- This topic has 24 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Just throwing it out there…
Animal Aid loves a platform. Racing fans would love a platform on which to directly and openly confront Animal Aid.
You could even make a series of it by allowing TRFers to answer his questions.
I don’t think any other racing forum has done this kind of thing so this would be fantastic for the forum in terms of publicity. Fantastic also for those who would love to sit back and watch.
Maybe a line of reasoning or two will be mutually accepted allowing for growth. Maybe nothing will be solved and each camp returns from the fray much more resolute in its convictions. But whatever happens, no party stands to lose a great deal. I say, make it happen!
Shocking idea, why give oxygen and credibility to scum?
I think it’s a great idea. They have their right to their views and calling them scum because they differ to yours is ridiculous.
Don’t you mean brilliant idea?
Put Tommy Robinson on telly and his rhetoric completely breaks down under public scrutiny. Months later, Robinson stands down citing extremist elements in his group.
Put Nick Griffin on telly and his flagrant methods dissolve faster than you can say UKIP.
Taken to the other end, give Martin McGuinness his real voice and violent Irish Nationalism is a thing of the past.
If you want to discredit a fringe organisation, you’re better off shining the spotlight on them rather than affording them further mystique and credibility by avoiding them.
Good idea
You do not end wars by talking to your friends. You end wars by talking to your enemies
Not always the right thing to do to give publicity to organisations like this, but in this case, in this scenario – good idea BH.
Value Is EverythingEveryone’s entitled to an opinion, within reason, as Pinza found out on here a couple of years ago.
But I’ve no wish to read Animal Aids views on a horse racing forum, why not look at their website if you want to know more, I’m sure they’ll have some sort of forum on it to ask them questions etc.
That could be more beneficial as it could educate some of the people who look at Animal Aid’s website but wouldn’t think twice about looking at a horse racing one.
What are you worried about Yeats? What does Horse Racing have to lose from facing its staunchest detractor (bookies aside) in its own back-yard of all places?
I’ve no wish to read Animal Aids views on a horse racing forum, why not look at their website if you want to know more
Just as the AR community can visit these boards and read a litany of ill feeling (to put it mildly) towards their particular ilk. Nobody comes out of an argument looking good if the only thing that’s exchanged is a barrage of superficial and unsubstantiated insults
I’m sure they’ll have some sort of forum on it to ask them questions etc.
I tried it a few years ago on some AR site that actually had a forum (few actually do). Got absolutely nowhere. Typical handicap of being a lone, unannounced poster I suppose.
That could be more beneficial as it could educate some of the people who look at Animal Aid’s website but wouldn’t think twice about looking at a horse racing one.
But surely one would get a stronger education by reading more than one textbook simultaneously? Particularly contradictory ones which enable one to compare and contrast?
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, within reason, as Pinza found out on here a couple of years ago.
Yes. I remember listening to his smug "I know the answer before you even ask the question" tone on the radio. Didn’t really paint the racing fraternity in a colourful light (IMO). Perhaps if we had his type as well as some of "our" moderates engaging in the discussion, we’d see an actual debate.
Although it wouldn’t be a bad idea to rope in some of the internet’s heaviest heavyweights for such a contest… Should such a contest occur of course.
You do not end wars by talking to your friends.
No, but it’s a good way to start a few.
Overall, an excellent idea.
Mike
OK. So since we’re all unanimously agreed that this is definitely a good idea, shouldn’t we go about trying to make something happen?
B-b-but everybody who responded to you was like "Yay, great idea. We don’t like Andrew Tyler’s views but using ad-hominem as the basis for a reasoned debate is ridiculous. We welcome the opportunity for a legitimate reasoned debate. If only such a thing were possible."
http://oi58.tinypic.com/1127jo3.jpg
So is this ever likely to happen?
As much as we all respect Eddie Case, I personally don’t think a lot of his objections on the matter.
I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. I’m of the opinion, having given it a deal of thought as it crossed my own mind a while back that it’d be something we might think about, that it would simply give them a platform to peddle their sensationalist and often ill-informed rhetoric.
What would be the point? If you think for one millisecond any reasoned debate is going to change either his/their views or policies then you are, IMO, sadly mistaken.
People involved in horse racing should, and I think largely do, position human and horse welfare at the top of the agenda. But because of the nature of racing it can never be totally risk-free. There will always be reasonably significant risk, particularly to horses.
So, there is an ethical dilemma, a fence if you like,on the side of which you have to decide where to stand. You either accept that cost (loss of equine lives and inevitable suffering) as a sad, but, in the end, unavoidable but justifiable price for your sport, entertainment and economic activity, or you take the view that it isn’t. Tough question, isn’t it, when you pitch it in those harsh words…are fatalities, injuries and suffering a ‘justifiable price’? We each have to look to our own ethical and philosophical standpoint to answer that. There is no black or white answer in my view, but Animal Aid view it very distinctly as a black and white issue.
You’ll know from my views on the use of the whip that I don’t accept that all that could reasonably be done is currently being done regarding horse safety. Many racecourses have still got plenty they could do to improve things. But, equally, I’m aware that risk can never be totally eliminated, I believe it will always be relatively significant. And I accept that risk, but remain of the belief that more can be done to reduce it. Animal Aid don’t accept any risk. They simply believe racing horses to be wrong. "Beneath its glamorous façade, commercial horse racing is a ruthless industry motivated by financial gain and prestige. Cruelty? You can bet on it!"
They also clearly judge those who do not agree with their views pretty harshly. They are sure they are right as surely as most of us think they are wrong.
This is an organisation which runs a site called ‘horsedeathwatch’. Their philosophical position is clear. You’re not going to influence them and you can find out all you need to know by googling them if it is information you are after. Challenging their view (which I think some of you see this as an opportunity to do) will only result, in my opinion, in them presenting and repeating their entrenched positions and I am not sure I would be happy giving over TRF to them as a platform.
I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. I’m of the opinion, having given it a deal of thought as it crossed my own mind a while back that it’d be something we might think about, that it would simply give them a platform to peddle their sensationalist and often ill-informed rhetoric.
What would be the point? If you think for one millisecond any reasoned debate is going to change either his/their views or policies then you are, IMO, sadly mistaken.
People involved in horse racing should, and I think largely do, position human and horse welfare at the top of the agenda. But because of the nature of racing it can never be totally risk-free. There will always be reasonably significant risk, particularly to horses.
So, there is an ethical dilemma, a fence if you like,on the side of which you have to decide where to stand. You either accept that cost (loss of equine lives and inevitable suffering) as a sad, but, in the end, unavoidable but justifiable price for your sport, entertainment and economic activity, or you take the view that it isn’t. Tough question, isn’t it, when you pitch it in those harsh words…are fatalities, injuries and suffering a ‘justifiable price’? We each have to look to our own ethical and philosophical standpoint to answer that. There is no black or white answer in my view, but Animal Aid view it very distinctly as a black and white issue.
Many racecourses have still got plenty they could do to improve things. But, equally, I’m aware that risk can never be totally eliminated, I believe it will always be relatively significant. And I accept that risk, but remain of the belief that more can be done to reduce it. Animal Aid don’t accept any risk. They simply believe racing horses to be wrong. "Beneath its glamorous façade, commercial horse racing is a ruthless industry motivated by financial gain and prestige. Cruelty? You can bet on it!"
They also clearly judge those who do not agree with their views pretty harshly. They are sure they are right as surely as most of us think they are wrong.
This is an organisation which runs a site called ‘horsedeathwatch’. Their philosophical position is clear. You’re not going to influence them and you can find out all you need to know by googling them if it is information you are after. Challenging their view (which I think some of you see this as an opportunity to do) will only result, in my opinion, in them presenting and repeating their entrenched positions and I am not sure I would be happy giving over TRF to them as a platform.
Hear! Hear!
I concur entirely.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.