nebristolred

I'm gutted

When you have to completely invent things in your own head to back up your argument you’re probably not onto a winner here really are you?

Nicely explained.

But it's not 0.09% is it? If that is per horse per start, then over a whole career of 21 races that is 1.89%. And it could potentially be higher than that I believe?

So 0.09% chance, on any given race, for any given horse? So let's assume an average of 7 races a year (no idea how accurate that is btw), over 3 years. That becomes a roughly 1 in 68 chance of that horse dying, is that correct? If so, I'd say that's pretty ****ing horrific.

Where is this 0.09% stat from?

In a meet*. Either way, you don't believe that's animal cruelty now?

So 3 horses dying in a race isn't animal cruelty now?

Fair play, I thought you'd be more defensive over it but I always respect it when people actually accept that there is an element of hypocrisy or similar to it. For what it's worth, I can bang on about this as being helpful for the environment, but I fly everywhere, as you say, we are all hypocrites in one way or another. To be fair of all things I'd say this is the most obvious is it not? People like meat, they just want to eat it in a way that doesn't cause as much suffering. And as I've pointed out, vegetarians have to eat *something*. Eating vegetarian food will kill far fewer animals than eating meat, it's as simple as that. To be fair I think it's easy to turn a blind eye not for that reason, but because it's shielded from us. Right from birth, the whole idea that an animal goes through hell both in life and in being killed, that whole notion is hidden from us until we find it or until some vegetarian throws a video in our faces. And it shocks, as it should do. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye. And to be fair, some people think it's okay to eat meat, that's absolutely fine, they're entitled to. But I just struggle to see how they can say they care about animal welfare if they do, that's all. And it's just my perspective, nothing more.

You've made plenty of posts about 'animal welfare' including in the Kurt Zouma thread a while back and yet you eat animals who have been potentially gassed to death or had their throats slit and are therefore complicit in the absolute worst part of the entire idea of animal 'welfare'. That's what I struggle with. And I know I'm in the minority - but how can you post all about apparently caring for animals and then partake in that, and all the while keep a straight face? I've changed subject again and we should probably have another thread on it, but it just screams hypocrite to me. I just can't see how you conflate those 2 points of view. Apparently loving animals, but also being complicit in their horrible destruction on a weekly basis. And I wish I could understand it, because it would make my life a lot easier!

One thing I'd forgotten to mention, is that we've been told these horses are really looked after. The owners treat them like kings and really, really actually love them. So of course if racing were to stop there would be no issue with regard to them disappearing ?.

I know, but if it was, all of the points you make would still be there, presumably you would think they're not a problem then! 90% would be too high. But you think 150-200 per year is acceptable? Even though we could instantly remove nearly 90% of them by removing jumps?

So you don't really give a damn about the welfare of these horses anyway then. On that basis you'd have them running even if there was a 90% chance of dying as those problems would still be there - surely that can't be the case. Why don't you share your perspective?

It's small but not tiny. What's the number, something like 50 this year already isn't it? Removing jumps statistically would bring that down to just 6 or 7 killed at this point. Can anyone tell me a negative towards that, because I'm struggling to find one. That is an easy and workable solution that would get us 90% of the way there - would you be against that? Surely that is something that no one can be against? Or at least finding a way of making them far, far safer.

As much as I think using animals for any 'entertainment' purposes is wrong, I'm pretty pragmatic and I know that it is a) never attainable and b) not really wanted by the public overall. But what is key is the bit in bold. I completely agree there is an element of 'acceptable' risk. I just think we are way, way over that limit at the moment. The stats speak for themselves, a horse is 7 times more likely to die over jumps racing. As I said before, we could reduce 150 deaths per year to 20 by doing away with jumps - that is what we should be doing, or at least finding a compromise that does not harm them. There absolutely has to be a middle ground here. No one, and I mean no one, can pretend to abhor animal cruelty or really believe in the morals of the sport, while also supporting the very aspect of a race that ultimately responsible for nearly 90% of all deaths. There is no argument for that in this thread that I have seen that justifies that, other than 'I like horse racing and I like jumps'. If that is really someone's argument, then they don't *really* abhor animal cruelty as much as they pretend to imo. This compromise would bring the risk down and at least make it far closer to the 'acceptable' moral level. No sport is squeaky clean - but when F1 drivers were killing themselves every week in the 60's they had to change the rules. As a society, we are now valuing the lives of animals a little more (and quite rightly to, but not enough), to necessitate a similar sort of intervention imo.

I think it's quite clear that I'd be happy for them to be bred for reasons other than profiteering and a potentially horrendous death, yes. If we can't find a safe use for these horses then perhaps that says more about us than them. Doing away with jumps would reduce deaths by 80%, that would be a start. And you can still have your horses. As with most on your side of the argument though you are simply presenting a problem while presumably having zero intent to debate or answer the moral problem. Maybe you're happy seeing all of these horses killed.

This is always an argument that people use and it makes no sense. Surely you don't believe that everything that can exist, should exist?

Or maybe just don’t breed them for a sport offering this level of risk?

I know exactly what it was I clicked the link. My like was regarding your deflection, you do it every time. Why can I not be against horse racing as well as being against poor pet owners? All you ever do is deflect from the point - making out that you may well be annoyed at X but you could/should also be annoyed at Y! It doesn't negate the from the point, all it is is you trying to steer the conversation away. Can we not debate about the horse racing? Not what protestors 'should' be spending time on in your view. Just the actual point itself.

Has it crossed your mind that both can be wrong at the same time?

This again…. There is no comparison - humans volunteer themselves, it is their decision. When was the last time you had a response from a horse that wanted to race?

To be honest, yes. We should probably stop using animals for our entertainment, and we should probably stop pretending that what we’re doing is what they want. And out of the examples you used, yes, absolutely ****ing ban fox hunting. Barbaric, horrendous ‘sport’, full of utter weirdos. It’s a fair point but once again, ‘protestors are protesting against X but not Y’ isn’t really a decent argument imo, they’re doing something which is better than nothing. I would be absolutely for some sort of wider education of people when it comes to keeping pets. So many people think that what they’re doing is healthy and nice for their pets and in so many instances what they’re doing is pretty horrendous. I have one friend who always calls out dog walkers when they’re yanking their leads around their necks or not treating them right. It’s not what I’d do, but honestly, I used to have a dog and had no idea that some of what I did was actually really harmful and horrible to the dog. I absolutely agree with your sentiment but if anything I think it just proves that more awareness needs raising, not the other way around.

Definitely As I said above, 49 deaths so far this year from horse racing. If you extrapolate that over a year it's potentially 150. If you were to remove jumps, statistically it would remove 88% of the deaths - so over a year that makes 20 horse deaths rather than 150. I really don't see how anyone can justify the existence of jumps and a subsequent 130 extra deaths. It might be a bit more fun, but is that a fair risk? I really don't think so.

I'm sorry spudders. I won't lie the comment about us supposedly missing a glaring fact about getting our food unethically frustrated me. It's something put this way quite a lot, quite honestly I do see it as a nonsense point but I could have put it across more nicely. When I referred to 'you', I always mean it in a generalised sense, not yourself personally, it's how I write but admittedly didn't put that across at all. That's entirely my fault. That said back to the point, even if I do eat an avocado which has been shipped across the world, the carbon footprint of my overall diet will still be considerably less than that of someone who eats meat once or multiple times a day. It's not a fair argument against vegetarians - that they should be criticised for one or 2 very specific fruits/vegs that they might eat occasionally on the basis that it's bad, when overall a diet including them would still be far better for the planet than one including lots of meat, whether it's locally produced or not. What you say about the Mediterranean diet certainly is true - more and more research from what I've read is suggesting that the wider the range of plants you eat (that includes everything from spices to vegetables to coffee and chocolate) the higher your gut health and the better your general overall health. That said I think any red meat, locally sourced or not is not going to be good for you, but then who really eats a diet that is 100% health for you? I certainly don't. We absolutely will have to disagree. I haven't seen anything to justify the deaths of the 49 horses this year so far in race meetings, particularly when 80%+ of them could have been avoided if we just removed jumps. I really struggle to see how anyone can condone that while also supporting animal rights. It's a direct contradiction. As is this. When people get frustrated at animal abuse, the Zouma case, people harming dogs, but then wilfully eat meat daily, which in many cases involves an animal having an utterly **** life, bred to be unhealthy for us to get more meat from them and then in many cases being either gassed to death or having their throats slit, in very questionable circumstances as to their awareness. Again, not saying this is you I don't know what you eat, but much (perhaps most?) of the population claim to hate animal abuse while being complicit in it. This is a clear hypocrisy imo. I have no issue with that whatsoever. As I've said before, our very existence is an impact on the planet - that's not our fault but it's a fact. We can choose to minimise that or we can choose to worsen it. If I buy some fruit that has come a long way around the world (which I try to avoid by the way) and it takes up 0.5% of my overall diet, it is still making the better decision than if I were to kill a cow for a larger % of my diet, both ethically and for the environment. Once again spudders - if we all ate plants, we would need fewer plants to sustain the food needed for cattle and other animals. Your point backs up my argument, not yours. And fwiw I always avoid palm oil where I can. I am not squeaky clean, I absolutely don't pretend to be. But I do try my best, and I just think if everyone did a little bit more it would help a lot. Finally, once again, this is a completely different debate to that of horse racing so it'd be fairer to focus on that, and move this elsewhere, but will see how the topic pans out.

Spuski I really shouldn't have to explain to you that throwing horses over jumps is more likely to kill them than trotting in fields, but I'm going to give you my (very, very rough) calculations here. If you want to respond to it, feel free and I'm open to it, otherwise I am going to go on the assumption that I'm right, given that jumps are obviously more dangerous than living in a field. If you want to try to disprove it mathematically, by all means do, I'm well open to it. As for your comment about your 'glaring fact on producing food for vegetarians unethically', it's a totally different argument, and this has been explained everywhere multiple times. It's so easy it shouldn't even need debating. Eating more meat = needing more animals for the meat = farming FAR more plants overall for their feed. If we all went vegan overnight, even to cope for the extra plant-based food, it would be more than offset by not having to feed all of the additional animals. Our CO2 emissions would decrease hugely. Vegetarianism is *not* more dangerous for the planet than eating meat. Your avocado argument is ridiculous. One hamburger produces as much CO2 as 25 avocados and uses 6.5 times more land. It is such a poor argument, that vegetarians are somehow bad for wanting to eat avocado's. You then make excellent points about plastic and the like, but that doesn't detract from my argument, it just adds to it. It's not exactly right to whinge about someone else using plastic but then eat beef multiple times a week. If I cut out beef but still consume a bit of plastic, I'm still doing loads more for the planet than you are. I'm just doing a bit to help, whereas you are pretending to care while doing comparatively nothing. Not to be rude here, I'm in a huge minority and I know most people here eat meat. I did for decades, I don't remotely look down on people who do, I totally get it. But trying to criticise people for doing something rather than nothing all while pretending to care is such a p*ss poor argument and I can't really have it. This does not make me a hypocrite, it makes me someone trying to do my best, which is more than most do. Simply existing is in many ways technically being a stain on the planet, I'm just trying to minimise my impact. How that could ever be seen as a bad thing is beyond me. If you really give a damn, and I mean really gave a damn, you'd read this and then be open to changing your habits. But you won't, you will continually just do what is easiest, we will come to this argument again in 6 months and you will wheel out the same old disproven arguments. But anyway I digress, the horse racing is more important here and specifically the use of jumps, the removal of which would reduce 86% of the unnecessary deaths we get from horse racing.