I didn't say I'd won the argument (although I clearly have). I said that you had lost it with that ridiculous statement.
Council houses for animals is a more ridiculous statement that putting Pippa Middleton down if she breaks her leg? It might be more ridiculous, I'm not sure how we measure such things.
The That's Irish Scale. Shooting Pippa in the head is 5 Irish. Giving horses council housing is 9 Irish. You don't want to know what 10 Irish is.
Doesn't a distinction have to be made between cruel and dangerous. Dog fighting, fox hunting, bull fighting are cruel as the whole intent is the death of an animal. When a horse is killed it is an accident that nobody involved planned to happen!
One horse killed might be an accident but we are talking around 150 a year: http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/ And that's just in Britain.
Good point and valid (and nice edit after doing the maths ) - but again my argument is that sum total of privilege enjoyed by race horses vs every other animal more than makes up for the risk of death. In the few places that wild horses still roam I imagine they have a bigger mortality rate than we see in British Horse Racing. Anyway I think the argument should be on how we prevent deaths and make the sport safer (for instance there are several deaths on there at one meeting, which obviously indicates that meeting should never have taken place) but banning the entire sport would at least create a much worse situation on the whole for those existing horses, who would become surplus to requirements.
Yes my initial first glance figure was an exaggeration but whether its "around 150" or "almost 200" it's clear that very many animals die in this supposedly non-cruel sport.
Mick you keep bitching about people ignoring your points, yet when I mention whipping you side step it. What a ****.
Absolutely Mick. When we get high profile horse deaths, mainly the National and Cheltenham there's a clamour from one side for it to be banned and a clamour on the other iside for people to grow up and even mind their own business. It gets far too emotive and we're much better off trying to make it safer abd cut down on fatalities. I have to say I like the way the RSPCA has now tried to work with Aintree etc. rather than throw abuse form the sidelines. Just to point out that i have no problem with people calling for it to be banned and totally respect their views but the likes iof RSPCA have a duty to be more measured in their approach in my opinion. Anyway, come on Carry on Syddney in this race at musselburgh......
It is a fair point. They have curtailed whipping quite a bit (too much for some people) but overall I'm still in favour of it being allowed. Is it morally justifiable? Hmmm, it's certainly on very shaky grounds. The best I can do is say that I'd take a bit of a light whipping once a week for a life of relative human luxury (or if the missus is in an imaginative mood).
They have already tried to address the whipping ban with fines and bans for those who do it excessively but I do soemtimes think they could be hasher. If you beat the **** out of a horse and win 10% of a 150,000 purse you should forfeit the lot. Actually if you disqualified the horse then I think you might see it sorted immediately!
Whatever. My point was that horse racing is cruel on the horses and no ones changed my mind. The meat trade is cruel, doesn't mean I won't eat meat. Seems to me some people are arguing for the sake of arguing. And for that reason... I'm.... away to pump **** oot ae aw yer birds.
It shouldn't be about how many times the horse can be whipped, it should be more about how much force is being used. There is nothing wrong with a jockey over using the whip in a race, as long as he isn't leaving a mark. If there are any marks on the horse then the jockey should be punished
So you admit it's on the list of cruel things. Stick to conspiracy theories Edward. Schooled I disagree.
