- This topic has 100 replies, 44 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
AJI (10:08) wins the prize for the first person (at least on this thread) to resort to the neo-syllogism that people who want the G. National left as it is and don’t go into histrionics over the sad death of 2 runners therefore support dog-fighting / bear baiting. etc.
This kind of illogical argument is much used by three types of people. The crafty, the comical or the cretinous.
Examples: The Crafty (often politicians – they know their conclusion/logic is bonkers but it scores a point with the red- top readers). "The Party opposite want to cut defence spending, this means we’ll have fewer troops/ships, therefore they want the Taliban to win in Afghanistan and Argentina to re-take the Falklands."
The Comical. They know its rubbish but they want to get a laugh and don’t expect to be taken seriously. "Alex Ferguson said Cantona could take all the free kicks in the opposition’s half. So, when Cantona kicked a gobby supporter in the oppostion half, it was with Ferguson’s permission.
And the Cretinous: Person doesn’t think the Grand National needs any more modification and can accept some deaths will unfortunatley occur but NH racing is legal pastime. Dogs died whilst fighting and that was once legal too, so therefore Person supports dog-fighting too. ALmost too childish a syllogism for words but one that, as I said, I guessed would appear hear.
Imagine two people arguing over whether boxing should be banned after a boxer dies from injuries sustained in a fight.
Person 1. It’s tragic, but these things will happen from time to time and boxing is still legal. banning it would be a step too far.
Person 2. But duelling with pistols was legal once too and people died then. So you support duelling with pistols then!
One shouldn’t really have to explain this flawed logic. People can disagree on issues; that’s fine, but reasoned argument is better than sub-secondary school sloppy logic.Only if meat eating goes with it.
How many expressing outrage at racing deaths will tuck into their joint of moo-cow or baa-lamb for their Sunday lunch?
Rob
I don’t think the economy can survive if we all start turning vegetarian because they won’t be able to grow enough food to support the country.
A carnivorous diet uses up seven times the amount of land as a vegetarian one would. What do you think cows, pigs and sheep grow on?
It is a ridiculous thread, the banning of horse racing would have huge implications on the thoroughbred breed killing thousands and thousands of horses and probably damagaing the breed in the process.
Prior to the big event this weekend, here’s a piece written by Brendan O’niell on the <i>Daily Telegraph</i> blog pages:-
If you can’t be mithered reading the whole article, here are a couple of bits from it:-
You know we’ve reached the bottom of the pit of moral relativism when it becomes controversial to say it is worse for a person to die than a horse. The anthropomorphic relativism that once existed only among toddlers hooked on Disney cartoons and meat-dodging animal-rights activists who think they can commune with their cat seems to have gone mainstream. Indeed, the annual controversy over the Grand National is shot through with bonkers relativistic thinking. It is based on the idea that horses should be accorded the same respect as human beings, and just as we wouldn’t ruthlessly whip a human’s butt, or send him to leap over lethally high fences, so we shouldn’t do such things to horses…
and
Anti-Grand National campaigners, like all warriors for animal rights, imagine they are elevating animals, raising them up to a new level of respect. In truth, they are denigrating human beings. The refusal to say that a horse’s life is vastly inferior to a human being’s life, which means that the death of a horse in a race is actually not that much of a big deal, is really a refusal to accept the specialness of humankind among living creatures. Indeed, pro-animal activism is often fuelled more by disgust with humans than by love for animals…
I can’t say I agree 100% with every point he makes, but he doesn’t fanny around sitting on the fence (so to speak).
Well, it does say he’s a satirist, but whether he’s ridiculing the animals rights people or standing up for them I’m not sure. But then I’ve always preferred straight talking over people trying to be clever and failing.
I must say I’ve never quite understood the animal rights people who seem to think that animals doing something to "entertain" humans is bad, but it’s perfectly alright to train animals to go into dangerous situations just so the human doesn’t have to.
Agree, I really hope no horses die tomorrow in full glare , as the hyper reaction will not be kind to jump racing
fingers crossed
Ricky
The article is very blunt, and it’s descriptions and analysis is very harshly put, however it is entirely accurate. I’d struggle to agree more.
Frankly, i don’t care if Staci from Grimsby was raped and murdered outside Q bar on a Saturday evening, or Ricky from Brixton was savagely mauled to death by a Sasuage Dog in a park. I imagine most with no linked experiences to either would truely care, or show anything but empty empathy. Thus, it is ridiculous the amount of coverage and "concern" when a horse dies in a race. Without even trying to apply reason and context to the situation of any particular horse racing fatality, i find it impossible to fathom who the majority should care. The author is apt in saying that a need for society and political correctnes to create agendas drives the negative perceptions and media attention of these deaths, rather than people actually caring that these horses did die.
Horses are not human. The perpetual desire to humanise animals becomes fustrating. I often hear "It’s inhumane" in reference to animals in supposed plight. Correct, it is inhumane, since they aren’t humans.
The horses wouldn’t exist if the sport didn’t exist. People see a horse fall and think "Oh isn’t that awful!". What do you think they were bred for? These animals aren’t a natural development. These horses would not exist if not for racing. I don’t hear ideas resonating in the sentiment that it would be better for these horses not to exist than race within animal welfare corners. Secondly, the majority of these horses live in excellent conditions, are well treated to and live as a generic rule, a context life. Their job has a certain peril to it of course, but it isn’t life horses are being jammed into ice cream trucks and gassed to death ….
The majority of society and it’s people really seem to lack any cognitive ability to develop a realistic perspective of life and logic.
Terrible slant on the ITN tea-time news which wasn’t about the race but how dangerous it is and what pressure it is under as a result…..nothing positive going on at all until Tony McCoy came to the rescue typically matter-of -factly stating how well looked after racehorses are and that how much better society would be if children were looked after as well as horses were………….McCoy wouldn’t have known the nature of the report that his comments were tagged on to but the cool and unemotional way he stated them came across powerfully as the answer to knee jerk reaction that is being whipped up this year that anything involving risk or danger should be banned.Well done champ.
Horses are not human. The perpetual desire to humanise animals becomes fustrating. I often hear "It’s inhumane" in reference to animals in supposed plight. Correct, it is inhumane, since they aren’t humans.
Inhumane doesn’t relate to treating, or thinking of, animals as humans, it means a lack of compassion. So inhumane treatment is without compassion.
It is the capacity for compassion that elevates humans over animals, as most animals have no compassion beyond their offspring. Therefore, if we treat others inhumanely we are no better than animals.
If we believe the human race is superior to animals we must behave accordingly, and that means not cruelly exploiting creatures who are less intelligent and powerfull as ourselves.It’s not about animal rights, it’s about human responsibilities.
An excellent article
There are blatant points within the piece that appear designed to draw out the puss of modernistic, dangerous thinking.
aji “inhumane” “superior” your type of screwed up logic is so threatening to the balance of society.
Animal rights, fuzzy thinkers (where animals are concerned) and the PC wallahs are rust that serves only to corrode society and warp further an already distorted world view.
Self-appointed thought police too close for comfort to far right actions if their understanding of how the world should be is not satisfied.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.