Grand National - Bet or Boycott?

onona said:
Maybe you find it funny when a certain clique here, which by all appearances includes part of the moderation team, regularly bashes and belittles those who hold views contrary to theirs, but frankly I don't find it particularly amusing at all. It's the kind of behaviour I assumed we'd all left behind in the kindergarten playground, but apparently there's quite a case of arrested development going on around here.

Just look at the user tag I was given recently, after apparently doing the unthinkable by mentioning something as offensively high brow as gender stereotypes in a very low brow thread thread. The moderators here thought it would be funny to mockingly give me the Betty Friedan tag, because apparently it's easier to just mock and then simplify peoples' views by slapping the first Google result they found under their name for lolz, instead of bothering to understand them. "We're the friendliest forum on the internet"? Yeah, right.

It seems this particular clique here in the off topic forum just want to beat their chests and HURRR DURRR over everything, because the moment you try to introduce any serious discussion into the topic, you're either:

1. Lacking a sense of humour
2. Being a Nazi; or
3. the most beautifully ironic of all, ignorant.
Click to expand...

It's just the internet.
 
Wow. Just wow.

I'll reply when I've eaten.
 
onona said:
It seems this particular clique here in the off topic forum just want to beat their chests and HURRR DURRR over everything, because the moment you try to introduce any serious discussion into the topic, you're either:

1. Lacking a sense of humour
2. Being a Nazi; or
3. the most beautifully ironic of all, ignorant.
Click to expand...


...and yet so many of your posts appear to be in OOF. How does that work?
 
matty said:
4) Just because you dont like anything doesnt mean the rest of us cant like it
Click to expand...

onona said:
Funny then, that in point 4 you only suggest people who don't like horse racing are being belligerent, when in fact it's the opposite that's largely true in this thread. That shows a bias, further enforced by your use of the term "rest of us" which would appear to include yourself, whether you intended it or not.
Click to expand...

Your assuming you know how I think again. Point 4 is pretty generic, just because 'you'(whoever You may be)doesnt like something, doesnt mean the rest of us cant like it. Im talking in general here, not specifically. In light of the massive amount of pendantry present, i'll edit it so that its crystal clear to absolutely everyone.

The notion that intelligent discussion is frowned upon is pathetic. Perhaps if the opinions and points were put across in a structured, logical and sensible debate, rather than judgemental, self-rightous rants and arguments then the threads (Note...Not aimed at anyone inparticular, there is a general trend for this sort of thing at the moment) wouldnt go south and we wont have to intervene.

As for user titles, only special people get them...;)

And as a general note for ALL users , I suggest using the Ignore function, its great.
 
and for clarity, i like a good argument, but they work better in person as on the internet you lose all the body language that goes with it.
 
Talking about intellectual discussions...


The Sun rather impressively managed to crowbar a quote from Ovid onto Page 3 today!!
 
I think it might be wise for EVERYONE to have a little think about how they interact with each other. there is a little bit of a 'me too' culture of leaping on the first person who disagrees.
 
matty said:
I think it might be wise for EVERYONE to have a little think about how they interact with each other. there is a little bit of a 'me too' culture of leaping on the first person who disagrees.
Click to expand...

I agree! :D
 
onona said:
Just look at the user tag I was given recently,.
Click to expand...

You think you have problems?
You wouldn't believe some of the ones that I have been stuck with.

The current one? well, that makes me look like a whore.
the previous one, 60.2631, -1.407736 makes me look like a,
well you figure it out. (it took me long enough :D)

Some since I've been "green" some well before.
I am absolutely disgusted
Think its funny as hell.

There far, far are worse things in life than being "stuck" with a user name that you don't think is very funny ;)
 
TheBigYin said:
It'd already been done iirc, but I think the recipient is no longer here :naughty:
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was referring to! I.e. Backing up Chris that titles can be a lot worse!
 
dod said:
Right I've watched it.

What I agree with. Dog breeding for aesthetics is most probably wrong for all breeds but is quite obviously, at a very minimum, morally and genetically wrong where it involves what amounts to re-engineering of the face.
What I disagree with: Your assertion that it's the Kennel Club "legislation" which in your words
However, the comparison of dog breeding to Hitler's Concentration camp programme was more than a little bit over the top. Then again, it's to be expected from the BBC. This thread's full of it as well.
Click to expand...

Dod you need to watch the follow now, Pedigree Dogs Exposed Three Years on, will see if I can find a link later

You a re right it isn't all the KCs fault, and trust me I have no time for them.
a lot of it is the breeders striving to win every show and if a dog wins they all want to use if to breed from.
What the kennel club could do is limit the number of litters a stud dog can sire, same as they do the biches
They could also make health tests on the parents a condition of regististration.
It might stop the puppy farmers getting so many registered.
Recently a few dogs that got BoB at crufts were stripped of the tile due to health problems, hope they have also been endorsed to stop any litters being registered.
It really annoys me that people hold up KC registration as a must to get a puppy, it means nothing without health tests etc
 
Gremlin said:
Dod you need to watch the follow now, Pedigree Dogs Exposed Three Years on, will see if I can find a link later
Click to expand...

For what reason? I watched the first one and, as I suspected I would, wasted my time. There was nothing in it I wasn't generally aware of and it provided nothing to substantiate the over emotional, inaccurate, claims in this thread.

I'm not going to watch another hour of drama unless you can give me a good solid reason for doing so.
 
dod said:
For what reason? I watched the first one and, as I suspected I would, wasted my time. There was nothing in it I wasn't generally aware of and it provided nothing to substantiate the over emotional, inaccurate, claims in this thread.

I'm not going to watch another hour of drama unless you can give me a good solid reason for doing so.
Click to expand...

So after watching the doc i suggested. You are not convinced at all, that pedigree dogs are not suffering due to breeding constraints?
 
simon44 said:
So after watching the doc i suggested. You are not convinced at all, that pedigree dogs are not suffering due to breeding constraints?
Click to expand...

You're a troll, aren't you?

dod said:
Right I've watched it.

What I agree with. Dog breeding for aesthetics is most probably wrong for all breeds but is quite obviously, at a very minimum, morally and genetically wrong where it involves what amounts to re-engineering of the face.
What I disagree with: Your assertion that it's the Kennel Club "legislation" which in your words
Click to expand...
 
simon44 said:
So after watching the doc i suggested. You are not convinced at all, that pedigree dogs are not suffering due to breeding constraints?
Click to expand...

i thought you suggested that pugs are supposed to have breathing problems and sores in the folds of the skin? thats different from a general breeding issue?
 
matty said:
i thought you suggested that pugs are supposed to have breathing problems and sores in the folds of the skin? thats different from a general breeding issue?
Click to expand...

what was actually said

simon44 said:
My mother inlaw breeds pugs. The kennel club through their legislation, demand that they have breathing problems and are afflicted with sores due to the folds in the skin.
Click to expand...

We've already proved that's not the case, I've spent an hour watching a docudrama that couldn't support the claim and now I'm being mis-represented. :annoyed:
 
simon44 said:
i'm done with this.
Click to expand...

Coward. Your claims have been repeatedly disproved, both in terms of Racing and dog breeding, and now you're doing a runner.

Here's a hint:

If you want to convince people that your views are correct, then try using accurate facts, otherwise you are just spouting BS and doing the T word.
 
I'd be interested to hear the explanation for what is "morally wrong" about dog breeding. Certainly, it's not genetically wrong. By definition, if it was genetically wrong, then breeding would not be permissible under nature's laws. It simply wouldn't work.

Morality is the question of how someone chooses to live on an individual level. It's a disambiguation of the "golden rule" about what is right or wrong for others being right or wrong for you.

Saying that you don't believe breeds of dogs should intermix is roughly the same as saying humans shouldn't as well.
 
London Headshots said:
I'd be interested to hear the explanation for what is "morally wrong" about dog breeding. Certainly, it's not genetically wrong. By definition, if it was genetically wrong, then breeding would not be permissible under nature's laws. It simply wouldn't work.

Morality is the question of how someone chooses to live on an individual level. It's a disambiguation of the "golden rule" about what is right or wrong for others being right or wrong for you.

Saying that you don't believe breeds of dogs should intermix is roughly the same as saying humans shouldn't as well.
Click to expand...

Just popping back in (yeah yeah I can't keep away :bonk:)

You clearly haven't watched the video have you? It's not about breeding breed X with breed Y. It's about the selective breeding within one breed where they only seem to care about getting dogs that look like the "breed standard" at any cost. In doing this there is an increased incidence of painful and life threatening conditions with strong genetic links. Mummy and son can breed - that's okay (patricide and eye gouging optional). Breeding from dogs with a known genetic condition - that's okay.

I would question whether these practices are okay. I certainly don't agree with them and I can't imagine anyone would support practices that increase the risk of painful and life threatening conditions.

You've got the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.
 
matty said:
i thought you suggested that pugs are supposed to have breathing problems and sores in the folds of the skin? thats different from a general breeding issue?
Click to expand...

dod said:
what was actually said



We've already proved that's not the case, I've spent an hour watching a docudrama that couldn't support the claim and now I'm being mis-represented. :annoyed:
Click to expand...



He didnt mean it literally surely you can understand that. The obvious point he was trying to make is that the breeding regulations for pug dogs often result in breathing problems and sores under the skin so implying that the KC who enforce these requirements are complicit in those problems. It aint rocket science fellas. :)

Oh and you didn't need to watch an hour docudrama to understand that a quick google search and a quick read of wiki would have done it :thumbs: :exit:

Steve
 
Last edited:
steve_v said:
He didnt mean it literally surely you can understand that. The obvious point he was trying ot make is that the breeding regulations for pug dogs often result in breathing problems and sores under the skin so implying that the KC who enforce these requirements are complicit in those problems. It aint rocket science fellas.

Oh and you didn't need to watch an hour docudrama to understand that a quick google search and a quick read of wiki would have done it :thumbs:

Steve
Click to expand...

Never let common sense get in the way of winning an argument!
 
steve_v said:
He didnt mean it literally surely you can understand that. The obvious point he was trying to make is that the breeding regulations for pug dogs often result in breathing problems and sores under the skin so implying that the KC who enforce these requirements are complicit in those problems. It aint rocket science fellas. :)

Oh and you didn't need to watch an hour docudrama to understand that a quick google search and a quick read of wiki would have done it :thumbs: :exit:

Steve
Click to expand...
here we go again.

I pulled him up on the literal meaning of his statement as it was just another example of a wild claim being made with nothing to back it up. He claimed the video WOULD back up his claim, it didn't. I know exactly what he means, I've already acknowledged it, but that wasn't what he claimed, more than once.


rssmrry said:
Just popping back in (yeah yeah I can't keep away :bonk:)

You clearly haven't watched the video have you? It's not about breeding breed X with breed Y. It's about the selective breeding within one breed where they only seem to care about getting dogs that look like the "breed standard" at any cost. In doing this there is an increased incidence of painful and life threatening conditions with strong genetic links. Mummy and son can breed - that's okay (patricide and eye gouging optional). Breeding from dogs with a known genetic condition - that's okay.

I would question whether these practices are okay. I certainly don't agree with them and I can't imagine anyone would support practices that increase the risk of painful and life threatening conditions.

You've got the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and you've put it better than I would have :). Additionally as morals are about human behaviour I'd say breeding dogs which you know have genetic abnormalities and will potentially suffer for it is clearly immoral.
 
dod said:
here we go again.

I pulled him up on the literal meaning of his statement as it was just another example of a wild claim being made with nothing to back it up. He claimed the video WOULD back up his claim, it didn't. I know exactly what he means, I've already acknowledged it, but that wasn't what he claimed, more than once.
Click to expand...

I am sorry just trying to get my head round this. You think he meant it LITERALLY ie the KC insists that Pug dogs must have breathing problems and sores in their skin :)

Steve
 
Last edited:
steve_v said:
I am sorry just trying to get my head round this. You think he meant it LITERALLY ie the KC insists that Pug dogs must have breathing problems and sores in their skin :)

Steve
Click to expand...

He's the one who said it, but he appears to be trolling, not just here but in other threads, he was challenged and could have quite easily clarified, he didn't.

I have a pedigree animal and spent a lot of time researching the breed and many others, I'm well aware that some breeders are shrinking the gene pool and breeding defects over and over and creating problems(or magnifying them) that was his point, but his delivery was poor.
 
No.

Edit. Too slow, on phone :$
 
rssmrry said:
Just popping back in (yeah yeah I can't keep away :bonk:)

You clearly haven't watched the video have you? It's not about breeding breed X with breed Y. It's about the selective breeding within one breed where they only seem to care about getting dogs that look like the "breed standard" at any cost. In doing this there is an increased incidence of painful and life threatening conditions with strong genetic links. Mummy and son can breed - that's okay (patricide and eye gouging optional). Breeding from dogs with a known genetic condition - that's okay.

I would question whether these practices are okay. I certainly don't agree with them and I can't imagine anyone would support practices that increase the risk of painful and life threatening conditions.

You've got the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Didn't know there actually was a video. I was just responding to that one post. Clearly I did miss the larger picture.
 
London Headshots said:
Didn't know there actually was a video. I was just responding to that one post. Clearly I did miss the larger picture.
Click to expand...

Good tip to follow, ALWAYS read ALL the thread before commenting on one post, that way you do not get jumped on for not reading,looking,seeing something you should have, specially in a thread as long as this and the way it has gone.

I love reading these sorts of threads as you learne something new but I hardly ever partake as I know absolutely nothing about horse racing(except it involves many peole and a horse or two:D) and dog breeding as i have never owned a pedegree dog before(plenty of mungrols)

spike
 
I'm not sure if you realise how condescending that sounds.

I read the thread; I just missed the video.
 
London Headshots said:
I'm not sure if you realise how condescending that sounds.

I read the thread; I just missed the video.
Click to expand...


Soryy I did not mean it sound condecending at all, you missed the bigger picture, you missed the video and you where replying to only that one post, so that to me meant you had not read the whole thread or seen all the liks in that thread.

spike.
 
Yeah, it's a funny thing this "replying to only one post" notion, because you can't really reply to a thread, only the comments contained within it.

I chose to address a comment I had an issue with, and it still stands. It doesn't matter what reason you're breeding a dog for, I'd still like to see someone advance a convincing argument as to why it's genetically or morally wrong.
 
London Headshots said:
Yeah, it's a funny thing this "replying to only one post" notion, because you can't really reply to a thread, only the comments contained within it.

I chose to address a comment I had an issue with, and it still stands. It doesn't matter what reason you're breeding a dog for, I'd still like to see someone advance a convincing argument as to why it's genetically or morally wrong.
Click to expand...

I thought that had been covered? If you're breeding dogs to look like the "breed standard" and don't care if you increase the incidence of avoidable inherited disease, causing unnecessary suffering to innocent animals I'd say that's morally wrong. If (god forbid) you discovered that you had a particular inherited condition, incurable and by fathering a child you would almost certainly pass that along to your kid, causing it a lifetime of suffering and other problems associated with the disease. Would you think it morally right to bring a child into the world? Like I say, we covered this earlier, I'd say it's a pretty good argument against current breeding practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top