Grand National - Bet or Boycott?

fabs said:
So a quick question. If horses don't have a consciousness, how can they be enslaved as surely they can't have a concept of freedom?
Click to expand...

An understanding of freedom isn't required in order to be free, just as one doesnt need to know they're a slave in order to be one. Slavery is the state of being under the control of another person. If the horse isn't a slave it's an unconscious captive who has no option to leave unless it becomes burdensome to keep it.
 
Spuff said:
I think the problem here is with the use of the word choice.
Click to expand...

the definition of choose is "to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities". now if you were to offer the OH stallion food or the chance to stay out in the field playing with his ball, logically that to me would require a choice in his head (which he doesn't always give the same outcome to, even at feed time when you would assume instinctivly would lead to him coming in).

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.
Click to expand...

i guess it is all a bit swings and roundabouts really. if they choose/want/respond in a way that means they dont run is it not the same thing at the end of the day?

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.
Click to expand...

is that a test of conciousness or intelligence? :D
 
London Headshots said:
An understanding of freedom isn't required in order to be free, just as one doesnt need to know they're a slave in order to be one. Slavery is the state of being under the control of another person. If the horse isn't a slave it's an unconscious captive who has no option to leave unless it becomes burdensome to keep it.
Click to expand...

so by definition dogs are in a state of slavery. should we ban all dog ownership and heaven forbid throwing a ball to make them respond to..

:p
 
fabs said:
Was going to post similar, appears all animal ownership is slavery. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Some people argue that it is. Not me. I just argue that horse racing is dangerous and not about the welfare of the horse.

There's a valid argument against keeping any animal in captivity.
 
London Headshots said:
.

There's a valid argument against keeping any animal in captivity.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to your previous statements on dog breeding, if they weren't captive things like pugs wouldn't exist, they were evolved as lap dogs as were many other toy breeds :shrug:
So in effect you are saying they shouldn't exist
 
You aren't making the point you think you're making.

I never said they should or they shouldn't, I said they did, and by definition of that fact, had as much right to as any other creature.

Completely separate and unrelated arguments.
 
According to you perhaps, who has said no animals should be captive, but without captivity we wouldn't have half the breeds of many animals we have now.
Think we will just have to agree to disagree on most of your points
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
I disagree with dog racing as much as I disagree with horse racing.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about dog racing? By your definition, pet dogs are slaves.

London Headshots said:
Slavery is the state of being under the control of another person.
Click to expand...

For someone who claims to be so well read, that has to bE the most simplistic, generic (and incorrect) definition of slavery I ever heard. I must be a slave to my boss since I'm under his control when at work.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Some people argue that it is. Not me. I just argue that horse racing is dangerous and not about the welfare of the horse.

There's a valid argument against keeping any animal in captivity.
Click to expand...

Really? What about wild animals that are found injured and taken into to care for treatment and rehabilitation for release?

Should nature be left to it's own devices?
 
fabs said:
Saying what the valid argument is rather than a condescending remark would be preferable.
Click to expand...

Dude, you think horses are sentient. It was the weekend; I'm not spending my Saturday afternoon kicking down that door. I left to go boxing; time was limited.
 
purpleclouds said:
Really? What about wild animals that are found injured and taken into to care for treatment and rehabilitation for release?

Should nature be left to it's own devices?
Click to expand...

I said there was a valid argument against it, I didn't say I agreed with it.

But yes, nature, in most cases, should be left to its own devices. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't agree with that as a naked question.
 
joescrivens said:
Who said anything about dog racing? By your definition, pet dogs are slaves.



For someone who claims to be so well read, that has to bE the most simplistic, generic (and incorrect) definition of slavery I ever heard. I must be a slave to my boss since I'm under his control when at work.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, it's joescrivens trolling again!

I've never claimed to be well read. Projecting? Perhaps I just intimidate you with my awesome knowledge of random subjects, Joseph?

One would hope, when defining the meaning of a word, that the definition would be generic or simplistic. lex parsimoniae, you should look it up.

And while you're there, go here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

"Noun 1. slavery - the state of being under the control of another person"
 
Last edited:
PETA went to court to about Orcas being kept as slaves at SeaWorld, but the case was dismissed as the 13th Amendment only covered persons and not non-persons. Animals though are viewed as property, which was what human slaves were viewed as once upon a time.
 
London Headshots said:
An understanding of freedom isn't required in order to be free, just as one doesnt need to know they're a slave in order to be one. Slavery is the state of being under the control of another person. If the horse isn't a slave it's an unconscious captive who has no option to leave unless it becomes burdensome to keep it.
Click to expand...

Utter tosh






I hear the sound of the ban drums a coming :D
 
London Headshots said:
Oh hey, it's joescrivens trolling again!

I've never claimed to be well read. Projecting? Perhaps I just intimidate you with my awesome knowledge of random subjects, Joseph?

One would hope, when defining the meaning of a word, that the definition would be generic or simplistic. lex parsimoniae, you should look it up.

And while you're there, go here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

"Noun 1. slavery - the state of being under the control of another person"
Click to expand...

I don't think he's trolling (indeed earlier in this thread I was "against" Joe). I feel the definition you give of slavery is a rather outdated one since (as Joe said) anyone in employment is a slave. Yes, at work I am "under the control of the boss" but I wouldn't say I'm a slave. I wouldn't think of my pet dog as a slave either. How about children, they're under control of parents - is that slavery too?

You made a big point about everything you've read, so I think Joe is right in his suggestion that you claim to be well read...
 
London Headshots said:
And while you're there, go here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

"Noun 1. slavery - the state of being under the control of another person"
Click to expand...

Nice bit of cherry picking there, and a bit of a failure when it comes to making your point. You selected that bit from the contracted Thesaurus definition, rather than the full one.

In full, from the same source, but correctly quoted:



slav·er·y (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.



n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay



I don't think that Ockham said anything about misleading references, just about simplicity!
 
mxfun said:
Why!!!


of course .....i get it ,it's cruel for dogs to run after pray ,i'll have to tell my westy next time we're out :)
Click to expand...

No, I just don't agree with animals of any kind being used for the purpose of entertainment and profit.
 
DemiLion said:
Nice bit of cherry picking there, and a bit of a failure when it comes to making your point. You selected that bit from the contracted Thesaurus definition, rather than the full one.

In full, from the same source, but correctly quoted:



slav·er·y (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav·er·ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
a. The practice of owning slaves.
b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.



n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay



I don't think that Ockham said anything about misleading references, just about simplicity!
Click to expand...

The extended definition just outlines broader terms, it's done nothing to prove me wrong. Why would I bother listing fifty different classes of slavery, when the whole thing could've been encapsulated in a single sentence?

I'm allowed to have an opinion, dude.

Misleading references? As in something written explicitly in a dictionary?

Ironic.
 
London Headshots said:
No, I just don't agree with animals of any kind being used for the purpose of entertainment and profit.
Click to expand...

London Headshots said:
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...

So you're okay with dog breeding, but not for profit? These poor creatures are being bred and sold to slavery for entertainment and profit![/sarcasm]

You're inconsistent.
 
rssmrry said:
I don't think he's trolling (indeed earlier in this thread I was "against" Joe). I feel the definition you give of slavery is a rather outdated one since (as Joe said) anyone in employment is a slave. Yes, at work I am "under the control of the boss" but I wouldn't say I'm a slave. I wouldn't think of my pet dog as a slave either. How about children, they're under control of parents - is that slavery too?

You made a big point about everything you've read, so I think Joe is right in his suggestion that you claim to be well read...
Click to expand...

You aren't under the control of your boss. You have a choice to leave. Children aren't bred for profit. Apart from some parts of the third world, obviously, where many hands make a lighter load.

And in many places, children are enslaved by their parents.

Bare in mind that I used a single definition from a dictionary, and wasn't basing my argument on that one definition, because I assumed people would attack the broader point, rather than the use of a single dictionary definition.

I guess what I'm really saying is that if you have to attack the word, you're doing so because you can't attack the underlying principle of what I'm saying.

ie. you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
rssmrry said:
So you're okay with dog breeding, but not for profit? These poor creatures are being bred and sold to slavery for entertainment and profit![/sarcasm]

You're inconsistent.
Click to expand...

No, you've just told me I'm OK with dog breeding. I'm not.

My feelings towards it don't affect the fact that there is no moral basis for or against dog breeding. You've misread or misunderstood my original post. I feel I was quite explicit about it.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
I'm allowed to have an opinion, dude.

Misleading references? As in something written explicitly in a dictionary?

Ironic.
Click to expand...

You certainly are allowed your own opinion, just keep the facts accurate.
That definition is from a Thesaurus, not a dictionary, and yes there is a difference.
 
DemiLion said:
You certainly are allowed your own opinion, just keep the facts accurate.
That definition is from a Thesaurus, not a dictionary, and yes there is a difference.
Click to expand...

I think you should take a closer look. The word is defined as a noun, before giving the synonyms for that noun.

You can't post a definition of a thesaurus word, because to do so you have to go back to the dictionary.

So I'm afraid you're wrong.

Also, it's quite a small point to try and pick me up on, thus strengthening my argument that people aren't actually looking to discuss this.

When I'm gone, everyone can rejoice in the fact that they banned someone for having an opinion.

doubleplusgood, if you get the reference.
 
mxfun said:
No no ,not for disagreeing,your entitled to your opinion ,it's the condescending way you do it thats all :thumbs:
Click to expand...

There's nothing condescending about me stating the facts or putting forward a position.

I'm sorry if people take it that way, but I'm unfortunately endowed with a blunt writing style and a lack of patience for people who try enter into an argument without logic or fact.
 
I don't see anything wrong with what London Headshots is saying, he's making a stronger argument than anyone else.
 
I'm really hoping at least one person will read this and realise that there is a logical thread of argument in the positions I've advanced.

I also hope they'll see the other side, which seem to be a series of assertions made based on a herd mentality of simple HAVING to prove the other guy wrong.

Honestly.. Sentient horses, slave-driving bosses, enslaved children, and arguments over dictionary definitions?

Come on guys, form an argument and advance it. Don't spend this entire thread just trying to prove me wrong for the sake of it. I haven't seen a single convincing argument against my position yet. Advance one, and I'll happily discuss it, and, if necessary, admit I'm wrong.

But I'm not spending any more of my time arguing ridiculous points that do nothing to actually prove my underlying point wrong.

Plus I have a shoot to go to.

Adieu.
 
I see de ja vu happening in this thread so I'm going to step out so that I don't get dragged down like last time.

Enjoy!
 
London Headshots said:
doubleplusgood, if you get the reference.
Click to expand...

:D

Incidentally, I believe one of things that inspired Orwell to write one of his other books (Animal Farm) was the sight of a man controlling a horse. He wondered why a strong beast obeyed the command of such a weak master - if only the horse realised its potential, it could do as it pleased.

From Cliffs Notes on Animal Farm: "...His thoughts were ignited when he happened to see a village boy whipping a cart-horse. At that moment, Orwell received the insiration he needed to formulate his ideas into Animal Farm: 'It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their own strength we would have no power over them, and that men exploit animals as the government in a totalitarian state exploits the common people..."

Anyway, I digress...
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
also seems to be ignoring most of the responses to his points.
Click to expand...

I've been through the thread, and can't seem to find any particular post I've "ignored".

If there's a post in particular you think I've overlooked, please feel free to point it out so that I may address it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top