May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Duh News | Main | Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow »





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.

Anon Y. Mous

"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.


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.


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.

Aditya Simha

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!



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.


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.


schadenfreude... :))
weird name



El- Fartador


so what perm is saying is that its okay to paonfully torture and slaughter animals as long as they live a good life beforehand.


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


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.


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)






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!


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?)







Olli Lindholm

Bonus question: bell bull. There could be some kind of watch around thebulla and tekst: how much longer till nature kicks your arse.


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.


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).


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.