Vikings Message Board.Com

Mr. X wrote: Interesting philosophical question.

I know for a fact (beyond a reasonable doubt) that sled dogs (e.g. the husky and malamute) derive a lot of satisfaction and enjoyment out of pulling sleds. It is something innate in their being. There have been instances where mushers have fallen off their sled and the dogs have run themselves to death.

Thanks X for noticing what I think is the moral crux of the situation. When the dog fighting thing came out, some [morons] likened it to MMA or boxing. Not so, says I. Boxers and martial artists made a decision to enter into the sport, they are compensated based on a mutually-agreed upon salary, often winning a purse as compensation for a victory, etc.

If the horses were innately motivated (whether through nature or selective breeding) to race, it would be enough for me to accept the sport. I tend to think that animals, especially other mammals, are smarter than we give them credit for, from dogs to pigs to cows to horses. I think often times these animals can have the mental aptitude of small children, which is holy cow amazing!

Which makes any injustice seem heinous. If horses are dying competing in something they don't even want to compete in, while people watch, gamble, and drink, and horses are killed on the spot due to over-zealous jockeys that can make a lot of money by using the animals as a tool and consequently causing their suffering and/or death, then it would be a lot like dog fighting. Not as bad, but bad enough. Similar enough to point out the comparison.

And it's not like I'm going to start a crusade against it or anything. I've come to accept a lot of bad things in life. Hell, slaughterhouses are like 1 gazillion times worse than either dog fighting or horse racing in oh so many ways. I only comment on this because it comes up in conversation.

Demi wrote:
Well, I suppose because most people who have any sense don't need it explained to them. He makes simple statements that aren't simple, and spouts nonsense about what might, maybe, could have been, if.

It's OK to train horses to race but not OK to train dogs to fight, because the frequency of death and pain is much lower in horse racing.

Sounds like you agreed with the statement as well. As did I. Very simple, reasonable statement, similar to a premise you'd hear in a college level logic class, though you seem to bristle at the way in which the statement was presented. ??

Demi:

Wow! I was under the impression wild horses died, sometimes after days of flopping around on that broken leg. Or get sick, get no care etc. But it's all clear to me now, no races, no death! It's that simple! What's the number for PETA? I want to join this well thought out crusade!

I don't think the author nor I intended to posit that living things would cease to die if horse racing were banned; rather I think the author (and I) took a nice around some of the secondary moral issues and how those issues relate to other things in life.

Though I did not like Portis making light of or excusing dog fighting based on our society's more accepted mortal transgressions, like the death sports of hunting and fishing or the fact that the meat we eat often comes from brutally treated, tortured, malnourished, and confined living creatures at a far darker degree than dog fighting, you'd be a fool not to see those connections. I don't think one makes the other right, like the small-minded Portis thought, but you have to see the contradiction in thinking.

Often times in life unspeakable evil is committed by people who are completely oblivious to any suffering.

If ANYONE thinks that these million dollar horses are brutally treated, tortured, malnurished, or confined, obviously dont know whats at stake for these horses. To put these horse trainers/owners in the same universe as Vick shows total ignorance IMO.
Do you know horses dont like to race/run??? If so how do you know that??? My dogs would rather train/work/hunt than anything, period. When I get the whistle/bumpers/lead out, they go nuts. Would my dogs be better served being pets to those who dont make them "work" ?? Itd be hard to convince me. When my kids come home (my kids spoil my dogs) they are happy, when I come home, they go nuts. Try jump into the unopened pickup, get into the garage to get the bumpers, ect. But to PETA, Im prolly at fault, a total joke. Im sure horses are exactly the same, smarter than most of us, given the chance.

purple guy wrote:If ANYONE thinks that these million dollar horses are brutally treated, tortured, malnurished, or confined, obviously dont know whats at stake for these horses. To put these horse trainers/owners in the same universe as Vick shows total ignorance IMO.

I never actually claimed that horses are malnourished or confined, just that slaughterhouse animals were.

Do you know horses dont like to race/run??? If so how do you know that??? My dogs would rather train/work/hunt than anything, period. When I get the whistle/bumpers/lead out, they go nuts. Would my dogs be better served being pets to those who dont make them "work" ??

I totally understand that, and that's why I asked the question of those close to horse fighting what their opinion was. I never got an answer, but I would be inclined to agree with you. I live with a couple dogs, and can relate to what you're talking about. If horses do like to compete and race (something I do not currently know), then I'd accept the sport given some safety regulations. If not, it's pretty heinous. That's what I said in other posts in this thread.

When my kids come home (my kids spoil my dogs) they are happy, when I come home, they go nuts. Try jump into the unopened pickup, get into the garage to get the bumpers, ect. But to PETA, Im prolly at fault, a total joke. Im sure horses are exactly the same, smarter than most of us, given the chance.

To quote Billy Madison, nothing in that rambling incoherent sentence was there anything close to a rational thought.

Sounds like you agreed with the statement as well. As did I. Very simple, reasonable statement, similar to a premise you'd hear in a college level logic class, though you seem to bristle at the way in which the statement was presented. ??

Because within the argument he was making, and the previous sentence, it's not that difficult to understand what he was trying to say, and what you purposefully ignored.

And no, it isn't reasonable. Unless you're a PETA member, or one who believes their nonsense. It's not reasonable to compare dog fighting to horse racing, especially due to one incident, but then, a lot of those type of people tend to overreact, to a point that'd make chicken little roll his eyes.

DanAS1 wrote: PETA frequently pisses me off. They should be an advocate for veganism and other causes I believe in, but instead they just give us vegans a bad name by sounding so shrill. Please don't take them seriously. There are plenty of good reasons to protect animals and to eat a vegetarian diet, but if you listen to PETA too much, you'll forget them all.

Speaking of PETA and shrill:
PETA pushes for tribute to honor cows killed at stockyards
http://www.startribune.com/18675084.html?page=1&c=y

An animal rights group wants a memorial to slaughtered cows erected at the site of South St. Paul's stockyards.

PETA said it's suggesting two designs for a memorial. One features the silhouette of a cow made of bolts meant to symbolize a killing method at slaughterhouses. The other shows a silhouette of a cow's head against a bloody background. South St. Paul's mayor, Beth Baumann, said she had no comment. "PETA has a long tradition of pushing the boundaries for rational thinking," Eustice said.

Great line.

I find it amazing that despite how goofy and radical PETA consistently conducts itself that it can still raise a lot of money. For 2006 it reported just under $30M in contributions.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals is a far more reasonable organization. In 2005 ASPCA reported $65M in contributions which at least vindicates its methods as compared to PETA.

One of the central questions is whether domesticated animals have a will. Do domesticated animals seek pleasure out of something for instinctual reasons alone or is there something else at work? I don't have an answer for that because the communication capabilities between humans and domesticated animals is quite limited.

In my opinion, there is a deeper problem. I believe PETA and the Humane Society do some very good work to try and protect animals from inhumane treatment. However, I believe they err when they insist on anthropomorphizing animals. Animals are not human, although they certainly deserve to be treated humanely. By making them tantamount to people, we turn the idea of tragedy on its head. For example, if there is a fire and an adult owner and his dog dies, we all seem to feel worst about the dog. That seems upside down to me. How many people do you know treat their pet better than they treat fellow human beings?

Domesticated animals are not helpless. Left to their own devices, over time they will learn to survive on their own without us... or die. That is nature. They do not need us to take care of them; that is something we have placed upon them. We have the need to take care of them. It makes us feel good. It makes money for us. Or it makes us feel better about ourselves. But they would be just fine if we were not here.

To me, the most important question is not whether animals "want" to do it, but whether they are treated humanely when they are asked to do something. Thoroughbreds are bred for speed and endurance, but they also need to be trained to respond to a jockey's commands. Is this limiting their will? Possibly, if you believe animals have a will that allows them to make a real choice. Are they being put in danger? Yes. But no more so than they are by galloping in a paddock or out on an open range or rearing up in a stall. Far more horses suffer and are euthanized because of colic (a painful stomach condition that is fatal if left untreated because of the horse's fragile digestive system) than die from anything related directly to racing or training.

However, if they are treated inhumanely by being beaten, or by breeding that dilutes important muscle and bone structure in the name of speed, then I have a definite problem.

Horse racing is not an inherently inhumane sport, IMO. Dogfighting definitely is. Rodeo is a much maligned sport that does no damage to the stock outside the possibility of an accident or possible inhumane treatment by stupid and unscrupulous people. I find bullfighting (the real thing) inhumane because it involves the torture and death of an animal.

We really have to get away from devaluing human life and the role of humans in the lives of domesticated animals by constantly treating animals like human beings. They are different, they operate under different rules and we need to recognize that fact to truly treat them the way they deserve to be treated.

Sorry for being so confusing and stream-of-consciousness, but I have some strong opinions on this.

BGM

Nice post BGM. Very well written.

Hate to agree, but can't argue. Perfectly stated.

Demi wrote:Hate to agree, but can't argue.

You made me laugh out loud with this one, Demi. That's great!

BGM

people care more about animals in a lot of cases than humans
IMO. Im sorry the horse got hurt and died but i think there
are a lot more pressing problems to deal with

Mr. X wrote:
I find it amazing that despite how goofy and radical PETA consistently conducts itself that it can still raise a lot of money. For 2006 it reported just under $30M in contributions.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals is a far more reasonable organization. In 2005 ASPCA reported $65M in contributions which at least vindicates its methods as compared to PETA.

It raises money because, among other reasons, there are too many restaurants where people like me can't get a square meal -- meaning protein, as well as carbs. PETA is composed of whack jobs and sane vegans who are sick and tired of being treated like whack jobs by the mainstream. There's no reason why restaurants in major metropolitan areas can't put some tofu on the menu just as a courtesy. Ovo lacto vegetarians would appreciate it as well, instead of eating dairy, dairy and more dairy when they dine out.

BGM wrote:
We really have to get away from devaluing human life and the role of humans in the lives of domesticated animals by constantly treating animals like human beings. They are different, they operate under different rules and we need to recognize that fact to truly treat them the way they deserve to be treated.

Sorry for being so confusing and stream-of-consciousness, but I have some strong opinions on this.

BGM

I agree with you that there is no need to anthropomorphize animals. In fact, it disrespects both them and us. But it makes me feel cleaner and more spiritual to honor them just the same by refusing to eat them, at least when there are other sources of nutrients available.

Call it part of a culture of respecting intelligent life as much as possible (all animals have some sort of intelligence, however limited). As I think you know, Brian, I value no "animal" as much as the human animal and wish to see us treat one another (especially our poor) with the utmost of compassion and care. To the extent there are animal activists who seem unconcerned with the "human animal," I can only shake my head at the absurdity.

I most certainly have no issue with vegans or vegetarians, as I hope you know, Dan. While I have no compunction against eating some animal flesh, I can understand and appreciate the health benefits of a vegan diet. And I completely agree that restaurants need to address this growing part of their customer base.

BGM

While your post was well written BGM, and true to many extents, I think you undervalue the notion of ahimsa, or non-injury to life. It is a way of living which avoids injury to all animals, including humans. A little-known fact: someone who abstains from meat, dairy, and eggs is a total vegetarian. A total vegetarian who believes in ahimsa, and that by abstaining by such things one is actually improving the world is a vegan. So, someone who followed such a diet only for health reasons would not be a vegan. The fact that your appreciation of the vegan diet extends only to it's health benefits is proof that you are probably not very sensitive to the notion of ahimsa, nor do you appreciate it's true value.

Furthermore, while we shouldn't put animals on a pedestal, or treat them better than humans are treated, I do believe that they are entitled to the same rights of freedom as us. I don't believe that is anthropomorphizing them. I believe that is the proper way of looking at the world, and our (humans') view has been skewed by our own self-interests.

There, are of course, external factors limiting animals' (including our) freedom, which I did mention in a previous post. We could get into some deep philosophical stuff. To what extent are any of us free? We all have to do things we don't want to do, we all suffer; life is not pretty and neat and there are no guarantees of health or happiness. So to take my argument to an extreme, and say I don't believe horses should die or that there's a Shangri-La solution to any of this would be incorrect.

In short, allowing animals to follow their instincts IS freedom in my opinion. Instincts are powerful; humans' are dulled only because we cannot turn off our minds.