| How is repeatedly whipping a horse 07:08 - Jul 24 with 27793 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 10:22 - Jul 27 with 2333 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:25 - Jul 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
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. |
You introduced the comparison with an accident, when you started the discussion about intent. A runaway lawn mower is an example of an accident.
I was pointing out that is not logical. The logical way to compare to intents, is to compare two intents. I was also illustrating why using an accident to compare the intents was not relevant, in the comparison you made initially. I think that is a perfectly reasonably and logical thing to do.
So now we come to your current argument, I fully agree you have dismissed the feelings of the recipient, throughout.
The relevant factor is the observer, we the observer decide which is cruel. Is you proposition,
Well two different observers can have two different opinions.
In the Roger and Rover example, it is clear that a majority does not determine if something is cruel.
But let’s take that proposition, it is not the recipient of an action, not the person doing the action, but an observer that decides.
How would that work with humans. If someone talked to me in a cruel, let’s say racist way.
It wouldn’t be my feelings that were important. It wouldn’t even be the person talking to me, but an observer.
When you apply your logic to humans, it doesn’t seem sensible that if a human mammal was physically and verbally attacked, you would disregard the feelings of that mammal.
You suggest taking the opinion of an observer, not the human.
Again, I would suggest that falls into the definition I posted earlier of being cruel.
Because if an observer decides it is not cruel and ignores the feelings of the human mammal, then they are showing disregard and no concern for the human mammal. Hence the observer is being cruel.
If you went to a school say, and saw a class of children, clearly in fear and with injuries, and then asked an observer are the children being cruelly treated, and the observer said no, in your scenario, that would be fine, you would disregard the feelings of the human mammals.
That is why I mentioned evolution and the mammalian brain, earlier.
If the way you decide on whether something is cruel is different between different mammals you must have a way to justify that.
Descartes did that by claiming animals were just automata and unfeeling.
But through science and evolution we know that all mammals share the same brain structure and chemistry.
I have never posted in a way, on any topic, in a dishonest manner or tried to obfuscate, I don’t need to make myself look clever on an anonymous forum.
To take a scenario, abstract it, and make logical steps from that, and try and add bits of humour, it makes it more interesting for me, to try and create these abstractions, and scenarios and logical progressions.
I am clearly stating my abstractions, and my logical steps. That takes more words.
I suggest if you don’t like my posting style, you don’t have to read my posts, you don’t have to engage, you don’t have to respond. I won’t be upset.
But that’s the way I roll. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:23 - Jul 27 with 2273 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 10:22 - Jul 27 by eireblue |
You introduced the comparison with an accident, when you started the discussion about intent. A runaway lawn mower is an example of an accident.
I was pointing out that is not logical. The logical way to compare to intents, is to compare two intents. I was also illustrating why using an accident to compare the intents was not relevant, in the comparison you made initially. I think that is a perfectly reasonably and logical thing to do.
So now we come to your current argument, I fully agree you have dismissed the feelings of the recipient, throughout.
The relevant factor is the observer, we the observer decide which is cruel. Is you proposition,
Well two different observers can have two different opinions.
In the Roger and Rover example, it is clear that a majority does not determine if something is cruel.
But let’s take that proposition, it is not the recipient of an action, not the person doing the action, but an observer that decides.
How would that work with humans. If someone talked to me in a cruel, let’s say racist way.
It wouldn’t be my feelings that were important. It wouldn’t even be the person talking to me, but an observer.
When you apply your logic to humans, it doesn’t seem sensible that if a human mammal was physically and verbally attacked, you would disregard the feelings of that mammal.
You suggest taking the opinion of an observer, not the human.
Again, I would suggest that falls into the definition I posted earlier of being cruel.
Because if an observer decides it is not cruel and ignores the feelings of the human mammal, then they are showing disregard and no concern for the human mammal. Hence the observer is being cruel.
If you went to a school say, and saw a class of children, clearly in fear and with injuries, and then asked an observer are the children being cruelly treated, and the observer said no, in your scenario, that would be fine, you would disregard the feelings of the human mammals.
That is why I mentioned evolution and the mammalian brain, earlier.
If the way you decide on whether something is cruel is different between different mammals you must have a way to justify that.
Descartes did that by claiming animals were just automata and unfeeling.
But through science and evolution we know that all mammals share the same brain structure and chemistry.
I have never posted in a way, on any topic, in a dishonest manner or tried to obfuscate, I don’t need to make myself look clever on an anonymous forum.
To take a scenario, abstract it, and make logical steps from that, and try and add bits of humour, it makes it more interesting for me, to try and create these abstractions, and scenarios and logical progressions.
I am clearly stating my abstractions, and my logical steps. That takes more words.
I suggest if you don’t like my posting style, you don’t have to read my posts, you don’t have to engage, you don’t have to respond. I won’t be upset.
But that’s the way I roll. |
When I say observer you're taking it too literally. I (obviously, I'd have thought) don't mean some person standing nearby is the decider of whether an action was cruel or not! I mean what everyone would consider. Every human, given cruelty is a human-designed, human trait.
I'm not using my example to compare an accident and intent - I was merely showing that the physical feeling of the recipient would be the same; therefore asking them what is cruel is unreliable/irrelevant. More so when it's a horse/pig! |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:59 - Jul 27 with 2225 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 07:40 - Jul 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
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." |
It isn't contradictory in the slightest Flash, because her internal monologue is/was irrelevant to me determining that the actions done to the horse, in the context with which they were done, were cruel. It was animal cruelty whether she thought the horse enjoyed it or whether she thought it brought immense pain. Your steadfastness to a single definition of the word which underpins this debate isn't necessarily wrong, but when you refuse to accept there exist other core senses, which is what's fuelled the last couple of pages of disagreement, then unfortunately you are.
You provided the first core sense, an excerpt, without providing the source material, in order to claim 'the dictionary disagrees with me'. Is that because you came across further meanings during your search which undermined your argument? It feels unlikely that you could have glanced through the internet dictionaries without seeing that "cruel" and "cruelty" have multiple entries, honestly. You then attempt to undermine my published 2007 Collins, distort the meaning of "cause" ('to cause' makes no comment on intent, simply consequence - I'm beginning to understand how I got here if this is also in dispute), claim my dictionary is unclear due to the omission of words you wanted to read, and then sidestep the technical definition in law.
From the OED:
"cruelty • n. (pl. -ies) cruel behaviour or attitudes • behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another, whether intentionally or not."
If you believe yourself to be a more reliable authority than the OED then I doth my cap, but you'd still need to topple Collins, Cambridge, and change primary legislation, to ultimately win this argument with me. Until that point I'll stop contributing this thread, because I'd only be repeating myself further. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:28 - Jul 27 with 2196 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:23 - Jul 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
When I say observer you're taking it too literally. I (obviously, I'd have thought) don't mean some person standing nearby is the decider of whether an action was cruel or not! I mean what everyone would consider. Every human, given cruelty is a human-designed, human trait.
I'm not using my example to compare an accident and intent - I was merely showing that the physical feeling of the recipient would be the same; therefore asking them what is cruel is unreliable/irrelevant. More so when it's a horse/pig! |
“what everyone would consider”
From this debate, clearly there is not a single everyone view.
Roger and Rover demonstrate whether it is one observer or a majority of observers, the role of an observer or group of observers has no impact on what is felt by the mammal.
As I said, some people are comfortable with the level of cruelty that results from their preferences. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:24 - Jul 27 with 2121 views | bluestandard |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:28 - Jul 27 by eireblue |
“what everyone would consider”
From this debate, clearly there is not a single everyone view.
Roger and Rover demonstrate whether it is one observer or a majority of observers, the role of an observer or group of observers has no impact on what is felt by the mammal.
As I said, some people are comfortable with the level of cruelty that results from their preferences. |
Genuine question Eireblue:- are you saying that the intention of the person carrying out the acts is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether how the victim experienced those acts (and if they experienced them as cruel acts, then they must be cruel)? Or is there a spectrum at play here where intention is relevant and might in fact dial down the level of cruelty depending on how the objective observer might view that intent? | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:51 - Jul 27 with 2071 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:59 - Jul 27 by Vegtablue |
It isn't contradictory in the slightest Flash, because her internal monologue is/was irrelevant to me determining that the actions done to the horse, in the context with which they were done, were cruel. It was animal cruelty whether she thought the horse enjoyed it or whether she thought it brought immense pain. Your steadfastness to a single definition of the word which underpins this debate isn't necessarily wrong, but when you refuse to accept there exist other core senses, which is what's fuelled the last couple of pages of disagreement, then unfortunately you are.
You provided the first core sense, an excerpt, without providing the source material, in order to claim 'the dictionary disagrees with me'. Is that because you came across further meanings during your search which undermined your argument? It feels unlikely that you could have glanced through the internet dictionaries without seeing that "cruel" and "cruelty" have multiple entries, honestly. You then attempt to undermine my published 2007 Collins, distort the meaning of "cause" ('to cause' makes no comment on intent, simply consequence - I'm beginning to understand how I got here if this is also in dispute), claim my dictionary is unclear due to the omission of words you wanted to read, and then sidestep the technical definition in law.
From the OED:
"cruelty • n. (pl. -ies) cruel behaviour or attitudes • behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another, whether intentionally or not."
If you believe yourself to be a more reliable authority than the OED then I doth my cap, but you'd still need to topple Collins, Cambridge, and change primary legislation, to ultimately win this argument with me. Until that point I'll stop contributing this thread, because I'd only be repeating myself further. |
You've tried to defend her position by suggesting in her mind it might not have been cruel. This is your interpretation, not hers (she has even said it was bad/out of character). And then you add you think it's cruel. So either you've contradicted yourself or you haven't made sense.
Your dictionary is nearly 20 years old and you're suggesting your interpretation of cruelty is right and mine is wrong?!?
I haven't distorted the meaning of cause - I quite clearly said it suggests intent to me but it isn't clear and doesn't elaborate one way or the other.
You seem to be flailing around trying to find other definitions that back up your argument, but the no.1 in most I've seen show some sort of intention is required for something to be cruel. I think most people would agree to be cruel you would need some intent there. If you cause some pain or suffering but didn't mean it then surely it's accidental. Can you really be cruel by accident? I think most right-thinking people would say no. It might be negligence at worst, but I don't think most would describe it as cruel.
I presume you're a subscriber to the OED as it's available by subscription only, which I don't have (convenient?) But even if the dictionary definition says intent is not required, that doesn't mean it's how most people would use the concept in reality. Meanings change over time, and often aren't used in the exact dictionary definition. I could be wrong, but to my mind for someone to be cruel they would need to deliberately do something that causes pain/suffering.
I haven't "refused to accept there exist other core senses" so no idea what you're going on about there. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:05 - Jul 27 with 2033 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:51 - Jul 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You've tried to defend her position by suggesting in her mind it might not have been cruel. This is your interpretation, not hers (she has even said it was bad/out of character). And then you add you think it's cruel. So either you've contradicted yourself or you haven't made sense.
Your dictionary is nearly 20 years old and you're suggesting your interpretation of cruelty is right and mine is wrong?!?
I haven't distorted the meaning of cause - I quite clearly said it suggests intent to me but it isn't clear and doesn't elaborate one way or the other.
You seem to be flailing around trying to find other definitions that back up your argument, but the no.1 in most I've seen show some sort of intention is required for something to be cruel. I think most people would agree to be cruel you would need some intent there. If you cause some pain or suffering but didn't mean it then surely it's accidental. Can you really be cruel by accident? I think most right-thinking people would say no. It might be negligence at worst, but I don't think most would describe it as cruel.
I presume you're a subscriber to the OED as it's available by subscription only, which I don't have (convenient?) But even if the dictionary definition says intent is not required, that doesn't mean it's how most people would use the concept in reality. Meanings change over time, and often aren't used in the exact dictionary definition. I could be wrong, but to my mind for someone to be cruel they would need to deliberately do something that causes pain/suffering.
I haven't "refused to accept there exist other core senses" so no idea what you're going on about there. |
That is as bad-faith a rebuttal as I've read on here in some time, although that's probably just because it's been directed at me lol. Claiming that I've attempted to defend Dujardin's position is a lie. I don't know what was going through her head as she was implementing those methods. I suspect she felt it to be the most effective approach and was happy to accept the horse's distress as part of the 'fallout', but I don't know. You don't know. I know she's expressed her shame now the footage has been released, and claims it was a moment of madness or equivalent. The whistleblower appears to claim otherwise, that it was a normal part of her methods. Whatever her intentions, the horse experienced ill-treatment as a result of either her negligence (failure to take proper care of the animal, through actions that caused unjustifiable distress) or her desire to inflict pain, or her indifference to causing pain. That's cruelty, in a nutshell. The animal was subjected to cruelty, either / or / or, so the judgement it was cruel may be made irrespective of a truthful interview or accurate lie detector test.
I said it was possible she thought this, or that, but that her behaviour was cruel regardless, because I know she didn't think the horse required upsetting for its safety, e.g. because it hadn't responded appropriately to the floor being on fire, because I know our collective understanding is that her actions would have caused distress, and because I believe the justification for distressing the horse is unacceptable (getting it to dance). Practices which were once considered okay are now regarded by most in our society as cruel; societies evolve and update their rules Slavery wasn't considered cruel until it was. Now you would be very ill-advised to try to enslave a person, whether you personally thought you were being cruel in your actions or not. The courts would be the arbiters of that cruelty.
The logic behind my point was simple but you didn't grasp it again, maybe deliberately. Child cruelty, animal cruelty, the legal definition of cruelty, does not require intent in our country. Again you've failed to disprove this because you can't disprove it, so instead you elect to cloud the argument with silly source smears, really.
Where did you find your online definition, in which there was only one meaning? I've quoted Phil Ham, have you quoted Football League World? And if 'cruelty''s meanings have been reduced to one narrow sense within the past 17 years, how did you not know its previous multiple meanings? You're over 40. That would have avoid all these pages instantly. When do you suspect you forgot them? It seems quite convenient for you that the core senses have now altered, and that you erased its other meanings from your memory as a consequence, rather than simply you began this thread without a full understanding of the word and its alternative uses.
"Cause" does not suggest intent. It never has and it likely never will. This action deliberately / unwittingly / accidentally / amusingly / sadly caused this event or subsequent action. Without the adverb or further information, all the verb does is establish the connection. This resulted in that. The end.
Your "flailing" middle paragraphs were covered by me already several posts ago. I understood why you were rocking down the alley that you were and made clear as much. The reason why you found as much disagreement as you did is that there is a victim-oriented definition to 'cruelty' as well. You could easily have said "I wish to debate according to this core definition as I set out, no more or no less", which would have been fine, but instead you've wrongly tried to invalidate alternative, accepted definitions and in doing so have wasted people's time. I've covered it earlier in this post twice and also in preceding posts. I'll reinforce it again.
If a person or animal is caused unjustifiable pain or suffering, they have been subjected to cruelty. Starve a dog when you had the means to spare its suffering and you've committed animal cruelty. The law will hear your reasoning in mitigation, but it won't spare you from the charge and nor should it, even if you thought you were just helping it with its figure. You would have caused hurt, with hurt a reasonable, probable consequence of your actions for any given judge or jury, and you would be convicted.
The OED definition is from the other dictionary I own, 2012, so it's sometime in the past 12 years that cruelty's accepted meanings have changed according to you, when you erased this from your memory. It may be your duty to write to your MP, because our laws have yet to be revised to reflect this. I'm hiding this thread now as I don't wish to read more disingenuous replies, which would inevitably suck me back in and I'm annoyed already. I'll end it with an image of the top of one's screen when typing "cruelty define" into Google. Presumably you are a safari or bing man, as I'm sure you wouldn't have ignored the below just for the sake of keeping your argument alive.
Edit: "core senses" are core meanings. You disagreed very clearly that there are multiple definitions of cruelty. You replied to my post with the opening "I disagree" and proceeded from there. Veg out. [Post edited 27 Jul 2024 19:08]
| | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:40 - Jul 27 with 2001 views | ITFC_1988 |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:05 - Jul 27 by Vegtablue |
That is as bad-faith a rebuttal as I've read on here in some time, although that's probably just because it's been directed at me lol. Claiming that I've attempted to defend Dujardin's position is a lie. I don't know what was going through her head as she was implementing those methods. I suspect she felt it to be the most effective approach and was happy to accept the horse's distress as part of the 'fallout', but I don't know. You don't know. I know she's expressed her shame now the footage has been released, and claims it was a moment of madness or equivalent. The whistleblower appears to claim otherwise, that it was a normal part of her methods. Whatever her intentions, the horse experienced ill-treatment as a result of either her negligence (failure to take proper care of the animal, through actions that caused unjustifiable distress) or her desire to inflict pain, or her indifference to causing pain. That's cruelty, in a nutshell. The animal was subjected to cruelty, either / or / or, so the judgement it was cruel may be made irrespective of a truthful interview or accurate lie detector test.
I said it was possible she thought this, or that, but that her behaviour was cruel regardless, because I know she didn't think the horse required upsetting for its safety, e.g. because it hadn't responded appropriately to the floor being on fire, because I know our collective understanding is that her actions would have caused distress, and because I believe the justification for distressing the horse is unacceptable (getting it to dance). Practices which were once considered okay are now regarded by most in our society as cruel; societies evolve and update their rules Slavery wasn't considered cruel until it was. Now you would be very ill-advised to try to enslave a person, whether you personally thought you were being cruel in your actions or not. The courts would be the arbiters of that cruelty.
The logic behind my point was simple but you didn't grasp it again, maybe deliberately. Child cruelty, animal cruelty, the legal definition of cruelty, does not require intent in our country. Again you've failed to disprove this because you can't disprove it, so instead you elect to cloud the argument with silly source smears, really.
Where did you find your online definition, in which there was only one meaning? I've quoted Phil Ham, have you quoted Football League World? And if 'cruelty''s meanings have been reduced to one narrow sense within the past 17 years, how did you not know its previous multiple meanings? You're over 40. That would have avoid all these pages instantly. When do you suspect you forgot them? It seems quite convenient for you that the core senses have now altered, and that you erased its other meanings from your memory as a consequence, rather than simply you began this thread without a full understanding of the word and its alternative uses.
"Cause" does not suggest intent. It never has and it likely never will. This action deliberately / unwittingly / accidentally / amusingly / sadly caused this event or subsequent action. Without the adverb or further information, all the verb does is establish the connection. This resulted in that. The end.
Your "flailing" middle paragraphs were covered by me already several posts ago. I understood why you were rocking down the alley that you were and made clear as much. The reason why you found as much disagreement as you did is that there is a victim-oriented definition to 'cruelty' as well. You could easily have said "I wish to debate according to this core definition as I set out, no more or no less", which would have been fine, but instead you've wrongly tried to invalidate alternative, accepted definitions and in doing so have wasted people's time. I've covered it earlier in this post twice and also in preceding posts. I'll reinforce it again.
If a person or animal is caused unjustifiable pain or suffering, they have been subjected to cruelty. Starve a dog when you had the means to spare its suffering and you've committed animal cruelty. The law will hear your reasoning in mitigation, but it won't spare you from the charge and nor should it, even if you thought you were just helping it with its figure. You would have caused hurt, with hurt a reasonable, probable consequence of your actions for any given judge or jury, and you would be convicted.
The OED definition is from the other dictionary I own, 2012, so it's sometime in the past 12 years that cruelty's accepted meanings have changed according to you, when you erased this from your memory. It may be your duty to write to your MP, because our laws have yet to be revised to reflect this. I'm hiding this thread now as I don't wish to read more disingenuous replies, which would inevitably suck me back in and I'm annoyed already. I'll end it with an image of the top of one's screen when typing "cruelty define" into Google. Presumably you are a safari or bing man, as I'm sure you wouldn't have ignored the below just for the sake of keeping your argument alive.
Edit: "core senses" are core meanings. You disagreed very clearly that there are multiple definitions of cruelty. You replied to my post with the opening "I disagree" and proceeded from there. Veg out. [Post edited 27 Jul 2024 19:08]
|
This thread is absolutely golden. Flash vs the dictionary. Who’d have thought it.
Keep going flash. You can absolutely win this one! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:47 - Jul 27 with 1954 views | bluestandard |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:05 - Jul 27 by Vegtablue |
That is as bad-faith a rebuttal as I've read on here in some time, although that's probably just because it's been directed at me lol. Claiming that I've attempted to defend Dujardin's position is a lie. I don't know what was going through her head as she was implementing those methods. I suspect she felt it to be the most effective approach and was happy to accept the horse's distress as part of the 'fallout', but I don't know. You don't know. I know she's expressed her shame now the footage has been released, and claims it was a moment of madness or equivalent. The whistleblower appears to claim otherwise, that it was a normal part of her methods. Whatever her intentions, the horse experienced ill-treatment as a result of either her negligence (failure to take proper care of the animal, through actions that caused unjustifiable distress) or her desire to inflict pain, or her indifference to causing pain. That's cruelty, in a nutshell. The animal was subjected to cruelty, either / or / or, so the judgement it was cruel may be made irrespective of a truthful interview or accurate lie detector test.
I said it was possible she thought this, or that, but that her behaviour was cruel regardless, because I know she didn't think the horse required upsetting for its safety, e.g. because it hadn't responded appropriately to the floor being on fire, because I know our collective understanding is that her actions would have caused distress, and because I believe the justification for distressing the horse is unacceptable (getting it to dance). Practices which were once considered okay are now regarded by most in our society as cruel; societies evolve and update their rules Slavery wasn't considered cruel until it was. Now you would be very ill-advised to try to enslave a person, whether you personally thought you were being cruel in your actions or not. The courts would be the arbiters of that cruelty.
The logic behind my point was simple but you didn't grasp it again, maybe deliberately. Child cruelty, animal cruelty, the legal definition of cruelty, does not require intent in our country. Again you've failed to disprove this because you can't disprove it, so instead you elect to cloud the argument with silly source smears, really.
Where did you find your online definition, in which there was only one meaning? I've quoted Phil Ham, have you quoted Football League World? And if 'cruelty''s meanings have been reduced to one narrow sense within the past 17 years, how did you not know its previous multiple meanings? You're over 40. That would have avoid all these pages instantly. When do you suspect you forgot them? It seems quite convenient for you that the core senses have now altered, and that you erased its other meanings from your memory as a consequence, rather than simply you began this thread without a full understanding of the word and its alternative uses.
"Cause" does not suggest intent. It never has and it likely never will. This action deliberately / unwittingly / accidentally / amusingly / sadly caused this event or subsequent action. Without the adverb or further information, all the verb does is establish the connection. This resulted in that. The end.
Your "flailing" middle paragraphs were covered by me already several posts ago. I understood why you were rocking down the alley that you were and made clear as much. The reason why you found as much disagreement as you did is that there is a victim-oriented definition to 'cruelty' as well. You could easily have said "I wish to debate according to this core definition as I set out, no more or no less", which would have been fine, but instead you've wrongly tried to invalidate alternative, accepted definitions and in doing so have wasted people's time. I've covered it earlier in this post twice and also in preceding posts. I'll reinforce it again.
If a person or animal is caused unjustifiable pain or suffering, they have been subjected to cruelty. Starve a dog when you had the means to spare its suffering and you've committed animal cruelty. The law will hear your reasoning in mitigation, but it won't spare you from the charge and nor should it, even if you thought you were just helping it with its figure. You would have caused hurt, with hurt a reasonable, probable consequence of your actions for any given judge or jury, and you would be convicted.
The OED definition is from the other dictionary I own, 2012, so it's sometime in the past 12 years that cruelty's accepted meanings have changed according to you, when you erased this from your memory. It may be your duty to write to your MP, because our laws have yet to be revised to reflect this. I'm hiding this thread now as I don't wish to read more disingenuous replies, which would inevitably suck me back in and I'm annoyed already. I'll end it with an image of the top of one's screen when typing "cruelty define" into Google. Presumably you are a safari or bing man, as I'm sure you wouldn't have ignored the below just for the sake of keeping your argument alive.
Edit: "core senses" are core meanings. You disagreed very clearly that there are multiple definitions of cruelty. You replied to my post with the opening "I disagree" and proceeded from there. Veg out. [Post edited 27 Jul 2024 19:08]
|
To be fair, I accept I've learned some things from this thread particularly around the number of different definitions.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm not surprised that this thread has caused such mayhem as it was obvious early on how it could splinter into several different debates (more have cropped up since I posted!). I was responding to the meat eating debate but clearly there are now other arguments at play.
Just a few points to add into the mix:-
I accept that the legal definition doesn't appear to require intent, but there is a clear distinction in law between strict liability crimes eg statutory rape which don't require intent, and all other criminal offences. The actions described in the 'Rover' scenarios would not, as far as I am aware fall under strict liability crimes, therefore there would have to be a legal assessment of both the actus reus AND mens rea for each offence (legal terms for act and intent). People are citing mental health examples as showing lack of intent will still constitute a legal act of cruelty, but remember that actually whats happening is here is that the mens rea is not present for people who meet the thershold for being diagnosed with the requisite lack of ability to intend their actions in a given situation (and this may well cover psychopathic behaviour etc depending on the circumstances). They still may get locked up, but under the Mental Health Act, so its not actually a punishment and they have't committed a criminal offence.
My last point is that the word 'cruelty' is a very good example of where the English language completely fails to convey the wide spectrum of behaviour capable of being contained within a definition. The word 'racism' is another example. You hear people all the time protesting that the are not racist, when what they really mean or would wish people to understand is that 'what I said is very low on the spectrum of racist behaviour so don't call me racist as that word is also capable of including people who commit the very worst racist crimes, and its not fair that I get lumped in with that'. Same thing with 'cruelty' in that may be eating meat is 'cruel' to some degree, but in todays society it falls much lower on the spectrum of cruel behaviour than say what Dujardin did to her horse or worse such as what Eireblue's Rovers suffered (of course some might disagree). When deciding where an action falls in the spectrum, I would still argue that intent is a very relevant factor. Where I do concede (and have learnt from this thread) is that where an action does in fact cause pain/suffering as experienced by the victim, it does de facto place it on the spectrum of cruelty. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:52 - Jul 27 with 1885 views | GlasgowBlue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:40 - Jul 27 by ITFC_1988 |
This thread is absolutely golden. Flash vs the dictionary. Who’d have thought it.
Keep going flash. You can absolutely win this one! |
He's arguing with the English dictionary now? Good grief. |  |
| |
| If you're going to ignore me, ignore me, don't snipe about what you can't see (n/t) on 08:05 - Jul 28 with 1788 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 22:52 - Jul 27 by GlasgowBlue |
He's arguing with the English dictionary now? Good grief. |
| |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:16 - Jul 28 with 1767 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:40 - Jul 27 by ITFC_1988 |
This thread is absolutely golden. Flash vs the dictionary. Who’d have thought it.
Keep going flash. You can absolutely win this one! |
But I'm not arguing against the dictionary. He's used a very specific law definition there (it even says "especially a spouse") as he desperately tries to win the argument. We're not talking about the definition in law, we're talking about the general normal usage of cruelty, which in all the first entries I've seen from various dictionaries says intentionally or deliberately. And we're talking about animals not spouses.
The fact that he's done a massive long post (of disingenuous nonsense) and then hidden the thread because he refuses to deal with any comeback tells me he's on dodgy ground and doesn't want to answer the obvious I've just posted above.
Pretty pathetic way of debating, is he friends with GlasgowBlue? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:11 - Jul 28 with 1730 views | ITFC_1988 |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 08:16 - Jul 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
But I'm not arguing against the dictionary. He's used a very specific law definition there (it even says "especially a spouse") as he desperately tries to win the argument. We're not talking about the definition in law, we're talking about the general normal usage of cruelty, which in all the first entries I've seen from various dictionaries says intentionally or deliberately. And we're talking about animals not spouses.
The fact that he's done a massive long post (of disingenuous nonsense) and then hidden the thread because he refuses to deal with any comeback tells me he's on dodgy ground and doesn't want to answer the obvious I've just posted above.
Pretty pathetic way of debating, is he friends with GlasgowBlue? |
Flash 1 - 0 dictionary. Last minute winner and the crowd goes wild! | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:29 - Jul 28 with 1701 views | GlasgowBlue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:11 - Jul 28 by ITFC_1988 |
Flash 1 - 0 dictionary. Last minute winner and the crowd goes wild! |
Being referred to VAR. | |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:50 - Jul 28 with 1677 views | Lord_Lucan |
Apologies if already covered but I really can't be arsed to digest what I assume is a 7 page argument.
Couple of things come to mind.
Whilst horsey things, including dressage, are not my areas of expertise, do people think that these huge beasts act out their little tricks without having had a good few severe whippings?
Probably best to ban the sport isn't it? Ditto many others that I'm sure require the complete mental breaking of an animal.
Has that Dutch Paedophile been sent home yet or is he ok? [Post edited 28 Jul 2024 12:59]
|  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 14:12 - Jul 28 with 1589 views | Dyland |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:21 - Jul 26 by Buhrer |
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. |
To be fair they would still need culling, non? Unless we introduced natural predators too, like velociraptors or something. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:20 - Jul 28 with 1511 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:24 - Jul 27 by bluestandard |
Genuine question Eireblue:- are you saying that the intention of the person carrying out the acts is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether how the victim experienced those acts (and if they experienced them as cruel acts, then they must be cruel)? Or is there a spectrum at play here where intention is relevant and might in fact dial down the level of cruelty depending on how the objective observer might view that intent? |
Let’s take this definition from Collins.
Cruelty is behaviour that deliberately causes pain or distress to people or animals.
In the discussion above, Flashing was drawing a comparison between two different scenarios.
If I hit a child 5 times equally hard, out of anger, or out of frustration, or to punish, would the child feel less pain because anger is different to frustration?
I would say no, the child is feeling the same pain.
If I hit a child 5 times, or 10 times, or 20 times.
I am clearly causing more pain, and being more cruel to the child, whether I was acting out of anger or frustration.
Some people seem to be trying to rationalise that hitting a child twenty times because of one reason, is less cruel than hitting a child 5 times for another reason.
To me it seems quite simple causing more pain equates to being more cruel. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:02 - Jul 28 with 1381 views | Radlett_blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:50 - Jul 28 by Lord_Lucan |
Apologies if already covered but I really can't be arsed to digest what I assume is a 7 page argument.
Couple of things come to mind.
Whilst horsey things, including dressage, are not my areas of expertise, do people think that these huge beasts act out their little tricks without having had a good few severe whippings?
Probably best to ban the sport isn't it? Ditto many others that I'm sure require the complete mental breaking of an animal.
Has that Dutch Paedophile been sent home yet or is he ok? [Post edited 28 Jul 2024 12:59]
|
Dressage is a sophisticated equivalent of animals performing unnatural circus tricks. Wild animals are now longer allowed to be used in circuses in Britain, largely because of the likelihood that a certain amount of cruelty is used in their training. I think the same should apply to dressage. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:07 - Jul 28 with 1372 views | Ryorry |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:53 - Jul 28 by Lord_Lucan |
We have an agreement to leave each other alone so please wind your neck in. [Post edited 28 Jul 2024 17:56]
|
That’s rich - it’s never stopped you from making oblique snide/derogatory references to/about me.
And I’m under no obligation to let anyone get away with completely false “information”. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 09:29 - Jul 29 with 1230 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:52 - Jul 24 by vinceg |
Can't vouch for what goes on in training, but in horse races the new lighter ProCush whips that became mandatory in 2020 don't cause the horse pain. It's incorrect to say the horse only reacts to the swishing noise of the whip, they also respond to being struck, but as it is a lot lighter it's kind of equivalent to someone giving you a poke as if to say "oi, keep your mind on the job" rather than thrashing them to try to make them run faster. The ProCush is also regarded as a safety thing - the horse instinctively moves away from the thing that's poking it, as do I generally unless I've paid for it, so if rapid evasive action is needed during a race, use of both reins and ProCush can steer the horse effectively away from the trouble. This is why in "hands and heels" races for amateur jockeys where the use of the whip is not permitted, they still carry a ProCush for help with any such emergency manoeuvres.
Heavy fines and bans are now (at last) in place in horseracing to discourage excessive use of the whip. When these sanctions were first brought in a couple of years ago there was a whole raft of jockeys getting banned, but this has died down a lot now - a flat jockey earns about £80 racing fee per race plus a variable but often single figure percentage of any prizemoney, and they are now only allowed to ride at one meeting per day, so they have clearly realised they cant afford to be banned for a month and not earning.
Horseracing will always have its knockers, but it has cleaned up its act a lot in recent years, but Dujardin is a disgrace. |
Not been in this thread purely as I didn’t want to get involved as they tend to go the same way as always but this is the most knowledgeable post on the entire thread having now just read it in full on the way to work.
Have an arrow of love |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 09:34 - Jul 29 with 1221 views | Swansea_Blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 09:29 - Jul 29 by The_Romford_Blue |
Not been in this thread purely as I didn’t want to get involved as they tend to go the same way as always but this is the most knowledgeable post on the entire thread having now just read it in full on the way to work.
Have an arrow of love |
Well found. And well done taking one for the team reading the whole thread.
What i don’t understand is if the new whips don’t cause any pain why are there penalties for excessive use of the whip? I’m utterly ignorant about racing btw, and don’t care either way about it. I just found that a bit of a contradiction. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 10:22 - Jul 29 with 1203 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 09:34 - Jul 29 by Swansea_Blue |
Well found. And well done taking one for the team reading the whole thread.
What i don’t understand is if the new whips don’t cause any pain why are there penalties for excessive use of the whip? I’m utterly ignorant about racing btw, and don’t care either way about it. I just found that a bit of a contradiction. |
The reason for the bans for using it a certain number of times when these new rules were put in place is ‘to protect the image of racing’.
They’re trying to do a lot to show that the whip doesn’t hurt. A lot of meetings I’ve been too there will be a pop stall somewhere where the BHA literally have a racing whip and you can feel it on your hand. Even a harder strike than the jockeys would do, it genuinely doesn’t hurt.
It’s the noise it makes through the air and the feel of being touched by something that encourages the horses to focus. And as they’re likely being ridden along at that stage of the race, the focus is usually on extending their stride which in turn makes them go faster. It can also be used to help enforce specific instructions such as steering as well.
But to answer your question, the number of times it can be used is limited purely because of the public image it gives and the impression it leaves being somewhat distasteful to casual viewers. The BHA have ITV do a bit about it at every big meeting to try and get the message across. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
