Grand National 2012

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

In the quote below you suggest that animals should be treated in the exact same way as humans. When i called you on this you suggested that i was saying animals were objects. i was not i was suggesting that animals are a third option between humans and objects (and i don't mean half way between either.) That by anthromophising horses you are doing your anti curelty argument a disservice, by not recognising the diffence between the needs of an animal and the needs of a human. It also hypocritical which brings me on to....

I think we have misconstrue one another's meaning here Firstly, I didn't say that animals should be treated in exactly the same way as humans as such. I was simply trying to point out the hypocrisy in our actions. Why is it justifiable to abuse an animal when we wouldn't like the same done to us? This is more about empathy than slavery.

Now I was never anthropomorphism horses, they are living beings and they should be treated as such. There is no middle ground here, you can not view them as anything other than a living animal. I don't see how our needs factors in to this argument, because what need are we fulfilling by treating horses in this way? There is no justification for cruelty to animals.

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

You are explicitly saying if you would not do it to a human it should not be done to an animal. Well owning a human being is called slavery and owning an animal is having a pet. I and you i hope would not buy a human child to be my pet but i would buy a dog. So i (and again you) would and do treat animals differently. In humans it would be called slavery no matter how well intentioned in animals it is pets. Society makes the concious decision that some things that are unacceptable to do to humans are acceptable to do to animals. Again i don;t necessarly disagree with you about the need to minimise cruelty to animals, it was your comment about not doing things to animals that you would not do to humans that i had to call you on.

Also the bigger fish to fry argument does bring to mind the old adage that it says a lot about our socitey that the anti cruelty to animals charity is a royal society while the anti cruelty to children is just a national society.

Yes, but this was in regards to cruelty and animal abuse, specifically the treatment of horses. I think you have misunderstood my meaning somewhat here.

Ah so "cruelty" as an industry, as opposed to cruelty to the actual horses in the national. Think that's where we've got our wires crossed. The story does not change my mind on the conditions the horses themselves enjoy, but yes i'll give you that serious questions need to be asked of the industry itself. Although i would point out that pretty much the same accusations of "cruelty" could be thrown at the meat industry, pedigree dogs, dairy industry etc.

Yes, cruelty within the entire horse racing industry, which does include the national. I admit that yes some horses are no doubt treated well. But there are some practices which are reprehensible.

I agree, cruelty is present within other aspects of our society and is equally unjustifiable.

[Sensei Ping]

all "industries" have a dark side, more human beings were killed by work than were killed by warfare throughout the 20th century - can't imagine that will change much over the course of 21st century

I'm all for banning all kinds of paid labour - whose with me?

at least the 2.65 million UK unemployed are safe[-ish]

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

I'm all for banning all kinds of paid labour - whose with me?

Now there is something we agree on! People shouldn't be made to work, giving up your life for the benefit of someone else, who no doubt dosen't appreciate what you do is wrong!

[Sensei Ping]

fantastic! - just need a third person and we've got a pressure group , and we'll have to think of name

[pmyumjr]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Now there is something we agree on! People shouldn't be made to work, giving up your life for the benefit of someone else, who no doubt dosen't appreciate what you do is wrong!

Thirded. Technology will set us free, when all production is automated what will we do? demand that the 90% without a job die off, or will our society evolve into a post scarcity society like Banks's culture? I think the owners of production facilities will find it hard to convince the majority that they need to die off.

[pmyumjr]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I think we have misconstrue one another's meaning here Firstly, I didn't say that animals should be treated in exactly the same way as humans as such. I was simply trying to point out the hypocrisy in our actions. Why is it justifiable to abuse an animal when we wouldn't like the same done to us? This is more about empathy than slavery.

Now I was never anthropomorphism horses, they are living beings and they should be treated as such. There is no middle ground here, you can not view them as anything other than a living animal. I don't see how our needs factors in to this argument, because what need are we fulfilling by treating horses in this way? There is no justification for cruelty to animals.

I took you comment as animals should be treated the same as humans, that's how it came across and that was the point i was calling you on. There are many things that you and i would do to animals that we would not do to humans.

Think your still missing the reason for my slavery comment. Its nothing about human needs, what i am saying is that it is cruel to own a human being, to lock them into a building they can't get out of etc etc, yet these actions are more than accepted by humans when dealing with animals. There is a middle ground things that you would not do to humans are perfectly accepted not just by society but by even the staunchest animal welfare supporter. That's why your comment about if you wouldn't do it to human don't do it to an animal (paraphrase) does not hold up.