one dead in pamplona bull run

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

Quote:

out of interest, what is the moral argument in favour of bull-fighting?

you can clearly see the bull is having fun

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:54 am

r2d2 wrote:

back in the good old days, the horses were routinely gored and had a similar life expectancy to the bulls,
but nowadays they have side blankets for protection from the horns, if not the momentum of a charge.
the lucky ones can last for 3-4 fights before a crushed ribcage or broken leg ends its career.

Memo to self: Don't take Sunshine to the corrida.

Look I don't approve of or support bullfighting. I was being flippant and taking the p*** out of PETA (as I'm guessing most people here are), an organisation some of whose members have told me in no uncertain terms that my horse Sunshine is my "slave" and should be "free".

So I get up at 6am, feed horses, brush horses, let horses out to wander around large field, pick up horse poo, make beds for horses, pay vet large amount of money for partial dorsal hoof wall resection for small pony who got poorly feet because previous idiot owner used to feed it mars bars... and then go to work to pay for the above. Not sure who the slave is here but it isn't the horse!

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:55 am

@Klaasvaak. Yup. He's having the time of his life. Jammy bovine bastard.

And it's only fair that he should have his nuts chopped off in the arena as payback for all those good times.

What goes around comes around.

As for morality?
I find it morally reprehensible that someone can suggest that it is OK for a bull to gore some innocent dude who's only crime is running down the road wearing a Scooby Doo scarf, yet would let the bull go unpunished.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 26 Sep 2008 Posts: 689

Where's the rabbit in all this?

http://www.animationusa.com/cmap02/cmapwb70.htm

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:44 pm

Craig007 wrote:

Quote:

out of interest, what is the moral argument in favour of bull-fighting?

We want to, therefore we can.

point to me, i think Wink

Quote:

I think PETA is just an utter facade for terrorism

be sure to pass your evidence to law enforcement then - they take a dim view of terrorists, and quite right too!
anyone found guilty of supporting or advocating terrorism for any cause should be locked away for a very long time.

Quote:

you can clearly see the bull is having fun

nah, animals can't experience emotions, remember?
joking aside, there is a <balanced article on wikipedia about 'emotion in animals'>

Quote:

I get up at 6am, feed horses, brush horses, let horses out to wander around large field, pick up horse poo, make beds for horses, pay vet

sounds like you've been pwned! Smile

sorry if a few extremists have given you a hard time - next time remind them that the E stands for ethical, and ask them to clarify which of your duties they regard as unethical.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

The Senate know:

"We will learn today of a growing network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”), a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization has given money to ELF [Chart #5 – PETA tax return] and ELF/ALF members while acting as the spokesgroup for ELF and ALF after committing acts of terrorism. [Chart #6 – PETA document stating they are spokesgroup] Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA was invited to testify at today’s hearing but declined the Committee’s invitation."

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266

The bint in charge refused to comment - hmmm.

Animals can't have emotions. It's just not possible. I actually had a statement written about that in a previous post, but I had to remove it.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:16 pm

r2d2 wrote:

Quote:

I think PETA is just an utter facade for terrorism

be sure to pass your evidence to law enforcement then - they take a dim view of terrorists, and quite right too!

You're a member of a group yet you know nothing about their connections to terrorism?

Quote:

anyone found guilty of supporting or advocating terrorism for any cause should be locked away for a very long time.

I guess we should say good-bye to you then? Wink

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2339

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:49 pm

thanks for that reference craig - interesting reading.
as a brit i have not seen these materials before, although i had heard of them.
took me a while to read them.

i can see now why you use the term 'terrorism' when most brits would probably use a milder term - even 'civil disobediance' in some cases.
it seems that the patriot act gave a new [broader] legal definition to the term 'terrorism'.
whether or not you approve of laboratory break-ins to rescue lab animals or similar stunts,
it is a fact that those activities were not classed as terrorism before the patriot act, but after it they were.
in the uk, such acts would still never be classed as terrorism, which is part of the reason why i had difficulty understanding your terminology.
but at least i understand where it comes from now.

my understanding is that there is a popular misconception that money was given by peta to help the alf/elf engage in further terrorist / civil disobedience / whatever activities,
but the exhibits actually show that most [all?] was given to the defence fund of an individual charged with an offence.
also, my understanding is that the reason for supporting him was because his defence team intended to challenge the constitutionality of the patriot act's new/broader definition of 'terrorism'.

i'm no expert in the usa's constitution, or its provision for free speech and civil liberties, or the legal mechanisms for testing new laws against the provisions of the constitution,
but i hope you will agree there is quite a big difference between (a) seeking to clarify the constitutionality of a relatively new law, and (b) an act of actual terrorism.
peta was involved in the former, not the latter.

you realise, i hope, that the senate's investigation was looking at two other organisations,
and that peta was never the focus, although it is mentioned several times.
also, the exhibits were written 'before we hear testimony from our witnesses', and date from 2005 -
they do not reflect the senate's eventual understanding of the situation.

in the subsequent 4 years, and as far as i know, neither peta nor any of its officers was found guilty of any offence in connection with this investigation,
and neither peta nor any of its officers has ever been charged with terrorism.

so although the documents were interesting,
and i can see why peta's opponents would seek to highlight them and even misrepresent them,
i'm still not clear why anyone still thinks that peta was ever involved in terrorism.

edit; nah, you won't get rid of me that easily, slightly Smile

i still have plenty of lads to attend to.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

You can't deny the fact that the document references, from PETA's OWN RECORDS, that they gave money to the ALF & ELF. Regardless if that money was intentioned to buy the chairman a new Jaguar, or to buy a cache of break in equipment doesn't matter. PETA are FUNDING terrorists, which, under my umbrella, means they ARE terrorists. Regardless if it was for a defence fund or not, it does not mean the money was used for the intended purpose.

The connotations surrounding these organistations should have made PETA run a mile. If I send Bin Laden some cash intentioned for a beard shave, and he spends it on some .50 cal bullets, that's my problem.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:20 pm

This thread has been reported for getting way off topic, remember we had a vigorous 'sea kitten' debate a while back.

Back to the Pamplona thang, I saw a video of the fatal goring, other people got much more of a mauling, this dude just copped for a long pointy horn in the neck, which can be pretty fatal for most people.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:35 pm

Craig007 wrote:

You can't deny the fact that the document references, from PETA's OWN RECORDS, that they gave money to the ALF & ELF.

actually, i can, at least in the case of the alf -
in the exhibits you posted, there was no charge and no evidence that peta ever supported the alf financially.

in the case of the elf, i peered more closely at the evidence you provided.
the payment was tiny ($1,500) but i agree with you that it is the principle that matters.

although the hearing was held in 2005, the exhibit dates from April 2001 [4 years before the hearing]
it also pre-dates the patriot act [signed october 2001], and therefore relates to a period when the activities of the elf had not been legally re-defined as 'terrorist'.
as i said earlier, before oct 2001 the alf/elf activities would probably have been classed as civil disobedience or whatever the usa legal term is.

in the 4 years between the signing of the patriot act and the hearing, there were presumably no donations by peta to alf or elf,
else those payments would presumably have been brought forwards as evidence.

so, based heavily on your evidence, i think i've established that peta has never made a payment to a person or an entity defined as terrorist at the time of the payment,
that there is no evidence of peta making payments to any organisations classified as terrorist after the patriot act came into effect,
and that peta and its officers have never been charged with or found guilty of terrorist activities.

ready to concede yet? Wink

edit; sorry, was drafting a reply while you were posting, roy.
i will have to look up 'sea kittens' - if there was a thread about it, i missed it.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:45 pm

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=155504

As you can see, it had to be locked after it all went a bit tits up.

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:46 pm

I think like most people here (reading between the lines, adding my own interpretion and then coming up with the answer I want), I am not in favour of bullfighting at all...

In fact, it makes me angry and a bit sick that this is still popular, and still mainstream 'sport' in an EU country! :O

But what p's me off even more than bullfighting is being told I'm not suppose to like it by groups like PETA!

Aren't they the fundamentalist nutjobs who think no-one should even have a companion pet? I need to check my facts on that, but I'm lazy and if I'm wrong someone will correct me Wink

I think stopping activities like bullfighting would be somewhat more successful without extremists fighting for the cause! It just puts us 'normal' people off, evidenced by the replies here that show it's more desirable to support Bullfighting and take the piss out of PETA than risk being allied with such a radical group! Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

Quote:

Aren't they the fundamentalist nutjobs who think no-one should even have a companion pet? I need to check my facts on that, but I'm lazy and if I'm wrong someone will correct me Wink

I think stopping activities like bullfighting would be somewhat more successful without extremists fighting for the cause! It just puts us 'normal' people off!

Hear hear! There is no need for correction, that is 100% correct and 100% fact.

Now, back on topic... Embarassed

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:28 pm

sheila_blyge wrote:

PETA ... Aren't they the fundamentalist nutjobs who think no-one should even have a companion pet? I need to check my facts on that, but I'm lazy and if I'm wrong someone will correct me Wink

yes you do, and yes they will, sheila Wink

there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone sharing a home with a pet
(or a companion animal - not sure why we needed a special term for them).
there are animal welfare issues in the pet trade, and it would be nice if pet owners helped to address those problems.
the main problem is an overpopulation crisis in many breeds / species [the unsold pups / kittens / etc are put down],
so we'd encourage people to avoid 'puppy farms' and disreputable breeders,
get their pets spayed or neutered, and consider giving a home to an animal from a shelter.

i know, i know - it's crazy, dangerously revolutionary stuff, and flies in the face of common sense.
here is the party line... http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:04 pm

PETA believe that all professional dog-breeders should be put out of business and that only animals from rescue shelters should be allowed as pets. Not just "disreputable breeders". To state otherwise is fallacious. Don't believe me? Go take a look at the abuse PETA members heap on dog-breeders who try to defend themselves on PETA forums.

And like I'm gonna take an animal who's breeding and background I know jack-shit about and have him live in a family home with young kids.

Isn't it ironic that they don't like shelters and would prefer to see animals killed by lethal injection instead?

Fuck that. It's not ironic. It's downright hypocritical, illogical bullshit.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

/\/\/\ that is not true, PETA euthanises about 80% of their shelter animals

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:39 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/story?columnist=guest_columnist&page=g_col_PETA_ELF_NYPost

Cloaks and daggers abound...Google for more!

Don't forget the slander of those without a Central Nervous System! Plants have feelings too!

http://www.earthweek.com/2008/ew080418/ew080418g.html

edit - added above link, YAY Swiss folks!

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:27 am

@slightly - i have sympathy for your point about bringing an unknown animal into a home with young kids.
it's a fair point and i won't argue against it - in fact i would probably feel the same.
i suggested people should "consider giving a home to an animal from a shelter" - i didn't say it was the right decision for everyone.

and i'll take the point about forums as read. forums are bear-pits sometimes,
and people sometimes make ridiculous and unfounded statements in them [as you know].

the basic problem with the pet trade is that millions of animals are put down every year because homes cannot be found for them.
there is a simple supply & demand problem, and it follows that we have a choice:
either we [society] continue to massively overproduce puppies, kittens, etc.
or we address the oversupply problem by reducing the supply
or we address the under-demand problem [but i think we can agree it would not be sensible to make pet-keeping compulsory].

if we address the over-supply problem, it follows that the number of dog-breeders will decline over time,
and it equally follows that all dog-breeders will NOT go out of business, despite what our opponents would have you believe.
i only advocated avoiding disreputable breeders - there is no moral or economic argument for keeping them.

@badgerbait - thanks for the link to that 2006 article.
it seems to confirm that the fishing trip for peta-terrorism links made no progress since 2005.
any further developments since then, apart from rehashing the same stall stuff?

@klaasvaark - yes it's a problem - what's your solution?

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:46 am

NNN wrote:

Quote:

Do you qualify for a Darwin if you do something (totally stupid) that proves to be fatal even after due consideration? Aren't Darwins given to those bozos that take themselves out of the gene pool without thinking about it?

Darwin awards are given to those who through stupid actions remove themselves from the gene pool. It can be unthinking stupidity (rashness) or conscious stupidity (ie thought it through but either missed a step or chose to disregard the danger).

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:36 am

Here's my solution...

r2d2 wrote:

i know, i know - it's crazy, dangerously revolutionary stuff, and flies in the face of common sense.
here is the party line... http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

Thanks for the link, I had forgotten all about google.

Here's another one of which some people may be unaware. http://www.peta.org/forums/index.asp

There's not even a topic posted within the last 30 days about Pamplona, or a death in the running of the bulls (much like this thread) so posting there would be doing them a huge favor. Very Happy

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:18 am

Here's one for the bull Thumbs up

Seems fair to me.

IBTL

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:06 am

jose_cuervo wrote:

There's not even a topic posted within the last 30 days about Pamplona, or a death in the running of the bulls (much like this thread) so posting there would be doing them a huge favor. Very Happy

actually, there was - http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/07/hundreds_die_in.php
although as you would expect the headline is "Hundreds Die in Pamplona" Wink

maybe i should edit the thread subject?

the last guy to die was actually 6 years ago [not 15], but he wasn't gored.
a bull stood on his head and he spent a while in a coma.

Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:25 am

Sorry mate, but I could give a shit less, just a bit tired of being force-fed your opinion is all.

Oh, let me guess, I wasn't forced to read any of it right? That may be a correct assumption, but I do frequently read off-topic posts. I just cant stand to see posts where someone decides it is their mission to proselytize on any particular subject and show complete disregard for anyone else's opinion except their own.

I don't really care what you think of me or anyone else here, but for fuck sake show a bit of intelligence/courtesy/respect and get back on topic when a moderator asks you to.

(as if a random death in the bull run was ever really the topic of this thread)

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 26 Sep 2008 Posts: 689

Thaks Yastreb, I love a good Darwin award story Smile

A 2000 Darwin Award nominee .....

Quote:

(14 May 2000, France) A Berlin woman attempting to capture a memorable photo of the Running Bulls in the southern town of Nimes paid for her stupidity with her life on Sunday. The 68-year-old photographer removed a metal safety barricade and stood in the middle of the street with her camera to her eye, searching for the best camera angle. She was knocked over by a horse whose startled rider could not stop in time, then trampled by the horse and six rampaging bulls before being rescued from the street. She was flown to a nearby hospital, where she died from her injuries,

one dead in pamplona bull run	View next topic View previous topic