So if you needed an operation now when you know better you would turn it down?
Come on martin, give us an answer.....
Don’t hold your breath. All you’ll get is cheap digs and sarcasm. None of the anti horse racing brigade have answered questions about the process of halal meat or about life saving operations, for example.
This thread concerns opposition to horse racing and how the authorities are being influenced by that opposition. Place the discussion of other issues elsewhere, please.
Fine, let's do this.
AK - please let me know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal welfare.
(To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing - stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way, I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
This thread concerns opposition to horse racing and how the authorities are being influenced by that opposition. Place the discussion of other issues elsewhere, please.
Fine, let's do this.
AK - please let me know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal welfare.
(To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing - stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way, I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
Over to you AK.
I can't get my head round anyone that wouldn't think this. If i lost a child and someone compared it to when their cat died, i wouldn't be able to stop myself.
This thread concerns opposition to horse racing and how the authorities are being influenced by that opposition. Place the discussion of other issues elsewhere, please.
Fine, let's do this.
AK - please let me know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal welfare.
(To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing - stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way, I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
While I am more sympathetic to AK's position than Paddy's, I like the non hysterical tone of Paddy's post. I am not convinced there are absolutes on this, which might help me explain to myself why I remain vegetarian and not vegan. I do believe the debate is well worth having, and the relationship between humans and animals is something that should be constantly under review.
While I am more sympathetic to AK's position than Paddy's, I like the non hysterical tone of Paddy's post. I am not convinced there are absolutes on this, which might help me explain to myself why I remain vegetarian and not vegan. I do believe the debate is well worth having, and the relationship between humans and animals is something that should be constantly under review.
While I am more sympathetic to AK's position than Paddy's, I like the non hysterical tone of Paddy's post. I am not convinced there are absolutes on this, which might help me explain to myself why I remain vegetarian and not vegan. I do believe the debate is well worth having, and the relationship between humans and animals is something that should be constantly under review.
Brilliant post and spot on PaddyP17.......we both know AK won’t respond as they never do........still awaiting on here at other threads for responses myself
I’m trying to get my head around the “without horse racing these horses would never be born” argument.
It’s as though we are doing these unborn horses a favour by bringing them into the world. It comes across as extremely arrogant to me. If they weren’t ever born, no one would know any different - it’s not as if we would have to start doing horse abortions. We should have no right to play god with the ecosystem in such a way.
That argument that sticks harder is what would happen to the hundreds of jobs and thousands of horses currently in work if the sport were to be banned?
It would certainly be an unfortunate consequence but as a crude analogy, it’s a bit like arguing for seat belts in the early 20th century. What will happen to all the poor families who shelled out for a new car without them? And what about the car manufacturers who have to change how they design their cars? I suspect a slow phase worked then and that it work with horse racing now.
Basically, my moral values tell me this: I do value a human’s life above an animal’s life. I do not value a human’s enjoyment over an animal’s life. I eat meat and sometimes I like to watch horse racing but my conscience always nags at me when these debates arise.
I suspect that in the next few decades, AK will be on the winning side of this argument and horse racing for human enjoyment will be seen as barbaric and outlawed. But there are loads of bookies that I’m sure would be working very hard to prevent it.
I’m trying to get my head around the “without horse racing these horses would never be born” argument.
It’s as though we are doing these unborn horses a favour by bringing them into the world. It comes across as extremely arrogant to me. If they weren’t ever born, no one would know any different - it’s not as if we would have to start doing horse abortions. We should have no right to play god with the ecosystem in such a way.
That argument that sticks harder is what would happen to the hundreds of jobs and thousands of horses currently in work if the sport were to be banned?
It would certainly be an unfortunate consequence but as a crude analogy, it’s a bit like arguing for seat belts in the early 20th century. What will happen to all the poor families who shelled out for a new car without them? And what about the car manufacturers who have to change how they design their cars? I suspect a slow phase worked then and that it work with horse racing now.
Basically, my moral values tell me this: I do value a human’s life above an animal’s life. I do not value a human’s enjoyment over an animal’s life. I eat meat and sometimes I like to watch horse racing but my conscience always nags at me when these debates arise.
I suspect that in the next few decades, AK will be on the winning side of this argument and horse racing for human enjoyment will be seen as barbaric and outlawed. But there are loads of bookies that I’m sure would be working very hard to prevent it.
I think people mean the breed of horse, as opposed to each individual animal. Horse racing gives them a value to humans, who run this Planet (badly). But, none the less, humans run it and pay for the up-keep of horses in order to be ride and race them, as it seems from other threads / posts on Vegan Life, we're not allowed to eat animsls, at least sport buys some of them a place in this real world. Look at Shire Horses for example...
If racing was banned what would AK etc think of keeping horses in order to ride them. Presumably that would be a no-no too? And I assume zoos would also be out of the question? So what is the future for the horse then? Serious question.
I’m trying to get my head around the “without horse racing these horses would never be born” argument.
It’s as though we are doing these unborn horses a favour by bringing them into the world. It comes across as extremely arrogant to me. If they weren’t ever born, no one would know any different - it’s not as if we would have to start doing horse abortions. We should have no right to play god with the ecosystem in such a way.
That argument that sticks harder is what would happen to the hundreds of jobs and thousands of horses currently in work if the sport were to be banned?
It would certainly be an unfortunate consequence but as a crude analogy, it’s a bit like arguing for seat belts in the early 20th century. What will happen to all the poor families who shelled out for a new car without them? And what about the car manufacturers who have to change how they design their cars? I suspect a slow phase worked then and that it work with horse racing now.
Basically, my moral values tell me this: I do value a human’s life above an animal’s life. I do not value a human’s enjoyment over an animal’s life. I eat meat and sometimes I like to watch horse racing but my conscience always nags at me when these debates arise.
I suspect that in the next few decades, AK will be on the winning side of this argument and horse racing for human enjoyment will be seen as barbaric and outlawed. But there are loads of bookies that I’m sure would be working very hard to prevent it.
Far more horses die in paddock accidents than on the race course. For the moral argument to apply, i.e. no human interferance in the natural order of things, then recreational horse ownership would need to be abolished as well. Let's go further than that, and to truly restore the natural order, and let horses roam freely, and as a prey animal let's reintroduce large predators. No vermin control - a rat infestation? Let em be. A horse get's injured or maimed by a wolf - no human intervention in regards to medical assistance provided by vets. Cats and dogs roaming wild - again no vets. A fatuous argument of course - but it is the obvious logical conclusion.
'Loads of bookies'? - I think owners, trainers, stable staff, drivers, vets, racecourse operators, conference and banqueting providers - the list goes on, would have a say as well. It's not hundreds of jobs - it's tens of thousands. Increasingly, bookmakers, apart from on-course and especially online, wouldn't be the highest on the list of stakeholders to oppose the banning of horseracing, as the sport is an ever decreasing percentage of their product and revenue. Try to ban football and it would be a different matter!
In my opinion the focus should be (and is) to constantly work to reduce the risks whilst at the same time maintaining the racing industry.
This type of thread is aimed at those of us on here who like horseracing in order, I suspect, to wind us up. As others have stated, when questions are asked of those who want to ban the sport, answers are not forthcoming. They claim to love animals. Why then, do none of them start threads on halal meat and its production. In fact in a discussion on that topic in April 2018, none of the anti horseracing brigade even posted on it. But they soon jump in on here. Probably because they know they have few, if any, Muslims posting on here. Whereas, there are plenty of horseracing fans to have a dig at. As well as not wanting to offend, in their eyes, a religious group. Why do these threads only appear at the same time of year ? Close to the big NH festivals perhaps ? Several post on here but they never answer questions put to them - at least 3 of us have stated as much.
Domesticated animals simply cannot survive without human intervention and humans would not keep them unless there was an economic reason to do so.
Ban all forms of animal husbandry, breeding and caretaking and you consign hundreds of breeds to extinction. This is not a "kindness", no matter how many times Peta and the rest of the dullards keep repeating it.
I’m trying to get my head around the “without horse racing these horses would never be born” argument.
It’s as though we are doing these unborn horses a favour by bringing them into the world. It comes across as extremely arrogant to me. If they weren’t ever born, no one would know any different - it’s not as if we would have to start doing horse abortions. We should have no right to play god with the ecosystem in such a way.
That argument that sticks harder is what would happen to the hundreds of jobs and thousands of horses currently in work if the sport were to be banned?
It would certainly be an unfortunate consequence but as a crude analogy, it’s a bit like arguing for seat belts in the early 20th century. What will happen to all the poor families who shelled out for a new car without them? And what about the car manufacturers who have to change how they design their cars? I suspect a slow phase worked then and that it work with horse racing now.
Basically, my moral values tell me this: I do value a human’s life above an animal’s life. I do not value a human’s enjoyment over an animal’s life. I eat meat and sometimes I like to watch horse racing but my conscience always nags at me when these debates arise.
I suspect that in the next few decades, AK will be on the winning side of this argument and horse racing for human enjoyment will be seen as barbaric and outlawed. But there are loads of bookies that I’m sure would be working very hard to prevent it.
Far more horses die in paddock accidents than on the race course. For the moral argument to apply, i.e. no human interferance in the natural order of things, then recreational horse ownership would need to be abolished as well. Let's go further than that, and to truly restore the natural order, and let horses roam freely, and as a prey animal let's reintroduce large predators. No vermin control - a rat infestation? Let em be. A horse get's injured or maimed by a wolf - no human intervention in regards to medical assistance provided by vets. Cats and dogs roaming wild - again no vets. A fatuous argument of course - but it is the obvious logical conclusion.
'Loads of bookies'? - I think owners, trainers, stable staff, drivers, vets, racecourse operators, conference and banqueting providers - the list goes on, would have a say as well. It's not hundreds of jobs - it's tens of thousands. Increasingly, bookmakers, apart from on-course and especially online, wouldn't be the highest on the list of stakeholders to oppose the banning of horseracing, as the sport is an ever decreasing percentage of their product and revenue. Try to ban football and it would be a different matter!
In my opinion the focus should be (and is) to constantly work to reduce the risks whilst at the same time maintaining the racing industry.
I don’t think that your conclusion is logical by any means. It’s a slippery slope fallacy. I don’t think anyone logically welcomes rat infestations and I also don’t think we should cut off medical assistance for animals in pain and suffering as I value animal life. Perhaps I could’ve been less sweeping in my statement about playing god (I did say that I value animal life over human enjoyment later on) but I’m on mobile that’s my excuse for not having my argument perfectly laid out. :-)
I am addressing a portion of the debate, one also raised by Callum in a different way.
No you're not, you're company black people to horses
No I am not. I am addressing the notion that horses wouldn't exist in such numbers if there was no horseracing. I am not sure racing is established as a contribution to horse conservation, I believe there are other reasons for racing. It is the weakness of the argument, which would have been weak coming from slave owners. I didn't mention the colour of any slaves (what colour(s) were slaves in Roman times?), It says something about your preoccupation rather than mine that you differentiate it down to 'black people'.
Comments
AK - please let me know if I get any of this wrong. I presume you would like to see an outright ban of horse racing, both over obstacles and on the flat. I also presume that you feel it necessary to pressure NH authorities and courses first, because they pose the most danger to horses.
To that end, you campaign; write to race courses about certain obstacles (including the aforementioned Cheltenham fence, and likely some of the Grand National course fences); petition; and so on. Right?
And this is in the quite understandable name of animal welfare.
(To clarify, none of this is actually a "point" I'm trying to make, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
-------------------------
I have following to say, and if we disagree, then we disagree:
1) I value human life above that of horses, or indeed any other animal. (We almost certainly disagree on this.) To that end, I am prepared to accept deaths of race horses as the price to pay for them to exist, and to enjoy a sport I love.
2) As ideologically consistent as you most likely are (which is admirable, of course, and I don't mean that to sound patronising), you must concede that there are thousands of jobs related to horse racing - and billions of pounds to boot. I would posit, therefore, that you're putting the welfare of circa 20,000 active horses (there are roughly that amount in training) above the livelihoods of thousands of humans?
Why?
Someone more mean-spirited than I would argue, heavy-handedly, it's because you view yourself as morally superior to those who work in this industry, so you value their human livelihood less than those of the horses and other animals you strive to protect, ideologically.
3) I find your tactics, especially with the petition, underhand.
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."
"To stop horses dying" means an end goal, ultimately, of one thing - stopping the sport in its entirety. That said, even then you could have been more clear, as we could be debating horse immortality (which would be amazing of course) right now.
You were asking for people to vote for motherhood and apple pie. This was disingenuous at the very least and I find these methods at odds with an otherwise morally righteous and noble cause (again, not intending to be patronising - I legitimately admire your moral consistency).
4) ... Well, this is where I run out a bit. Anna_Kissed has never once engaged me, or what I have to say, directly on the above. I've repeated it several times (thus running perilously close to a well-worn phrase on these threads) and am yet to receive a meaningful response.
Either way, I await a considered and thoughtful reply.
Over to you AK.
I am not convinced there are absolutes on this, which might help me explain to myself why I remain vegetarian and not vegan.
I do believe the debate is well worth having, and the relationship between humans and animals is something that should be constantly under review.
Still pissed about the bed?
It’s as though we are doing these unborn horses a favour by bringing them into the world. It comes across as extremely arrogant to me. If they weren’t ever born, no one would know any different - it’s not as if we would have to start doing horse abortions. We should have no right to play god with the ecosystem in such a way.
That argument that sticks harder is what would happen to the hundreds of jobs and thousands of horses currently in work if the sport were to be banned?
It would certainly be an unfortunate consequence but as a crude analogy, it’s a bit like arguing for seat belts in the early 20th century. What will happen to all the poor families who shelled out for a new car without them? And what about the car manufacturers who have to change how they design their cars? I suspect a slow phase worked then and that it work with horse racing now.
Basically, my moral values tell me this:
I do value a human’s life above an animal’s life. I do not value a human’s enjoyment over an animal’s life. I eat meat and sometimes I like to watch horse racing but my conscience always nags at me when these debates arise.
I suspect that in the next few decades, AK will be on the winning side of this argument and horse racing for human enjoyment will be seen as barbaric and outlawed. But there are loads of bookies that I’m sure would be working very hard to prevent it.
Would they have said 'without slavery these people wouldn't exist '?
Far more horses die in paddock accidents than on the race course. For the moral argument to apply, i.e. no human interferance in the natural order of things, then recreational horse ownership would need to be abolished as well. Let's go further than that, and to truly restore the natural order, and let horses roam freely, and as a prey animal let's reintroduce large predators. No vermin control - a rat infestation? Let em be. A horse get's injured or maimed by a wolf - no human intervention in regards to medical assistance provided by vets. Cats and dogs roaming wild - again no vets. A fatuous argument of course - but it is the obvious logical conclusion.
'Loads of bookies'? - I think owners, trainers, stable staff, drivers, vets, racecourse operators, conference and banqueting providers - the list goes on, would have a say as well. It's not hundreds of jobs - it's tens of thousands. Increasingly, bookmakers, apart from on-course and especially online, wouldn't be the highest on the list of stakeholders to oppose the banning of horseracing, as the sport is an ever decreasing percentage of their product and revenue. Try to ban football and it would be a different matter!
In my opinion the focus should be (and is) to constantly work to reduce the risks whilst at the same time maintaining the racing industry.
They actually did use that line to justify slavery, I didn’t want to mention it though because it’s a bit over the top.
As others have stated, when questions are asked of those who want to ban the sport, answers are not forthcoming.
They claim to love animals. Why then, do none of them start threads on halal meat and its production. In fact in a discussion on that topic in April 2018, none of the anti horseracing brigade even posted on it. But they soon jump in on here.
Probably because they know they have few, if any, Muslims posting on here. Whereas, there are plenty of horseracing fans to have a dig at.
As well as not wanting to offend, in their eyes, a religious group.
Why do these threads only appear at the same time of year ? Close to the big NH festivals perhaps ?
Several post on here but they never answer questions put to them - at least 3 of us have stated as much.
Ban all forms of animal husbandry, breeding and caretaking and you consign hundreds of breeds to extinction. This is not a "kindness", no matter how many times Peta and the rest of the dullards keep repeating it.
Slavery existed in the Ancient era and all races were slaves.
The "comparison" Seth is making is that horses are currently enslaved by humans, much as some humans were also enslaved.
And slavery wasn't solely white people owning black people.
However, I haven't got the foggiest what Seth is on about, either, so if he'd like to elaborate on what he means I'd appreciate it.
I am not sure racing is established as a contribution to horse conservation, I believe there are other reasons for racing.
It is the weakness of the argument, which would have been weak coming from slave owners.
I didn't mention the colour of any slaves (what colour(s) were slaves in Roman times?), It says something about your preoccupation rather than mine that you differentiate it down to 'black people'.