A blog about Personal Journals.
Real Name: Tina Chudilowsky Cell: ()- Gender: female Member Since: June 14, 2006 Last Signed In: October 07, 2008 Profile Views: 6926 Blog Views: 10844 One sick kid! Americas Got Talent Redneck Carnival Ride Lana's new grandbaby Drunken Animals :0) Funny's She deserves every penny + more! Eight Is Enough To rescue or not to rescue...That is MY question :0) Beautiful! June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Stop animal cruelty!
26 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:20 PM
As cruel as bullfighting is, it is at least more sporting than the slaughterhouses. And the "Running of the Bulls", while still inhumane, is even more sporting.That's why I always root for the bulls, and always cheer when a bullfigher (or some stupid tourist) gets nailed. posted by
johnburnssucks
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:28 PM
I saw a program on bullfighting about 25 years ago that was narrated by Ed Asner. It changed my opinion on bullfighting forever. One thing I learned is that the reason the matador's cape is red is so the blood doesn't show.
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:40 PM
I also root for the bulls. I only wish they would stop and leave these poor animals alone. Anyone involved in this should be gored ! yes, to death in my opinion.
posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:42 PM
How anti-cultural
posted by
blognroll
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Anyone involved in this should be gored ! I thought being "gored" meant being subjected to one too many lectures from Al Gore on global warming. posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:48 PM
There are so many more animal cruelty causes you could root for. Read the back of your shampoo and conditioner bottles. Or how about your lotion. Maybe your cologne. They usually say, finished product not tested on animals. That doesn't mean that along the way, while they were still perfecting their product that some innocent rabbit, or dog, or rat wasn't harmed by a product that was too harsh. I'm not a fan of bullfighting, but P.E.T.A. can tell you, bullfighting is not as big a deal as American product testing. Rant on and work for a cause, just remember that some of the things you may use everyday cause just as much damage.
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:50 PM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:51 PM
I'm going to have to agree with mattloch on this one. (I know, it's rare)
posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:51 PM
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Do not use products tested on animals! Here is a list... Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, mutilated, tortured, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. The Following Companies make products that are Tested On Animals ( Cats, Dogs, Kittens, Puppies, Rabbits, Primates, and other animals ) Check the back of everything you buy if it's made by the following companies dont buy them and if you have them at your home throw them away. DON'T SUPPORT COMPANIES THAT TEST ON OUR ANIMAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 9, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Robb, the American take on it is slightly different:
 I also see it as a cultural phenomenon, and have read many philosophical defenses of it. I don't see it as any worse than what we do to cows (and bulls) here in America. While I appreciate the occasional steak, I'm sure I'd appreciate it much more if I had to go out and kill (and carve) it. Even more so if the only weapon I had was a sword. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 9, 2007 at 02:07 PM
"For there is truly nothing more beautiful in this world...than the sight of a lone man...facing singlehandedly a half a ton of angry pot roast." --Tom Lehrer, "Guadalajara."
posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 9, 2007 at 02:39 PM
*Pet Food Brands To Boycott* Certainly don't want my pet's food tested on animals. Chewy and Bogey only receive dog food that doesn't kill a redwood tree... posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 9, 2007 at 03:55 PM
I like steak, I wouldn't like steak so much if I had to slaughter it myself, especially with a sword!?. I like fresh chicken eggs. I like to eat chickens, but I don't want to pluck them. I love going fishing and catching what I eat, I don't even mind cleaning them. Pretty much anything goes. I'm not a gross person who wants to eat raw dogs or anything, I am just accustomed to this way of life. And if all of the edible animals were to disappear, I wouldn't be terribly sad, but as long as they're here, fire up the grill:) I'm sorry if that's offensive. And bullfighting just seems to be a battle of the fittest between man and bull. Although that's just a personal opinion and I have no real research to show that to be true. If the guys isn't killed first why not let him kill the bull. Although I might feel better about it if they used the bull later for food or something. Does that happen?
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 9, 2007 at 05:27 PM
It is not a fair fight 'man against bull' it is a evil mean thing and the animal ALWAYS loses.
posted by
steveeswenson
on Jul 10, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Tina,That's a heck of a list. I think I buy some of those products. Bottom line is testing on animals beats the alternative (testing on people) and has been instrumental in improving the health of people. As for bullfighting, that makes me wince and I wouldn't go see such an event. But killing animals for food is pretty much how many of the animals eat too. posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 10, 2007 at 07:58 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/... That's just funny 'the cows want to run too'. tchudilowsky, the animal doesn't always lose. If the crowd doesn't feel like the matador did a good job then they boo him and he isn't allowed to kill the bull. Although I'm guessing that isn't going to make you feel any better about the situation. Sorry.
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 10, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Steve, I would prefer they tested on inmates and/or gang members but, hey, lets not go there at this time :0) ha ha
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I would prefer that they be tested on corporate executives and lawyers. As in the old joke, there's less of a chance for the researchers to get personally fond of the test subjects.
posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
inmates and gang members? wow, such hatred for your own species, yet such care for another.
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 10, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Oh give me a break! Are you defending disgusting gang members and criminals? If so conversations over. There's NO excuse for that.
posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 10, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Why would I defend disgusting gang members and criminals? After all, they're disgusting and they're criminals! Seriously, I understand and even respect a lifestyle free of animal cruelty and not eating animals. But I respect even more the human race. I absolutely disagree with any idea of human scientific experimentation. Unless of course it is a consenting adult that fully understands the possible affects of said experimentation. posted by
ceeceehowell
on Jul 10, 2007 at 01:13 PM
And if there is no excuse for the defense of disgusting gang members and criminals, I'd like you to sit down with "disgusting gang members and criminals" that have been wrongly accused and convicted and tell them they didn't deserve a defense because someone got their "facts" wrong.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 10, 2007 at 01:40 PM
Someone is a little *testy* today. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would think it's a good idea to do forced clinical trials and other types of inhumane testing on someone that is paying their debt to society. I guess if you are only picturing the worst most menacing gangbanger you can imagine, it is easier to justify. I wouldn't be surprised if you were all gung ho about torture as well.
posted by
tchudilowsky
on Jul 10, 2007 at 02:53 PM
~~sigh~~
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 15, 2007 at 05:13 PM
The bulls aren't exactly "defenseless" during the running, you know......
1
Our readers recommend: |
