7/13/2004: Baited bull
 

http://cellar.org/2004/baitedbull.jpg

The Spanish bull running events are always publicized but what about this? This is bull baiting, where the bull is encouraged to run right into the drink. I don't think this is the same form thought to be cruel in the past...? (I guss the damp lassie pulling herself out of the water has baited a bull, if not this one, a previous one.)

Apparently it's not bad for the bulls, not as bad as getting a NASCAR number etched right onto their sides. They get pulled out of the water quickly after they jump into it.

If they aren't hurt I imagine it would be just hilarious to see this massive animal chasing you and then, running right over the edge and making a big splash.

I would have thought the biggest problem would be dropping in fast enough without jumping forward enough to have the danger of a couple of tons of angry animal with sharp bits landing on you.

I have got to go to this thing one one of these years.

Haaaa, she almost looks like, "What Da F**k?!?!?" :D

Nice capture shot. :thumpsup:

This would be a hell of a lot funnier if the bull just happened to look at the camera right then.

bastards.

how can anyone get pleasure out of poor animals (whom from the pictorial evidence look to me in very bad shape, and cruelly branded) running around confused and frightned and then being tricked into plunging into the water. I love it when the bulls end up sticking people. serves them right.

bastards!

Sparkie, those people are morons. You will never convince them of it, though. People with that mentality think that we humans are above all other life on Earth, and anything we want to do is OK. Much like some members of the US government! :mad2:

Make up your mind...are you talking about humans, or are you talking about members of the US government?

Last I saw the score it was Bulls 18, Humans 0, no fatalities in Pamplona.

Very good Els, I like that. :thumb:

You do raise a good question. We know that Bush is human - no animal could be that dumb, but what about Rumsfeld? :eyebrow:

Not everybody in spain...
 

Not everybody in Spain like bullfighting. In fact there is a LOT of people that hate it (like myself).

The bad thing about Pamplona is not the "encierro" in the morning (bulls wins in this one, two days ago, eight men hurted), but the same bulls are killed in the "corrida" in the afternoon.

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."-KJV

Here is a different version:
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.'" -NLT

If you believe The Bible, we ARE above all other life on earth (including vegitation in a different passage).

God said it - I believe it.

And if you give your kid a puppy, is it funny if he pokes it with needles until it dies?

bullshit. god didnt say it. god didnt say anything. some fucking hippie said it 2000 years ago, and dumbasses have been regurgitating it ever since.

feh

What exactly do they do with the bulls after they're killed? Is there a big BBQ afterwards or are they dumped somewhere to rot? Personally, I'd be happier to hear that they're put to good use after being killed.

"some fucking hippie"?
 

dude... why the vitriol? I'm a Christian, and I don't feel the need to call Mohammed a "fucking terrorist", and I don't call Déscartes a "fucking satanist"... please be a little more tolerant, and maybe dabble a little into history and sociology before you generalise a person as a 'hippie' who said inane stuff that 'dumbasses' have been 'regurgitating', as if we're all sheep.

(true, many Christians are sheep, but that doesn't mean every Christian is a sheep...)

by the way, crazy picture. poor beastie.

You're proabably not going to get very far speaking on matters of faith. I'd say the board members [ha!] are pretty pragmatic. I believe in some translations that it can be interpreted as "stewardship", not "mastery". Some folks don't handle absolute power in a rational way.

pdaoust you sound quite reasonable, it's just we get people like onyxcougar who feels the need to point out that evolution is clearly wrong at every given opportunity.

Personally I just love the phrase "every creeping thing that creepeth", I can't wait to work that into conversation somehow.

yeah, you're right. I was grumpy this morning. It's just that we've had that discussion several times, and it twists my nipples when people tell me that GOD said it because it's in the bible. God did not write the bible, man did. and the hippie thing was a joke, because I'm some fucking hippie. the dumbass comment was indeed a generalization, but it isn't neccessarily incorrect. dumbasses HAVE been regurgitating that line of thinking. There are several christians here that i completely respect, like smooth, OC, and mrnoodle?? (awol) but I think it's wrong for people to espouse the notion that we are free to do as we please to the other animals on this planet just because it says so in that book. If I were to believe in the christian god for the sake of this discussion, it would be my position that he'd want us to treat them with respect even as we eat them, or use their resources for clothing, etc. tormenting them and then killing them is NOT OK. I dont care if you're christian, muslim or martian. just common sense. I am tolerant of other religions. Intolerant of dumbasses.

As a non-xtian, but a student of people, language, and the mind, the word dominion makes perfect sense.

That was written at a time when there was a greater undestanding of the concepts of lordship and royalty. At that time dominion had more of an implied responsibility to whatever or whomever you had dominion over.

The concept "noblesse oblige" comes to mind.

Similar to the suberviant wife you're meant to do a very good job of making sure is happy I think.

Just to poke needles at the burning ljim:

The Qur'an came fairly directly. God -> Gabriel -> Mohammad -> people; a little while after the prophet croaked, they wrote it down. A few years later they standardized it into one authoritative copy. The society then (and its remnants now) had a strong oral culture: memorizing stuff thoroughly was commonplace. Is it this more justifiably the 'word of god'?

nope

Heavy with the vitriole today jaguar?

I said it made sense in the context of the time it was written in and that it is now not understood properly by people.

As far as noblesse oblige goes, I'm fine with it as long as both people agree to the terms of the relationship. If one side or the other is unhappy about it, it is their responsibility to change the terms of that relationship or the nature of their relative power levels.

Relax.

:p Wasn't Christ the lamb of God?

It also served it purpose in those times that it was rewritten, too.

TS, there is no e at the end of vitriol and you misunderstood me. I was being perfectly serious. I don't know the specifics (the only books I'd read that are that fat have Stepherson on the cover) but as far as I am aware the verses to do with the wife being subservient to the man imply the same thing - a level of responsibility for well-being that comes with power. It does indeed make sense in when you take into account the temporal context and everyone loves picking their favorite bits of scripture only these days.

I was simply pointing out the similarity in the misunderstanding of both bits, that's all. Yeesh, absent minded caustic posting, I should watch that.

WHAT'S THAT SMELL??

Oh, someone left the Irony on

i think TS thought you were referring to his and ladysidhe's brief spat that made it up here

Very tasty with mint jelly.

lumberjim, apologies for the angry post. Your second post put things more into context for me. I agree with you that it's abhorrent that people feel like they're free to do as they please to animals (and I'd include trees, waterways, soil, etc) because it 'says so in the Bible'... that's an example of people using their religious texts to sanction their own selfishness. Maybe it's because I was raised by hippie Catholic parents (a rare breed), but I think 'stewardship' is a much better, and probably more accurate, interpretation. I just can't accept that we would be allowed to screw up the earth.

Here's my opinion about the matter. Think about this for a sec: you give your son a car for his graduation gift. He says, "thanks, Dad," and proceeds to treat it like crap, bashing the hell out of it, putting diesel fuel in it, forgetting to top up the oil, running 80 km/h in second gear, etc. Aren't you going to pretty cheesed? If I were that dad, I'd start thinking I shoulda kept the car for myself. He obviously doesn't know how to take care of the stuff I gave him. (noblesse oblige, as TS said.)

So it's my opinion that environmentalism and friendliness-to-animals is an integral part of Christianity that Christians just can't afford to ignore. It makes me very angry when Christians say that environmentalism is somehow incompatible with Christianity.

wow, am I ever off-topic!

no problem. i don't think you were out of line. and it would seem as though you are certainly not one of the afforementioned dumbasses. i see that you've been here a while, but as it's the first I recall encountering you, welcome to the sphere of my awareness. yah hippie freak! :)

Hi--um, not to rock anymore religious boats but didn't the Qu'ran go through Abraham to? Isn't he the spiritual father of all three monotheisms? 'Course that doesn't help the little beastie, does it? I think it's fab that we started with a picture of a bull jumping into water and got to religion...way to go!

This often happens in the cellar. There are basically two waring groups. The Christians with their constant pushing of their ridiculous beliefs that have absolutely no scientific basis, and the atheists (or at least non believers), who strongly believe in the value of scientific research and analysis.

I can feel the heat building up under my chair already... :sweat:

No bulls were injured in the creation of this thread. ;)

thanks for the welcome, bluesdave---and I want to make it clear that I am hedging my bets on everything--I don't even like to say "agnostic"--BUT to play devil's advocate (all apologies to the "real" one!) nobody thought Troy was real, either. If you asked me to prove my own exsistence I don't know if I could! (but that's just me...)

Wrong again. Anyone, who has spent any time here at all, knows we have many fault lines in the cellar and many gradations of competing spiritual religous and irreligous concepts regarding scientific truth... watch your step newbie, you're on one right now.[/half joking]

"I think, therefore I am" is enough to prove one's own existence. But there's no way to prove one's own existence to another.

i think that if you punch them in the mouth, and they bleed, you've proven your existence. then they'd have to think about the blood running down their chin, and what caused it.

You are way too sensitive Griff. I never said that everyone in the cellar falls into one of two groups. It wasn't necessary for me to fill in every detail. The fact that some people fall between the two extremes, does not negate my statement at all. Some of you people seem to think that every posting has to be a PhD dissertation. That's ridiculous. I did my time at university nearly 30 years ago, and I'm trying to enjoy life a little now.[/not joking] :mad2:

Right on LJ! :thumb:

No blood letting! And I hope I don't have to have a Ph.D dissertation on anything because I don't have one. Shucks! :blush:

Oh, not at all.

If you were to punch me in the mouth and I were to bleed all over my chin, that would prove to me that <STRONG>I</STRONG> existed, yes. But that's about it. My imagination could easily conjure up such an eventuality juuuust fine without your being involved at all, thankyouverymuch.

I'm not even entirely convinced that it would constitute proof that I existed.

If I think, and therefore am, and I tell you that I did, in fact just punch you in the mouth.......you could argue that imagination point all day long. if the assumption is that anything could be a figment of imagination, then the only thing that is certainly real is your imagination. In any case, you are not in control of that imagination, so the difference between actual existence and imagined is irrelevant. You live in my reality, I live in yours. ~~I feel so close to you now....and all because I punched you in the mouth~~

I think Happy monkey said something like that in about 1/3 of the time....

Real men (and women), don't have to. :lol:

Remember boy and girls, saying someone is noone is incurs a $500 fine these days.

I don't think I said evolution is "clearly wrong", but it's certainly NOT provable, and it's certainly not science. Evolution is a RELIGION, just as much as Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, Islam, Confucianism, Agnosticism... (insert your particular ism here...)

And no one can PROVE that God exists any more than we can PROVE he doesn't.

It's all about faith, brother. Just a matter of what flavor yours comes in.

And for the record, there have been plenty of opportunities where I *could* have mentioned how evolution isn't science and DIDN'T. So it's not "every given opportunity". But it's nice to see you noticed when I did. :)

There's a good set of articles on evolution in the new (Nov. 2004) National Geographic, if you're curious.

yes, I know; I enjoyed the lovely layout and photos.

oh yeah, there were words there too; I didn't read them ^_^ sometimes I'll get way into a Nat'l Geo article -- but that night I was tired so I just looked at the pictures and read a few captions.

And I'm not ashamed.

I have 56 years of back issues you can read. ;)

The paper ones or the electronic collection?

wowowowowowo

xoxoxoBruce: with pictures??? oh boy! ^_^

Just to totally derail the current flamewar...

Got any other pics of the girl in the water????

I object to the way Nat Geo presented it, essentially as the biggest Troll cover they've ever done, if they've ever done a Troll cover. It says "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" in shit-brown caps. Then if you look inside, there's more than a bit of venom as they basically state "No, dumbshit". If they'd just said something like "Darwin's Legacy" or "The Case for Evolution", that would have been better.

Well frankly, in an age where fundie nutters are pushing their agendas in schools (at least in the US, that particular brand of religious pestilence doesn't seem to have much of a footing this side of the Atlantic) someone needs to stand up and say it loud and clear. The fact it's a question that needs to be asked at all is the real worry.

I thought it was an amusing tweak of the current depressing trend in popular media of covering everything in a "balanced" way. If one side has evidence and the other has only assertions, they are still treated as if it were only a he-said-she-said, and no reporters are willing to actually report what the evidence shows.

I am one of those nutters, though not fundie. Change over time is inevitable given billions of years, I would never argue that. I'd like to see if it's possible to model how organic compounds suddenly generate self-replicating molecules. The building blocks of life litterally litter every nook and cranny of space, from asteroids, to comets, to recently dicovered free-drifting clouds of organics in deep space. Lipids will even form primitive analogs of cells walls if immersed in water, but I'd like to know how, and in what exact conditions life will arise.

If we've evolved from apes, so be it. It should prove that we are part of this planet and not above it. It should also be natural that we strive to transcend that basic beginning, and seek the divine.

We will always end up with more questions and dichotomies than answers, but we should never stop asking those questions. The price for enlightenment, as well as freedom, is eternal vigilance, and patience.

huh???

Science is all about finding the theory that fits best and running with that until something better comes along, as it stands there is a wealth of evidence to support evolution and nothing to bring it down. Creationism, intelligent design or whatever other robes it gets dressed up in is nothing more than religious twaddle and has no fit place in scientific discourse, it has no supporting evidence and no basis in science. thus no place anywhere near an educational institution outside a monastery. People can hold whatever religious views they want but when they start trying to stifle science and inflict their superstitions on everyone else I tend to get pretty fucking pissed off. Organised religion has done more damage than any other force in history and done the most to retard the growth of humanity it's death would be a blessing on mankind, that in this day and age it can still threaten science is a sad fact indeed.