The Lemon Fool

moorfield wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: We’ve convinced ourselves that we are superior to horses. We killed 169 of them last year, called it a sport, decided it allowed other horses to be born and found a statistic which makes these deaths look reasonable.

You are a vegan, I presume, AiY ?

You're joking I presume

AiY(D)

moorfield wrote:
You are a vegan, I presume, AiY ?

servodude wrote:
You practice conflation, I presume?

I suspect if you want to paint it as a binary choice you might find the conversation a bit too nuanced

It would be similarly disingenuous to equate eating burgers with bear baiting or dog fighting - or high intensity factory farming; it's a fuzzy line and an interesting moral question where that line sits (see the recent developments in octopus farming for example)

Personally I like horse racing, I also like horses - there's a balance to be struck between those two things

I would have used the term demonisation, not conflation. But such would be demonstrably stupid as the employment of such a word would invoke a future full of the benefit of hindsight. It would clearly be "argumentative" from virtually any angle it was perceived. Damn and blast

The reality sucks though. Regardless of whether I am a vegan or not 169 horses died whilst racing in 2022. I find that figure absolutely staggering, completely unnecessary and personally horrifying. At the very least the industry needs to clean its act up and should be held responsible for the health and safety of all of its horses. Trying to validate this number of deaths in any way is not the answer in my opinion.

AiY(D)

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: We call it a sport. I can’t think of a sport in which 169 UK human competitors die every year.

As a tangential possible derail...

As for "sport" its really "a business".

WRT "business" how many people die on Britain's roads every year travelling (driving, walking, cycling, passengers) to/from/for work ?

Merely for a comparison. (and without intending to trivialise the canine toll discussed in this thread)

didds

didds wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: We call it a sport. I can’t think of a sport in which 169 UK human competitors die every year.

As a tangential possible derail...

As for "sport" its really "a business".

WRT "business" how many people die on Britain's roads every year travelling (driving, walking, cycling, passengers) to/from/for work ?

Merely for a comparison. (and without intending to trivialise the canine toll discussed in this thread)

didds

Equine surely - although greyhound racing has its own issues with welfare.

dealtn wrote: Equine surely - although greyhound racing has its own issues with welfare.

DOH! apologies! brain f4rt!

yes - to both counts

Brian May warns ‘barbaric' Grand National 'must change' after ‘shameful' horse deaths

Brian May has 3.1m followers on Instagram.

Brian shared some of ITV's coverage of the famous sporting occasion, where three men could be seen criticising those protesting the event and arguing in favour of the race. "THREE MEN try to convince us that the Grand National horse race ISN'T a barbaric anachronism," Brian wrote angrily. "I don't imagine that many of you have the time to go deeply into this. I don't expect a huge number of likes for this post. Nevertheless, I think some things need to be said.
…
"Why am I posting this?" Brian continued. "Because I think what they say is very revealing of the mentality of those who defend the Grand National as a sporting event."
…
"What kind of people are these, who could prioritise entertainment and money-making over the life of even ONE animal, never mind the continuous stream of horses that have died in the sport over the years?"

Clearly Brian is very passionate about the number of deaths in horse racing. The article seems to suggest he would prefer that all the hurdles be removed. The number of horses that die over the jumps is approximately 300% more than those on the flat. I’m sure many will think his opinion is extreme. However, I think he has a very good point. I suspect the Grand National’s days may well be numbered or at the very least they need to implement some changes that put the safety of the horses first. I hope they do. I also hope the "industry" takes a robust look inwards and improves safety all round. Validation is not the way forward.

AiY(D)

Fundamentally some want to see a no risk life in which all of us sit at home making money via our PC, but then a lightning storm will come along and get us that way.

What if the horses really enjoy their racing? How do you know they don't? They, like us humans, might like competing and are prepared to take the risk that they will die one way or another anyway.

In practical terms I wonder what percentage of those horses that take part in racing get killed every year doing it?

Dod

Dod101 wrote:In practical terms I wonder what percentage of those horses that take part in racing get killed every year doing it?

As mentioned upthread, about 1.5%.

Do agree on the whole with those who have reservations about jump racing. Likely that the punters - who ultimately decide these matters - would not really care if all racing was on the flat. Not that that would be enough for the 'animal rights' mob who will seek any excuse to push their agenda.

V8

88V8 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:In practical terms I wonder what percentage of those horses that take part in racing get killed every year doing it?

As mentioned upthread, about 1.5%.

Do agree on the whole with those who have reservations about jump racing. Likely that the punters - who ultimately decide these matters - would not really care if all racing was on the flat. Not that that would be enough for the 'animal rights' mob who will seek any excuse to push their agenda.

V8

I am totally disinterested in horse racing. I would not care if it was all closed down tomorrow but I do not like people taking matters into their own hands, like these animal rights protestors, who have managed more or less to ban fox hunting and now seem intent on banning horse racing.

Dod

And tonight (Monday) protestors vandalised a snooker table and tried to attach themselves to another one at the Crucible.
Cuelty to balls?
White potting a black now racist provocation?

stewamax wrote:And tonight (Monday) protestors vandalised a snooker table and tried to attach themselves to another one at the Crucible.
Cuelty to balls?
White potting a black now racist provocation?

Yes, I assume you're joking, but last week, I saw on Youtube the actress Kathy Burke having a good rant about people who question and criticise the 'Woke' brigade.

I laughed and thought it was a great spoof joke. She was Waynetta with Harry Enfield and a brilliant character in Absolutely Fabulous and her language reminded me of these. But then I learned that she was deadly serious.

Steve

PS Are we all in a Matrix artificial world and somebody is having a good laugh?

stewamax wrote: White potting a black now racist provocation?

Don't go there, seriously...

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: The reality sucks though. Regardless of whether I am a vegan or not 169 horses died whilst racing in 2022. I find that figure absolutely staggering, completely unnecessary and personally horrifying. At the very least the industry needs to clean its act up and should be held responsible for the health and safety of all of its horses. Trying to validate this number of deaths in any way is not the answer in my opinion.

As noble as this thread is, these horses are exceptionally well looked after and cared for and ridden (but, granted, they are business assets after all, which is also why they are generally put down quickly). And if you know your horses (ie. have worked with, ridden, and groomed, extensively), you can see they enjoy the racing life they have been given and what they do.

What sucks AiY is a different reality, which if you and those protesters really want to be absolutely staggered by, I suggest you research a little more:

- the hundreds of yards and schools up and down the country where horses are kept in a very poor state, should be put down but aren't because their owners ignore/can't afford vetting (try visiting a few when you next have a day off, perhaps?)
- the thousands of overweight riders who don't know how to sit properly and put huge strain on their horses (if you are fat, anything over 14st, probably you shouldn't be sitting on a horse - riding shouldn't suffer such wokery)
- the idiot walkers and ramblers who think it's a nice idea to toss a sad looking horse in a field an apple, carrot, sugar cube or polo mint - it isn't - you think a broken leg over a jump is horrible, go and watch a horse colicking...
- the horses put down because feckless, lazy or entitled drivers (audis, bmws feature frequently) won't give them time and space on the road

The list goes on...

moorfield wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: The reality sucks though. ...

As noble as this thread is, these horses are exceptionally well looked after and cared for and ridden (but, granted, they are business assets after all, which is also why they are generally put down quickly). And if you know your horses (ie. have worked with, ridden, and groomed, extensively), you can see they enjoy the racing life they have been given and what they do....
The list goes on...

Wish I could recc this twice.

V8

stevensfo wrote:

stewamax wrote:And tonight (Monday) protestors vandalised a snooker table and tried to attach themselves to another one at the Crucible.
Cuelty to balls?
White potting a black now racist provocation?

Yes, I assume you're joking, but last week, I saw on Youtube the actress Kathy Burke having a good rant about people who question and criticise the 'Woke' brigade.

I laughed and thought it was a great spoof joke. She was Waynetta with Harry Enfield and a brilliant character in Absolutely Fabulous and her language reminded me of these. But then I learned that she was deadly serious.

Steve

PS Are we all in a Matrix artificial world and somebody is having a good laugh?

I didn't see that, but it is sad that a perfectly good word like "woke" has had it's meaning distorted in recent years - principally by right wing critics who have a need to turn it into something it never was. It has now become so watered down that, at best, it means nothing more than "PC" and that opens it to jibes and derision from the middle classes who ought to know better. Or at worst, to some it means "violent left wing activism".

On it's journey into derision, I wish among us common folk, the meaning could have stopped somewhere around the point where it meant something like " being aware of, or caring for those worse off than oneself".

It's time reasonable liberal folk fought back and rehabilitated it.

Arb.

stewamax wrote:And tonight (Monday) protestors vandalised a snooker table and tried to attach themselves to another one at the Crucible.
Cuelty to balls?
White potting a black now racist provocation?

I assume your are joking - you know full well it was nothing to do with racism. But what is the purpose of your message? A distraction, injecting a falsehood into the internet echo chamber?

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

stewamax wrote:And tonight (Monday) protestors vandalised a snooker table and tried to attach themselves to another one at the Crucible.
Cuelty to balls?
White potting a black now racist provocation?

I assume your are joking - you know full well it was nothing to do with racism. But what is the purpose of your message? A distraction, injecting a falsehood into the internet echo chamber?

I think you're taking this a bit seriously, considering we're leaning on the bar.... although for balance he could have dragged in the Commies and the Greens...

V8

88V8 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote: I assume your are joking - you know full well it was nothing to do with racism. But what is the purpose of your message? A distraction, injecting a falsehood into the internet echo chamber?

I think you're taking this a bit seriously, considering we're leaning on the bar.... although for balance he could have dragged in the Commies and the Greens...

V8

I dare say you are correct. But it just seemed an odd remark, even if we've had a pint or two. Though I am sober this morning.

Arborbridge wrote:.... but it is sad that a perfectly good word like "woke" has had it's meaning distorted in recent years - principally by right wing critics who have a need to turn it into something it never was. It has now become so watered down that, at best, it means nothing more than "PC" and that opens it to jibes and derision from the middle classes who ought to know better. Or at worst, to some it means "violent left wing activism".

It's just become the latest term for a certain demographic for anything they don't agree with. It's displaced "remoaner" and "millennial" . It's a word that is in reality meaningless. Give it enough time and another pathetic term will come into vogue instead. Whatever.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Keep moving.

didds wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:.... but it is sad that a perfectly good word like "woke" has had it's meaning distorted in recent years - principally by right wing critics who have a need to turn it into something it never was. It has now become so watered down that, at best, it means nothing more than "PC" and that opens it to jibes and derision from the middle classes who ought to know better. Or at worst, to some it means "violent left wing activism".

It's just become the latest term for a certain demographic for anything they don't agree with. It's displaced "remoaner" and "millennial" . It's a word that is in reality meaningless. Give it enough time and another pathetic term will come into vogue instead. Whatever.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Keep moving.

It's a word that is in reality meaningless.

Why dismiss a useful word so easily.

It has a long history, used originally at least as far back as the 30's among the early black rights movement - to be woke was simply to be aware of the dangers other fellows might be facing. As a word, it's as good as many words we use and better than some expressions.

I can't help feeling that the objections to it, and the undermining of it, are purely because the institutionally right wing press urged by endemic societal racism does not like it - do not like facing up to the fact that we still have oppressed minorities and individuals in our society. It is convenient to supress anything which reminds us of that fact.
Scrubbing out a word which effectively mean "to be aware of those who are less well off than oneself" is an easy way for the comfortable middle classes pretending a problem doesn't exist.

Arb.