By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
An error of judgement? Has also been said to be out of character.
ITV showing the video and it's clear her actions were not a one off, rather a method of training that were the norm for decorated Olympian Charlotte Dujardin.
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:48 - Jul 25 by eireblue
So cruelty and morality is defined by a majority opinion.
Ah man, we didn’t have to give women the vote or give up slaves, how stupid were humans back in the day.
Morality, Ethics and Philosophy degrees are going to be sooo much easier to get now.
Majority opinion shifted in the case of women’s right to vote. People made the argument and society accepted it. My point is that I wouldn’t judge someone that believed back then that women shouldn’t have the vote the same as I’d judge someone that believed it now. Opinion on meat eating is shifting and I find myself avoiding meat more than I used to, especially red meat. But I sleep fine at night and don’t think I’m cruel for eating chicken. Let’s have a grown up debat.
3
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:20 - Jul 25 with 2526 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:10 - Jul 25 by bluestandard
Majority opinion shifted in the case of women’s right to vote. People made the argument and society accepted it. My point is that I wouldn’t judge someone that believed back then that women shouldn’t have the vote the same as I’d judge someone that believed it now. Opinion on meat eating is shifting and I find myself avoiding meat more than I used to, especially red meat. But I sleep fine at night and don’t think I’m cruel for eating chicken. Let’s have a grown up debat.
Grown up debate. Okay good. Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up.
Anyhoo, on to the debate
I have a twin dogs.
One of them is in the U.K. Rover It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
One of them is in Korea. Roger It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
Presumably Rover was treated cruelly, and Roger wasn’t?
Alternatively both Roger and Rover are of the opinion that they were both treated equally and it was cruel?
What say you?
-1
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:34 - Jul 25 with 2477 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:34 - Jul 25 by bluestandard
Wow, this was top trolling. Take a bow.
This is about the most jumbled thread I've seen on here, with at least 3 or 4 different debates going on, all from this single post. Bravo!
I'll choose to respond as directly to this post as possible and not get mixed up in the other debates. I would put it like this. The question 'what is more cruel' is a subjective question of morality, and 'intent' is a major facet of the word 'cruel'. In some cases, the worlds moral compass is pretty consistent. For example you would never hear someone say 'well personally I don't like to murder people, but I don't judge people that do'.
Eating meat is something which is done by the majority of the worlds population, and whilst that is changing, the moral compass is not pointing definitively in any particular direction. Those jumping on Flashing Smile is just ridiculous forum rubbish. And to label someone as cruel/immoral for eating meat in this day and age is pretty childish. By all means espouse the benefits of your subjective opinion and try to change minds, but until meat eating is viewed by a clear majority of the world as equivalent to murdering a human being, in my opinion its not cruel.
"This is about the most jumbled thread I've seen on here, with at least 3 or 4 different debates going on, all from this single post. Bravo!"
Tis the TWTD way - one of the things that make it so good!
One of the debates becoming ever more absurd as it goes onto its 5th page though.
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:20 - Jul 25 by eireblue
Grown up debate. Okay good. Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up.
Anyhoo, on to the debate
I have a twin dogs.
One of them is in the U.K. Rover It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
One of them is in Korea. Roger It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
Presumably Rover was treated cruelly, and Roger wasn’t?
Alternatively both Roger and Rover are of the opinion that they were both treated equally and it was cruel?
What say you?
Yep fair enough, I can see you want to have an honest debate, just think some other comments on this thread were again unnecessarily personal.
OK, I accept the challenge! But imo your scenario(s) need to be broken down:-
Regardless of whether an animal is being eaten or not, there is a separate debate about the treatment of animals. Panorama and others have exposed the terrible conditions that some farmers rear livestock and public opinion is clear that certain conditions aren't acceptable just because the animals are being reared for food. In your scenarios, 'kicking' an animal is in my opinion totally unacceptable, and furthermore, I would say that this is an opinion that would be held by the majority of the public. Same with 'trussed up/legs tied'. 'Stored in a cage', well many animals are caged so it depends on the context.
Up to this point, all agreed fine its all cruel. Next, 'killed', well this is where I think there is a split view. No question that to kill an animal just for fun is cruel. Most people would agree with that. To kill for food though? There just isnt a wide consensus on this clearly. I personally don't think this is cruel as the intent behind it is fundamentally different (a key component for cruelty), but my kids might judge me in 10/20 years time! Whilst I don't think its cruel to kill an animal for food, the manner of killing is still important and there is probably more that could be done to relieve an animals suffering during slaughter (I am certainly no expert in this area!).
So to answer your question, yes both scenarios are cruel, but as long as the intent behind the killing in both scenarios was for food, the killing/eating wasn't a contributory element to the cruelty.
3
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:10 - Jul 25 with 2427 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:20 - Jul 25 by eireblue
Grown up debate. Okay good. Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up.
Anyhoo, on to the debate
I have a twin dogs.
One of them is in the U.K. Rover It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
One of them is in Korea. Roger It gets, kicked, trussed up, stored in a cage with its legs tied, killed, skinned and eaten.
Presumably Rover was treated cruelly, and Roger wasn’t?
Alternatively both Roger and Rover are of the opinion that they were both treated equally and it was cruel?
What say you?
"Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up."
Where to start? The one where you demand I decide whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is the sort of thing 5 year olds ask each other. Or maybe the one where you reckon the fight or flight response in mammals means a pig or cow knows it's off to the abattoir. Or the one where I used an EXAMPLE of how the fight or flight response kicks in at times where no fight or flight is required, and you interpreted that as me thinking "mammalian fight or fright brain chemistry was from a common ancestor that was worried about objects falling over in another room."
Take your pick.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:10 - Jul 25 with 2428 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:34 - Jul 25 by bluestandard
Wow, this was top trolling. Take a bow.
This is about the most jumbled thread I've seen on here, with at least 3 or 4 different debates going on, all from this single post. Bravo!
I'll choose to respond as directly to this post as possible and not get mixed up in the other debates. I would put it like this. The question 'what is more cruel' is a subjective question of morality, and 'intent' is a major facet of the word 'cruel'. In some cases, the worlds moral compass is pretty consistent. For example you would never hear someone say 'well personally I don't like to murder people, but I don't judge people that do'.
Eating meat is something which is done by the majority of the worlds population, and whilst that is changing, the moral compass is not pointing definitively in any particular direction. Those jumping on Flashing Smile is just ridiculous forum rubbish. And to label someone as cruel/immoral for eating meat in this day and age is pretty childish. By all means espouse the benefits of your subjective opinion and try to change minds, but until meat eating is viewed by a clear majority of the world as equivalent to murdering a human being, in my opinion its not cruel.
Is it moral or immoral to eat sentient creatures? Is it cruel Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
cruel /kroo͞′əl/
adjective Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. "a cruel tyrant." Causing or characterized by severe pain, suffering, or distress. "cruel treatment; a cruel remark." Disposed to give pain to others; willing or pleased to hurt, torment, or afflict; destitute of sympathetic kindness and pity; savage; inhuman; hard-hearted; merciless.
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:10 - Jul 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
"Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up."
Where to start? The one where you demand I decide whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is the sort of thing 5 year olds ask each other. Or maybe the one where you reckon the fight or flight response in mammals means a pig or cow knows it's off to the abattoir. Or the one where I used an EXAMPLE of how the fight or flight response kicks in at times where no fight or flight is required, and you interpreted that as me thinking "mammalian fight or fright brain chemistry was from a common ancestor that was worried about objects falling over in another room."
Take your pick.
0
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:28 - Jul 25 with 2390 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:56 - Jul 25 by bluestandard
Yep fair enough, I can see you want to have an honest debate, just think some other comments on this thread were again unnecessarily personal.
OK, I accept the challenge! But imo your scenario(s) need to be broken down:-
Regardless of whether an animal is being eaten or not, there is a separate debate about the treatment of animals. Panorama and others have exposed the terrible conditions that some farmers rear livestock and public opinion is clear that certain conditions aren't acceptable just because the animals are being reared for food. In your scenarios, 'kicking' an animal is in my opinion totally unacceptable, and furthermore, I would say that this is an opinion that would be held by the majority of the public. Same with 'trussed up/legs tied'. 'Stored in a cage', well many animals are caged so it depends on the context.
Up to this point, all agreed fine its all cruel. Next, 'killed', well this is where I think there is a split view. No question that to kill an animal just for fun is cruel. Most people would agree with that. To kill for food though? There just isnt a wide consensus on this clearly. I personally don't think this is cruel as the intent behind it is fundamentally different (a key component for cruelty), but my kids might judge me in 10/20 years time! Whilst I don't think its cruel to kill an animal for food, the manner of killing is still important and there is probably more that could be done to relieve an animals suffering during slaughter (I am certainly no expert in this area!).
So to answer your question, yes both scenarios are cruel, but as long as the intent behind the killing in both scenarios was for food, the killing/eating wasn't a contributory element to the cruelty.
So, first, thanks for responding, I am quite a fan of Greek Philosophy, I am a particular fan of the Socratic method and reductio ad absurdum, and as you may notice, I try, but I am not a comedian, to add lighthearted if not hilarious ways to express those arguments.
Clearly you understand this, but just to be explicit.
Your original proposition was cruelty was defined by a majority decision. I took that premise, created a scenario, that is clearly absurd.
Roger and Rover experienced the same thing. What they experienced, what their bodies went through, the stress reaction and pain caused, is clearly not a function of the majority beliefs in those two countries. Each mammal experienced the same thing, it would be absurd to suggest other wise, hence the premise, majority decision determines cruelty is wrong.
I could extend that argument to intent as well. E.g. The mammals Roger and Rover go through exactly the same experience, but the intent of the person was different. Roger and Rover would have the same physical reaction, irrespective of intent. The cruelty experienced would be the same.
However, what you are trying to argue, is a an argument from necessity or utility. E.g. because something was necessary, it justified the action.
The thing I was trying to work through with others was another RAA/Socratic dialogue.
E.g. the premise was, because the purpose of the cruel act was deemed as less valuable to humans, entertainment vs food, somehow the cruelty was worse. So my horse vs pig routine was to an attempt to start another Socratic dialogue.
But nobody wanted to play, , just fire arrows.
2
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:42 - Jul 25 with 2351 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:28 - Jul 25 by eireblue
So, first, thanks for responding, I am quite a fan of Greek Philosophy, I am a particular fan of the Socratic method and reductio ad absurdum, and as you may notice, I try, but I am not a comedian, to add lighthearted if not hilarious ways to express those arguments.
Clearly you understand this, but just to be explicit.
Your original proposition was cruelty was defined by a majority decision. I took that premise, created a scenario, that is clearly absurd.
Roger and Rover experienced the same thing. What they experienced, what their bodies went through, the stress reaction and pain caused, is clearly not a function of the majority beliefs in those two countries. Each mammal experienced the same thing, it would be absurd to suggest other wise, hence the premise, majority decision determines cruelty is wrong.
I could extend that argument to intent as well. E.g. The mammals Roger and Rover go through exactly the same experience, but the intent of the person was different. Roger and Rover would have the same physical reaction, irrespective of intent. The cruelty experienced would be the same.
However, what you are trying to argue, is a an argument from necessity or utility. E.g. because something was necessary, it justified the action.
The thing I was trying to work through with others was another RAA/Socratic dialogue.
E.g. the premise was, because the purpose of the cruel act was deemed as less valuable to humans, entertainment vs food, somehow the cruelty was worse. So my horse vs pig routine was to an attempt to start another Socratic dialogue.
But nobody wanted to play, , just fire arrows.
Your premise is all wrong. No-one asked which received the most pain, the question is which is most cruel. Cruelness is decided in the human brain. Your premise would suggest someone having their head cut off by a stray lawnmower is the same level of cruel as a murderer chopping someone's head off, because the pain/outcome is the same.
Clearly whether something is cruel or not is in the intent.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
3
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:50 - Jul 25 with 2344 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:28 - Jul 25 by eireblue
So, first, thanks for responding, I am quite a fan of Greek Philosophy, I am a particular fan of the Socratic method and reductio ad absurdum, and as you may notice, I try, but I am not a comedian, to add lighthearted if not hilarious ways to express those arguments.
Clearly you understand this, but just to be explicit.
Your original proposition was cruelty was defined by a majority decision. I took that premise, created a scenario, that is clearly absurd.
Roger and Rover experienced the same thing. What they experienced, what their bodies went through, the stress reaction and pain caused, is clearly not a function of the majority beliefs in those two countries. Each mammal experienced the same thing, it would be absurd to suggest other wise, hence the premise, majority decision determines cruelty is wrong.
I could extend that argument to intent as well. E.g. The mammals Roger and Rover go through exactly the same experience, but the intent of the person was different. Roger and Rover would have the same physical reaction, irrespective of intent. The cruelty experienced would be the same.
However, what you are trying to argue, is a an argument from necessity or utility. E.g. because something was necessary, it justified the action.
The thing I was trying to work through with others was another RAA/Socratic dialogue.
E.g. the premise was, because the purpose of the cruel act was deemed as less valuable to humans, entertainment vs food, somehow the cruelty was worse. So my horse vs pig routine was to an attempt to start another Socratic dialogue.
But nobody wanted to play, , just fire arrows.
Ah yes very good, totally understand where you are coming from. I saw a debate that was conflating poor treatment and utility but worded my argument poorly in relation to 'majority decision'.
As a last point, I do think you'd struggle to find a set of actions that fits the intent for both someone intent on inflicting cruelty and someone merely killing out of utility, since the link between intent and causation is not consistent for both. In your two scenarios, even if both people had intentions stemming from utility, they also possessed additional intentions rooted in cruelty, since the actions for utility did not necessitate all the actions described in your scenarios.
OK, I'm going to lie down :-)
3
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:13 - Jul 25 with 2303 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:10 - Jul 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
"Feel free to point out which of my previous posts weren’t grown up."
Where to start? The one where you demand I decide whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is the sort of thing 5 year olds ask each other. Or maybe the one where you reckon the fight or flight response in mammals means a pig or cow knows it's off to the abattoir. Or the one where I used an EXAMPLE of how the fight or flight response kicks in at times where no fight or flight is required, and you interpreted that as me thinking "mammalian fight or fright brain chemistry was from a common ancestor that was worried about objects falling over in another room."
Take your pick.
One of the first examples RAA was by a well known Greek Philosopher, and used a suggestion that an Ox could draw, how childish was he. But you are absolutely correct, you shouldn’t waste your time debating at the level of a 5 year old with me, you should spend your time having grown up conversations with the adults.
0
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:32 - Jul 25 with 2283 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:13 - Jul 25 by eireblue
One of the first examples RAA was by a well known Greek Philosopher, and used a suggestion that an Ox could draw, how childish was he. But you are absolutely correct, you shouldn’t waste your time debating at the level of a 5 year old with me, you should spend your time having grown up conversations with the adults.
I know you think you're being clever quoting Greek Philosophers, but I studied Logic and Philosophy at university; you're really not.
You've avoided most of my points, I note.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:45 - Jul 25 with 2263 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:13 - Jul 25 by eireblue
One of the first examples RAA was by a well known Greek Philosopher, and used a suggestion that an Ox could draw, how childish was he. But you are absolutely correct, you shouldn’t waste your time debating at the level of a 5 year old with me, you should spend your time having grown up conversations with the adults.
The question regarding whether you’d rather be a pig or horse takes me back 6 or 7 years on here.
I recall mocking dear old Callis (remember him?) about the intelligence of pigs.
He reckoned they were only other animal clever enough to be trained to the do the job of a guide dog.
I was a meat eating sceptic at the time and just took the pi*s along with a host of others. A meat free meal was a starter as far as I was concerned.
Fast forward 7 years and I’d like to apologise to him if he’s reading this. Not meat free yet, but down to two meat days a week, something I’d have raged against back then.
Sorry to hijack your discussion. finding it fascinating even though I’m struggling with the Greek philosophy…
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:32 - Jul 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
I know you think you're being clever quoting Greek Philosophers, but I studied Logic and Philosophy at university; you're really not.
You've avoided most of my points, I note.
I haven’t quoted Greek Philosophers, I have referenced them.
A long time ago, you were having a very mature debate with GB. I used a musing by Spinoza, to suggest that you were making a very valid argument. It frustrated GB, amused you.
You appreciated the reference and clever quoting then. Sigh….how times change…
I remember it well, I mean who gets to use Spinoza’s writings nowadays, amiright!?
Anyhoo
In the past whenever anyone has asked me a direct question, I have directly answered them, in many debates on this topic, using the framing that someone wanted to debate within.
You didn’t extend me the same courtesy earlier, I did respond to you many times, you didn’t answer a simply question, and avoided many things I said, and dismissed my arguments as those of a five year old.
You really think I am going to address your points now?
1
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:37 - Jul 25 with 2193 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:09 - Jul 25 by eireblue
I haven’t quoted Greek Philosophers, I have referenced them.
A long time ago, you were having a very mature debate with GB. I used a musing by Spinoza, to suggest that you were making a very valid argument. It frustrated GB, amused you.
You appreciated the reference and clever quoting then. Sigh….how times change…
I remember it well, I mean who gets to use Spinoza’s writings nowadays, amiright!?
Anyhoo
In the past whenever anyone has asked me a direct question, I have directly answered them, in many debates on this topic, using the framing that someone wanted to debate within.
You didn’t extend me the same courtesy earlier, I did respond to you many times, you didn’t answer a simply question, and avoided many things I said, and dismissed my arguments as those of a five year old.
You really think I am going to address your points now?
Nicely swerved.
The truth is you answered one of my points, because you thought you could. The others were too difficult, so just avoided them.
I haven't answered your "Would you rather be a pig or a horse" question because it's daft and irrelevant. As I've said, we're talking about cruelty, a human concept, not "which animal hurt the most" (which I can't answer in any case). It also massively depends on the context they're in. There are pigs which are treated awfully and there are pigs that have great lives... same for horses.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:45 - Jul 25 with 2172 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:37 - Jul 25 by The_Flashing_Smile
Nicely swerved.
The truth is you answered one of my points, because you thought you could. The others were too difficult, so just avoided them.
I haven't answered your "Would you rather be a pig or a horse" question because it's daft and irrelevant. As I've said, we're talking about cruelty, a human concept, not "which animal hurt the most" (which I can't answer in any case). It also massively depends on the context they're in. There are pigs which are treated awfully and there are pigs that have great lives... same for horses.
A swerve, would be if I attempted a response but avoided directly answering a direct question.
See some examples above.
What I am doing is a refusal.
-2
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:56 - Jul 25 with 2160 views
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:45 - Jul 25 by eireblue
A swerve, would be if I attempted a response but avoided directly answering a direct question.
See some examples above.
What I am doing is a refusal.
I would rather be whatever animal had the best life.
The end result is the same with any animal killed for food but that is a small part of their overall existence.
I appreciate if you're morally opposed to killing animals for food then it's all wrong but I also think the refusal to acknowledge that you can legitimately care about animals are looked after is also wrong.
An animal being raised on an organic farm with all the space it could ever need and being raised in a natural timeframe compared to an animal being kept indoors in cramped conditions being injected with all sorts to make it grow twice as quickly are very different things.
And yes, no animals are ever killed with kindness. I get that.
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:23 - Jul 25 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Amazed that a thread about hitting an animal has made it to page 5…
Yeah, but it’s taken loads of fascinating twists on its journey.
I think the actual whipping of the horse was dealt with by the end of page 1.
We’ve had pr1cks, sad men, a bit of Greek philosophy, div lists, 90 quid sausage & mash, sanctimonious tvvats, abysmal meat substitutes, ProCush whips that don’t hurt, pigs vs horses, an appearance from the #bekind movement, hypocrisy… all this and no one had to go crying to teacher.
Sorry if I’ve thrown in a few spoilers but it’s still worth a read if you have a spare twenty minutes.
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:45 - Jul 25 by Bigalhunter
Yeah, but it’s taken loads of fascinating twists on its journey.
I think the actual whipping of the horse was dealt with by the end of page 1.
We’ve had pr1cks, sad men, a bit of Greek philosophy, div lists, 90 quid sausage & mash, sanctimonious tvvats, abysmal meat substitutes, ProCush whips that don’t hurt, pigs vs horses, an appearance from the #bekind movement, hypocrisy… all this and no one had to go crying to teacher.
Sorry if I’ve thrown in a few spoilers but it’s still worth a read if you have a spare twenty minutes.
Were you the appearence of the #bekind movement with hypocrisy? A few spoilers? Arf
I've enjoyed the thread, love a bit of philosophy.
Ps. A bit goes in a horses mouth.
[Post edited 26 Jul 2024 6:25]
1
How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:45 - Jul 26 with 1916 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
, just fire arrows. 
