chrisbell said:joe mcclaine said:There's a bint at work who is very vocal about animal cruelty, always banging on about horses and dogs and stuff and she'll be falling over herself to get in early to give us her 'opinion'.
No doubt she will end up blubbing and confused when we all turn on her, bless.
She will not be getting a cream cake either.
I hope your being facetious, Vinny...
antdad said:chrisbell said:joe mcclaine said:There's a bint at work who is very vocal about animal cruelty, always banging on about horses and dogs and stuff and she'll be falling over herself to get in early to give us her 'opinion'.
No doubt she will end up blubbing and confused when we all turn on her, bless.
She will not be getting a cream cake either.
I hope your being facetious, Vinny...
I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Fido said:I promise I won't start another Grand National thread next year!
Boab said:Peter I'm going to count how many threads you start, in innocence, which end up in a ding dong
joe mcclaine said:@chrisbell
Balls are just fine, a little personal, but thanks for asking.
To be honest Chris I can't see that Tony said any of what you called inaccurate? Are you saying that animals have a concept or cruelty or choice? If so what are your sources?chrisbell said:antdad said:I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Hmm, scientifically your argument is perhaps a touch flawed there, Tony. I'll be the first to agree that many do anthropomorphise, but it must be borne in mind that horses are social creatures, which requires much greater brainpower than a non-social species needs - my view as a biologist would be to take a Darwinian viewpoint on this, but, whether one subscribes to that view or that of Biblical creation, it's still not hard to understand. Social species need to understand the behaviour of those they live with in order to interact, and it's well-known that this requires more brainpower than the ability to sense pain and experience suffering. "Dim beast" implies a rather Victorian view of humans as being "special" (whether in a Biblical or general sense), with all other animal species lumped together in a "stupid and contemptuous" category. It's a view that decades of ethologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologists have debunked pretty thoroughly.
Of course, it goes without saying that none of us knows to what degree a severely injured horse suffers before being destroyed, or whether they feel fear or sorrow in anything approaching a human sense, but there's no doubt that any higher mammal feels pain (try injecting a cat and you'll find that, if the needle is handled awkwardly, the cat will react), and I'd rather not have people pour scorn on people such as myself and Vinny's "bint" colleague as he so charmingly calls her (I wonder if he has the balls to make it clear to her how pathetic he considers her; I doubt it) just because we'd rather not stick our heads in the sand and decide that a horse is our plaything and that it does not deserve to be treated well as it's just a "dim beast"
Sorry for getting wordy - I respect your right to an opinion, but an opinion based on inaccurate information deserves to be challenged.
I'll sign off by saying that, if it's forum policy that members are expected to hold certain views in order to be made welcome here, then I'd be inclined to take myself elsewhere - I genuinely hope this is not the case, but this is the second year in a row in which dissenting voices have been ridiculed over this matter - one of those last year was Sharon who I felt was treated badly for her views - and I'd seriously reconsider my membership if the same "you do not follow groupthink, therefore you will be ridiculed" mindset applies again next April.
pedro083 said:yum horse steak for me tonight
Ooopss wrong thread:icon_rolleyes:
Jeltz said:To be honest Chris I can't see that Tony said any of what you called inaccurate? Are you saying that animals have a concept or cruelty or choice? If so what are your sources?chrisbell said:antdad said:I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Hmm, scientifically your argument is perhaps a touch flawed there, Tony. I'll be the first to agree that many do anthropomorphise, but it must be borne in mind that horses are social creatures, which requires much greater brainpower than a non-social species needs - my view as a biologist would be to take a Darwinian viewpoint on this, but, whether one subscribes to that view or that of Biblical creation, it's still not hard to understand. Social species need to understand the behaviour of those they live with in order to interact, and it's well-known that this requires more brainpower than the ability to sense pain and experience suffering. "Dim beast" implies a rather Victorian view of humans as being "special" (whether in a Biblical or general sense), with all other animal species lumped together in a "stupid and contemptuous" category. It's a view that decades of ethologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologists have debunked pretty thoroughly.
Of course, it goes without saying that none of us knows to what degree a severely injured horse suffers before being destroyed, or whether they feel fear or sorrow in anything approaching a human sense, but there's no doubt that any higher mammal feels pain (try injecting a cat and you'll find that, if the needle is handled awkwardly, the cat will react), and I'd rather not have people pour scorn on people such as myself and Vinny's "bint" colleague as he so charmingly calls her (I wonder if he has the balls to make it clear to her how pathetic he considers her; I doubt it) just because we'd rather not stick our heads in the sand and decide that a horse is our plaything and that it does not deserve to be treated well as it's just a "dim beast"
Sorry for getting wordy - I respect your right to an opinion, but an opinion based on inaccurate information deserves to be challenged.
I'll sign off by saying that, if it's forum policy that members are expected to hold certain views in order to be made welcome here, then I'd be inclined to take myself elsewhere - I genuinely hope this is not the case, but this is the second year in a row in which dissenting voices have been ridiculed over this matter - one of those last year was Sharon who I felt was treated badly for her views - and I'd seriously reconsider my membership if the same "you do not follow groupthink, therefore you will be ridiculed" mindset applies again next April.
You agree that people anthropomorphise which is what he said isn't it. On balance I agree with your stance on The National but your wordy I'm the expert here attitude is gets my back right up.
...projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves...