| How is repeatedly whipping a horse 07:08 - Jul 24 with 27764 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 10:35 - Jul 29 with 825 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:20 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
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. |
You are building a straw man. I haven't said any of this.
You are also suggesting the suffering received from beating an animal over several years to make it do something it wouldn't naturally do - is exactly the same as when farming animals for food. Even if you were an expert in both fields, which I presume you're not, I'm amazed you can confidently say the suffering is exactly the same for both.
Stop being disingenuous and making up what I'm saying. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 10:38 - Jul 29 with 815 views | Swansea_Blue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 10:22 - Jul 29 by The_Romford_Blue |
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. |
Cheers Rommers. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m now slightly less ignorant! |  |
| |
| Again, stop commenting on stuff you can't see (n/t) on 10:38 - Jul 29 with 808 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:29 - Jul 28 by GlasgowBlue |
Being referred to VAR. |
| |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:13 - Jul 29 with 783 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 10:35 - Jul 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You are building a straw man. I haven't said any of this.
You are also suggesting the suffering received from beating an animal over several years to make it do something it wouldn't naturally do - is exactly the same as when farming animals for food. Even if you were an expert in both fields, which I presume you're not, I'm amazed you can confidently say the suffering is exactly the same for both.
Stop being disingenuous and making up what I'm saying. |
“ I'm amazed you can confidently say the suffering is exactly the same for both.
Stop being disingenuous and making up what I'm saying.”
Where have I said the suffering is exactly the same for both?
The question I I posed right at the start was to specifically see if people differentiated the suffering.
Other people answered, so I must have been reasonably clear to some posters.
You have accused me of being, childish, disingenuous, trying to be clever, obfuscating on purpose, and you have critical of my posting style.
Not really interested in taking breaks from work to carry on discussing this with some that thinks I am being disingenuous. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:36 - Jul 29 with 748 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:13 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
“ I'm amazed you can confidently say the suffering is exactly the same for both.
Stop being disingenuous and making up what I'm saying.”
Where have I said the suffering is exactly the same for both?
The question I I posed right at the start was to specifically see if people differentiated the suffering.
Other people answered, so I must have been reasonably clear to some posters.
You have accused me of being, childish, disingenuous, trying to be clever, obfuscating on purpose, and you have critical of my posting style.
Not really interested in taking breaks from work to carry on discussing this with some that thinks I am being disingenuous. |
"Where have I said the suffering is exactly the same for both?"
"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."
I've no idea what this sentence is for if it's not equating beating a horse to make it perform with farming for meat. Unless you're saying pain is pain, doesn't matter if you do it once or several times over years, which I again dispute.
I'm done with this thread too. You spend a post being disingenuous about what I've said and then you say you refuse to discuss anymore because I'm calling you disingenuous! Brilliant. Even politicians don't avoid stuff so blatantly. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:02 - Jul 29 with 731 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 11:36 - Jul 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
"Where have I said the suffering is exactly the same for both?"
"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."
I've no idea what this sentence is for if it's not equating beating a horse to make it perform with farming for meat. Unless you're saying pain is pain, doesn't matter if you do it once or several times over years, which I again dispute.
I'm done with this thread too. You spend a post being disingenuous about what I've said and then you say you refuse to discuss anymore because I'm calling you disingenuous! Brilliant. Even politicians don't avoid stuff so blatantly. |
Sigh….
The post you are talking about wasn’t a response to you, it was another poster.
There was a huge uproar about the beating of the horse.
The population of vegans in the U.K. is about 1-2%
I would imagine that of all the people in an uproar about the beating, not all of them were vegans.
The majority were consuming products from factory farming.
So I wasn’t quoting you or talking about you, I was responding to another poster.
That sentence was making a point using a different context, to a different poster, because they asked a question in a slightly different way, after presumably reading some of my posts.
If you have no idea no idea what a sentence is for, the the respectful way of responding to that is to say something like “I don’t understand what that sentence is for”, not accuse the person writing that sentence, of making things up about what you said and being disingenuous.
Not everything I write, especially when replying to other posters, is about you Dolly. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 14:39 - Jul 29 with 663 views | bluestandard |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:20 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
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. |
OK, well lets leave the fact that there seem to be several definitions floating around to one side.
Take your statement 'causing more pain equates to being more cruel'. Logic therefore dictates that causing the same level of pain means exhibiting the same level of cruelty. As long as the action was deliberate as opposed to accidental, there is no room for any other factor to influence the level of cruelty other than the magnitude of the pain and suffering endured by the victim, am I correct? I think its clear that's what you are saying.
So lets use reductio ad absurdum to show how imo that argument is problematic and can't be sustained.
This is a story a twin dogs. Both dogs are wild, and both are exhibiting identical symptoms of cancer in their right hind leg.
One of them is in the U.K., Rover.
Whilst on a walk, a veterinary surgeon comes across Rover. He assesses Rover and quickly determines that Rover will die unless he does an immediate amputation of the leg. For the sake of argument, there is no issue of negligence and it was a 50/50 call with the doctor judged as having reasonable grounds to suspect what he did. He happens to have his surgical tools with him, but no anesthesia or pain relief. Nevertheless he still thinks he can save Rover so he performs the amputation there and then, and takes Rover into an animal hospital. Afterwards, it is determined that Rover didn't have cancer in his leg and the symptoms were in fact benign.
The other dog is in Korea. Roger.
Whilst on a walk, a local veterinary student comes across Roger. He decides that this would be a great opportunity to practice his skills on an animal. He happens to have his surgical tools with him but no anesthesia or pain relief. As a student, he fails to pick up on any of the cancerous symptoms in Rogers leg, and his only motivation is to practice on Roger to further his own personal development. He performs exactly the same procedure as the veterinary surgeon and to the same skill level. He takes the dog to an animal hospital following the procedure.
Both dogs had identical experiences, and experienced the same level of pain. Both procedures were no accident. Both the surgeon and the student intended to inflict pain with deliberate actions, as they were both aware that they had no anesthesia/pain relief. Your logic would suggest that both actors in these scenarios have been equally cruel, but surely human experience tells us otherwise? Without trying to find a 'get out' eg. a doctor would always carry pain relief etc, what say you? |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:41 - Jul 29 with 636 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 14:39 - Jul 29 by bluestandard |
OK, well lets leave the fact that there seem to be several definitions floating around to one side.
Take your statement 'causing more pain equates to being more cruel'. Logic therefore dictates that causing the same level of pain means exhibiting the same level of cruelty. As long as the action was deliberate as opposed to accidental, there is no room for any other factor to influence the level of cruelty other than the magnitude of the pain and suffering endured by the victim, am I correct? I think its clear that's what you are saying.
So lets use reductio ad absurdum to show how imo that argument is problematic and can't be sustained.
This is a story a twin dogs. Both dogs are wild, and both are exhibiting identical symptoms of cancer in their right hind leg.
One of them is in the U.K., Rover.
Whilst on a walk, a veterinary surgeon comes across Rover. He assesses Rover and quickly determines that Rover will die unless he does an immediate amputation of the leg. For the sake of argument, there is no issue of negligence and it was a 50/50 call with the doctor judged as having reasonable grounds to suspect what he did. He happens to have his surgical tools with him, but no anesthesia or pain relief. Nevertheless he still thinks he can save Rover so he performs the amputation there and then, and takes Rover into an animal hospital. Afterwards, it is determined that Rover didn't have cancer in his leg and the symptoms were in fact benign.
The other dog is in Korea. Roger.
Whilst on a walk, a local veterinary student comes across Roger. He decides that this would be a great opportunity to practice his skills on an animal. He happens to have his surgical tools with him but no anesthesia or pain relief. As a student, he fails to pick up on any of the cancerous symptoms in Rogers leg, and his only motivation is to practice on Roger to further his own personal development. He performs exactly the same procedure as the veterinary surgeon and to the same skill level. He takes the dog to an animal hospital following the procedure.
Both dogs had identical experiences, and experienced the same level of pain. Both procedures were no accident. Both the surgeon and the student intended to inflict pain with deliberate actions, as they were both aware that they had no anesthesia/pain relief. Your logic would suggest that both actors in these scenarios have been equally cruel, but surely human experience tells us otherwise? Without trying to find a 'get out' eg. a doctor would always carry pain relief etc, what say you? |
Yes, I agree your scenario is a useful thing to consider, and we are getting back to the discussion in terms of the POV of the human vs the mammal.
Even in your illustration, you mention that the human makes a judgement, and that in their judgment the pain that is going to be caused, is worth it.
You are inflicting pain, but there is in the mind of a human, a valid justification.
The 1st human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be kind.
The 2nd human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be better educated for the greater good.
Isn’t the phrase, being cruel to be kind a common phrase used by humans.
The human has an opinion on why they caused the pain, and they both intentionally caused pain.
The dog, was the recipient of the pain, and hence is the one that suffered from the cruel act.
And I would guess the wild dog would be slightly more wary of humans out for a walk in future.
So from the POV of the mammal, yes it is equally cruel.
Which is the point I have been making all alone, that some people will willingly accept that there is cruelty in factory farming, and they are comfortable with that when consuming products from such animals. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:16 - Jul 29 with 619 views | Vegtablue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 20:47 - Jul 27 by bluestandard |
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. |
Appreciate your contribution bluestandard, very thoughtful points and excellently articulated - I agree with much of what you write. What you haven't tried to do is effectively engage in dictionary (and logical) gaslighting, in a ridiculous attempt to claim 'cruelty' may only be understood in the narrow sense that you entered the discussion knowing.
You also haven't tried to suggest that the legal definition of 'cruelty' is some kind of esoteric subsense in a similar category to Egyptology - understood by few and relevant to fewer. The meaning of animal cruelty in this country is, conversely, quite relevant to a thread centred on animal cruelty. These are the rules which underpin civilised society, to which we are all beholden, and our lawmakers didn't draw them up without due consideration for accuracy and consequence. We don't typically deny the existence or importance of the legal definitions for 'murder', 'manslaughter', 'fraud' and so on.
I believe the majority on this thread saw the footage and considered Dujardin's actions amounted to animal cruelty. She was rightly suspended in my view at least. If she implored us to believe that she hadn't intended to be cruel, I doubt many would be swayed to change their opinion on whether the horse was treated cruelly. Many would dismiss her defence as untruthful. Many would feel that ignorance didn't alter the ill-treatment they witnessed, as important as intent is in degree of culpability / sentencing / whether we consider the individual to be genuinely cruel-hearted. I believe this is why our law is as it is - ignorance, carelessness, alternative thinking may only mitigate so much when treatment falls below reasonable societal expectations of care and behaviour. Very few would reflect that the horse didn't actually experience cruelty, no matter how convincing the perpetrator's explanation and mea culpa were.
Lastly, I'm unsure if the thread's touched on the other common usage of 'cruel' / 'cruelty', its more literary sense - for conveying pity or regret for suffering from a seemingly unjust or unfair situation: cruel luck, cruel wind, cruel disease, cruel world etc.. a multidimensional word for sure, albeit rooted to a core essence. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:26 - Jul 29 with 601 views | bluestandard |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:41 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
Yes, I agree your scenario is a useful thing to consider, and we are getting back to the discussion in terms of the POV of the human vs the mammal.
Even in your illustration, you mention that the human makes a judgement, and that in their judgment the pain that is going to be caused, is worth it.
You are inflicting pain, but there is in the mind of a human, a valid justification.
The 1st human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be kind.
The 2nd human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be better educated for the greater good.
Isn’t the phrase, being cruel to be kind a common phrase used by humans.
The human has an opinion on why they caused the pain, and they both intentionally caused pain.
The dog, was the recipient of the pain, and hence is the one that suffered from the cruel act.
And I would guess the wild dog would be slightly more wary of humans out for a walk in future.
So from the POV of the mammal, yes it is equally cruel.
Which is the point I have been making all alone, that some people will willingly accept that there is cruelty in factory farming, and they are comfortable with that when consuming products from such animals. |
So there you have it. The phrase 'being cruel to be kind' swings the door open to different levels of cruelty related to intention. Your point about human justification is correct and my point is that this feeds in to an assessment of the level of cruelty in any given action(s).
'So from the POV of the mammal, yes it is equally cruel' - No way. I don't agree that the mammal would view both scenarios as equally cruel. This would definitely be an 'agree to disagree' point. I think if the dogs could talk, they would be grateful for the surgeons intervention, and somewhat less so in relation to the student! Remember that the victim will also have a sense of societal morality against which to judge any actions that cause them pain and suffering.
I do agree with your last para though, but only because cruelty in factory farming is considered lower on the spectrum of cruel behaviour. | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:30 - Jul 29 with 591 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 12:02 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
Sigh….
The post you are talking about wasn’t a response to you, it was another poster.
There was a huge uproar about the beating of the horse.
The population of vegans in the U.K. is about 1-2%
I would imagine that of all the people in an uproar about the beating, not all of them were vegans.
The majority were consuming products from factory farming.
So I wasn’t quoting you or talking about you, I was responding to another poster.
That sentence was making a point using a different context, to a different poster, because they asked a question in a slightly different way, after presumably reading some of my posts.
If you have no idea no idea what a sentence is for, the the respectful way of responding to that is to say something like “I don’t understand what that sentence is for”, not accuse the person writing that sentence, of making things up about what you said and being disingenuous.
Not everything I write, especially when replying to other posters, is about you Dolly. |
Again, disingenuous. At no point did I say that post was directed at me, and it makes no odds who it was addressed to. The only reason you keep banging on about it responding to another poster is diversion (rather than addressing the points).
"If you have no idea no idea what a sentence is for, the respectful way of responding to that is to say something like “I don’t understand what that sentence is for”" - again, you're disingenuously taking my words literally. I'm clearly making a rhetorical point. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:37 - Jul 29 with 581 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 15:41 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
Yes, I agree your scenario is a useful thing to consider, and we are getting back to the discussion in terms of the POV of the human vs the mammal.
Even in your illustration, you mention that the human makes a judgement, and that in their judgment the pain that is going to be caused, is worth it.
You are inflicting pain, but there is in the mind of a human, a valid justification.
The 1st human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be kind.
The 2nd human would probably use the phrase being cruel to be better educated for the greater good.
Isn’t the phrase, being cruel to be kind a common phrase used by humans.
The human has an opinion on why they caused the pain, and they both intentionally caused pain.
The dog, was the recipient of the pain, and hence is the one that suffered from the cruel act.
And I would guess the wild dog would be slightly more wary of humans out for a walk in future.
So from the POV of the mammal, yes it is equally cruel.
Which is the point I have been making all alone, that some people will willingly accept that there is cruelty in factory farming, and they are comfortable with that when consuming products from such animals. |
And this is where we differ. I'm astonished that anyone could think those scenarios are equally cruel, but maybe that's just me.
I don't think the 1st human would use the phrase being cruel to be kind. I don't expect anyone trying to save another creature's life would think they're being cruel, and I don't think a court of law would rule cruelty either. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:02 - Jul 29 with 559 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 16:26 - Jul 29 by bluestandard |
So there you have it. The phrase 'being cruel to be kind' swings the door open to different levels of cruelty related to intention. Your point about human justification is correct and my point is that this feeds in to an assessment of the level of cruelty in any given action(s).
'So from the POV of the mammal, yes it is equally cruel' - No way. I don't agree that the mammal would view both scenarios as equally cruel. This would definitely be an 'agree to disagree' point. I think if the dogs could talk, they would be grateful for the surgeons intervention, and somewhat less so in relation to the student! Remember that the victim will also have a sense of societal morality against which to judge any actions that cause them pain and suffering.
I do agree with your last para though, but only because cruelty in factory farming is considered lower on the spectrum of cruel behaviour. |
I don’t think it does.
I your example the dog can talk, so the justification can be explained.
If the dog could talk, and had the capability to understand the reasoning what something was being done, you would probably chat about it before amputating the leg.
And I would expect a dog, that could understand the reasoning of the two vets, would probably not let the student have a go.
So from the POV of the dog, that doesn’t really talk, I think it is still equally cruel. It is still a cruel act, but the individual vet is justifying the action to themselves, the dog doesn’t really know from vet or student.
Which is what happens in factory farming and the justification that some people make that consume the products of factory farming.
However, the more interesting thing, is you are evaluating the circumstances from the POV of a mammal.
And that is where this discussion started, can you put yourself in the mind of farmed Cow/Sheep/Pig and all that on average happens to such an mammal, and the mind of a Waltzing horse that has been beaten once and all the average things that happen to such horses (who we are told live very good lives especially after they retire).
If I gave you that choice, would you prefer one over the other? | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:15 - Jul 29 with 548 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:02 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
I don’t think it does.
I your example the dog can talk, so the justification can be explained.
If the dog could talk, and had the capability to understand the reasoning what something was being done, you would probably chat about it before amputating the leg.
And I would expect a dog, that could understand the reasoning of the two vets, would probably not let the student have a go.
So from the POV of the dog, that doesn’t really talk, I think it is still equally cruel. It is still a cruel act, but the individual vet is justifying the action to themselves, the dog doesn’t really know from vet or student.
Which is what happens in factory farming and the justification that some people make that consume the products of factory farming.
However, the more interesting thing, is you are evaluating the circumstances from the POV of a mammal.
And that is where this discussion started, can you put yourself in the mind of farmed Cow/Sheep/Pig and all that on average happens to such an mammal, and the mind of a Waltzing horse that has been beaten once and all the average things that happen to such horses (who we are told live very good lives especially after they retire).
If I gave you that choice, would you prefer one over the other? |
"a Waltzing horse that has been beaten once"
So when they captured this on video, that was the only time it ever happened?! That was pretty unlucky!! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:22 - Jul 29 with 540 views | Ryorry |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:02 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
I don’t think it does.
I your example the dog can talk, so the justification can be explained.
If the dog could talk, and had the capability to understand the reasoning what something was being done, you would probably chat about it before amputating the leg.
And I would expect a dog, that could understand the reasoning of the two vets, would probably not let the student have a go.
So from the POV of the dog, that doesn’t really talk, I think it is still equally cruel. It is still a cruel act, but the individual vet is justifying the action to themselves, the dog doesn’t really know from vet or student.
Which is what happens in factory farming and the justification that some people make that consume the products of factory farming.
However, the more interesting thing, is you are evaluating the circumstances from the POV of a mammal.
And that is where this discussion started, can you put yourself in the mind of farmed Cow/Sheep/Pig and all that on average happens to such an mammal, and the mind of a Waltzing horse that has been beaten once and all the average things that happen to such horses (who we are told live very good lives especially after they retire).
If I gave you that choice, would you prefer one over the other? |
I might regret rejoining this debate, but if the dogs could talk/understand, and if their lives had been saved cos the cancer had been malignant, they might have said that "The end justifies the means. *V.* tricky waters inded, that.
The most appalling cruelty inflicted on a dog was, to my mind, sending a dog alone into space, abandoning it. Dogs, of all animals, always need company - being alone is alien & incredibly distressing to them. The fact that it would have no understanding of why it had been abandoned just increass that. Upsets me every time thinking about it.
Humans using animals in warfare is another totally unaccptable horror to me which I never see mentioned, let alone discussed. |  |
| |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:14 - Jul 29 with 516 views | Buhrer |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:22 - Jul 29 by Ryorry |
I might regret rejoining this debate, but if the dogs could talk/understand, and if their lives had been saved cos the cancer had been malignant, they might have said that "The end justifies the means. *V.* tricky waters inded, that.
The most appalling cruelty inflicted on a dog was, to my mind, sending a dog alone into space, abandoning it. Dogs, of all animals, always need company - being alone is alien & incredibly distressing to them. The fact that it would have no understanding of why it had been abandoned just increass that. Upsets me every time thinking about it.
Humans using animals in warfare is another totally unaccptable horror to me which I never see mentioned, let alone discussed. |
If we hadn't use animals in warfare, you'd likely not have domesticated horses to naturally teach dressage to though. And hundreds of horses charging in battle sounds more natural than doe set doe for rosettes. |  | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:23 - Jul 29 with 505 views | bluestandard |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 17:02 - Jul 29 by eireblue |
I don’t think it does.
I your example the dog can talk, so the justification can be explained.
If the dog could talk, and had the capability to understand the reasoning what something was being done, you would probably chat about it before amputating the leg.
And I would expect a dog, that could understand the reasoning of the two vets, would probably not let the student have a go.
So from the POV of the dog, that doesn’t really talk, I think it is still equally cruel. It is still a cruel act, but the individual vet is justifying the action to themselves, the dog doesn’t really know from vet or student.
Which is what happens in factory farming and the justification that some people make that consume the products of factory farming.
However, the more interesting thing, is you are evaluating the circumstances from the POV of a mammal.
And that is where this discussion started, can you put yourself in the mind of farmed Cow/Sheep/Pig and all that on average happens to such an mammal, and the mind of a Waltzing horse that has been beaten once and all the average things that happen to such horses (who we are told live very good lives especially after they retire).
If I gave you that choice, would you prefer one over the other? |
Nah, the chat beforehand is a 'get out'. I said 'if they could talk', but for whatever reason, the surgeon/student didn't chat with the dogs. That might dial up the cruelty a notch for both scenarios, but it still doesn't equalise the cruelty between the 2 scenarios.
Also, this is getting complicated! You've introduced a new angle, which is:- Is cruelty judged by the victim in the moment that the action takes place or can it / should it be judged with the benefit of hindsight and a full appreciation of fact and context. I'm sure both dogs would have experienced both scenarios as equally 'horrific' in the moment, but when context is added their enduring judgements will differ imo. I'm going to gracefully bow out now, and thanks for the debate. Someone else is going to have to make this a 10-pager! | | | |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 19:04 - Jul 29 with 489 views | eireblue |
| How is repeatedly whipping a horse on 18:23 - Jul 29 by bluestandard |
Nah, the chat beforehand is a 'get out'. I said 'if they could talk', but for whatever reason, the surgeon/student didn't chat with the dogs. That might dial up the cruelty a notch for both scenarios, but it still doesn't equalise the cruelty between the 2 scenarios.
Also, this is getting complicated! You've introduced a new angle, which is:- Is cruelty judged by the victim in the moment that the action takes place or can it / should it be judged with the benefit of hindsight and a full appreciation of fact and context. I'm sure both dogs would have experienced both scenarios as equally 'horrific' in the moment, but when context is added their enduring judgements will differ imo. I'm going to gracefully bow out now, and thanks for the debate. Someone else is going to have to make this a 10-pager! |
I don’t think I have introduced something new, in the full thread.
You may have noticed, earlier, I was explicit in differentiating the rational human mind to the mammals mind. E.g. I mentioned things like a human can write poetry about their experience, a mammal can’t. Of course you may not have read all that previously.
So I think I have been very consistent throughout the thread in expressing a viewpoint from a mammal perspective.
The introduction of a talking dog, is quite useful, because it does also highlight the difference between a brain that can rationalise and understand something, vs a brain that can’t.
So I don’t think I have introduced something new, but a talking dog is somewhat new, but helps illustrate something from previously.
And I think I have always been explicit, in stating I am talking about the POV from a mammal. Hence talking about evolution and brain chemistry earlier.
Again, I accept you weren’t involved at that point.
But yep it’s been fun. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
