[BeaverFever]

$1:

Yes, I can. Animals must have emotions, otherwise your own arguments fail! Anthropomorphizing a car would be an invalid argument, but an emotional creature can't be anthropomorphized.

The anthropomorphized argument is the "he died doing what he loved" claim. It doesn't apply to animals because they don't choose their circumstances and they don't choose to risk death for the sake of pleasure.

$1:

The suffering and dieing isn't the point. There are many horses at the stampede this week who will not suffer and die, but enjoy the thrill of the races as much as the crowd, and then go home safely. Accidents happen.

Killing pedestrians isn't the point of drunk driving, and many drunk drivers last night got home safely. Doesn't make it any less immoral or reckless just because "it's not the point". The fact that it is known with near 100% certainty that some horses will surely die gruesomely is enough. I mean, could you imagine a cub scout leader telling parents "some of your kids will certainly die on this trip, but that's ok because suffering and dying isn't the point. There are many kids who will not suffer and die, but enjoy the thrill of the adventure and then go home safely." Also, when you know for a fact that it is going to happen to someone, it's not an accident. Its a probability. Accident means unforeseen and unpreventable.

$1:

Competition is what they crave, and racing down the track looking the next horse in the eyes and beating it is what they love.

Look, you're trying to suggest that these animals are absolutely miserable unless they're in a wagon-pulling death race and that 's just not true. "Why it would be cruel NOT to have chuck-wagon races!" Sorry.

Also, as I already said, how much they enjoy it is irrelevant if the outcome is deadly. Animals enjoy eating, doesn't make it moral to forece-feed one to death.

[Zipperfish]

They're not kids, they're horses.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Yes, I can. Animals must have emotions, otherwise your own arguments fail! Anthropomorphizing a car would be an invalid argument, but an emotional creature can't be anthropomorphized.

The anthropomorphized argument is the "he died doing what he loved" claim. It doesn't apply to animals because they don't choose their circumstances and they don't choose to risk death for the sake of pleasure.

To anthropomorphize something is to give human emotions to an inanimate object. Horses are animate and they already share emotions with humans. Their motivations however, are their own.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

The suffering and dieing isn't the point. There are many horses at the stampede this week who will not suffer and die, but enjoy the thrill of the races as much as the crowd, and then go home safely. Accidents happen.

Killing pedestrians isn't the point of drunk driving, and many drunk drivers last night got home safely. Doesn't make it any less immoral or reckless just because "it's not the point". The fact that it is known with near 100% certainty that some horses will surely die gruesomely is enough. I mean, could you imagine a cub scout leader telling parents "some of your kids will certainly die on this trip, but that's ok because suffering and dying isn't the point. There are many kids who will not suffer and die, but enjoy the thrill of the adventure and then go home safely." Also, when you know for a fact that it is going to happen to someone, it's not an accident. Its a probability. Accident means unforeseen and unpreventable.

My God! It's full of strawmen!

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Competition is what they crave, and racing down the track looking the next horse in the eyes and beating it is what they love.

Look, you're trying to suggest that these animals are absolutely miserable unless they're in a wagon-pulling death race and that 's just not true. "Why it would be cruel NOT to have chuck-wagon races!" Sorry.

Also, as I already said, how much they enjoy it is irrelevant if the outcome is deadly. Animals enjoy eating, doesn't make it moral to forece-feed one to death.

I don't suggest anything. I am fully capable of conveying my ideas in full sentences. I never suggested they are miserable when not in competition, I said they absolutely love competition. It's what horses do, argumentum ad absurdum aside. . .

[BeaverFever]

$1:

To anthropomorphize something is to give human emotions to an inanimate object. Horses are animate and they already share emotions with humans. Their motivations however, are their own.

No, it is to give human characteristics of any kind (not just emotions) such as making a rational cost-benefit decision to risk their life doing what they love.

$1:

My God! It's full of strawmen!

If you feel the analogies are bad then challenge them. Also, an unfit analogy is not the same thing as a straw man argument.

$1:

I never suggested they are miserable when not in competition, I said they absolutely love competition.

As I have said that point is irrelevant. The enjoyment you give them doesn't absolve you of the suffering you cause them.

zipperfish zipperfish:

They're not kids, they're horses.

True, but that point is only relevant because of the logical conclusion of you post, left unsaid: we should care about kids' welfare, but not about animals' welfare.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

To anthropomorphize something is to give human emotions to an inanimate object. Horses are animate and they already share emotions with humans. Their motivations however, are their own.

No, it is to give human characteristics of any kind (not just emotions) such as making a rational cost-benefit decision to risk their life doing what they love.

merriam-webster.com merriam-webster.com:

Definition of ANTHROPOMORPHIZE
transitive verb
: to attribute human form or personality to

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... pomorphize

To assume they don't know their life is at risk is, ironically, to anthropomorphize them. I'm quite sure they know. And I'm quite sure they think it's worth it.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

My God! It's full of strawmen!

If you feel the analogies are bad then challenge them. Also, an unfit analogy is not the same thing as a straw man argument.

The 'strawman' is a presentation of arguments that your opponent did not make, or to make arguments that are undefendable in order to give the impression that your opponent is incorrect because they cannot be refuted. That's one point of strawmen, to challenge them is to give them credence. Drunk driving, cub scouts - none of these have anything to do with the Calgary Stampede, and therefore can be ignored.

There is no logical device called an 'unfit analogy'.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

I never suggested they are miserable when not in competition, I said they absolutely love competition.

As I have said that point is irrelevant. The enjoyment you give them doesn't absolve you of the suffering you cause them.

It's not, because I have caused them no suffering. And as in your first point, you don't know if they are suffering because you don't know their motivation. People will tell you that Yoga is suffering, and that it is totally worth it.

Don't be embarrassed by your lack of knowledge about horses. Not every kid gets 'pet' horses, and they are very unlike dogs and cats. I grew up with horses. I can ride them, shoe them, saddle them, bridle them, jump them, geld them, and take them for weeks long trips into the bush.

There is no shame in lack of experience. But befriending a horse is one I recommend.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

To assume they don't know their life is at risk is, ironically, to anthropomorphize them

That's some pretzel logic right there!

$1:

I'm quite sure they know. And I'm quite sure they think it's worth it.

Well, what can you say here? There we have it, the horses have made an informed decision to compete in chuck wagon races!

I assume you have signed waivers from them as well? "Ok Trigger, you know the routine, stomp your hoof twice to indicate that you hereby absolve the Calgary Stampede Festival Inc and the City of Calgary from any and all liability due to injury or death!"

$1:

The 'strawman' is a presentation of arguments that your opponent did not make

If I said Chuck-wagon supporters are people who want to put dead horse meat in the food supply, that would be a straw man.

$1:

There is no logical device called an 'unfit analogy'.

Well, to be technical it's most often called "False Analogy" or "Weak Analogy" or "Faulty Anaology" but we digress...

$1:

People will tell you that Yoga is suffering, and that it is totally worth it.

Speaking of False Analogies!

$1:

I grew up with horses.

Another logical fallacy:

Appeal to Accomplishment (Appeal to Authority): A common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

$1:

geld them

Do you think they love that also?

And by your logic, dog fighting isn't cruel either, since the dogs are bred to love fighting?

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

Children enjoy all sorts of activities too. We don't let them go and play on the freeway. I have nothing against using animals for our entertainment, as long as the risks of harm are reasonable. The risks are not reasonable in chuck wagon racing.

At what point do we stop using animals for our entertainment?

[stratos]

Not taking sides, I've never been to a rodeo with a chuck wagon race. Is it just this race that you (BF, AndyT and others) are against, the whole rodeo,or the use of horses/animals for any for of entertainment?

Trying to understand the point of view that's all.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

There is no logical device called an 'unfit analogy'.

Well, to be technical it's most often called "False Analogy" or "Weak Analogy" or "Faulty Anaology" but we digress...

Like I said, there is no such thing as an 'unfit analogy' and your analogies were neither weak nor false. They were irrelevant.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

People will tell you that Yoga is suffering, and that it is totally worth it.

Speaking of False Analogies!

Not a false analogy, people derive pleasure from pain all the time. There is no reason to assume that other creatures will endure pain to get the outcome they want, considering that nature is full of all sorts of mating rituals like Bighorn sheep crashing headlong into their rivals.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

I grew up with horses.

Another logical fallacy:

Appeal to Accomplishment (Appeal to Authority): A common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

Using one's own knowledge isn't 'appeal to authority' or accomplishment. It simply demonstrates I have greater knowledge about the subject, something that you lack. It's not a syllogism to rely on what you know personally.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

geld them

Do you think they love that also?

And by your logic, dog fighting isn't cruel either, since the dogs are bred to love fighting?

You have never seen two ungelded Stallions fighting. Far more vicious than dogs. Brutal, by any standards. But then again, I didn't imply that I hold that view about dogs, only that I am versed in the care and feeding of horses.

[Zipperfish]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

True, but that point is only relevant because of the logical conclusion of you post, left unsaid: we should care about kids' welfare, but not about animals' welfare.

NWORNG! The duty of care we owe to horses should not be the same as the duty of care we owe to our children. Specie-ist of me, but there you have it. I care a great deal about animal welfare. If I were in charge there would be some big changes in the meat processing and medical research fields.

[BeaverFever]

stratos stratos:

Not taking sides, I've never been to a rodeo with a chuck wagon race. Is it just this race that you (BF, AndyT and others) are against, the whole rodeo,or the use of horses/animals for any for of entertainment?

Trying to understand the point of view that's all.

Well I for one pick my battles and the Chuck wagon races are particularly controversial because of the frequency of horrific crashes and resulting injuries, which are usual fatal to the horses involved. All for some obscure sport (not that being a popular sport would make in any less immoral).

As I said, I can pick my battles and I can differentiate between Chuck wagon racing and say greyhound racing where fatal collisions don't occur. That said, generally I don't support "animal entertainment" be it races or dancing bears or roadside zoos or whatever. Once you commodify animals and turn them into money-making devices, exploitation, neglect and abuse is inevitable.

[stratos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

stratos stratos:

Not taking sides, I've never been to a rodeo with a chuck wagon race. Is it just this race that you (BF, AndyT and others) are against, the whole rodeo,or the use of horses/animals for any for of entertainment?

Trying to understand the point of view that's all.

Well I for one pick my battles and the Chuck wagon races are particularly controversial because of the frequency of horrific crashes and resulting injuries, which are usual fatal to the horses involved. All for some obscure sport (not that being a popular sport would make in any less immoral).

As I said, I can pick my battles and I can differentiate between Chuck wagon racing and say greyhound racing where fatal collisions don't occur. That said, generally I don't support "animal entertainment" be it races or dancing bears or roadside zoos or whatever. Once you commodify animals and turn them into money-making devices, exploitation, neglect and abuse is inevitable.

Okay and thanks for the honest answer. Like I said I've not seen a chuck wagon race but your answer has helped me understand where you are coming from.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

There is no reason to assume that other creatures will endure pain to get the outcome they want, considering that nature is full of all sorts of mating rituals like Bighorn sheep crashing headlong into their rivals.

Humans aren't grabbing Bighorn sheep by the head and forcing them to headbutt each other over and over again every night for 10 nights in a row for the benefit of a cheering crowd. Bighorns do what they do without human direction, for brief and intermittent periods and for a biological purpose.

The chuck wagon race, by contrast, is a man-made event. The horse does not hook himself to the wagon, anticipating that he will soon be in dangerous but rewarding activity. And there is no desirable 'outcome' for the horse.

And even if horses do get some rewarding thrill out of running with other horses while towing a dangerous and thundering load behind them, I'm sure if left to their own devices in nature they would not be doing it so often that it's risk to their life. All animals are hard-wired for self-preservation.

At the very best, it's human manipulation and perversion of the animals natural reflexes for your own selfish enjoyment. Like putting peanut butter on your balls and saying "but Rover loves peanut butter!"

$1:

The duty of care we owe to horses should not be the same as the duty of care we owe to our children. Specie-ist of me, but there you have it

Yes fine but where do you draw the line though? Why Chuckwagon races but not food animals? Exaclty how much suffering in chuck wagon races would cross the line?

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

andyt andyt:

Children enjoy all sorts of activities too. We don't let them go and play on the freeway. I have nothing against using animals for our entertainment, as long as the risks of harm are reasonable. The risks are not reasonable in chuck wagon racing.

At what point do we stop using animals for our entertainment?

It's right there in my quote. Did you stop reading after the comma?

[BeaverFever]

I think maybe he means what do you consider to be reasonable risk?