Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    It is indeed a very difficult situation and I am inclined to support this bill. Though it will be incredibly sad to see scores of innocent animals wiped out it seems almost inevitable through this process, but is the lesser of two evils. I sympathise with JPKC's suggestions of stepping up funding to care for these animals through the transition phase, so to speak, but in reality I'm not sure it's feasible given the costs in the current climate and the animals would probably be resigned to another ill situation.

    Another query I have is: this bill doesn't apply to things like show jumping, which aren't explicitly racing, does it? Or does that constitute a race? It would seem odd not to ban them both if the premise is that animals should not be forced to partake in potentially dangerous activities.
    I'm not well-researched on showjumping - I wasn't aware that it involved dangerous activities or mistreatment. If it does then I would also be against showjumping.

    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    And, also, what would you think to seriously cracking down and enforcing stricter regulations on the process as an alternative? That is, if racing was made categorically much safer (limiting number of horses, for example, in a race or reducing fence heights and so on) so that the risk of harm was substantially reduced, would you support it? Or is it more about the idea of animals having no real choice in this that's more important to you? (Just wondering on what the strongest motives are.)
    My personal view is that animals' welfare shouldn't be secondary to our entertainment. I don't think any amount of scaling back of the problem will change these priorities; incentives will always be in place to push animal welfare to the limit that the racing organisations can legally get away with.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I'm not well-researched on showjumping - I wasn't aware that it involved dangerous activities or mistreatment. If it does then I would also be against showjumping.
    I'm no expert myself but as far as I'm aware there is certainly some room for animals suffering injuries and the possibility of mistreatment elsewhere would be exactly the same or similar to racing, I would think. (That is, if we're thinking along the same lines here.) Obviously it's much less of an issue than racing where, like you say, horses especially are (brutally, in my view) whipped in the hope of victory and face much more apparent danger due to the high speed nature.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Someone give us a nice trite word that can be added in to the bill to accomplish this? Racing and exhibitioning?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Someone give us a nice trite word that can be added in to the bill to accomplish this? Racing and exhibitioning?
    Showcasing/Performances/Displays?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Someone give us a nice trite word that can be added in to the bill to accomplish this? Racing and exhibitioning?
    Sounds good. I look forward to the second reading as there seems to be room to make this into a really great bill :yy:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by miser)
    Hah! When you libertarians talk about the rights to freedom, presumably you have included freedom of humans to deny the freedoms of every other species? When a horse runs faster to escape his rider's whip, is that not a statement clear as any that it wishes not to continue to be hit? To promote liberty all day long, and yet not to support the animals who cry out for it, is promoting human supremacism, not liberty.
    I believe that you can do whatever the hell you want, but only if you don't infringe upon somebody roses liberty. In this case I don't think that racing infringes an animals liberty only as much as raising cattle for food.

    Sorry to break it to you but we are the master species, and these animals often depend on human aid and act as servants and have dine for millenia. Is this immoral? Is this wrong? Should the servant species break free from their masters?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    I believe that you can do whatever the hell you want, but only if you don't infringe upon somebody roses liberty. In this case I don't think that racing infringes an animals liberty only as much as raising cattle for food.
    I agree with you, but infringing on it for entertainment is completely different than infringing on it for sustainance.

    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    Sorry to break it to you but we are the master species, and these animals often depend on human aid and act as servants and have dine for millenia. Is this immoral? Is this wrong? Should the servant species break free from their masters?
    I don't think animals are our slaves, and I think it unfortunate that you do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I've got to admit my total inability to see the logic in this. It's ok to force horses to race each other down dangerous courses specifically designed to be hard for them to do so because some of them live quite nice lives?
    No; because the vast majority of them live very nice lives. As a conservative, I have to weigh up different causes and effects, and establish which to me is important, clearing my mind of ideology. The vast contribution to the economy and the betterment of the lives of thousands of horses is, to me, worth the tragic hundred or so horses killed each year.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    If animals have the same rights as us, why aren't you personally currently writing a bill that prohibits eating meat?
    What's to say I'm not?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by miser)
    I agree with you, but infringing on it for entertainment is completely different than infringing on it for sustainance.


    I don't think animals are our slaves, and I think it unfortunate that you do.
    I don't see the difference to be honest.

    Its not unfortunate it's the facts. Do I treat animals how id like to be treated myself? Yes. However, they depend solely on my aid. Call it what you want it is the truth that can't be denied.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    I don't see the difference to be honest.
    One has an argument from necessity, the other has argument from extravagance.

    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    Its not unfortunate it's the facts. Do I treat animals how id like to be treated myself? Yes. However, they depend solely on my aid. Call it what you want it is the truth that can't be denied.
    It sounds like you're arguing that you can abuse your dependents merely for the fact that they depend on you and have no other choice about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    I don't see the difference to be honest.

    Its not unfortunate it's the facts. Do I treat animals how id like to be treated myself? Yes. However, they depend solely on my aid. Call it what you want it is the truth that can't be denied.
    So would you want someone to jump on your back, ride you and whip you repeatedly?

    EDIT: Probably didn't phrase this question that well (I mean some people would want that :sexface:) - you get my point though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not keen on excessive government meddling in what some people see as entertainment, especially when the proposal is to destroy an entire sector of the economy - No. I don't like horse racing nor greyhound racing because they seem boring to me, but I'm loathe to let my ideology tell the populationn what sports they can and cannot follow or participate in.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    So would you want someone to jump on your back, ride you and whip you repeatedly?

    EDIT: Probably didn't phrase this question that well (I mean some people would want that :sexface:) - you get my point though.
    I don't race my pets.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by miser)
    One has an argument from necessity, the other has argument from extravagance.


    It sounds like you're arguing that you can abuse your dependents merely for the fact that they depend on you and have no other choice about it.
    1. Thing is though, these animals are looked after instead of being just raised to kill. If you want to change things change how they're killed via really inhumane kosher and halal methods

    2. I said I treat them I wont to be treated myself, kind of answers itself that I wouldn't beat them. Where did I say I would abuse my position of authority to do this? Trying to fabircate things I've said hmmm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    I don't race my pets.
    Okay, let's try it this way:

    Do you think people who own animals should treat the animals they own how they themselves would wish to be treated? If so do you think the people who own horses would be happy to be repeatedly beaten with a whip whilst someone attempts to race them in a dangerous environment where they could potentially die?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Okay, let's try it this way:

    Do you think people who own animals should treat the animals they own how they themselves would wish to be treated? If so do you think the people who own horses would be happy to be repeatedly beaten with a whip whilst someone attempts to race them in a dangerous environment where they could potentially die?
    Lets get the facts right here they are not repeatedly, I believe there is a limit upon how much they can use the whip and beaten, I would hardly call it beating that's you interpretation. More often than not the jockeys don't even use the whip.

    Dangerous environment l, real life is a dangerous environment. Even if they lived out in the wild they would be at risk of dying. I don't know what point you're trying to get across. It seems that you're against the use of the whip, if that's the case why ban racing of animals as a whole? Greyhound racing doesn't use whips.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    Lets get the facts right here they are not repeatedly, I believe there is a limit upon how much they can use the whip and beaten, I would hardly call it beating that's you interpretation. More often than not the jockeys don't even use the whip.

    Dangerous environment l, real life is a dangerous environment. Even if they lived out in the wild they would be at risk of dying. I don't know what point you're trying to get across. It seems that you're against the use of the whip, if that's the case why ban racing of animals as a whole? Greyhound racing doesn't use whips.
    You say that animals should be treated how we would want to be treated, do you think the jockeys/horse owners would want to be treated the way that horses are on the race course. Should we round a few of them up for a race at Aintree and let them take the place of the horses, I doubt they'd want to? They wouldn't like it, and they wouldn't want to do it. That's the point I'm trying to get across.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You say that animals should be treated how we would want to be treated, do you think the jockeys/horse owners would want to be treated the way that horses are on the race course. Should we round a few of them up for a race at Aintree and let them take the place of the horses, I doubt they'd want to? They wouldn't like it, and they wouldn't want to do it. That's the point I'm trying to get across.
    So you suggest we ban the whip?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    So you suggest we ban the whip?
    Are you thick, just can't read a fairly simple post of a single paragraph or deliberately missing the point?

    I'm not saying we should ban the whip, the post you've quoted doesn't even mention the whip :fyi:, the entirety of horse racing is dangerous and the whole set-up of shoving a load of horses in between two fences where they could potentially clash with each-other and kill each-other needs to be stopped should be outlawed. Allowing the racing of animals for nothing more than the enjoyment of animals and making cash for the gambling industry is morally corrupt.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 31, 2013
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.