I made several points, they exist to perform, they have a good existence, and we'd no doubt have to 'dispose' of them if we chose to end this activity. You chose to only tackle the point of existence while ignoring general quality of life and what we would do if we had no use for these animals. They have a relatively good existence compared to most other animals, the vast majority of them do not die on duty - and the ones that do, suffer no worse a fate than the slaughterhouse pig.
So what? They could live in a castle made of hay and oats and be waited on hand and foot but shooting them in the head when they break a leg is still cruel. And they break their legs taking part in an activity which is entertainment and sport and exists because people gamble on it.
By Mick's logic you can justify cruelty as long as the animal has had a decent life. Maybe we should stretch that logic to humans. If Pippa Middleton ever breaks a leg we can shoot her in the head. It's not cruel. She had a decent upbringing. <logictakingabatteringtoday>
I don't get why eddie and mick are so furious. Horse racing is cruel by nature, you can admit that and still watch/bet on it.
Because we do not intend to hurt horses - hurting the horse is something that is actively avoided, and is the main reason why race meetings are abandoned when the ground is too soft.
Your logic is ****ed Eddie. What has wild horses breaking their legs got to do with it? As MD said, horse racing can be cruel (not always) but if you're willing to overlook that fact them that's up to you. Just please stop trying to justify it by citing ****e examples and illogical nonsense about wild horses and the likes.
**** are you talking about dafty? Jockeys get on horses and whip them senseless to make them run faster. It's not just about them breaking legs. Thats a totally simplistic view on the matter.
Maybe we should have a social welfare system for animals, that put's them up in council houses with central heating - since your logic is that we should treat them exactly as we would treat ourselves?
^^^^ The admission that someone's lost the argument. It's not even worthy of a response to be honest.
I did not say that aspects of the sport can not be described as cruel - my point was that in general this is not the case, and the removal of the sport would lead to a decline in the welfare of those animals.
Winning an argument is a bit like being ladylike - those who have to tell others that they are, probably ain't.
