and the site receives a small commission
Grand National - Bet or Boycott?
- Thread starter Spuff
- Start date
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,304
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is it? What is your knowledge of horses to come up with this supposition? Do you think horses can't sense danger? Horses are intelligent animals, to assume that they don't have the cognitive processes to make a choice is very wrong I'm afraid.
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
neil_g said:
That makes sense, fair dues, but don't they also close a fence if there's been an injured faller? (I seem to remember seeing runners being guided around a fence that had the ominous black tent\screen erected nearby.)
I don't recall seeing that up until a few years ago though and was wondering why it takes longer to clear the dead and injured horses off the course these days.
Last edited:
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,304
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No probs, no-one can say a horse can't make choices. Our mare even has a sense of humour!
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's true in some cases, yes. But if you look at human history, you cannot deny that many things that were considered perfectly acceptable at some point were later rightly banned as human enlightenment evolved and our sympathies towards our environment and fellow creatures (including our fellow humans!) increased. Even within the time frame of my own 32 years on this planet, certain paradigm shifts have resulted in changes, such as the waning popularity of animal-based circuses that I mentioned in an earlier post. Another good example is Spain, where bullfighting has become very unpopular, and has even been recently banned in one region (Catalonia); people tend to think of bullfighting as this incredibly popular tradition in Spain but the fact is that it's actually a minority attraction. I think the same could be said for fox hunting, for sure; banning it would affect hardly anyone in the grander scheme of things.
As for horse racing - it's an industry that exists purely to fleece people out of their money in gambling; I'm surprised more people don't find it distasteful, honestly. But then, gambling is so deeply ingrained in British culture that it's actually not surprising that it's so widely accepted, as most people don't really give it much thought.
Okay firstly you're creating a false assumption; how do you know the people complaining against the Grand National aren't against other practices? You're just assuming they aren't. This thread is about the Grand National; to go off on a tangent about fishing or keeping snakes in tanks would probably be complained about as being off topic.
Secondly, the world isn't always so black and white. While I personally dislike all use of animals for entertainment or financial gain where their own welfare is considered secondary to human gain, I don't necessarily think that holding different views for different animal industries is necessarily hypocritical, as there are often shades of grey. I do think, for example, that it's possible to have animal-based attractions that aren't exploitative; a good example of this is the keeping of certain animals in zoos. While I am against keeping large animals in zoos (large primates, elephants, giraffes, etc), I don't believe it's to the detriment of small animals, provided they're kept in large enough enclosures that accurately mimic their natural habitats, and are well looked after. Some zoos, like London Zoo, also serve important scientific and conservation purposes, so they ultimately do have a positive effect on our understanding of animals.
It's not actually fish scales - the substance you're thinking of is isinglass, made from fish swim bladders (but I'm impressed you know about it at all, as most people probably don't. Much like most people don't know that a lot of cheese isn't vegetarian - kinda ironic when pesto is often used in vegetarian dishes despite the fact that there's no such thing as vegetarian Parmesan, but I digress...). While the use of isinglass in the fining of alcoholic beverages is quite wide, there are also many manufacturers that don't use it; and not just niche brands either, as many well known brands use alternative methods. But back to the subject at hand, I still have to disagree with you here. Your statement is rather akin to suggesting that if you wear sports shoes, you have no right to complain about child labour in Asia, just because some sports shoes are manufactured under dubious conditions.
As consumers, it is possible to make choices which have a lesser impact on the welfare of animals (and our environment). Human beings do hold a certain position in a greater natural food chain, and as such it's difficult to create an absolute moral argument against the consumption of meat; however, one can create arguments against the treatment of animals during their lives by certain providers within the industry (as well as other aspects of it, like the wastefulness of intensive livestock farming). Earlier in my post I mentioned paradigm shifts that have happened within my lifetime, and here again we find examples of relatively new production methods that have enjoyed increasing popularity in recent years: free range farming and organic produce, both of which have a more humane attitude towards the welfare of animals and the environment.
And in case you think I'm making this argument because I'm concerned that I may fall foul of your definition of a hypocrite, I'm not - I'm a vegan. This means I abstain from the use of all animal products. But I do recognise the right of every person to make choices according to their own views, and I also recognise the fact that people who don't share my particular lifestyle choice can still use animal products themselves while simultaneously holding critical views about animal industries, without being hypocrites. If we were to start labelling any superficially "contrary" behaviour or views, as defined by incredibly broad strokes that don't take into account the vast array of variables available in any industry, we could say anyone who eats food is a hypocrite if they say that there's something wrong with children starving in Africa.
Last edited:
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
It first happened last year when the 20th was flagged off after Ornais' fall at the 4th (first circuit).
Prior to that only sections of a fence would be flagged. It's now been introduced as standard practice.
Matt
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
right ok then...im not reading through all of this so here are a few comments, please take the ones that apply to you:
1) please keep it civil, everyone has a right to have a different opinion
2) if you do have a differing opinion, please remember that you are not right just because you think you are
3) please dont pick on each other
4) Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean that others cant like it - everyone is entitled to an opinion
5) get out more
6) stop arguing like kids
7) glue
8) dogfood
1) please keep it civil, everyone has a right to have a different opinion
2) if you do have a differing opinion, please remember that you are not right just because you think you are
3) please dont pick on each other
4) Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean that others cant like it - everyone is entitled to an opinion
5) get out more
6) stop arguing like kids
7) glue
8) dogfood
Last edited:
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The condescending and frankly snide tone of points 5-8 there really undermine any point you're trying to make, while point 4 shows your own personal bias which undermines your first two points.
It's no wonder there's so much poor behaviour around here when moderators themselves fail to show respect for others and actively participate in the belittling of members and views they disagree with. Way to go setting an example there, Matty.
Matt
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
:shrug: I said take the ones that apply to you, you choose, not me.
for the record, I couldnt give a monkeys chuff about horse-racing, massive waste of time for all involved and ultimately leads to points 7 & 8 so please dont presume to know anything about me or any bias I may or may not have..
Im sick of opening threads and finding people arguing about their own personal opinions, belittling others for disagreeing, taking their balls home because others disagree and generally sulking. The Mod room is FULL of reported posts that all hinge around the same few people, and its really starting to get tedious.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 1,236
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On the one hand you dismiss those who argue from a point of ignorance. On the other you dismiss an attempt at providing some (referenced) facts and figures as erroneous and emotive.
All the figures I quoted were sourced from the BHA website. Specifically, and to quote:
"At present overall about 2 in every thousand runners are fatalities. Flat and All Weather racing accounts for around 0.6 fatalities of every thousand runners, Jump racing accounts for just over 4 fatalities of every thousand runners. "
And from their 2011 review of the Grand National their figures show that over the last 25 years there have been 20 fatalities out of 960 runners.
I think 5 times as many is a perfectly rational way to describe the figures. The BHA make it difficult enough to find and interpret the data and themselves make no distinction in places between jump racing and steeplechase or hurdles.
If I'd wanted to be emotive I would have posted a link to http://www.horsedeathwatch.com which does at least seem to keep an up to date database of fatalities.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I wasn't saying that you were being emotive deliberately, I was pointing out that is how the figures can be viewed as you presented them..
Btw, you quoted the time scale of 11 years for which the stats are 6 deaths from 439 runners (2000-2010) which gives 0.013%; that rises to 0.019% when you take into account 2011 and 2012, or 0.02% over the 25 year period. Still not really a five fold increase over the 6 in one thousand deaths that occur in 'Chasing.
Btw, some of my stats are sourced from horse death watch - they tend to be accurate!
Edit:
That's because they've aggregated the figures from the original report on the website.
Btw, you quoted the time scale of 11 years for which the stats are 6 deaths from 439 runners (2000-2010) which gives 0.013%; that rises to 0.019% when you take into account 2011 and 2012, or 0.02% over the 25 year period. Still not really a five fold increase over the 6 in one thousand deaths that occur in 'Chasing.
Btw, some of my stats are sourced from horse death watch - they tend to be accurate!
Edit:
That's because they've aggregated the figures from the original report on the website.
Last edited:
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Right I've watched it.
What I agree with. Dog breeding for aesthetics is most probably wrong for all breeds but is quite obviously, at a very minimum, morally and genetically wrong where it involves what amounts to re-engineering of the face.
What I disagree with: Your assertion that it's the Kennel Club "legislation" which in your words
That is quite obviously untrue and was not supported in the programme. The breed standard may result in that but I can't categorically state that, EVEN THOUGH I MAY SUSPECT IT.
The breeders make their own minds up, the KC breed standards are simply guidelines. There is no compulsion on anyone to adhere to them.
That programme overall was a bit of a dramatisation with a largely negative slant on it. There were a number of acknowledgements that the KC is actually trying to improve things, one in particular from the President of the British Veterinary Association who said "we mush cherish the Kennel club".
A number of the issues weren't, as far as I was able to tell, a direct cause of the breeding programme. For example, the neurological condition affecting King Charles spaniels also affects humans apparently. I'd definitely agree however that if a dog was known to have that condition then further breeding should be prevented, it's cruel to deliberately perpetuate that condition.
However, the comparison of dog breeding to Hitler's Concentration camp programme was more than a little bit over the top. Then again, it's to be expected from the BBC. This thread's full of it as well.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,167
- Name
- Liz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I take it you've just watched pedigree dogs exposed? The breed standards are guidelines issued by the kennel club,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but the problem has come along in dogs when exagerated features (leading to the breathing problems and sores in skin folds) are the only ones that do well at Championship shows (again comes down to £ signs on breeding stocks) which as you may have guessed are goverened by the kennel club, but thats a whole other thread
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure what I take my hat off to dod more for.. Watching the video in the first place, writing out that huge reply or not responding to the lack of reply
I think all three.
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah, that explains it, cheers.
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Funny then, that in point 4 you only suggest people who don't like horse racing are being belligerent, when in fact it's the opposite that's largely true in this thread. That shows a bias, further enforced by your use of the term "rest of us" which would appear to include yourself, whether you intended it or not.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
i believe point 4 was more a generic, stop bickering about difference of opinion thing.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You really should relax a little more.
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe you find it funny when a certain clique here, which by all appearances includes part of the moderation team, regularly bashes and belittles those who hold views contrary to theirs, but frankly I don't find it particularly amusing at all. It's the kind of behaviour I assumed we'd all left behind in the kindergarten playground, but apparently there's quite a case of arrested development going on around here.
Just look at the user tag I was given recently, after apparently doing the unthinkable by mentioning something as offensively high brow as gender stereotypes in a very low brow thread thread. The moderators here thought it would be funny to mockingly give me the Betty Friedan tag, because apparently it's easier to just mock and then simplify peoples' views by slapping the first Google result they found under their name for lolz, instead of bothering to understand them. "We're the friendliest forum on the internet"? Yeah, right.
It seems this particular clique here in the off topic forum just want to beat their chests and HURRR DURRR over everything, because the moment you try to introduce any serious discussion into the topic, you're either:
1. Lacking a sense of humour
2. Being a Nazi; or
3. the most beautifully ironic of all, ignorant.
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Read it again. It singles out the people who don't like the Grand National, and insinuates that they're the ones being intolerant of other views, when in fact the majority of this thread demonstrates the opposite. The fact that this point was added after an earlier point had already made the "stop bickering" point skews the post and makes it look biased.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
