[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Are you a vegetarian? Then you can bitch about a couple of hoses dying now and then. Otherwise, not.

And again, I have no problem with food animals dying. I just wish we'd have a little bit more respect for them when they're alive. As it is, we let the food companies pull the veil over everything so we can all have plausibile deniability about the ugly lives of food animals.

How about animal experiments? Fine with burning puppy dogs just to see what happens?

I'm just saying that if your concern with animals is that high, it would seem to me there are higher level targets than a couple of horses at the Stampede every year.

And you take jabs at me for being out to lunch?

The problem is that the event is being used to ENTERTAIN people. All the other examples you use have nothing to do with entertainment, they have to do with food or medical testing.

IMO, we don't need to put animals at risk for the sake of entertaining humans.

[Gunnair]

jeff744 jeff744:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Stupid.

This event needs to go for the safety of those animals.

Should we just do away with anything dangerous in the world while we're at it?

yeah, that's exactly what was suggested.

[jeff744]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Are you a vegetarian? Then you can bitch about a couple of hoses dying now and then. Otherwise, not.

And again, I have no problem with food animals dying. I just wish we'd have a little bit more respect for them when they're alive. As it is, we let the food companies pull the veil over everything so we can all have plausibile deniability about the ugly lives of food animals.

How about animal experiments? Fine with burning puppy dogs just to see what happens?

I'm just saying that if your concern with animals is that high, it would seem to me there are higher level targets than a couple of horses at the Stampede every year.

And you take jabs at me for being out to lunch?

The problem is that the event is being used to ENTERTAIN people. All the other examples you use have nothing to do with entertainment, they have to do with food or medical testing.

IMO, we don't need to put animals at risk for the sake of entertaining humans.

What about fulfilling the fact that many of these animals are naturally competitive?

[andyt]

It's all or nothing, that it? No balancing benefit vs risk?

But mostly, what's got me going, (and it seems Gunnair) is exposing these horses to this risk, but then weeping about how you lost a family member when, predictably, they get killed. If you care that much, you don't expose them to that much risk for no benefit for them. The activities Shep mentioned all have benefits for the children. Parents expose them to those risks because of the positive development those activities bring the kids. Parents don't tell the kids take the risk because the parents want a few shits and giggles. And if a parent did push a kid to take a great risk in gymnastics just because the parent wanted to get a thrill, all the supporters of chuckwagon races would by howling for his hide.

Like I say, I don't really care that much, but cut out the hypocrisy at least.

[andyt]

Hyack Hyack:

It's also nice to see that you admit this thread is being severely trolled........

What does he have to admit to? Are you saying he's trolling?

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

It's all or nothing, that it? No balancing benefit vs risk?

But mostly, what's got me going, (and it seems Gunnair) is exposing these horses to this risk, but then weeping about how you lost a family member when, predictably, they get killed. If you care that much, you don't expose them to that much risk for no benefit for them. The activities Shep mentioned all have benefits for the children. Parents expose them to those risks because of the positive development those activities bring the kids. Parents don't tell the kids take the risk because the parents want a few shits and giggles. And if a parent did push a kid to take a great risk in gymnastics just because the parent wanted to get a thrill, all the supporters of chuckwagon races would by howling for his hide.

Like I say, I don't really care that much, but cut out the hypocrisy at least.

And of course, the kids generally have a choice.

Let's change things up here and have some children passengers on the chuck wagons.

[jeff744]

andyt andyt:

It's all or nothing, that it? No balancing benefit vs risk?

But mostly, what's got me going, (and it seems Gunnair) is exposing these horses to this risk, but then weeping about how you lost a family member when, predictably, they get killed. If you care that much, you don't expose them to that much risk for no benefit for them. The activities Shep mentioned all have benefits for the children. Parents expose them to those risks because of the positive development those activities bring the kids. Parents don't tell the kids take the risk because the parents want a few shits and giggles. And if a parent did push a kid to take a great risk in gymnastics just because the parent wanted to get a thrill, all the supporters of chuckwagon races would by howling for his hide.

Like I say, I don't really care that much, but cut out the hypocrisy at least.

Why buy a dog if you know they are going to die? You expose it to risk because that is the reason you bought and trained the horse in the first place, there is no law saying that you can't love them like a child, why can't he cry? Not everyone believes that if you loves an animal then you should never take a risk with them, he was going to be left crying eventually even if the animals didn't die in a race, the difference is that he would be crying a year or two later on his farm.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And you take jabs at me for being out to lunch?

The problem is that the event is being used to ENTERTAIN people. All the other examples you use have nothing to do with entertainment, they have to do with food or medical testing.

IMO, we don't need to put animals at risk for the sake of entertaining humans.

All those other examples have to do with the amount that we make animals suffer. So if you are eating battery hens and mutant steak by the tone, or using cosmetics or medicine used on animals, your concern for a couple of horses is, while understandable (horses are beautiful creatures), a little hypocritical.

[Zipperfish]

jeff744 jeff744:

What about fulfilling the fact that many of these animals are naturally competitive?

This reminds me of when they banned dwarf tossing, how sad all those naturally-competitive little dwarves were. Oh, how they use to paddle there arms, almost as if to fly, to get the last couple of inches out of a good throw. And when we were done with them, we just tossed them away, only instead of tossing them for distance, we just tossed them into the garbage can of life. It is to cry.

[Bodah]

As a easterner the Calgary Stampede is one of those yearly events that says Western Anglo Canadian Culture to me. We don't have much of it left and I wouldn't want to see it go because some well taken care of animals die at the event.

I'm sure it was pretty rough to be a horse out in western Canada back in the late 1800's as well, but they help build our country.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Are you a vegetarian? Then you can bitch about a couple of hoses dying now and then. Otherwise, not.

And again, I have no problem with food animals dying. I just wish we'd have a little bit more respect for them when they're alive. As it is, we let the food companies pull the veil over everything so we can all have plausibile deniability about the ugly lives of food animals.

How about animal experiments? Fine with burning puppy dogs just to see what happens?

I'm just saying that if your concern with animals is that high, it would seem to me there are higher level targets than a couple of horses at the Stampede every year.

I don't think vegetarianism gives anyone any moral high ground here. The fact is that humans exploit every species, plant and animal, on the planet. Our activities and our collective actions in the modern age have made our species an infestation on planet Earth and unless you're living some sort of nomadic, tribal hunting-gathering existence in the Kalahari or are a hermit in the Alaskan wilderness, you're part of the same hypocrisy.

[BeaverFever]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And you take jabs at me for being out to lunch?

The problem is that the event is being used to ENTERTAIN people. All the other examples you use have nothing to do with entertainment, they have to do with food or medical testing.

IMO, we don't need to put animals at risk for the sake of entertaining humans.

All those other examples have to do with the amount that we make animals suffer. So if you are eating battery hens and mutant steak by the tone, or using cosmetics or medicine used on animals, your concern for a couple of horses is, while understandable (horses are beautiful creatures), a little hypocritical.

So then, by your argument, since animal suffering is not unavoidable, we should go out of our way to cause suffering for the sake of it? Bullfighting, Dogfighting, Cockfighting all ok? Guess I'll go down to the park now and torture some swans because, hey I eat meat so I'd be hypocrite not to.

[Alta_redneck]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

It's all or nothing, that it? No balancing benefit vs risk?

But mostly, what's got me going, (and it seems Gunnair) is exposing these horses to this risk, but then weeping about how you lost a family member when, predictably, they get killed. If you care that much, you don't expose them to that much risk for no benefit for them. The activities Shep mentioned all have benefits for the children. Parents expose them to those risks because of the positive development those activities bring the kids. Parents don't tell the kids take the risk because the parents want a few shits and giggles. And if a parent did push a kid to take a great risk in gymnastics just because the parent wanted to get a thrill, all the supporters of chuckwagon races would by howling for his hide.

Like I say, I don't really care that much, but cut out the hypocrisy at least.

And of course, the kids generally have a choice.

So you think all you have to do is hook a horse up to a wagon and it's going to pull it because it hasn't got a choice?

Good luck with that.

You know the old saying, " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

If they don't like what their doing, or if their scared of what their doing, they ain't going to be doing it. They do it cause they love to race, it's bred into them.

Everyone that's against Chuckwagon racing should be protesting Thoroughbred Racing, cause if their shut down then there's no retired race horses being rescued from the meat market by the Chuckwagon Racers.

[Gunnair]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

It's all or nothing, that it? No balancing benefit vs risk?

But mostly, what's got me going, (and it seems Gunnair) is exposing these horses to this risk, but then weeping about how you lost a family member when, predictably, they get killed. If you care that much, you don't expose them to that much risk for no benefit for them. The activities Shep mentioned all have benefits for the children. Parents expose them to those risks because of the positive development those activities bring the kids. Parents don't tell the kids take the risk because the parents want a few shits and giggles. And if a parent did push a kid to take a great risk in gymnastics just because the parent wanted to get a thrill, all the supporters of chuckwagon races would by howling for his hide.

Like I say, I don't really care that much, but cut out the hypocrisy at least.

And of course, the kids generally have a choice.

So you think all you have to do is hook a horse up to a wagon and it's going to pull it because it hasn't got a choice?

Good luck with that.

You know the old saying, " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

If they don't like what their doing, or if their scared of what their doing, they ain't going to be doing it. They do it cause they love to race, it's bred into them.

Everyone that's against Chuckwagon racing should be protesting Thoroughbred Racing, cause if their shut down then there's no retired race horses being rescued from the meat market by the Chuckwagon Racers.

Wow....every time I reread that last line a giggle a little bit more.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't think vegetarianism gives anyone any moral high ground here. The fact is that humans exploit every species, plant and animal, on the planet. Our activities and our collective actions in the modern age have made our species an infestation on planet Earth and unless you're living some sort of nomadic, tribal hunting-gathering existence in the Kalahari or are a hermit in the Alaskan wilderness, you're part of the same hypocrisy.

I think that we could make the lives of battery chickens and cattle a little better. I think as a culture we focus too much on quality of death and not enough on quality of life. So the fact that cattle and chickens are killed humanely, to my mind, isn't as important as making their quality of life better.

I would hunt my food if I could, but I can't realistically. I'm stuck in the same Food Inc system as everyone else. I can, and do, make little choices that I hope encourage businesses interested in sustainable practices. I think vegetarianism is a moral high ground, though I like bacon too much to be one. So yes, I'm a hypocrite too. Show me a man who says he's not a hypocrite and I'll show you a hypocrite.

But I do think that most people are deliberately blind to where their meat comes fro (and most of their food) because a lot of it is ugly.