The Grand National

Well I'm not fond of the National, but the way I see it the owners and trainers are responsible for the welfare of their horses and making sure that if the horse is injured then in a way that can not be treated then they are put down as humanly as possible.

Unfortunately there are terminal injuries even in point to points, but given that there were 2 dead last year and 2 dead this and its notorious for having so many that don't finish I feel that there is too high a level of risk for the animals for it to be truly entertaining, to me at least.
 
chrisbell said:
joe mcclaine said:
There's a bint at work who is very vocal about animal cruelty, always banging on about horses and dogs and stuff and she'll be falling over herself to get in early to give us her 'opinion'.

No doubt she will end up blubbing and confused when we all turn on her, bless.

She will not be getting a cream cake either.
Click to expand...

I hope your being facetious, Vinny...
Click to expand...

I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
 
antdad said:
chrisbell said:
joe mcclaine said:
There's a bint at work who is very vocal about animal cruelty, always banging on about horses and dogs and stuff and she'll be falling over herself to get in early to give us her 'opinion'.

No doubt she will end up blubbing and confused when we all turn on her, bless.

She will not be getting a cream cake either.
Click to expand...

I hope your being facetious, Vinny...
Click to expand...

I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Click to expand...

Hmm, scientifically your argument is perhaps a touch flawed there, Tony. I'll be the first to agree that many do anthropomorphise, but it must be borne in mind that horses are social creatures, which requires much greater brainpower than a non-social species needs - my view as a biologist would be to take a Darwinian viewpoint on this, but, whether one subscribes to that view or that of Biblical creation, it's still not hard to understand. Social species need to understand the behaviour of those they live with in order to interact, and it's well-known that this requires more brainpower than the ability to sense pain and experience suffering. "Dim beast" implies a rather Victorian view of humans as being "special" (whether in a Biblical or general sense), with all other animal species lumped together in a "stupid and contemptuous" category. It's a view that decades of ethologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologists have debunked pretty thoroughly.

Of course, it goes without saying that none of us knows to what degree a severely injured horse suffers before being destroyed, or whether they feel fear or sorrow in anything approaching a human sense, but there's no doubt that any higher mammal feels pain (try injecting a cat and you'll find that, if the needle is handled awkwardly, the cat will react), and I'd rather not have people pour scorn on people such as myself and Vinny's "bint" colleague as he so charmingly calls her (I wonder if he has the balls to make it clear to her how pathetic he considers her; I doubt it) just because we'd rather not stick our heads in the sand and decide that a horse is our plaything and that it does not deserve to be treated well as it's just a "dim beast"

Sorry for getting wordy - I respect your right to an opinion, but an opinion based on inaccurate information deserves to be challenged.

I'll sign off by saying that, if it's forum policy that members are expected to hold certain views in order to be made welcome here, then I'd be inclined to take myself elsewhere - I genuinely hope this is not the case, but this is the second year in a row in which dissenting voices have been ridiculed over this matter - one of those last year was Sharon who I felt was treated badly for her views - and I'd seriously reconsider my membership if the same "you do not follow groupthink, therefore you will be ridiculed" mindset applies again next April.
 
Fido said:
I promise I won't start another Grand National thread next year!
Click to expand...

No problem, Peter - I don't at all care whether you or anyone else does. I'm specifically referring to the dismissal of the views of those who don't like it. If anyone won some money on a flutter, then great - I'm sure, this being a community of traditional shavers, those winnings will find their way into an Acquisitions thread at some stage.:icon_razz:
 
Peter I'm going to count how many threads you start, in innocence, which end up in a ding dong :D
 
Boab said:
Peter I'm going to count how many threads you start, in innocence, which end up in a ding dong :D
Click to expand...

Mea culpa, I'm afraid - can I confirm that there is no forum policy regarding these matters? My question may seem sarcastic, but, judging how things have gone, I do wonder.
 
joe mcclaine said:
@chrisbell

Balls are just fine, a little personal, but thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

OK Vinny, a low blow from me perhaps - apologies for that comment. I have, unfortunately, experience of those who are very brave in criticising those they deem weak when the object of their scorn isn't around, but who can be quite meek themselves when the chips are down. My speculation was prompted by that experience, but should not have been expressed in type.
 
chrisbell said:
antdad said:
I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Click to expand...

Hmm, scientifically your argument is perhaps a touch flawed there, Tony. I'll be the first to agree that many do anthropomorphise, but it must be borne in mind that horses are social creatures, which requires much greater brainpower than a non-social species needs - my view as a biologist would be to take a Darwinian viewpoint on this, but, whether one subscribes to that view or that of Biblical creation, it's still not hard to understand. Social species need to understand the behaviour of those they live with in order to interact, and it's well-known that this requires more brainpower than the ability to sense pain and experience suffering. "Dim beast" implies a rather Victorian view of humans as being "special" (whether in a Biblical or general sense), with all other animal species lumped together in a "stupid and contemptuous" category. It's a view that decades of ethologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologists have debunked pretty thoroughly.

Of course, it goes without saying that none of us knows to what degree a severely injured horse suffers before being destroyed, or whether they feel fear or sorrow in anything approaching a human sense, but there's no doubt that any higher mammal feels pain (try injecting a cat and you'll find that, if the needle is handled awkwardly, the cat will react), and I'd rather not have people pour scorn on people such as myself and Vinny's "bint" colleague as he so charmingly calls her (I wonder if he has the balls to make it clear to her how pathetic he considers her; I doubt it) just because we'd rather not stick our heads in the sand and decide that a horse is our plaything and that it does not deserve to be treated well as it's just a "dim beast"

Sorry for getting wordy - I respect your right to an opinion, but an opinion based on inaccurate information deserves to be challenged.

I'll sign off by saying that, if it's forum policy that members are expected to hold certain views in order to be made welcome here, then I'd be inclined to take myself elsewhere - I genuinely hope this is not the case, but this is the second year in a row in which dissenting voices have been ridiculed over this matter - one of those last year was Sharon who I felt was treated badly for her views - and I'd seriously reconsider my membership if the same "you do not follow groupthink, therefore you will be ridiculed" mindset applies again next April.
Click to expand...
To be honest Chris I can't see that Tony said any of what you called inaccurate? Are you saying that animals have a concept or cruelty or choice? If so what are your sources?

You agree that people anthropomorphise which is what he said isn't it. On balance I agree with your stance on The National but your wordy I'm the expert here attitude is gets my back right up.
 
pedro083 said:
yum horse steak for me tonight

Ooopss wrong thread:icon_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hay!
Neigh need for that Pedro. Sorry to be a nag, I'll rein myself in now and return to the foald. I'm definitely more stable now.

Whoa!
 
Jeltz said:
chrisbell said:
antdad said:
I don't. "Animal lovers" are usually no such thing, projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves. Animals have no concept of cruelty or choice but if a horse doesn't want to jump it won't, that isn't reasoning that's a reaction. I don't care for horse racing or the consequences of it but there are only so many good homes a retired race horse can go, either that or its the glue or meat factory. Mmmmmm.....Synchronised aux tartare.
Click to expand...

Hmm, scientifically your argument is perhaps a touch flawed there, Tony. I'll be the first to agree that many do anthropomorphise, but it must be borne in mind that horses are social creatures, which requires much greater brainpower than a non-social species needs - my view as a biologist would be to take a Darwinian viewpoint on this, but, whether one subscribes to that view or that of Biblical creation, it's still not hard to understand. Social species need to understand the behaviour of those they live with in order to interact, and it's well-known that this requires more brainpower than the ability to sense pain and experience suffering. "Dim beast" implies a rather Victorian view of humans as being "special" (whether in a Biblical or general sense), with all other animal species lumped together in a "stupid and contemptuous" category. It's a view that decades of ethologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologists have debunked pretty thoroughly.

Of course, it goes without saying that none of us knows to what degree a severely injured horse suffers before being destroyed, or whether they feel fear or sorrow in anything approaching a human sense, but there's no doubt that any higher mammal feels pain (try injecting a cat and you'll find that, if the needle is handled awkwardly, the cat will react), and I'd rather not have people pour scorn on people such as myself and Vinny's "bint" colleague as he so charmingly calls her (I wonder if he has the balls to make it clear to her how pathetic he considers her; I doubt it) just because we'd rather not stick our heads in the sand and decide that a horse is our plaything and that it does not deserve to be treated well as it's just a "dim beast"

Sorry for getting wordy - I respect your right to an opinion, but an opinion based on inaccurate information deserves to be challenged.

I'll sign off by saying that, if it's forum policy that members are expected to hold certain views in order to be made welcome here, then I'd be inclined to take myself elsewhere - I genuinely hope this is not the case, but this is the second year in a row in which dissenting voices have been ridiculed over this matter - one of those last year was Sharon who I felt was treated badly for her views - and I'd seriously reconsider my membership if the same "you do not follow groupthink, therefore you will be ridiculed" mindset applies again next April.
Click to expand...
To be honest Chris I can't see that Tony said any of what you called inaccurate? Are you saying that animals have a concept or cruelty or choice? If so what are your sources?

You agree that people anthropomorphise which is what he said isn't it. On balance I agree with your stance on The National but your wordy I'm the expert here attitude is gets my back right up.
Click to expand...

Sorry that you feel that way. Quoting Tony:

...projecting onto a dim beast what he or usually she would like to receive themselves...
Click to expand...

suggests that he feels that a horse won't be bothered about how it's treated or what happens to it, and, that to suggest that it would is "projecting"; an anthropomorphism. My point was that, to say that a horse would have no response other than what he called a reaction that contains no reasoning (i.e. an almost robotic response to a stimulus), by definition would mean that, at most, it would have a simple, innate, mechanistic response to pain, if, indeed, it felt the pain at all. I'm not trying to throw any intellectual weight around; just pointing out that horse owners frequently refer to horses detecting the fear of humans, which, if true, puts the idea that a horse in pain has no concious response to that pain, and therefore cannot suffer, on shaky ground. It's like saying "Person A can translate Shakespeare's works into Arabic, yet is so thick they can't dress themselves without trying to put their trousers on their head".

As for references, any ethological research into the behaviour of mammals which live in groups will demonstrate surprisingly sophisticated behaviour which, whether pre-programmed somehow or developed through learning, requires sophisticated brain development. Hence my analogy with the Shakespearean translator - the likelihood of a brain being able to perform complex operations required for social living, yet at the same time being unable to use the input of pain for any purpose other than a simplistic response is, IMO, slim. I'm not an ethologist, so I can't quote specific books or papers, but work by the likes of Lorenz, Tinbergen or even Dawkins should give some idea of what I'm on about.

Can I ask a question of you, though? If you feel that Tony is correct and, by extension, that I'm incorrect, I'd be interested to know what your objections to the race are? If it isn't cruel, then what's wrong with it? Surely the popularity of the event suggests that it's a great spectacle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom