• booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 months ago

    but they love to be ridden!!! it’s not animal abuse! they love it! it doesn’t hurt them! it’s good for them! tHeY lOvE iT rage-cry

    • SSJMarx
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      deleted by creator

      • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s why you have to “break” them in order to get them to let you climb on, because they just naturally love it so much bean

        • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          we use the same language to describe teaching a dog not to shit inside ‘housebreak’. we don’t typically imbue that with a negative association.

          • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ok let me just be direct then so you animal-abusing fuckheads stop playing word games with me like redditors

            Leave the fucking animals alone. They are not built to carry your dumb ass around. It causes pain and stress and long-term medical problems. The animal, even if you abuse it into allowing you to do this, cannot give informed consent for it because it cannot be made aware of the long-term risks associated with the act. No person who truly cares about animals would use them as vehicles.

            • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              you’ve made an argument based on the word you can’t suddenly be precious and pretend it’s somehow off limits to interrogate that! reddit=actually replying to the argument you’ve made, not the (unstated!) moral assumptions you have behind it

              i don’t ride horses, dipshit. you did not address what i said whatsoever, i can appreciate animal cruelty can make someone angry but your reply was disproportionate and unpleasant.

              • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You don’t see why I find it unreasonable and dishonest to compare the use of the term “housebreaking” to refer to training a dog to not shit in the house (beneficial to the dog, detrimental to no one) to the use of the term “breaking” to refer to abusing a horse into allowing you to ride it (detrimental to the horse, beneficial to you)

                Not only is the term different, because in housebreaking a dog you are “breaking” the behavior and not the animal, but the act itself is so dissimilar that there is no reason to compare them except as a dishonest way of defending animal abuse

                i can appreciate animal cruelty can make someone angry but your reply was disproportionate and unpleasant.

                My reply was proportionate to your defense of animal abuse which is far more unpleasant than any insults I could ever come up with to throw at you (all of which would be deserved)

                Finally, yes I dispensed with the semantic arguments in my previous reply because it doesn’t fucking matter. The semantics are not the point. I didn’t want to get into the weeds about this. The point is that if you defend or attempt to normalize the abuse of horses then you fucking suck.

                Also you call the “moral implications” of my comments “unstated” and honestly I don’t see how you could possibly be commenting in good faith if you think that. Re-read my comments. My top level comment in this thread explicitly calls out horse riders as animal abusers and mocks them for justifying it. If you think I left the moral argument “unstated” and that this conversation has always been about the fucking semantics it’s only because you are in denial and want the conversation to be about semantics.

                • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  housebreaking

                  breaking

                  this comparison is dishonest? it’s the same fucking word. don’t play ‘word games’ unless it’s me pretending slapping a noun on a verb completely removes all context and meaning from it

                  yes I dispensed with the semantic arguments

                  if only you actually had

                  in housebreaking a dog you are “breaking” the behavior and not the animal

                  defend this. where is it written that when people say ‘housebreak’ for dogs they are very specifically talking about behavior but ‘break’ a horse is totally not related to the behavior of bucking riders and in fact, exclusive to the subjugation of the natural character of the horse. is shitting inside not a natural behavior of dogs?

                  the act itself is so dissimilar that there is no reason to compare them

                  ah yeah, people never coerce or use violence on dogs to train them. utterly unheard of

                  training a dog to not shit in the house (beneficial to the dog, detrimental to no one)

                  defend this. what benefit does a dog get from not being allowed to shit where it pleases

              • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Brining it back maybe but even then, dogs work in groups a lot of the time and may have had some instinct to share beforehand. As far as chasing stuff goes, which is what I mentioned, dogs are all about chasing in nature.

                • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Fine maybe fetch was a bad example, although it’s not like wolves are all about picking stuff up with a soft mouth and giving it to others.

                  Closer example: Sled dogs. Have you ever seen a sled dog? They love pulling sleds. It’s their favorite thing in the world. You put them in their harness and they get antsy they’re so excited.

                  Over thousands of years, generations of humans used a wolf base to create an organism whose favorite thing to do is pull a sled. Which is pretty fucking cool imo.

                  Horses are not wild animals. In exactly the same way as dogs and sheep and cows, horses were created by humans. The normal rules about what they would reasonably want are different than wild animals.

                  Obviously not every horse enjoys being ridden, or any other job a horse does. But you can’t say there’s no reason a horse would enjoy riding with a human. There’s a big reason they might enjoy that, thousands of years of human-guided evolution where “rideability” was the main trait being selected for.

  • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    The first lesson of post-college at work: “C” is the new “A”. Do C- or lower quality work? You’re fired. Do C+ or higher quality work? You get laid off and porky gets pickier with who he hires in the future.