Grand National - Bet or Boycott?

I go to work that this all shoots off again :D
Let's go back to the KC programme and dog breeding before all other living things,.
There is no choice for them, who mates with whom is decided by the breeder, simple as that.
Is it good for the dog, well just look at al those GSDs almost dragging their rear ends round the show rings, just because the standard states a sloping back !!
Thius has nothing to do with survival at all, it's all about wining shows and making money
 
Gremlin said:
I go to work that this all shoots off again :D
Let's go back to the KC programme and dog breeding before all other living things,.
There is no choice for them, who mates with whom is decided by the breeder, simple as that.
Is it good for the dog, well just look at al those GSDs almost dragging their rear ends round the show rings, just because the standard states a sloping back !!
Thius has nothing to do with survival at all, it's all about wining shows and making money
Click to expand...

You sure they don't just have worms? :p
 
told you the whole discussion of dog breeding and showing requires a totally different thread, discussions went on for days on the dog forums, after PDE 2 was shown and after the BOB at crufts failed the health checks, but this one was by far the best

http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=165770
 
matty said:
His last post, topped it off for me, a few little things over a few days but that topped it.

there is a growing need for people to argue on the forums at the moment, so im knocking a few heads together to try and regain a little bit of consideration for each other. Scrivens has the same, and im sure when I have a read i'll find a couple more. We as a forum are getting more and more rude to each other, and it needs to stop
Click to expand...

Here here...., I applaud you sir, there's certainly been some puffed chests on here as of late
 
I'm not looking to get sucked in here but for reference my post was very much out of curiosity to your views and wasn't ever meant as condescending.

As it happens, I have read Origin of Species, along with the New and Old Testament, and a fair few other books that surround the creation/evolution/alternative theories debate, so please don't assume I'm some half-wit looking to provoke an argument I know nothing about. I asked out of genuine interest to your beliefs and understandings and hoped for a reasoned, rational and educational discussion. Instead, in my absence, there was a vitriolic, egocentric, monologue against almost everyone on these forums, which stemmed from a misinterpretation of the intent behind my post and so for my part in that I apologise to not only you, London Headshots, but to everyone else who was on the receiving end of your outburst. There was no ill-intention meant on my part :)
 
I think they should have fences in greyhound racing.



sorry...........................:exit:
 
gazza2168 said:
I think they should have fences in greyhound racing.

sorry...........................:exit:
Click to expand...

They do... Don't they?
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'm not looking to get sucked in here but for reference my post was very much out of curiosity to your views and wasn't ever meant as condescending.

As it happens, I have read Origin of Species, along with the New and Old Testament, and a fair few other books that surround the creation/evolution/alternative theories debate, so please don't assume I'm some half-wit looking to provoke an argument I know nothing about. I asked out of genuine interest to your beliefs and understandings and hoped for a reasoned, rational and educational discussion. Instead, in my absence, there was a vitriolic, egocentric, monologue against almost everyone on these forums, which stemmed from a misinterpretation of the intent behind my post and so for my part in that I apologise to not only you, London Headshots, but to everyone else who was on the receiving end of your outburst. There was no ill-intention meant on my part :)
Click to expand...

lol, of course there wasn't dude. Your initial post where you utterly dismissed me was done so with nothing but good intentions.
 
Last edited:
matty said:
His last post, topped it off for me, a few little things over a few days but that topped it.

there is a growing need for people to argue on the forums at the moment, so im knocking a few heads together to try and regain a little bit of consideration for each other. Scrivens has the same, and im sure when I have a read i'll find a couple more. We as a forum are getting more and more rude to each other, and it needs to stop
Click to expand...

No drama, Matty, sorry if I overstepped the line. I don't argue for the sake of it. I also think you were a bit heavy handed with Joe, since he didn't seem to be doing anything he doesn't do all over the forums 24/7.

I don't mean to be rude to people, but if I am, it won't be for no reason. There's something particularly irritating about some of the more clique-y members of this forum who clearly have no other intention than stirring arguments.

The grammar line was a shameful blow, and for that I sincerely do apologise.
 
A friend who was recently working in Qatar told me about their favourite racing event - camel racing, with robot jockeys with remotely controlled whipping arms (traditionally they used to use child jockeys until H&S finally caught up).

He said it's one of the strangest things he's ever seen but apparently the locals go mad for it.

Wonder if something similar would catch on over here? :lol:
 
London Headshots said:
lol, of course there wasn't dude. Your initial post where you utterly dismissed me was done so with nothing but good intentions.
Click to expand...

If I'd have dismissed you I'd probably have said something like "lol, whatever dude" but I didn't. I asked you a few open ended questions to try and get more detail from you.

Anyway, I've tried to apologise for any misinterpretation but you seem completely uninterested so I'll bow out of this thread with this post.

Once again, sorry for the lack of clarity in the intent of my post. I'll attempt to convey meaning more transparently in future posts :)
 
London Headshots said:
I also think you were a bit heavy handed with Joe, since he didn't seem to be doing anything he doesn't do all over the forums 24/7.
Click to expand...

thats a bit harsh, he does have to eat and sleep sometimes...:D

we all need to get along a bit better, too many arguments and a general undercurrent of arguing for the sake of it is spoiling the forums for a lot of people, so it needs to stop.

:)
 
Taking this thread back to the OP and along the same lines, should marathon running be banned now due to the unfortunate death at the weekend of a runner.
 
canonrebel said:
Taking this thread back to the OP and along the same lines, should marathon running be banned now due to the unfortunate death at the weekend of a runner.
Click to expand...

I know things are no where near as bad as they were a few years ago,
but just look at the deaths or serious injury that have occurred one way or another
in Football.

Same as all this stuff, there is just way too much money involved, to even consider
a ban.
 
London Headshots said:
No, because Marathon runners choose to run; horses have no choice.
Click to expand...

of course they do. You can't force a horse to jump over a fence. You can try .... but you will not be successful.

However I don't think its the choice that really matters here. It's more the risk. The horse has no way of measuring risk of jumping over that fence the way a human can assess.
 
So, I Googled "Do horses fill out an application to become racehorses?" and got no results. What gives?

The entire concept of a non-sentient creature having a "choice" in the human sense is quite fantastic.
 
London Headshots said:
So, I Googled "Do horses fill out an application to become racehorses?" and got no results. What gives?

The entire concept of a non-sentient creature having a "choice" in the human sense is quite fantastic.
Click to expand...

This could open a whole new can of worms. Holding a degree in Animal Science and having convinced a whole factory (back in 1994) that dogs have regional accents to their barks....... that is almost a PhD in itself...


My £1 says the horse doesn't get a choice whether to be entered into the race or not, but gets a chance whether to start when the tape drops (£5 to the bookies last year) or to attempt or refuse the fence...
 
London Headshots said:
So, I Googled "Do horses fill out an application to become racehorses?" and got no results. What gives?

The entire concept of a non-sentient creature having a "choice" in the human sense is quite fantastic.
Click to expand...

Horses are self aware and can make conscious choices. I'm pretty sure that makes them sentient.
 
fabs said:
Horses are self aware and can make conscious choices. I'm pretty sure that makes them sentient.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the only animals, other than humans of course, self aware with a sense of self are primates, some marine mammals display behaviour which could be attributed to self awareness, dolphins and some whales, I dont believe horses fall into either of those categories :). Would have to get my psych books out from the attic to double check but fairly certain that's so.

Steve
 
fabs said:
Horses are self aware and can make conscious choices. I'm pretty sure that makes them sentient.
Click to expand...

And penguins can file a tax return. I suggest you read up on sentience. So far the only animals that possess even a hint of self awareness are certain dolphins and some primates.

And self awareness isn't even in the same galaxy as sentience. Like I say, you should probably read up on it.
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
Ok, that's fair enough. I always thought that sentience was as I posted above but, whatever the term actually means, that doesn't negate the fact that horses are quite capable of making a conscious choice.
Click to expand...

Decartes nailed sentience the best with' cogito ergo sum', however the whale in Hitchhikers guide is probably a more amusing example! :D
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
Ok, that's fair enough. I always thought that sentience was as I posted above but, whatever the term actually means, that doesn't negate the fact that horses are quite capable of making a conscious choice.
Click to expand...

They aren't capable of making a conscious choice though, because there is no evidence to suggest consciousness.

Ever said "I didn't realise I had a choice"?

That's probably the same for the horse
 
London Headshots said:
They aren't capable of making a conscious choice though
Click to expand...

so when a horse refuses to move an inch despite the rider kicking like hell with spurs and smacking it with a whip (seen it in dressage and show jumping) theyre not choosing to do so?

i stand by my last, try and make a horse do something it doesnt want to and see how far you get.
 
I think you might be confusing anger, frustration and fear or stubborn refusal with consciousness. A bee doesn't sting you based on a careful scrutiny of all possible contingencies.
 
Also, the argument from choice is the last ditch attempt to bring acceptability into what is essentially animal slavery for the purposes of entertainment.

Of course the horse doesn't have a "choice" to run in the Grand National. It knows no different because it's been bred to do it from birth.

You think jockeys walk in to fields and offer wild horses an offer they can't refuse?

Be serious.
 
London Headshots said:
I think you might be confusing anger, frustration and fear or stubborn refusal with consciousness. A bee doesn't sting you based on a careful scrutiny of all possible contingencies.
Click to expand...

youre really comparing a bee to a mammal?

my (limited) understanding of conciousness is that nobody really knows for sure because nobody can get inside the mind of an animal. scientists and philosiphers pretty much refuse to acknowledge any conciousness in animals. generally conciousness does bad things to the brain during extended periods of being awake, hence we sleep. so do most mammals (albeit not as much, but then i wouldnt expect as much conciousness).

fact is humans (not even the ones with PHDs) just dont know how concious animals are.

London Headshots said:
Also, the argument from choice is the last ditch attempt to bring acceptability into what is essentially animal slavery for the purposes of entertainment.

Of course the horse doesn't have a "choice" to run in the Grand National. It knows no different because it's been bred to do it from birth.
Click to expand...

ha yes slavery, slaves dont tend to get like i said earlier 5* treatment in multi million pound stables and training facilities.

and again just because its trained to run doesnt mean it will, ever seen a horse refuse to leave the gate?
 
Last edited:
So in one swipe you claim horses have a choice, and in another you admit that nobody knows the mind of an animal. I'll take that as a sign that you haven't really got a point to make and are just playing contrarian.

Also, comfort is no substitution for freedom. It's not even in the same league.

As far as philosphers apparently refusing to acknowledge animal consciousness, have you read any philosopher's works? Aristotle wrote about it at length. No serious philosopher, from the atomists through to Betrand Russell have failed to tackle animal consciousness. What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
So in one swipe you claim horses have a choice, and in another you admit that nobody knows the mind of an animal. I'll take that as a sign that you haven't really got a point to make and are just playing contrarian.
Click to expand...

im saying no one can say that an animal does not have a choice.

Also, comfort is no substitution for freedom. It's not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

maybe, you may be right but i wouldnt call slavery living in comfort. with warm and dry bedding in the winter, the correct amounts of nutition to keep the animal in prime condition. vets on call to deal with any issues.

if we're going to start talking about the donkeys/mules etc used for work in the poorer parts of the world that are often worked with injuries/illness and poor upkeep then thats what id call slavery. which i have no tollerance of and donate regularly to various trusts.

As far as philosphers apparently refusing to acknowledge animal consciousness, have you read any philosopher's works? Aristotle wrote about it at length. No serious philosopher, from the atomists through to Betrand Russell have failed to tackle animal consciousness. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

i said my understanding was limited, it may not be spot on. from what ive read it seems that many simply refuse any acknowledgment despite there not being any way to tell with any certainty.
 
It's an ever changing world we live in, concepts change all the time depending on who is popular the moment in time.
Remember not long ago they thought dogs could only see in black and white, now it seems they have some colour recognition, love to know how they work these things out :shrug:
 
neil_g said:
so when a horse refuses to move an inch despite the rider kicking like hell with spurs and smacking it with a whip (seen it in dressage and show jumping) theyre not choosing to do so?

i stand by my last, try and make a horse do something it doesnt want to and see how far you get.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is with the use of the word choice. I assume most of us would agree that an animal can follow different courses of action based on either instinct, learnt factors or external stimuli.

So as an extreme example, an amoeba might move towards a source of nutrition (based on chemical stimuli) or away from a source of heat. But we wouldn't suggest that a choice is being made here, just a reaction to a stimulus.

Move up to something like a horse and although it is a much more complex creature, it is still following courses of action based on instinct, learning or external stimuli. In its way no different to an amoeba.

So it might run across a paddock to "greet" you but that is because it has learnt that it's going to get a sugar lump or a scratch behind the ears. Equally it might refuse a fence because instinct tells it something you can't see over invokes fear or it doesn't like the look of a particular twig. But none of these are choices, they are responses.

This discussion came about because of the comment (and I'm paraphrasing): The Grand National must be OK because horses have a choice and they wouldn't run it if they didn't want to.

All I'm saying is they don't choose. They respond.

On the subject of "self", it is possible to determine this scientifically. In humans it's not there from birth although it develops quite early on but there are tests for it. And apart from certain dolphins and primates it's not present in other creatures such as horses. In fact when I'm bored it's quite good fun to stick a large mirror in front of the dog.....she always regards the reflection as an intruder :)

Not sure how this relates to the concept of conciousness, however.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top