| How is repeatedly whipping a horse 07:08 - Jul 24 with 29277 views | bluelagos |
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.
[Post edited 24 Jul 2024 7:14]
|  |
| |  |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:48 - Jul 26 with 1832 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| 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. |
And this is your idea of an adult debate? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:49 - Jul 26 with 1836 views | blueasfook |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 06:24 - Jul 26 by Buhrer |
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]
|
All this guy seems to do on here is to show up to sh1t stir. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 09:47 - Jul 26 with 1789 views | Ryorry |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:56 - Jul 25 by reusersfreekicks |
Why is one of your dogs in Korea? |
Doesn't seem to care about the cruelty of separating twins does he  |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:51 - Jul 26 with 1702 views | Vegtablue |
| 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. |
+1 good thread.
Areas of exploration to keep it rumbling:
Conceptions of cruelty and the importance of intent. Is intention to cause suffering a necessary component in determining cruelty for any given action or inaction? A victim-focused interpretation would argue to the negative, with intent an exacerbating but inessential factor.
Causing pain to animals for food vs. for sport or entertainment: how well does this distinction hold up to scrutiny in Britain 2024? Is meat consumption an important component in a healthy diet, or is it rather a 'pleasure activity' sometimes masquerading as a human need, in a land with such bountiful food options?
We accept there is a positive correlation between the cost of meat and said animal's welfare in life and killing. At the price point whereby said animal was no longer subjected to an unduly cruel existence, how affordable is regular meat consumption for most? Recent studies now point towards a complete vegetarian diet being cheaper than the all-devouring alternative, even when welfare standards are disregarded. Is it similarly true for veganism?
I would rather be Dujarin's whipped horse than the average supermarket pork sausage, but I'm also open to the high welfare pig experience that a few farms may offer (to include applying sunscreen during hot weather). Despite my username I do eat both seafood and meat quite regularly, but I'm not confident I do so ethically truth be told. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:10 - Jul 26 with 1652 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:51 - Jul 26 by Vegtablue |
+1 good thread.
Areas of exploration to keep it rumbling:
Conceptions of cruelty and the importance of intent. Is intention to cause suffering a necessary component in determining cruelty for any given action or inaction? A victim-focused interpretation would argue to the negative, with intent an exacerbating but inessential factor.
Causing pain to animals for food vs. for sport or entertainment: how well does this distinction hold up to scrutiny in Britain 2024? Is meat consumption an important component in a healthy diet, or is it rather a 'pleasure activity' sometimes masquerading as a human need, in a land with such bountiful food options?
We accept there is a positive correlation between the cost of meat and said animal's welfare in life and killing. At the price point whereby said animal was no longer subjected to an unduly cruel existence, how affordable is regular meat consumption for most? Recent studies now point towards a complete vegetarian diet being cheaper than the all-devouring alternative, even when welfare standards are disregarded. Is it similarly true for veganism?
I would rather be Dujarin's whipped horse than the average supermarket pork sausage, but I'm also open to the high welfare pig experience that a few farms may offer (to include applying sunscreen during hot weather). Despite my username I do eat both seafood and meat quite regularly, but I'm not confident I do so ethically truth be told. |
"Is intention to cause suffering a necessary component in determining cruelty for any given action or inaction? A victim-focused interpretation would argue to the negative, with intent an exacerbating but inessential factor."
Not sure how you can have cruelty without intention. Pain caused by negligence perhaps, but that's still intention really. Pain caused by accident isn't cruelty. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:02 - Jul 26 with 1620 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:10 - Jul 26 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"Is intention to cause suffering a necessary component in determining cruelty for any given action or inaction? A victim-focused interpretation would argue to the negative, with intent an exacerbating but inessential factor."
Not sure how you can have cruelty without intention. Pain caused by negligence perhaps, but that's still intention really. Pain caused by accident isn't cruelty. |
Where reasonable expectations around empathy, consideration, understanding and so forth aren't met, in my opinion.
A particularly warped mind may lack the usual capacity for recognising their actions as cruel, when courts of law or public opinion may be certain that they were. Practices like FGM are cruel in my opinion, though the practicers and proponents of this custom would disagree with me. A dog has suffered cruelty if it's been left without food and water for a week, even if the owner was only negligent on account of forgetfulness (it may be argued, certainly by the legal definition).
Acts of cruelty may be unwittingly committed on animals or other humans because a human doesn't recognise their ability to feel a particular pain, or recognise the infliction of said pain as cruelty, or even pain, or because a human lacks the interest to explore whether their action has the potential or likelihood to inflict unnecessary suffering or be considered cruel by their peers. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:31 - Jul 26 with 1583 views | Ryorry |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:02 - Jul 26 by Vegtablue |
Where reasonable expectations around empathy, consideration, understanding and so forth aren't met, in my opinion.
A particularly warped mind may lack the usual capacity for recognising their actions as cruel, when courts of law or public opinion may be certain that they were. Practices like FGM are cruel in my opinion, though the practicers and proponents of this custom would disagree with me. A dog has suffered cruelty if it's been left without food and water for a week, even if the owner was only negligent on account of forgetfulness (it may be argued, certainly by the legal definition).
Acts of cruelty may be unwittingly committed on animals or other humans because a human doesn't recognise their ability to feel a particular pain, or recognise the infliction of said pain as cruelty, or even pain, or because a human lacks the interest to explore whether their action has the potential or likelihood to inflict unnecessary suffering or be considered cruel by their peers. |
Straying into very complex territory here which I don’t have time to debate properly, at least right now, but we’re told psychopaths are incapable of empathy, which might be a part of defining inflicting cruelty for some; but most of them going through our criminal justice system for grotesque murders who are found guilty, do not have their sentences ameliorated to manslaughter, or serve their time in secure psychiatric institutions.
For the general animal-keeping population, I’d add a responsibility to continuously acquire knowledge and understanding to the requirements of keeping them, since research and training methods are always evolving. | |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:53 - Jul 26 with 1551 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:02 - Jul 26 by Vegtablue |
Where reasonable expectations around empathy, consideration, understanding and so forth aren't met, in my opinion.
A particularly warped mind may lack the usual capacity for recognising their actions as cruel, when courts of law or public opinion may be certain that they were. Practices like FGM are cruel in my opinion, though the practicers and proponents of this custom would disagree with me. A dog has suffered cruelty if it's been left without food and water for a week, even if the owner was only negligent on account of forgetfulness (it may be argued, certainly by the legal definition).
Acts of cruelty may be unwittingly committed on animals or other humans because a human doesn't recognise their ability to feel a particular pain, or recognise the infliction of said pain as cruelty, or even pain, or because a human lacks the interest to explore whether their action has the potential or likelihood to inflict unnecessary suffering or be considered cruel by their peers. |
A useful definition to inform your debate:
Accident:
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:
Accident = no intent.
The origin of the debate was that the intent was important.
“ Clearly harming an animal for no good reason” (horse dancing) “is more cruel than farming them for food”
E.g. intending to hurt an animal for no good reason is worse than intending to hurt an animal for food.
As you have perfectly well expressed, as have others, the consequence experienced by the recipient of the intended act, is not a function of the intention behind the act. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 14:07 - Jul 26 with 1521 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:53 - Jul 26 by eireblue |
A useful definition to inform your debate:
Accident:
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:
Accident = no intent.
The origin of the debate was that the intent was important.
“ Clearly harming an animal for no good reason” (horse dancing) “is more cruel than farming them for food”
E.g. intending to hurt an animal for no good reason is worse than intending to hurt an animal for food.
As you have perfectly well expressed, as have others, the consequence experienced by the recipient of the intended act, is not a function of the intention behind the act. |
I'm bowing out now as it happens in favour of shallower waters lol, but thanks all for the interesting thread. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:31 - Jul 26 with 1450 views | Clapham_Junction |
I saw a topical article "Vegan 'dictatorship' move sparks council tractor protest" on the BBC News today: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c16jypg54nko
The dictatorship claim was in response to a proposal to have vegan options (not vegan-only food) at council events.
One of the farmers claimed nature would "collapse if there was a move towards plant-based farming". How can someone who works on the land be so utterly clueless (unless he knows it's untrue but just claims it to try and protect his livestock business).
Sadly this sort of nonsense seems quite common in farming communities. Some of my farming relatives seem to think people eating less/no meat is going to kill farming, ignoring the fact that people will still need to eat something. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:58 - Jul 26 with 1426 views | Ryorry |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:31 - Jul 26 by Clapham_Junction |
I saw a topical article "Vegan 'dictatorship' move sparks council tractor protest" on the BBC News today: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c16jypg54nko
The dictatorship claim was in response to a proposal to have vegan options (not vegan-only food) at council events.
One of the farmers claimed nature would "collapse if there was a move towards plant-based farming". How can someone who works on the land be so utterly clueless (unless he knows it's untrue but just claims it to try and protect his livestock business).
Sadly this sort of nonsense seems quite common in farming communities. Some of my farming relatives seem to think people eating less/no meat is going to kill farming, ignoring the fact that people will still need to eat something. |
He may well be referring to the collapse of old traditional mixed farming, which is an enclosed sustainable system involving no artifical fetiliser, since the animals' own muck was sufficient, and more than that, acted as a soil structure improver due to its organic matter, which helps prevent erosion.
Can't find the image/article, but there were a 'slice through' pair of images that compared wads of grass from land that had animals grazing on it, and land that had only artificial fertiliser - the animal-grazed land was obviously far superior, with a much greater diversity of plant-life, insects, healthier soil stucture, and longer, lusher, more richly coloured grass.
Erosion, impoverishment of soil structure & monoculture in arable-only farming are massive problems for the environment & biodiversity. So a fair bit of truth in what that farmer was saying - it wasn't just 'nonsense'. [Post edited 26 Jul 2024 17:09]
| |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:21 - Jul 26 with 1403 views | Buhrer |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:58 - Jul 26 by Ryorry |
He may well be referring to the collapse of old traditional mixed farming, which is an enclosed sustainable system involving no artifical fetiliser, since the animals' own muck was sufficient, and more than that, acted as a soil structure improver due to its organic matter, which helps prevent erosion.
Can't find the image/article, but there were a 'slice through' pair of images that compared wads of grass from land that had animals grazing on it, and land that had only artificial fertiliser - the animal-grazed land was obviously far superior, with a much greater diversity of plant-life, insects, healthier soil stucture, and longer, lusher, more richly coloured grass.
Erosion, impoverishment of soil structure & monoculture in arable-only farming are massive problems for the environment & biodiversity. So a fair bit of truth in what that farmer was saying - it wasn't just 'nonsense'. [Post edited 26 Jul 2024 17:09]
|
Its obviously true that a more natural approach protects and nourishes the land. As for nature collapsing under arable farming..It was nonsense. You use less land for eating vegan. There's space for rewilding and rotating and healing what farmers have done. Imagine herds of cattle and deer free to graze and poop. Not being culled and castrated. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:36 - Jul 26 with 1313 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 13:53 - Jul 26 by eireblue |
A useful definition to inform your debate:
Accident:
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:
Accident = no intent.
The origin of the debate was that the intent was important.
“ Clearly harming an animal for no good reason” (horse dancing) “is more cruel than farming them for food”
E.g. intending to hurt an animal for no good reason is worse than intending to hurt an animal for food.
As you have perfectly well expressed, as have others, the consequence experienced by the recipient of the intended act, is not a function of the intention behind the act. |
Quite. Cruelty is determined by the intention. It matters not what the recipient feels to determine whether it was cruel or not. As I said earlier, a head cut off by a stray lawnmower feels the same to the recipient as a head cut off by an axe murderer. One isn't cruel, the other is.*
When animals are killed for food there isn't an intention to cause pain (usually). The intention is to create a food source. With performance/tricks the pain caused is intentional (the pain makes them do something) so that is cruel.
*This is another reason why asking me whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what either animal feels when it comes to determining cruelty. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 21:34 - Jul 26 with 1262 views | Swansea_Blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:49 - Jul 26 by blueasfook |
All this guy seems to do on here is to show up to sh1t stir. |
Easy Blueas, you’ll break the irony filter |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:10 - Jul 26 with 1236 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:36 - Jul 26 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Quite. Cruelty is determined by the intention. It matters not what the recipient feels to determine whether it was cruel or not. As I said earlier, a head cut off by a stray lawnmower feels the same to the recipient as a head cut off by an axe murderer. One isn't cruel, the other is.*
When animals are killed for food there isn't an intention to cause pain (usually). The intention is to create a food source. With performance/tricks the pain caused is intentional (the pain makes them do something) so that is cruel.
*This is another reason why asking me whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what either animal feels when it comes to determining cruelty. |
You are arguing 'cruelty' has one narrow definition, which isn't the case. More commonly (and colloquially) it means willful action, inaction or behaviour with intent to cause pain or suffering, typically for pleasure but sometimes indifference. Its other meaning is to cause pain or suffering, with or without intent. In the legal context, 'cruelty' doesn't require intent or desire to inflict pain or suffering.
We also often use 'cruelty' when describing a victim's experiences. "It's cruel you had to go through that". "I'm sorry for the cruelty you experienced". We are able to determine that the individual suffered cruelty without knowing the thoughts of the perpetrator. Their motives are irrelevant to accurate use of the word in this context.
If we all agreed on a definition from the beginning then this probably wouldn't have made quite so many pages. Incidentally, it's possible Dujardin didn't believe she was being cruel in using the whip to correct and control the horse. This may have been her normal training method and she may have felt that horses are built to happily withstand such treatment, without experiencing notable pain or trauma. No matter her intention though it is cruelty to the horse. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:47 - Jul 26 with 1192 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:10 - Jul 26 by Vegtablue |
You are arguing 'cruelty' has one narrow definition, which isn't the case. More commonly (and colloquially) it means willful action, inaction or behaviour with intent to cause pain or suffering, typically for pleasure but sometimes indifference. Its other meaning is to cause pain or suffering, with or without intent. In the legal context, 'cruelty' doesn't require intent or desire to inflict pain or suffering.
We also often use 'cruelty' when describing a victim's experiences. "It's cruel you had to go through that". "I'm sorry for the cruelty you experienced". We are able to determine that the individual suffered cruelty without knowing the thoughts of the perpetrator. Their motives are irrelevant to accurate use of the word in this context.
If we all agreed on a definition from the beginning then this probably wouldn't have made quite so many pages. Incidentally, it's possible Dujardin didn't believe she was being cruel in using the whip to correct and control the horse. This may have been her normal training method and she may have felt that horses are built to happily withstand such treatment, without experiencing notable pain or trauma. No matter her intention though it is cruelty to the horse. |
I disagree with you, and so does the dictionary definition;
cruel
/ˈkruː(ə)l/
adjective
wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
If it's wilful then it can't be "without intent". I've also never heard it phrased "It's cruel you had to go through that" or "I'm sorry for the cruelty you experienced".
Your last point is pushing it even more, to say the least. You can't honestly believe someone who's worked with horses most of their life - to Olympic level - doesn't know what distresses/hurts them. One doesn't need any experience with horses to know that the reason they do what you want when you hit them is due to the pain it causes. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:57 - Jul 26 with 1188 views | reusersfreekicks |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 14:52 - Jul 24 by The_Flashing_Smile |
People need to eat to survive, no-one needs to watch dressage.
I appreciate you don't need to eat meat, necessarily, but need is at the very basic level of why you eat anything. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years, due to need. Whilst it's obviously a lot easier now to be meat free, it still takes a fair amount of effort to get all the nutrients you need by other means, and so it will take time to ween humans off meat.
None of this is the same as watching a pony walk funny. There is zero benefit, there, to humans. So yes, that is obviously more cruel because it's totally unnecessary and is ONLY pleasure. |
Well said |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:04 - Jul 26 with 1183 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:47 - Jul 26 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I disagree with you, and so does the dictionary definition;
cruel
/ˈkruː(ə)l/
adjective
wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
If it's wilful then it can't be "without intent". I've also never heard it phrased "It's cruel you had to go through that" or "I'm sorry for the cruelty you experienced".
Your last point is pushing it even more, to say the least. You can't honestly believe someone who's worked with horses most of their life - to Olympic level - doesn't know what distresses/hurts them. One doesn't need any experience with horses to know that the reason they do what you want when you hit them is due to the pain it causes. |
I would suggest you update your dictionary then, or make use of online resources. It is pushing it to supply a single definition for a word and pretend there are not further meanings, especially with the internet at our fingertips.
I don't believe she thought she was causing no discomfort or distress. I didn't say I thought that. My point was that it isn't important for determining whether her actions were cruel, given the plural definitions for cruelty. Given the audience for her behaviour (I believe she was conducting a lesson), I think it's possible she considered her training strict and necessary, rather than cruel, at the time.
Edit: No attempt to excuse her behaviour obviously. It was cruel. [Post edited 26 Jul 2024 23:06]
| | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:20 - Jul 26 with 1152 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:36 - Jul 26 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Quite. Cruelty is determined by the intention. It matters not what the recipient feels to determine whether it was cruel or not. As I said earlier, a head cut off by a stray lawnmower feels the same to the recipient as a head cut off by an axe murderer. One isn't cruel, the other is.*
When animals are killed for food there isn't an intention to cause pain (usually). The intention is to create a food source. With performance/tricks the pain caused is intentional (the pain makes them do something) so that is cruel.
*This is another reason why asking me whether I'd rather be a pig or a horse is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what either animal feels when it comes to determining cruelty. |
That isn’t what I said. You are just explaining the human POV.
When determine if a difference in intent is important to an outcome, you compare two different intents, and see if they affect an outcome. That’s basic logic, as you know.
You don’t compare an intent to an accident.
Factory farming isn’t done by waiting for animals to accidentally die.
Dressage isn’t doing by waiting for a horse to accidentally burst into a waltz.
You clearly started this by comparing those two things. The intent to eat meat, the intent to make a horse dance.
Your opening point was one was worse than the other.
Your opening is it is much more cruel to hit an animal, to make it dance, than to farm it and send it to an abattoir.
Because of intent, to entertain vs eat.
And part of your reasoning is now, that it doesn’t matter what an animal feels when making that comparison.
Oxford Dictionary describes cruelty as, “Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it”
So, your justification for choosing one over the other, is disregarding what the animal feels.
Now you haven’t countered a single argument that farming animals causes pain, distress and fear.
That is not disputed, even by farmers and people that run abattoirs.
Surely you have just proved that eating animals is cruel, since you disregarded what an animal feels, in assessing a comparison that affects the animal. You are not concerned about the animal POV, only whether humans are enjoying dancing or steaks.
There are plenty of people that are willing to state they value their desire to eat meat, above the pain and cruelty caused, and the damage to the environment, and the knock on effects on humans, by farming animals.
That is a much more logically consistent approach, rather than dismissing the feelings of animals when convenient. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 01:37 - Jul 27 with 1078 views | LuciBlue |
Video taken years ago but 'released' just before the Olympics is grubby behaviour.
Another case of guilty until proved innocent, and a spot at a major competition missed. If guilty then a retrospective ban and return of any medal won seems more sensible. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 07:40 - Jul 27 with 987 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:04 - Jul 26 by Vegtablue |
I would suggest you update your dictionary then, or make use of online resources. It is pushing it to supply a single definition for a word and pretend there are not further meanings, especially with the internet at our fingertips.
I don't believe she thought she was causing no discomfort or distress. I didn't say I thought that. My point was that it isn't important for determining whether her actions were cruel, given the plural definitions for cruelty. Given the audience for her behaviour (I believe she was conducting a lesson), I think it's possible she considered her training strict and necessary, rather than cruel, at the time.
Edit: No attempt to excuse her behaviour obviously. It was cruel. [Post edited 26 Jul 2024 23:06]
|
I've clearly copied and pasted that from an online dictionary.
You totally contradict yourself at the end: "I think it's possible she considered her training strict and necessary, rather than cruel, at the time. No attempt to excuse her behaviour obviously. It was cruel." | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:03 - Jul 27 with 954 views | noggin |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 01:37 - Jul 27 by LuciBlue |
Video taken years ago but 'released' just before the Olympics is grubby behaviour.
Another case of guilty until proved innocent, and a spot at a major competition missed. If guilty then a retrospective ban and return of any medal won seems more sensible. |
"Another case of guilty until proved innocent"
Surely the video is proof enough? She was deliberately causing distress to the horse. I don't see how that is up for debate. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:25 - Jul 27 with 929 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 23:20 - Jul 26 by eireblue |
That isn’t what I said. You are just explaining the human POV.
When determine if a difference in intent is important to an outcome, you compare two different intents, and see if they affect an outcome. That’s basic logic, as you know.
You don’t compare an intent to an accident.
Factory farming isn’t done by waiting for animals to accidentally die.
Dressage isn’t doing by waiting for a horse to accidentally burst into a waltz.
You clearly started this by comparing those two things. The intent to eat meat, the intent to make a horse dance.
Your opening point was one was worse than the other.
Your opening is it is much more cruel to hit an animal, to make it dance, than to farm it and send it to an abattoir.
Because of intent, to entertain vs eat.
And part of your reasoning is now, that it doesn’t matter what an animal feels when making that comparison.
Oxford Dictionary describes cruelty as, “Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it”
So, your justification for choosing one over the other, is disregarding what the animal feels.
Now you haven’t countered a single argument that farming animals causes pain, distress and fear.
That is not disputed, even by farmers and people that run abattoirs.
Surely you have just proved that eating animals is cruel, since you disregarded what an animal feels, in assessing a comparison that affects the animal. You are not concerned about the animal POV, only whether humans are enjoying dancing or steaks.
There are plenty of people that are willing to state they value their desire to eat meat, above the pain and cruelty caused, and the damage to the environment, and the knock on effects on humans, by farming animals.
That is a much more logically consistent approach, rather than dismissing the feelings of animals when convenient. |
No, you are twisting my words all over the place here.
I haven't compared intent to an accident, no idea why you've offered those descriptions, no-one's suggested farming is done by waiting for animals to accidentally die... etc.
Secondly I haven't dismissed the feelings of animals when convenient - I've dismissed them throughout when determining whether an action was cruel or not. This is the crucial bit you (probably deliberately) leave out.
As per my example I've used a couple of times - if someone's head is cut off by an axe murderer or a runaway lawn mower, you don't ask the unfortunate person, with their last breath, to tell us which was cruel. The pain was the same. We, the observer, decide which was cruel.
And please stop posting in a convoluted and verbose way. It doesn't make you look cleverer and I suspect you're doing it to obfuscate. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
