to be honest: I’m delighted when a bull puts a horn up a matador’s sphincter and trots around the arena wearing him like a rapper’s hat.
There are two things I look for in bull victories:
1. Air time
2. Stomping
Air time is when the bull lifts the matador off his feet and tosses him. You can rate the quality of the toss by how many times the matador yells “Mierda! Mierda! Mierda!” before he hits the ground. Three mierdas is good, but I prefer four.
Then comes the stomping, which I regard as a form of afterglow. That’s when the sadistic asshole helpers come out to save the psychopath matador. It strikes me as unsportsmanlike. I root for the bull to kill them too, but it rarely works out the way I’d like.
The experts say one of the ways you can predict a future serial killer is if he’s cruel to animals and thinks it’s entertaining. You use the same method to predict a future matador. The only difference is that the future serial killer doesn’t dress like an organ grinder’s monkey and masturbate furiously after killing the mammal.
Just to be clear, I normally value the life of a human being higher than the life of an animal. But I think we’d all agree that the best animal is better than the worst human. Bulls usually mind their own business. All they want to do is eat, poop, and hump anything that moos. As a man, I respect the clarity of their missions. On the other hoof, a matador is a guy who didn’t have enough people skills to be promoted to serial killer. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can root for the human in this situation.
Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
I love to eat steak. I am also lucky, because (fingers crossed) I will "probably" not be alive when the machines become self-aware and wipe out the stupid nonsense that humanity likes to call "civilization." The most intelligent entity will ALWAYS gain control... which means that our fun-time animal killings and meat gorging days are numbered. Top computer scientists repeatedly warn that if AI research is not halted, then it is almost certain that we will bring into existence an advanced artificial "life form" that will see us as nothing more than useless vermin. Pay back time is near at hand. However, animal lovers will NOT be pleased to hear that ALL biological life will become redundant once the machines become sentient...
Posted by: Cybernetic System Model 101 | August 15, 2007 at 07:44 PM
"The only difference is that the future serial killer doesn’t dress like an organ grinder’s monkey and masturbate furiously after killing the mammal"
"All they want to do is eat, poop, and hump anything that moos"
I just couldn't stop rolling on the floor while reading these lines.I knew my coleagues around my cubicle went mad looking at me laughing all alone. But couldn't help it. Great. Go.
Posted by: prashanth J | July 26, 2007 at 06:42 AM
Come to think, don't you think we do the same- eat, sleep and poop. Okay, I don't know how many of us hump anything that moos.. (I don't, you naughty feller)
And, yea I'd call the bull you are alluding to -
Red Bull
Posted by: Jayabrata Bose | July 26, 2007 at 05:14 AM
i love when the bull rams his horns up the guys ass or throws him up and as the guy falls the bull thumps him back up :) ..... i'm rooting for the bulls as well :)
Posted by: Pete | July 25, 2007 at 12:24 PM
A little late, but "The Gaseous Gasher" comes to mind...
www.triplebee.squarespace.com
Posted by: Bill Arvia | July 24, 2007 at 07:09 AM
"The more we start treating animals like humans, the more we treat humans like animals."
Absolutely Disagree!! More we start treating every living being as living being, more closer we become to "humans".
Go BULLs. Until that "sport" is banned, and we all wish it is, I root for the Bulls.
Posted by: Imran | July 23, 2007 at 01:20 PM
The answer was "Toro Gore-o Carbon" right?
Posted by: Curt | July 20, 2007 at 01:48 PM
Since you like it so much ill give you a link. The article its in spanish but i think you will like to see the pics ;)
http://www.noticias24.com/vida/?p=493
Posted by: yogisanchez | July 20, 2007 at 09:53 AM
I have a cousin who became a vegetarian (and temporarily a vegan) after reading some pamphlet about KFC mistreats chickens. She was all excited to see a bull fight...I got to be the lucky person who explained to her that bull fighting is really just bull-taunting-while-a-bunch-of-guys-stab. She no longer wants to see a bull fight.
Posted by: synapticmisfires | July 20, 2007 at 08:54 AM
Al/El Gore is good but only makes sense if the opposite meaning applies (i.e. tries to reduce global warming). I suggest changing the word order to "Gore Al".
Posted by: TasTigger | July 19, 2007 at 04:30 PM
All these comments about things from your own view are pure solipsistic rantings. I came to that view when I was 12...
eg, The universe does not exist if I am not here, therefore no one has any intrisinc value except when I am alive. Therefore, I get to decide all intrinsic values..
Problem is, there do seem to be other people with somewhat differing views that will offer a competing view, sometimes in unpleasant ways..
Posted by: BIll | July 19, 2007 at 03:24 PM
"Philosophical question: Do animals have any intrinsic value? This is philosophy 101. . . The answer is no, they don't, because man can only view things from his own perspective."
Wow, Jamieg should have kept going to philosophy 101 after the second week. We've moved past the Cartesian theater.
Posted by: Statsmo | July 19, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I'd call him Steve.
Posted by: J | July 19, 2007 at 05:50 AM
Bonus Question: Si, Oh Too !
Posted by: Bsquared | July 19, 2007 at 05:39 AM
Hot Bull
Two Sharp
Fartaldo
A-Cracker
Mighty Gas
Posted by: Minna | July 19, 2007 at 05:13 AM
I think you'd probably want to offer: Foul Gore. But I wouldn't. Because there's a better question for that answer:
"What would you name a CHICKEN that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?"
Now THERE'S Foul Gore!
Posted by: mnuez | July 19, 2007 at 03:57 AM
Hey TricklePee, I like how you first claim that nothing has value and then say that humans are most certainly more valuable than animals. Gotta choose babe. And I'd guess that you'd choose (and already chose but were unclear about it) that humans have some sort of value.
How the hell do they?
If the scientists are right and we are nothing but preprogramed accidents that arrived here with no purpose and who will simply vanish when we stop working (when what we call "our bodies" stops working, i mean) - then what value is there to any human?
And that's why I propose bombing Disneyland.
Do it for the children.
{P.S. Lest Dilbee fear that some moron may construe this threat as a joke and thus desire not to post such that he doesn't get in trouble, let me announce that this was a joke, not a threat. What is threatening however is that we live in a society where the media does little other than to titilate the darkest parts of mankind's nature by keeping us constantly on the fright lest there be a child molestor hiding out in a cabin in Wyoming. Were it not for that totally nutty askew perspective that we're offered by the "news" with regards to what the real threats to our health and lives are (and were it not for all piety and caring being directed toward "the children" at the expense of everyone who isn't one ['nless they're a minority]) there wouldn't be any need for this silly explanation. - Again, I doubt Dilbee would misunderstanbd but I could certainly see him being criticized by zanies who say something like, "in this dangerous time where there are more pedophiles than ever, how could you not censor a threat to do a terrorist attack against children at Disneyland?! And so the ten sentence "defense" for a two sentence joke. Ridiculous that it's necessary.)
Posted by: mnuez | July 19, 2007 at 03:10 AM
Thanks, Scott! Loved this post.
Interesting comment about the philosophical (non-)'value' of animals by Trickypickle. But...if man (i.e. me) can view things only from his (mine) own perspective...why should any other Human be of *any* value more than a tree, an animal etc.? I mean: if I can view anything's value just regarding to my own needs, this should go for other people as well as for animals. Therefore another Human's life couldn't be more valuable than a bull's? (serious question).
As for traditioners: several people have given good replies to this way of 'reasoning'. Still I expect all of you to appear here as my slaves (since some of my forebearers were slave-owners) as well as Human sacrifice (since once in my religion such things have been tradition). :p
Jesse gave a wonderful reply (atomic war vs. rape) to the "there are more important concerns". Heavy stuff, Jesse, but I totally agree with you.
Chris from Solingen: *wave from Essen* :)
Those who think that nobody with *any* kind of animal torture in his/her country wouldn't be allowed to say that bullfighting is wrong: you *are* aware, that even a murderer has the right to file a charge against somebody else who commits a crime? That's called 'civilisation'. Nothing is automatically 'right' by proving that anything else is 'wrong', too.
I do know that Spain has a wonderful and rich culture - they don't need that kind of 'tradition'. I really can't understand why they don't just skip this small part. It's not as if Spanish culture would vanish with bullfighting, right?
Posted by: Earonn | July 19, 2007 at 03:04 AM
Tooting Horn?
Posted by: mnuez | July 19, 2007 at 02:55 AM
I have two things to say: first, we feed cows, pigs, chickens, to kill them and eat their meat. And bulls to kill them and get entertainment and art out of them. Otherwise, we would not bother raising them. We specifically raise bulls for the bullfights. The meat is not so appreciated, and a single bull can inseminate many cows. The cost of feeding them is probably much higher than the possible benefit. Without bullfights, I'm pretty sure that there would be very few bulls around. They would not even get a chance to fight for their freedom: they simply would not exist.
Second, the main reason for someone to become a torero is not sadism. Most of them do it because they don't have any other choice. Nobody would stand in front of an angry bull, with a chance to die, if they can help it.
Posted by: Fernando | July 19, 2007 at 02:23 AM
I only glanced through the comments so I don't know if anyone else who commented said this; I would much rather see a human die than an animal. Animals serve a much more useful part of the ecology than so many of these humans walking around.
Posted by: Jason Lee | July 19, 2007 at 12:38 AM
A long time ago more than one scientist took a few Labrador retrievers and nailed them to walls, just like Jesus on the cross. It was believed back in the dark ages(fifty years ago) that animals couldn't feel pain so they were operated on while awake.
It was (and still is) accepted scientific practice to do research on cats, kittens, dogs and puppies, they were slowly eviscerated and because they screamed their voice boxes were cut out.
The screaming was described as a "reflex" that had nothing to do with pain.
Eventually it became accepted that this reflex was in fact pain and the pets were given anesthetics.
When most people are forced to see suffering close up they change their tune.
The problem is for most of us the suffering is distant, sitting high in the stands the spectator cannot see the animals eyes or it's blood.We don't see how our food gets to our table anymore either.
Then there are the people who live to see the agony close up, the dog/cock fight people. Men standing around with erections at the sound of an animal dying in agony.
They get sexual satisfaction from the sight of pain and suffering.
These are the ones I worry about.
I can bet rapists, pedophiles and men that like to beat their wives all become aroused when exposed to the suffering of an animal.
I think anyone who gets off on animal torture as entertainment needs culling.
Anyone who breeds horses or cattle will understand. Something that damaged and genetically inbred needs to be euthanized to prevent it from breeding.
It is time to thin the human herd.
The gene pool doesn't need to be polluted by sick, vicious, sadistic monsters that salivate then masturbate at the thought of a pit bull killing another pit bull.
Unfortunately the gene pool has become so polluted by monsters that breed like rabbits it's probably too late.
All research clearly shows abuse of animals is the first step in creating a monster that rapes and murders.
Glad to see so many people in favor of creating more monsters....
How about pulling your heads out of your asses and staring reality in the eye?
I can't tell you not to eat meat but did you never wonder about how that hamburger became hamburger?
Did it never occur to you that you can buy hamburger from a supplier that doesn't use beef from a feedlot?
Take responsibility for your food and your damn entertainment.
Where the hell did the moral center go?
We used to slaughter our own animals that we bred and raised.
We had an intimate relationship with our food. We took responsibility for our food. We deeply appreciated that life because it nourished us.
Now we don't even know where the food comes from. We don't care anymore.
We just want what we want when we want it and we don't give a damn about anyones suffering but our own.
We have become narcissists, all starring in our own movie...everything else? Meaningless extras there only to advance our own stories.
There is nothing wrong with eating meat but don't pretend it comes from a can. The cow died so you can eat. Say thank you.
Posted by: mo | July 19, 2007 at 12:28 AM
"..the sadistic asshole that’s dressed like a waiter on acid.."
and:
"..All they want to do is eat, poop, and hump anything that moos. As a man, I respect the clarity of their missions."
that is all.
Posted by: p | July 18, 2007 at 10:18 PM
BTW, I don't get why is so many people here making fun of Al Gore? I am not american, so I probably don't understand a lot of things about its politics, but global warming is real, and it's plain stupid blaming bull shit for it while building factories, cars, etc without taking any measure to control the pollution out of it.
Posted by: Ferran | July 18, 2007 at 08:07 PM
What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
THE STABBING POOPER.
Obvious answers are always the best.
What would you call an animal that eats stones and can fly?
THE FLYING STONE-EATER.
(This last is my favourite joke of all times :D)
Posted by: Ferran | July 18, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Alive.
Posted by: elmindreda | July 18, 2007 at 05:39 PM
There was a rodeo bull in Australia called "Chainsaw". He is a legend in aussie rodeo circles as being pretty much impossible to ride. He could do this thing where he would launch himself almost laterally through the air, then twist to the right to land on his feet again.
I could picture him charging a matadore, who deftly dodges out of the way, only to be smashed flat by the bull suddenly flying through the air at him, on it's side. It'd certainly be the suprise of the matadore's (remaining five seconds of) life.
Posted by: Daniel | July 18, 2007 at 05:35 PM
"Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?"
Bullshit, just like the rest of the global warming hoax.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous | July 18, 2007 at 04:19 PM
Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
A good businessman. He's obviously trying to earn carbon offsets by sequestering the carbon in the matador in a coffin.
Posted by: jamieg | July 18, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Philosophical question: Do animals have any intrinsic value? This is philosophy 101. The question asks whether or not animals have any value that is not directly connected to man and his desire, which is an extrinsic value. The answer is no, they don't, because man can only view things from his own perspective. So even if you think animals are nice and cuddly or majestic and savage it doesn't matter. You've still defined them in terms of human perspective and value. They have no other value. Nor does anything in the universe. To those who value the animals as a source of viewing pleasure or companionship, killing them will be wrong. To those who value them as a source of sport and entertainment, killing them is fine. neither position can be claimed to be outright wrong, regardless of your gut instinct. I may *feel* it's wrong, and I certainly do, but logically it isn't. And to the psycho vegan woman who thought it was funny to say her husband mentioned bombing bullfights: Get some professional therapy. In the end Human Life > Animal Life, regardless of what the nutjobs at PETA say.
Posted by: Trickypickle | July 18, 2007 at 01:01 PM
How about Nebulla? And yeah the similarity between matadors and serial killers is quite striking: they both have their legion of fans, and willing women trying to marry them!
Posted by: Aditya Simha | July 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Mataflata
Bull fighters are chickens, that's why they have picadores damage the bulls prior to the chickenadore entering the ring.
The Cretans fought bulls barehanded, now there's some real men.
Posted by: Margo | July 18, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I heard that when a bull kills the matador they not only kill the bull, but they hunt down its mother and kill her too. Seems to me the bullfights would get a lot more entertaining with time the other way around, but maybe that's why Spain hasn't done anything worthwhile in the past three hundred years.
Posted by: niner | July 18, 2007 at 10:15 AM
schadenfreude... :))
weird name
...
-----------------------
http://href.hu/x/2sv1
Posted by: vasco | July 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM
El- Fartador
Posted by: Dave | July 18, 2007 at 09:59 AM
so what perm is saying is that its okay to paonfully torture and slaughter animals as long as they live a good life beforehand.
Posted by: Mark | July 18, 2007 at 09:37 AM
Not a big fan of bull fights, dog fights, cock fights etc. However I think all of this animal rights hoo ha is a bunch of Male Bovine Solid Exhaust! Animals were put on this earth for the use of mankind not the other way around. I'm sure you folks love the running of the bulls where hapless, weaponless idiots get run down and gored by the rampaging bulls. As for me, I can't wait to get off work today and fire up the grill and toss on a couple of hunks of cow wrapped in pig! YUM
Posted by: pakman | July 18, 2007 at 09:17 AM
The bulls that have the best lives are those that eventually are killed in the arena. They get five years enjoying themselves: plenty of fresh air and the best grass. Which they pay for with 20 minutes of suffering and finally death. Compare that with a life in a crowded stable eating shitty hay, never seeing the sky and after two years becoming minced-meat, often after hours if not days of transportation to the slaughter-house. What would you choose if you were a bull?
Another thing is the question of quantifying the bulls' suffering in the arena. Studies have shown that your (and animals') perception of your own pain is very different when you are retreating as opposed to attacking. The attacker feels less pain. During the first years of WWII, the German military hospitals were more or less empty - the soldiers that were brought in quickly recovered and went back to battle. When the nazi luck turned, the hospitals started to fill up with soldiers with minor problems of all kinds. The bulls in the arena are in a rush of adrenaline, attacking until the last minute. I don't say that they don't feel pain, but I doubt that they are as miserable as you animal-lovers think.
Speaking of animal-lovers. Who was the female Italian politician who claimed that being an animal-lover, she couldn't possibly have committed the crime that she was accused for? And of course you know already that Hitler was a big animal-lover. He wouldn't tolerate using animals in scientific tests. Using humans was another matter altogether.
Posted by: perm42 | July 18, 2007 at 08:18 AM
While I'm no fan of bull-fighting it probably should be mentioned that those bulls are pampered and treated quite well up until the moment they get tortured for a bit and then killed... which of course means that they lead a far better life than maybe half the human population on this planet (never mind 95% of the cattle bred for slaughter)
Posted by: tuc0 | July 18, 2007 at 08:11 AM
De-ice-blo
Posted by: fosin | July 18, 2007 at 07:35 AM
AlGore
Posted by: Mary | July 18, 2007 at 07:24 AM
One of your better statements, they should even up the odds, no swords, no lances one, on one, and the bull in good health the so called sport would die a quick death. That is the sport of bull fighting not the clown in the suit with micky mouse ears with luck he would be an out of the park home run!
Posted by: steve | July 18, 2007 at 07:14 AM
I imagine the bulls enjoy fighting a lot more than they enjoy abbatoirs. Are you against lions and tigers as well (or are they OK because they wear cooler outfits?)
Posted by: Bill | July 18, 2007 at 07:00 AM
BULLY!
Posted by: Gatordone | July 18, 2007 at 06:46 AM
Horny?
Posted by: bolo | July 18, 2007 at 05:36 AM
Bulldozer
Posted by: Tathagat | July 18, 2007 at 04:31 AM
Bonus question: bell bull. There could be some kind of watch around thebulla and tekst: how much longer till nature kicks your arse.
Posted by: Olli Lindholm | July 18, 2007 at 04:22 AM
What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
I'd call him Sir. I'm not annoying a badass like that.
Of course, if I was really, really hungry I might call him Dinner.
Posted by: Lamark | July 18, 2007 at 04:21 AM
Wow, Scott, never have I read such a contentious article that I agree with 100%. Why is it contentious? Because, in the case of bull-fighting, it values animals higher than humans (specifically, the matadors, although I would go as far as to include the spectators aswell - they are clearly there to enjoy the spectacle of an animal enduring humiliation, pain, suffering and death), and most people believe that they, humans, have some sort of natural superiority over animals (beyond just intelligence) which gives them some right to abuse them and be amused by them.
Bull-fighting may have been a part of Spanish culture for many, many years, but that does not make it acceptable in the 21st century. How would people feel if it was dog-fighting, or horse-fighting? Somehow, it's ok because it's a bull. Why not go all the way and have man-fighting, with the matador versus someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger armed with a small fruit-knife? (Oh wait, the Romans were doing that 2000 years ago - I guess we've "civilised" a bit since then).
Posted by: Jason | July 18, 2007 at 04:19 AM
You rock, Scott! My husband and I are vegans and AR activists. We get the same sick pleasure out of watching bulls stomp and toss the people tormenting them. My husband has wondered out loud how many bull fights would need to be blown up before people stopped going to them.
Thank you for bringing attention to issues like this. You are a wonderful advocate for animals and the planet.
Posted by: kathryn | July 18, 2007 at 03:57 AM
The Parper of Seville
Posted by: Ewan MacKenzie | July 18, 2007 at 03:45 AM
Speaking of cognitive disonance ...
This reminds me of the many vegan comentaries that indulge on public wishes about torture and brutal violence against human beins on the pretense of defending animals and are sistematically scused and defended by the more politically correct (hypocrite?) persons near to that ideology (i am tempted to say cult, hehehe).
Also it is a well known tool to divert attention from internal affairs to blame others for something, anglo-saxons and their heritage are masters of this, (thanks to their topic hypocrisy?), and Spain is ever at handy, Thank God there is no oil in Spain, hehehehe.
Said, that, I am not fond at all of bull fighting, but is not by far the worst, neither the more spread, form of cruelty against living beins.
Besides things like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/17/vick/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
I think the worst of all cruelty against living beins is the industrialization, the ultra intensive and extensive techno-agriculture. So there is a lot of cognitive disonance between the main culprits of the world.
Posted by: T.G. | July 18, 2007 at 03:43 AM
Dude,
You say you "respect the clarity" of men's missions?
Who have you been talking to?......and what do you perceive your mission to be, again?
...and I'm still waiting for my steak.....
Posted by: spike17 | July 18, 2007 at 03:27 AM
Gobarator ( bullshit=gobar in hindi - national language of india )
-Pramathesh
Posted by: pramathesh | July 18, 2007 at 03:23 AM
I'd call it Carbon Neutral.
Posted by: smee | July 18, 2007 at 03:14 AM
Whatever the bull's called - it would have to be hard as nails considering the bulls are drugged, fed laxatives and have their top neck muscles sliced before each fight so they cannot raise their head :S - which makes any bull victory twice as nice!
Posted by: Paul B | July 18, 2007 at 02:21 AM
"Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?"
Steak, like every other bull.
Posted by: John | July 18, 2007 at 02:13 AM
Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
Answer:
Prehistoric plants became coal and oil so......
Bovine-a-sore-ass
Posted by: Dr Ross | July 18, 2007 at 02:10 AM
And now we have Donkey Nappies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6902309.stm
Posted by: Sandip | July 18, 2007 at 02:01 AM
great post, scott. i think it's time people stopped cruelty towards animals. it's important to remember each human could easily have been born as a helpless animal. we are lucky to be born as humans and thus we should be considerate towards other species of animals. (hope i am not sounding too preachy)
Posted by: gautam | July 18, 2007 at 01:11 AM
eat, poop, and hump anything that moos
Genius
we live on a farm, one of the Bulls is called Noble.
it just seemed right at the time.
Posted by: FatherJack | July 18, 2007 at 01:11 AM
Wow, you feel the same way about matadors as most people do about US soldiers...
Posted by: anon anon | July 18, 2007 at 01:07 AM
Scott, you're blind !
Would you dare stand in front of a bull charging ?
I guess you wouldn't have enough guts.
You should respect the Spanish culture, for them, it's a psychological sport.
Bulls that "win" a fight with a matador are super bulls but matadors that lose a fight with a bull are still respectful.
French and Americans don't understand it.
On the same order of idea, I guess you don't want horses to be served as food, but horses make very good food.
Posted by: CDriK | July 18, 2007 at 01:05 AM
Funny how some people justify and defend a completely useless thing (Bullfighting).
And to all meateaters I say, visit a slaughter house and see the process of a living creature being transformed into unidentifyable bits. Then you might also want to try to eat meat without condiments, that cover up the true taste. If you still like meat after that, congrats.
Posted by: Sabine Dinis Blochberger | July 18, 2007 at 12:56 AM
hmmm, would it be un-politically correct of me to guess 'sh*t-stabber'...?
Posted by: Chris F | July 18, 2007 at 12:50 AM
"What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?"
Name him anything you like; after a suitably vigorous stabbing he won't be able to hear you anyway due to having matador intestines in his ears.
Posted by: Daryl Musashi | July 18, 2007 at 12:49 AM
GG Scott,
I also root for the Bull during that "sport".
Posted by: Hammertyme | July 18, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Moo-die
iBull
Another instance where CV is wrong. Cattle contribute more methane to the atmosphere thru belching than farting.
Posted by: SJ | July 18, 2007 at 12:15 AM
bulltoser
Posted by: LinkCanabico | July 17, 2007 at 11:44 PM
I must object to several things in this thread. First, if you want a contest with an animal, do it as an animal: your teeth and claws and horns, if you got 'em, against his. Anything else is just an evil little toad of a human being who never got over the psychopathic urge to pull wings off of flies, trying to feel big about himself by torturing something that's under his power. Really. And I have no more against Spanish people than the Man In Black...
And whoever said that Rodeo "at least...a chance" doesn't know the ugly truth: to get the animals to fight, they hit them with Stun Guns. I am not making this up. My answer, in this milieu? Prison time, every time.
How about Horse Tripping, a favorite of Mexican rodeo? Of 75 horses rented to rodeos for horse tripping events by one supplier of rodeo animals in 2005, 2 survived the season. Am I really the only one that thinks that killing animals for fun is SICK?
Look, if you really want to show off the size of your balls, try this: hunt buffalo on camera the way the Indians did it before horses arrived in North America (they came with the Vikings; really): sneak up on one with a stone knife, a stone lance, and a thirty-pound-draw bow with stone-tipped arrows. ALONE. THAT was a contest, with a varying win-loss ratio on both sides. There's a REASON that a buffalo hunter who lived long enough to wear that name was regarded as a BRAVE and SKILLFUL man.
Or, if you're not quite that gutsy or desirous of an early death, you might do like the Spanish nobleman in California who hunted bears on horseback, chasing them down and cornering them before dismounting and dispatching them with a sword. I don't really count him as particularly brave, as I've had some training with a sword and know just what a force and defense multiplier they are, but at least that was a straightforward hunt: find it and kill it. He even had the decency to eat the bear. Afterward, I mean. The earlier post about the Politician Who Gets It just popped into my head, there...
If I were king, deliberate torture of animals would be a capital offense. Anyone with even the feeblest grip on the concept of right and wrong understands that people who have control over enslaved animals have an obligation to keep them as healthy as possible right up to the moment we slaughter them to eat (that was not a joke; eat them, but do NOT torture them first).
So, I must abstain from the vote: I really don't care what you name the bull. It's a sick and twisted sport, and the sooner it dies out because global warming has eliminated all the pastureland in Spain and the bulls have to be raised in crowded feedlots where they learn to deal with their isolation issues so they just aren't fun to try to kill anymore, the better.
Posted by: RipplingBeast | July 17, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Well, It may be a good day for the bull that gored the matador, but not necessarily for the diners at the restaurant near the bull ring. Apparantly there is this restaurant (may be many) that dots the landscape near a famous bull ring in Spain ( stupid of me to be so explicit on the country side.. Russia or Switzerland may not exactly fit the bill though..). The restaurant serves the testes of the slain bull as part of the delicacy to the discerning customers. However, since there are not that many (testes in a given day), to appease the palattes of all the discerning customers who have come to dine from near and far, the advance booking lead time is stiff and is nearly 6 months!!
And then there was this Irish guy ( can't be Jewish, Hindu or US Vegans!!!) who, took his beloved for a honey moon to the Spanish countryside, with the promise of bull testefied dining, for which he had carefully planned and booked six months in advance.
And Lo and Behold!! It was a day of Scott's bull run in the ring, and the matador died. This explanation for the 10X reduction in what found the plates of our honeymoon couple could not pacify the enraged Irish man, who felt short changed in front his wife, until he was shown the fine print in the booking coupon that said "proceeds from the sack of that day's kill".
As for an appropriate name for Scott's bull, may I suggest AL BULLDOZONE!!! (Al for the Gory effect, with the name having a Capone mafia ring to it!!)
Posted by: Srinath | July 17, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Scott as i was guffawing along the post, i was thinking won't bulls be also allowed to enjoy there buddy stubbing the sadistic asshole's ass hole.Think about it. Who knows may be bulls community has some dude's scratching their bums over "Human Rights and Protection" :D
Anyways "hump anything that moos" ... Classic!!!
Posted by: Amit | July 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Ash Impaler
It's funny until your brain registers the absence of logic. But inline with the spirit of S Adams
Posted by: Gishu | July 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I utterly loved that last one and so did my family. One of my favorite show is "When Animals Attack" and yes, we root for the animal.
A few posters have commented on that this "sport" is better than just dying in a slaughterhouse. The fact is that we do eat animals (for now) as food. This is because we must. Just like a lion or a wolf (etc) we need to eat to live (yes I am aware that we can live on plants but it's a needless distinction at this point in the argument).
The difference comes when we start inflicting pain on others, human or animal, without a need, just for fun. If a butcher kills an animal to eat it, that's normal. If the butcher spends a few hours carving off the skin while the cows is still alive and restrained while humming "La Traviata", that seems a little wrong doesn't it?
As an aside, I don't think much of bullfighting as a so called "manly" sport. The risk is rather minor, there are lots of picador's and sadly too few matadors get gored seriously. Try out Course Landaise or Recortadores where the participants leap over the bull in very nice and athletic displays. The bull doesn't die and everyone is impressed including me.
The honest to gosh truth here is that many people like to watch cruelty, as long as it's not themselves who are the target. The true villain is not the matador or the bull... it's the audience. Can we get more bulls trampling the audience too please? (maybe leave the kiddies at home for that one.) Either way, it's a show that's got to go.
Posted by: RobDegraves | July 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
" All they want to do is eat, poop, and hump anything that moos. As a man, I respect the clarity of their missions. On the other hoof, a matador is a guy who didn’t have enough people skills to be promoted to serial killer"...
Very very nice use of words..
Posted by: Sreeram | July 17, 2007 at 10:15 PM
How about Enrico the Unkind?
Posted by: Attie Naude | July 17, 2007 at 09:56 PM
At times I wonder why people who cheer for the matador in bullfights are allowed to exist. Bullfighting is cruel, inhumane, and unnecessary. *Sigh* Sometimes I wonder why cruelty to animals still exist. Isn't it common sense to protect, respect and care for animals? Jeez, humanity!
Posted by: Cmdr. Gabe E. | July 17, 2007 at 09:49 PM
I would certainly go for:
MIERDA-BERT
Posted by: Pradeep | July 17, 2007 at 09:25 PM
Variations on Al Gore seem a little obvious, then again I shouldn't complain: my choice would be simply George.
Posted by: Dom | July 17, 2007 at 09:10 PM
attention chris: El Gore is perfect. The man Al is a hypocrite. i won't give evidence to this because it's so readily available... just look a little; you'll find he contributes loads to global warming.
Posted by: james | July 17, 2007 at 08:20 PM
For this post, you are elevated to the status of "my hero."
Posted by: CLD | July 17, 2007 at 08:16 PM
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5339/failbullth3.jpg
The bull won.
Posted by: Lee Bruns | July 17, 2007 at 07:58 PM
"Cereal Killer"
:-)
Posted by: Andres | July 17, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Susan. What, it's my frickin' bull.
Posted by: MattyD | July 17, 2007 at 07:23 PM
"So was human sacrifice to many pre-Hispanic civilizations "
--glad there are still sensible thinking people on this planet
Posted by: Mickeymouse | July 17, 2007 at 07:18 PM
Don't they kill the bull after the fight, regardless of whether he "won"? I'm pretty sure they do.
I don't watch or approve of sports that involve cruelty to animals. I don't know that it makes sense to get all holier-than-thou about matadors specifically, though. They've been brought up in a culture that encourages this sort of thing, and changing an entire culture takes time.
On the other hand, to the fellow who talks about the bull dying "with honor", does he really think that a bull gives a rat's ass about human ideas of honor?
Posted by: Boris | July 17, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Spanish Culture??!!!
How can anyone justify killing for pleasure? Where are the human values? This just does not make sense!!
Thanks Scott for raising this issue.
Posted by: Mickeymouse | July 17, 2007 at 07:09 PM
"But I think we’d all agree that the best animal is better than the worst human."
ABSOLUTELY disagree.
The more we start treating animals like humans, the more we treat humans like animals.
Posted by: sey | July 17, 2007 at 07:07 PM
El Toro Tear-ror!
El Goro Humido?
Nokyoto the Impaler...
(Hey, it's 3:00 a.m.)
Posted by: Scott | July 17, 2007 at 06:52 PM
was it Don QuiHote
may be too cool name for the bull
but it's spanish, could imply stabbing something, hot is included phonetically, it perfectly fits i think
regarding bull's life, it sounds respectable and sorry to interrupt
on the other horn it would lack excitement which bullfights provide
if to ban them humanely
so why deprive bulls their moments of glory and higher pleasure, let them enjoy stabbing matadors
Posted by: rd | July 17, 2007 at 06:41 PM
You all seem so sure that the answer is El Gore, but no one seems to notice that that doesn't even make any sense. The question says "contributes to global warming" I don't think that would describe Al Gore, I think the opposite would make more sense.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2007 at 06:15 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289693,00.html
Timing is everything. I think this is proof that Scott is psychic.
Posted by: hcg | July 17, 2007 at 06:02 PM
What makes you think serial killers don't dress up like organ grinders' monkeys and masturbate franticly after they kill? We had one that dressed up like a clown (John Wayne Gacy)(and I don't know whether he masturbated AFTER he raped and murdered his victims, but there certainly was a sexual factor to his crimes)
(West Coast Woman said it before me, but I couldn't stop myself)
The funny thing about cattle contributing to global warming is that before they were brought to this continent, the plains were covered with bison; animals whose digestive systems are remarkably similar to that of domestic cattle, but they're bigger, eat more, and produce more methane...Kind of suggetst that the influence domestic cattle have on global warming is not an unnatural one, possibly not as intense as people think.
I still wonder about the effects of deforestation on global warming...Trees are major heat-reducers, and before the industrial revolution, there used to be a lot more trees.
D.Mented
Posted by: D. Mented | July 17, 2007 at 05:58 PM
“Bull Schadenfreude?”
Based on the comments, it’s more like “The Punning of the Bulls.”
Posted by: Mokkery | July 17, 2007 at 05:57 PM
Well I don't know what you have against Spanish people. Bull-fighting has been part of Spanish culture for centuries.
As far as animal rights go...would a bull prefer to fight and die with honor? Or would he be happy living like a robot for the beef industry...fed on the body parts of his own kind?
Posted by: Artorios | July 17, 2007 at 05:30 PM
My all time favorite bull fighting video on YouTube was of a dwarf woman taking on a smallish bull. The smallish bull charged and knocked the dwarf down to the ground. The smallish bull then became a rather largish one and he proceded to ... err. Let's just say that I'm sure that the dwarf woman is no longer a virgin. I couldn't help but root for the one who was doing the rooting. Who needs cheap, sleazy porn when you have dwarf-bullfighting!
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Is Dogfighting (animal on animal violence) considered better than (human on animal) bullfighting?
Or is human on human violence with rules (pro football) considered better?
Apparently, quarterback M. Vick knows something about at least 2 out of 3 of these things:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-07-17_D8QEKJVO0&show_article=1&cat=breaking
Posted by: QwkDrw | July 17, 2007 at 04:40 PM
it doesnt completely work, but
"Colon Kebab"
is the first thing that came to mind. mostly b/c both words are hilarious, one involves gas and the other involves stabbing.
Deeper thought yielded comparing the bull to a propane grill. Its got the fuel in its tank and a spit for the meat.
Posted by: Ben | July 17, 2007 at 04:29 PM
What would I call a large, hulking, temperamental, remorseless creature that causes damage to the environment and harms people?
Answer: Dick Cheney
Posted by: Jason Allen | July 17, 2007 at 04:28 PM
So what do they award the bull for artistry? 2 ears and the cape? Anytime the matador gets it, I cheer.
Posted by: Minister of Silly People in Green | July 17, 2007 at 04:18 PM
I'm not so much against bull fighting because at least the bull has a chance to fight back and after the bull finally dies, it gets eaten. However, if the matador isn't good and takes too many stabs to get the job done, I think the bull should get a reprieve and take it out of the matador's paycheck.
El Gore is a good suggestion for the bonus question. Kudos to the Engineerboy.
Other ideas:
Bullbert
Horn Jeremy
El Diabull
Los SUV
Hillary Gore'em-Stompem
George Bushwacker
Posted by: KD | July 17, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Fardinand?
Posted by: Cornered | July 17, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Actually bulls do contribute to global warming. The total effect of the emissions through the anuses of the world's population of cattle is nearly as large as the total effect of the emissions through the exhaust pipes of all the cars in the world (both something between 10 and 15%).
Posted by: Kommentar | July 17, 2007 at 03:54 PM
"All they want to do is eat, poop, and hump anything that moos."
Lol, moos.
Posted by: Kavi Chokshi | July 17, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Ok, just one more
El Tore One
Posted by: Diana W | July 17, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Name of the bull: Lamborghini Fartado
Act of farting and goring: Ethereal Bovine Intervention
Posted by: Brute | July 17, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Barry the Berserk Baked-Bean Eating Bovine...
Posted by: PH1 | July 17, 2007 at 03:02 PM
You should like this:
http://www.knbc.com/slideshow/news/13679015/detail.html
Posted by: Tomas | July 17, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Even better
Toros Al Gorebone
Posted by: Pax | July 17, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Toros Al Carbone
Posted by: Pax | July 17, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Recently a mexican guy was wounded by a bull in the "San Fermin stupidity party" or whatever they call it. That guy is from Monterrey, the city where I was born and live in, and I have to admit that the scene made me laugh a lot.
The only thing that bothers me is that before the San Fermin stuff that guy was just another stupid man in the world. Now he's famous as well =(
Posted by: F. Dwarf | July 17, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Thanx, Scott!
So far I wasn't aware that the german word "Schadenfreude" is used in the american/english language. I thought it was only "Sauerkraut" and "Kindergarten".
I still don't get the "El Gore" joke though but hey: I'm german (-:
Cheers from Solingen (the Blade-City) - strange coincidence?
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2007 at 02:09 PM
I remember a video where the bull got the jerk's underpants off and stuck on it's horn, and the guy was running pantsless from the arena - hilarious!
On the subject, there's a Pearls Before Swine comic - "Hey Bull, you going to Spain for the Running of the Bulls?"
"You mean the Trampling of the Idiots."
Can't remember the last panel now.
Posted by: Avi | July 17, 2007 at 02:08 PM
I would call it 'a donde est queso di mi padre!'
Posted by: Avi | July 17, 2007 at 02:05 PM
I'm with you. Bulls stomping the idiot monkeys are giving them exactly what they should be getting. Will this world ever evolve higher?
Billy B
Posted by: Billy B | July 17, 2007 at 02:04 PM
What I deplore about bull-fighting is the death of the bull in the end. So melodramatic and staged, and really, the bull has very little chance of leaving the ring alive. (Apologies for not knowing the correct terminologies) After the horsemen lances the bull, and the set-up men gore the bull, and then the matador finally comes on and wears out the bull with his cape work before the big finale of stabbing the bull to death and cutting of its ear. The bull is doomed to a fairly slow and tortuous death, regardless of whether you think that he is at least going down fighting instead of waiting for the slaughterhouse. A bullfight in which the bull had a truly 50/50 chance would be somewhat better.
Rodeo has at least found a way to pit human versus animal so that the animal does not die at the end of the day. And, if the animal is at least a decent fighter, he gets to live out a good portion of life humping anything that moos in order to make more good fighters. And kudos to the communities/places that have managed to make bullfighting less sadisting by using non-lethal methods.
The only leg up that bullfighting has over dog-fighting, cock-fighting, and the like is that it pits the animal against the human, instead of animal vs animal for the humans' entertainment. In the end, though, the bull still dies to the cheers of the crowd...
Posted by: SammAmish | July 17, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Scott, great post. Being from the UK I'd have to add rooting for the underdog is another good reason to cheer for the bull!
As far a the name of a bull goes... I'd have to say it's name should be "A bloody good bull"!
Keep them posts acoming!
Posted by: Rob | July 17, 2007 at 01:27 PM
Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
...an opportunity for the Japanese to build a folding 65mpg hybrid bull which stores its excess methane for later use when barbecuing the skewered matadors?
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 17, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Obvious. The UnGreen Hornet.
Posted by: Zoe | July 17, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Name the bull? Successful!
What a post, Scott. I couldn't stop laughing! Brilliant. Are you rooting for the bull? So are millions!
Now, it is sad to see so many confused readers saying that killing animals in a slaughter house is worse than killing them at the arena. Did any of you actually ask the bull what he would prefer? Did the Romans ask the Christians? Did the Nazis ask the Jews? Nah... It's all entertainment, after all. Little progress there, I'm afraid...
I'm from a Mediterranean tradition country, Portugal, and I'm ashamed to say most of us still praise bullfighting -- I don't. Sadly, a couple of years ago, our government took a step back concerning the (public) torture of animals. An exception law that allows the southern village of Barrancos (and nowhere else, mind you) to run bullfights that end with the public killing of the bulls was approved. The decision was based on... you guessed it: tradition. It's one of those things that really make me feel like saying: Welcome to Elbonia!!! (Hmm... Do they have pigfighting down there?!)
Posted by: Leonel | July 17, 2007 at 01:07 PM
Ganbaatar breath :)
breath: contributing in global warming
Ganbaatar: spent matador
Posted by: Ganesh | July 17, 2007 at 01:02 PM
I don't now about the name, but I totally agree whit you.
Posted by: Dawid Gatti | July 17, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Gassy McJosehat?
Posted by: Adam | July 17, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I liked Wind Jammer, but it should have been Windy Jammer.
How about Jack the Ripper - known for stabbing people to death, and well, his last name *is* Ripper
Posted by: Diana W | July 17, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Heat seeker
Posted by: garbz | July 17, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Can you write an article about FACTS on secret societies please (e.g. Freemasons, shown on Dilbert episode 17). Or just what you know about them etc. Thanks
Posted by: Sulaiman Ahmad | July 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM
This from the same nation that hangs their greyhounds after the race season i.e. after they've gotten their money out of them.
What was it the Mahatma said?
"... the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Posted by: Ken | July 17, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Re: bonus question?
Right off the bat, I thought "mixed blessing"! :^D
Posted by: Chris J of Ypsi | July 17, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Knee Jerky
Posted by: April Terry | July 17, 2007 at 12:21 PM
it has to be EL GORE!
not original, others beat me to it.
Posted by: daniel | July 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Nice posts today... El Gore is clearly the early winner. But a hell of a lot of great responses beyond that:
Greenhouse Gash
Red Bull (nice!)
Gore-bull warming
Toroflourocarbon
Gas-n-Gore
Hats off to you collective blog brain... A+ today.
Posted by: Dan | July 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Methanator
Posted by: Dawn Kleweno | July 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Scott,
Nice setup.
No really.
This was f*ing genius.
This has to be the most perfect blog post you've done.
Just hint at it and let the Great Blog Brain eventually get around to Gore. Then... it is all but inevitable really...
El Gore.
Butter my butt and call me a biscuit, I was crying I was laughing so hard.
An udderly beefalicious bullated punch line. Crafted. Moooving even. And from a vegetarian... the slight irony just makes it that much more beautiful.
Posted by: E | July 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
A methanator
Posted by: DL from Heidelberg | July 17, 2007 at 12:02 PM
funny post :) i guess that Mr Adams didn't really thinks that though
i like the post but from a more realistic point of view i believe that it's not up to America (or any other countries) to say if other countries traditions are moral or not
i guess you know already that others countries made fun of US because they never mind their own business? (i would like to see a Mr. Adams' post about this!)
p.s. can i vote for "El Toro Flatulato Impalerato Grande" above? :)
Posted by: LB | July 17, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Sorry, but the matador walked in there knowing what could happen, the bull didn't, so if the bull wins, great for him. As for the bull's name, I would have to go with El Gore...
Posted by: DF | July 17, 2007 at 11:48 AM
"I'll Gore"?
Posted by: Arnold | July 17, 2007 at 11:41 AM
There's a lot of evidence that the rest of the animal kingdom has just about had it with humans and are starting to fight back. Do a search on "angry elephant" on YouTube to see some examples - or look at the feature article in the New York Times magazine a few months ago about the same subject. You can tell from the videos - they're not just fighting back; they're doing it with attitude. Look at all the stories suddenly turning up about deer fighting back. They never did that before. There's definitely something going on here. The bulls have a major score to settle - and if they ever get a peek at the inside of your freezer ... well, I don't want to be there to see what happens next. Of course, Scott already knows this. That's why he's gone vegetarian.
Posted by: Jed Snole | July 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM
"Bonus question: What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?"
An SUV, driven by an old Asian woman.
Posted by: jeff | July 17, 2007 at 11:30 AM
First off, I personaly do not care for bull fighting, as I find it boring. I also have bigger concerns with the world than an animals rights to having a pleasent life before becoming my food.
It annoys the hell out of me that so many people put the needs of animals before those of people. I would bet that if you dressed up homless people in leather cow costumes paraded them around a ring before killing them, I would have to endure some media asshole ranting about how they used real leather instead of a synthetic costume.
and in answer to your question.... matadozer
Posted by: logjam | July 17, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I liked Greenhouse Gash
But that polluting bull wouldn't live in California, or they would send him to the arena. Bullfighting in California! Here's the PBS show to prove it:
"Toro! Toro! Toro! It may come as a surprise to many Californians that the tradition of bullfighting is alive and well in this state. During the summer, the Central Valley’s Portuguese community stages regular bullfights in the tradition of their homeland."
http://www.californiaconnected.org/tv/archives/475
Except they strap velcro on the bull and thats how the lance sticks, no blood. Apparently, it's allowed as a religious celebration in state law.
Posted by: Berimbau_one | July 17, 2007 at 11:17 AM
What would you name a bull that contributes to global warming, and stabs matadors with his horns?
Answer:
Hillary?
To quote the famous Bugs Bunny: A Nin-cow-poop!
Actually, my favorite answer so far is Gore, which took about 3.2 seconds to come up with.
Posted by: Bugs Bunny | July 17, 2007 at 11:17 AM
The Velvet Fog.
Posted by: Keith | July 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM
..... I'd call him "Good Boy".....
Posted by: volte | July 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Didn’t you once say - you would gladly sacrifice a non-American human to protect your American cat? So what if it were an American bullfighter and a French bull (before the USA got all friendly with the French again)?
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Damn it!
I need to get up earlier in the morning, so I can be the first person to say "Al Gore!"
Posted by: Matthew Kovich | July 17, 2007 at 11:11 AM
I'm glad i'm not the only one enjoying matadors getting owned even after puting 5-6 spears in bull.
Flatulence Gobber
Posted by: newblar | July 17, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Gas & Gore
Gee I hope you'll have Dilbert go to Spain on company business (on the way to see the mud people) and watch a bullfight. You could get a week's material on that.
Posted by: Buckshot | July 17, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Surely I can't be the first to come up with Herman Goring...
Posted by: Thor | July 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM
This post reminded me of this picture which I saw online the other day. It made me shudder, but I still loved it - http://images.ibsys.com/2007/0713/13677955_400X300.jpg
Posted by: pikes | July 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Ok, these are a stretch
Pierce Pooter
El Flatulent Flayer
The Windy Wounder
Posted by: Diana W | July 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Greenhouse Gash
Posted by: SafariShane | July 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Horn Blower. Immediately came to mind, and i really mean immediately.
Posted by: Cube Critter | July 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM
What would I name that bull?
"Son"
Posted by: Brad | July 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Actually, serial killers may very well masturbate after killing their "animal", I am repulsed to say.
Posted by: West Coast Woman | July 17, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Great post! Two ears and a tail for you!
Posted by: El Flatulente | July 17, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Hilariously observant post. And what are the classic matador clothes intended to make the man?
Posted by: QwkDrw | July 17, 2007 at 10:03 AM
climatador?
Posted by: Ocho | July 17, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I would have to name it Brandon after my friend who, also contributes to global warming by way of sphincter and likes to beat up people who deserve it... Plus he would like nothing better than to just eat, poop, and hump anything that moos for the remainder of his life
Posted by: Streder | July 17, 2007 at 10:02 AM
To anyone who says "I don't like bullfighting, but there are worse things we should spend our time on, I say - bullshit.
Just pass a law saying it's illegal. That's it.
Sure, there's tradition. But it was one "tradition" to own other human beings. Human sacrifice was once "traditional."
And what's worse - nuclear war or one case of rape? If you say "nuclear war," then why bother prosecuting rapists when we should all spend all our time and energy preventing nuclear war?
Yes, stupid argument. But it's stupid on purpose, rather than the accidental stupidity of anyone would would protect barbarism and animal torture because it's not an "emergency."
Posted by: Jesse | July 17, 2007 at 10:00 AM
You might like these pictures from the bull running at Pamplona this year; especially the 3rd picture, where you can see a particularly skillfull bull impale 2 brothers at the same time (in a spot, at your delight, where the sun doesn´t shine): http://www.knbc.com/slideshow/news/13679015/detail.html
... gore-bull warming ?
Posted by: Peter Huesken | July 17, 2007 at 09:59 AM
irrita-bull cattle-mounting turd inductor
Posted by: skelman | July 17, 2007 at 09:52 AM
El Meaño?
Posted by: ctrl.altered.mind | July 17, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Fluoro-chloro-Toro.
Posted by: Chillyrodent | July 17, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Bullfights are a continuation of Roman gladiatorial games and one aspect of human entertainment. In their quest for survival, humans eat, poop, and seek (carnal) pleasure in whichever way they can, just like the bulls.
The difference between killing a bull for meat on a farm and killing a bull as a part of entertainment, is that the entertaining bull has had a good life, being allowed to grow as strong as possible for a good fight. Normal bulls (and cows) are not given (even an unfair) chance to fight their oppressor, as they just stand strapped in line waiting for a piston to be pushed into their brain. Both get eaten after the event. If I were to reincarnate as a cow, I would prefer to go into the arena and have a ball with the matador.
If you denounce killing bulls for pleasure, you should also denounce any other human action which potentially decreases other life's pleasure. You know this isn't possible - part of each and every of your positive experiences (as relating to your food/poop/pleasure) harms another creature's potential or direct living experience. If humans were not the dominant species, we would not be able to limit the earth's other food/poop/pleasure seeking behaviour as conflicting with our own. And we each have our part in this.
Picking a fight with bullfights is too easy - it doesn't suit the intellectual in you.
Posted by: milk | July 17, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Bully for Bugs.
("Of course you realize this means war.")
Posted by: golfwidow | July 17, 2007 at 09:45 AM
Horngore Oxpoot
Posted by: Gene | July 17, 2007 at 09:45 AM
The Calgary Stampede is on now, 300km south of here. 3 horses died in a chuckwagon race last week, but the drivers escaped any major injuries. Like you, I cheer for the animals in these events. They're not going out of the way to torture the animals necessarily, but I figure putting them in such danger is often equivalent.
As for the bull's name, I prefer comical names of the form X-y Mc-something(big) or X-y Mc-verbsalot.
So I vote for Gassy McGoresalot or Stabby McMethane.
Posted by: JGoh | July 17, 2007 at 09:36 AM
This reminds me of my thoughts on deer hunting. Unlike bull fighting, I don't think it's barbaric or should be outlawed, and I don't think deer hunters are necessarily cruel or evil. That said, I don't have any sympathy for the hunters that have been attacked by bucks (like that one video on "When Animals Attack"). If you're trying to kill them, they have every right to try to kill *you*.
Posted by: Kim Scarborough | July 17, 2007 at 09:36 AM
WindJammer
Posted by: Gene | July 17, 2007 at 09:34 AM
I´m a hunter (Yes, with guns ´n´stuff) and I enjoy it like I enjoy the meat of the animals I harvest (Oviusly following local hunting laws and quotas), but I don´t give any dumb reason or excuse to justify my activity like those bullfight fans do. At least here these twits state things like "The bull dies with honor in a fight" (I´m sure the critter is as aware of honor as he´s worried about Paris Hilton gas bills) or "It´s part of a cultural heritage" (So was human sacrifice to many pre-Hispanic civilizations and I can´t still find tickets to any show, nor sponsors that are trying to stage one at a local theater, church or plaza). Plain staged and barbaric animal torture disguised as entretainment.
Posted by: Tony | July 17, 2007 at 09:31 AM
The answer to that question is -
Red Bull.
Posted by: Tanmay Bhat | July 17, 2007 at 09:30 AM
Stan
Posted by: eclecticdog | July 17, 2007 at 09:26 AM
Yaknow, all bulls and cows contribute to global warming via methane expulsions. Just sayin...
Posted by: Nick | July 17, 2007 at 09:24 AM
I thnk gas-n-gore wins hands down! lol! :-D
Posted by: indo | July 17, 2007 at 09:17 AM
What would I name a bull that contributes