Grand National 2012

[Sensei Ping]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

You would not treat people that way so way makes it right to do it to a horse or any other animal?

Your whole life, my whole life, the basis of the civilisation that keeps you from living in a mud hut and foraging for food, is based on the exploitation and commodification of animals and other human beings. There is more slavery and indentured labour now than at any other time, simply because the number of humans available to exploited...

The concern over animal rights mystifies me, when there is so much maltreatment of humans and slaughter of animals, which is economically beneficial to all humans whether they condone it or not.

Originally Posted by runalong

Do you have similar views on poor ownership of dogs for example?

I've never owned a pet dog or cat, and have no desire to, and "poor ownership" of animals is somewhat in the eye of the beholder

However the maltreatment of animals purely for cruel pleasure of the torturer, is undoubtedly wrong, and is rightly a crime, as is neglect of them. How people treat animals is a pretty good indicator of how they would their fellow man and women, given the opportunity

The use of animals however, in sport, or physical labour, or art, or just for human comfort, why not? All domesticated animals are being forced to live in a certain way preferable to humans.

its better to live for something than die for nothing, and better to live than never to have existed at all...

the most effective way to preserve species and promote genetic diversity among them is to farm them, paradoxically,

in the wild, horses would be outbred by humans, and humans have had to make a conscious decision to preserve them and their habitats, so even wild horses are largely dependent on humans for survival

Originally Posted by runalong

Surprised you think racing is a genetic trait - being fast is. I'm not saying ban it I'm saying make it safer.

its not genetic per se, all thoroughbred race horses are descended from just four horses, and are not much use for anything else, other than racing

It's imprinted, learned behaviour on a particular breed of horse, which is slighty different, but try telling that to the horse

Would it thank you for rescuing it from its life of [alleged] misery?

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

is treating animals as a commodity disgusting i'm afraid No. You are over anthromorphising(?) horses.

I would have to disagree with you there. Abusing animals simply for entertainment and money is disgusting. And no I am not anthropomorphising. Horses aren't some inert unfeeling object that can be used and discarded. They are living animals and as such should be treated with respect.

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

Anyone that has owned a pet has treated an animal as a commodity. Equating pets to slavery as you just have, is damaging your otherwise reasoned anti cruelty stand point.

Again I would have to disagree with you. Horses are reduced to commodities because they are being turned in to a product that can be profited from. I doubt very much this is the case for the majority of pet owners. I certainly don't profit from my pets nor would I consider doing so.

And I never equated owning a pet to slavery. A pet that is loved, looked after and taken care of is not a slave.

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

The average National horse has a much better life than a child picking through trash in Africa, and lets be honest here probably a much better life than some people in Britain

If you look closer at horse racing you will find that the treatment of horses is pretty abhorrent tbh.

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

Your whole life, my whole life, the basis of the civilisation that keeps you from living in a mud hut and foraging for food, is based on the exploitation and commodification of animals and other human beings. There is more slavery and indentured labour now than at any other time, simply because the number of humans available to exploited...

True, but that dosent make such behaviour acceptable.

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

The concern over animal rights mystifies me, when there is so much maltreatment of humans and slaughter of animals, which is economically beneficial to all humans whether they condone it or not..

So, we just accept such behaviour and move on? We do nothing at all to challenge it? IMO that's even worse.

[Sensei Ping]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

And I never equated owning a pet to slavery. A pet that is loved, looked after and taken care of is not a slave..

really? a nice slave owner is worse than a bad one, as the one who's exploited doesn't feel exploited so much, and won't fight back. Many self-styled "animal lovers" do horrible things to their pets - spay them, dock their tails, lock them up all day, over- or underfeed them, just for their convenience...

Whats the difference between put "putting down" [note the euphemism] a pet who's been hit by car, or killing a horse thats broken its leg?

both are unintended consequences of human activity

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

So, we just accept such behaviour and move on? We do nothing at all to challenge it? IMO that's even worse.

no we look at the species-wide continuum of suffering, and tackle the most pressing cases first - rather than just feebly banning something you happen not to enjoy...

[runalong]

Obviously you've never heard of multi-tasking - I can look to address several bad things at once human or animal.

I also don't need the horse to say thanks neither do I from anyone suffering from human rights when I support similar initiatives - if I only did good things to gain approval that would be rather selfish of me but to each their own.

I don't have a problem with animals used for sport, farming, art etc it's their care I'm bothered about. Perhaps I think bad sports organisers probably cut corners elsewhere in life - who knows - I know I care that things are getting hurt unecessarily to support a multi-million pound industry that can afford to sort itself by dropping a few more inches on hedges and that I think would still get punters to watch if done.

""its better to live for something than die for nothing, and better to live than never to have existed at all...""

Sorry doesn't that just contradict your wish for human rights to get sorted?

It's a vacuous statement.

I don't like cruelty to others if it can be prevented

As for putting an animal down well the difference is something I may have cared for and looked after and something whereby I took a risk for my personal gain lost oh and then shot it in the head. I'd have an equally poor view of a dog owner who did the same

[Sensei Ping]

Originally Posted by runalong

""its better to live for something than die for nothing, and better to live than never to have existed at all...""

Sorry doesn't that just contradict your wish for human rights to get sorted?

not to my mind, though we can agree to differ

a sentient, corporeal creature, can strive to improve its position in nature, can pass on its genes to its descendents and those creatures blessed with language, empathy and imagination can strive for the improvements of all living things

or give up and not bother

we all have a choice if we are alive, we can make our destiny while our synapses are still sparking and our limbs are functioning

Originally Posted by runalong

I know I care that things are getting hurt unecessarily to support a multi-million pound industry that can afford to sort itself by dropping a few more inches on hedges and that I think would still get punters to watch if done.

racehorses are the probably the best-cared for and pampered pets on Earth, simply because they are worth a fortune, and can generate one

note the love from punters for racehorse like Red Rum, Seabiscuit, and Desert Orchid and the care that must have gone into their sporting lives. I'm not a great expert or fan of the turf but I now that much

no-one kills a racehorse on a whim, especially not one like Synchronised, it would have been worth a fortune at stud, Cheltenham Gold Cup winner as it was

[pmyumjr]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I would have to disagree with you there. Abusing animals simply for entertainment and money is disgusting. And no I am not anthropomorphising. Horses aren't some inert unfeeling object that can be used and discarded. They are living animals and as such should be treated with respect.

So there is no middle ground? Something is either an object or a human?

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Again I would have to disagree with you. Horses are reduced to commodities because they are being turned in to a product that can be profited from. I doubt very much this is the case for the majority of pet owners. I certainly don't profit from my pets nor would I consider doing so.

I know many people who breed their loved pets for profit. Did you pay for you pets? Also as I've said before at this moment countless humans are being exploited to make others money. Not just in 3rd world countries but here to. While i agree with runalong, you can look to solve more than one thing at once, i just ask for a bit of perspective.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

And I never equated owning a pet to slavery. A pet that is loved, looked after and taken care of is not a slave.

Can of worms there. Firstly yes you did it was implicit in your treatment of animals and humans comment. Also a well cared for slave is still a slave. If we are equating animals and humans, than pet ownership is slavery.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

If you look closer at horse racing you will find that the treatment of horses is pretty abhorrent tbh.

You're going to have to qualify that I'm afraid. From what I've seen of it they are very well treated off course.

Originally Posted by runalong

by dropping a few more inches on hedges

Funnily enough was watching a discussion on this and the thing that puts the horses at risk is the speed at which they jump the fences, so lowering them will increase the risk as they will go over them faster. They would be safer if the fences were higher so that they had to slow down to jump them.

One thing i would definitely support is looking into why the horses can't be rehabilitated. It seems weird to me that effectively if they can not walk away under their own power they are put down. Surely there is something we can do.

[runalong]

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

not to my mind, though we can agree to differ

a sentient, corporeal creature, can strive to improve its position in nature, can pass on its genes to its descendents and those creatures blessed with language, empathy and imagination can strive for the improvements of all living things


no-one kills a racehorse on a whim, especially not one like Synchronised, it would have been worth a fortune at stud, Cheltenham Gold Cup winner as it was

Well all living things is sorta where I was driving at so glad you agree that animal rights also count

Again you've missed my point about racing I don't think they're deliberately nasty people I think that if the same average number of horses are dying over 12 years despite some impovements in safety then the changes aren't working and more needs to be done. To let that continue is negligence and they can't argue against it on cost grounds

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

really? a nice slave owner is worse than a bad one, as the one who's exploited doesn't feel exploited so much, and won't fight back. Many self-styled "animal lovers" do horrible things to their pets - spay them, dock their tails, lock them up all day, over- or underfeed them, just for their convenience...

I could be quite offended at being equated to a slave owner and I find your statement that many animal lovers do horrible things to their pets to be a broad sweeping generalization that does a disservice to those who do look after their pets.

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

Whats the difference between put "putting down" [note the euphemism] a pet who's been hit by car, or killing a horse thats broken its leg?

Because cars are very big and very heavy and if you get hit by one it is no doubt going to cause life threatening injuries that are far worse than a broken leg, which is survivable.

Originally Posted by Sensei Ping

no we look at the species-wide continuum of suffering, and tackle the most pressing cases first - rather than just feebly banning something you happen not to enjoy...

So a sport that profits from the abuse of animals isn't a pressing problem and should be ignored? That type of thinking is very dangerous because who then decides what is a "most-pressing" case?

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

So there is no middle ground? Something is either an object or a human?

Something is either an object or a human, I don't understand what you mean?

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

I know many people who breed their loved pets for profit. Did you pay for you pets? Also as I've said before at this moment countless humans are being exploited to make others money. Not just in 3rd world countries but here to. While i agree with runalong, you can look to solve more than one thing at once, i just ask for a bit of perspective.

I don't doubt that their are people out their who breed from their "pets" for profit or try to, however its mostly commercial or wholesale kennels that do this. Not pet owners. And no, i didn't buy my pets, they are both rescue dogs which I got from the local RSPCA. I also made a donation

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

Can of worms there. Firstly yes you did it was implicit in your treatment of animals and humans comment. Also a well cared for slave is still a slave. If we are equating animals and humans, than pet ownership is slavery.

What? this comment? You would not treat people that way so way makes it right to do it to a horse or any other animal? If this is the right comment how is it related to slavery? It isn't and I was simply making the point that we should treat animals with the same respect we ourselves would like to be afforded.

I don't understand how you equate a pet to a slave as they are very different things.

Originally Posted by pmyumjr

You're going to have to qualify that I'm afraid. From what I've seen of it they are very well treated off course.

I did, in a previous post. Hers the link again: The Dark Side of Horse Racing

[pmyumjr]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Something is either an object or a human, I don't understand what you mean?

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....

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

What? this comment? You would not treat people that way so way makes it right to do it to a horse or any other animal? If this is the right comment how is it related to slavery? It isn't and I was simply making the point that we should treat animals with the same respect we ourselves would like to be afforded.

I don't understand how you equate a pet to a slave as they are very different things.

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.

[pmyumjr]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I did, in a previous post. Hers the link again: The Dark Side of Horse Racing

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.