11-23-2018, 01:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2018, 01:01 AM by 30-30.)
"New research isn´t necessary". Yeah, professor doctor Caikgoch has spoken, the one who tops all scientists in all sciences, even if he hasn´t studied psych...
"Consent is (...) a red herring".. Yeah, because there´s only two categories, humans and lifeless property. Yeah, nothing else. And let´s just affirm society that we zoos do indeed hold the belief that animals are barely more than dildos and fleshlights by totally negating the responsibilities that are included if you "own" an animal. I guess Caikgoch is alreadly headin´ straight to the Supreme Court or to The Hague to offer his epochal findings and winning the day for all of us. What a hero. Nevermind if these stoopid outsiders babble about "There´s a huge difference in owning lifeless property and animals" , that´s just nitpicking. Oh, glorious days that lie ahead of us, with such a brave hero lighting our path...
If you find satire somewhere in my reply, you can keep it...
11-23-2018, 05:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2018, 05:34 AM by heavyhorse.)
Quote:
20 hours ago, caikgoch said:
And "consent" is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely a red herring. If an animal is property, consent doesn't exist (and it doesn't for any other aspect of the animal's life). If consent is required for any aspect of the animal's life, it is required for all (where will that lead?).
Clearly this is absolutely so. Consent for sex is an issue? And no consent is needed to kill 150 millions of animals every day, dehorned and de-nutted without anesthesia, forced bred, anal electroshock, tails docked and ears cut, surgical practice and cosmetic testing, assassinated (er, "euthanized") by rescues and "humane" groups, and so on ad infinitum? Clearly "consent" is nothing but an artificial claim to create an ethics argument.
Quote:
1 hour ago, heavyhorse said:
Clearly this is absolutely so. Consent for sex is an issue? And no consent is needed to kill 150 millions of animals every day, dehorned and de-nutted without anesthesia, forced bred, anal electroshock, tails docked and ears cut, surgical practice and cosmetic testing, assassinated (er, "euthanized") by rescues and "humane" groups, and so on ad infinitum? Clearly "consent" is nothing but an artificial claim to create an ethics argument.
"Consent" as a requirement exists because injury can't be proven. Once you admit that there is no injury or maybe even some pleasure, all reason for any laws is gone.
Quote:
23 hours ago, caikgoch said:
And "consent" is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely a red herring. If an animal is property, consent doesn't exist (and it doesn't for any other aspect of the animal's life). If consent is required for any aspect of the animal's life, it is required for all (where will that lead?).
Quote:
3 hours ago, heavyhorse said:
Clearly this is absolutely so. Consent for sex is an issue? And no consent is needed to kill 150 millions of animals every day, dehorned and de-nutted without anesthesia, forced bred, anal electroshock, tails docked and ears cut, surgical practice and cosmetic testing, assassinated (er, "euthanized") by rescues and "humane" groups, and so on ad infinitum? Clearly "consent" is nothing but an artificial claim to create an ethics argument.
The old saying in 'forum circles' Quoted For Truth very much rings with both of these posts.
Past a legal standpoint (property) I do see consent (from the animal's perspective, more a simple 'yes' or 'no' in sexual situations...) is important. I don't place animals as Moral Agents, but their comfort and happiness are simply priorities of mine.
Though legally they are property I personally refuse to make that generalization and delete all other information that makes that generalization possible. In my own frame of reference (and I think a lot of this forum's members will agree) they are living, loving, caring, cognizant creatures who display sentience.
Now it's important to know the difference between Sapient and Sentient here. Sapient is what we are: what most would call 'high level', a being that questions it's past and asks the questions of it's existence and origins. While animals don't do that I can guarantee that most mammalian species are Sentient. Sentience is self-awareness, the ability to recognize danger, pleasure, pain, etc.: especially in survival situations. Sentience is pretty much crucial for higher mammals like us, Equines, Canines, so on and so forth. Sentience also requires the ability to identify self and others: this is able to be seen with a lot of mammals, the problem is most humans look for sight identifications (the aptly named 'Mirror Test') and not all species' primary sense is sight. Dogs for example are scent-based and while not terrible their vision is Monochromatic (I believe, don't quote 100% on that one..).
As someone who's grown up on a farm, and who's researched his 'partners of choice' (canines) extensively, and who still has a lot to learn, I can't agree with you enough HH on the amount of purely heinous shit we do to animals and call it 'acceptable'. Some of the procedures I've seen done first hand. Hell I've seen a two year old Stallion *gelded* with no anesthesia, hobble-tied in a trailer...
Dogs getting their bodies mutilated because it's 'healthier for them' and 'it lowers pet population'... I won't go in to that here as it's off topic and I've ranted about it elsewhere.
Caikgoch is right in the legal sense, HeavyHorse is very much right on a personal level, for me 100% as well.
Also, can't stand ear crops and tail docks with dogs. There's no reason to dock these days.. Just none.. Especially for a litter of canines who're going to be family pets, companions or possibly lovers.
..isn't this last post in itself showing some possible different direction? I mean, expanding (by practice) very different ideas and kinds of relations with non-humans, as main thing...without _over_ focusing on sexual side of it (and even if someone focus on this side - do it ...in really deep way.). I mean, 30-30 tried to articulate this many times before, this refocus. Yet, because whole (non)thinking about sex is very much issue even in most widespread kinds of human-human relations ...it will never be simple...Yes, in some sense I think it will be important if more humans will propagate (with their life/actions..not just with slogans ) something 'animal rights' was supposed to be about ..about non-humans first.
But then again, how much humans can change? You can't be anarchist by accident, and you can't use Linux for like 12 years by accident too - both require some very serious effort at least initially, intellectual and self-driving you in unusual direction. But for how long it works? I guess it will be too much to ask 30-30 to adopt some of late ideas I tried to speak out (namely, not feeding this horseriding tradition, but attempting at finding/creating some alternative ways of being around / for horse, not on top of him/her), but may be I'm wrong? I mean, I really hope humans can change a bit more even late in life, even if it will cost them more energy than earlier in life ...
When I discuss consent it is assumed that I am speaking of the larger, legal arena. My animal is a full grown, full sized stallion. He is far larger and stronger than me. Even ignoring the impossibility of forcing an erection, I have to exert significant effort to enforce MY consent on him. There is no chance at all that I could ignore his.
With that in mind, he and most horses I have known enjoy being ridden properly. I'm his portable gate opener. With me he gets to go places and see new things. And there is a connection that comes from two bodies moving together and communicating directly, without words or symbols.
... this is..expected responce, sadly. But then again, humans who claim to love captive dolphins (platonically..) often use same defence..'dolphins enjoy this and that' ...reality is darker ..and more complex. My point more about how much humans can change their ..views. Of course we all want to defend something we invested our time (and even full life)..but ...should it be done like before, or something can be left behind? Of course not riding horse is not end in itself, it just tip of the iceberg ... I agree moving around together IS big difference. And humans not very good ..walkers/runners, compared to (horses | dogs | dolphins | many_others). But then again, what stop humans from developing more ..unusual views? Even at imagination level only ..we are blocked?
Also, I think it was in another thread, but speaking about more open activism ... may be this case? https://malcolmbrenner.com/2018/11/03/th...omment-271
at least I learned about whole existence of this zoo phenomena thanks to Malcolm, BUT I already was trying to find my way in life after some sad and long enough time around/with captive dolphins ....
Still, activism as way of changing something bigger and powerful and NOT wanting any change is ..not working, lately? Not just about animal activism, but political ..or any significant one. Something like this happened ..everywhere? And today, with faster communication, and better use of some way too common bugs ....... things fail even better, I mean faster and more completely!
Now our self-control works, on most fundamental level? There are real limitations, it seems..Not everything can be changed by just power of will. I tend to think it has something to do with (micro)chemestry vs electical aspects of our thinking. But this alone is not useful...we can't easily change those parameters... but may be we can ..develop some resistance? Or at least set of individual (?) workarounds ... like, drinking or not drinking some tea at specific hours, looking out for your mood fluctuations over year/day/month ....
Also, speaking about dog (Grey) who thankfully still lives with me ...I recently (this oct) learned how it feels to live with crying dog ...not like I passed this test of life .....a lot of explosions on my side (I can walk with him every 4 or even 3 hours , but every 1 hour was too much ...even if necessary!). My dog even developed (thankfully not permanent) separation anexity - he was trying to follow me _everywhere_, literally .....o.o . I wonder if horses can cry. I mean, of course they can .... just .. it might be unusual to recognize at first.
Quote:
6 hours ago, caikgoch said:
With that in mind, he and most horses I have known enjoy being ridden properly. I'm his portable gate opener. With me he gets to go places and see new things. And there is a connection that comes from two bodies moving together and communicating directly, without words or symbols.
This. My late, great friend (stallion) never had a saddle, bridle, bit in his whole life. I rode him without tack of any kind, possible only because he looked out for me, I'm not that great a rider. Clearly he could have withheld his consent at any time. He became very spirited when doing so, (carefully) showing off to the other horses that he was getting to do something special that they were not.
(Different times, BTW, before we knew we had to wear helmets, knee guards, kidney protectors, more crap than NFL players wear. Luck and stupidity.......)
Quote:
7 hours ago, caikgoch said:
When I discuss consent it is assumed that I am speaking of the larger, legal arena. My animal is a full grown, full sized stallion. He is far larger and stronger than me. Even ignoring the impossibility of forcing an erection, I have to exert significant effort to enforce MY consent on him. There is no chance at all that I could ignore his.
With that in mind, he and most horses I have known enjoy being ridden properly. I'm his portable gate opener. With me he gets to go places and see new things. And there is a connection that comes from two bodies moving together and communicating directly, without words or symbols.
Very well said, it also shows when I see posts like this: that folks -are- willing to take the animal's perspective and thought processes in to account, communication no matter the level is always important.
Quote:
48 minutes ago, heavyhorse said:
This. My late, great friend (stallion) never had a saddle, bridle, bit in his whole life. I rode him without tack of any kind, possible only because he looked out for me, I'm not that great a rider. Clearly he could have withheld his consent at any time. He became very spirited when doing so, (carefully) showing off to the other horses that he was getting to do something special that they were not.
That's pretty impressive, in my experience (limited!) with Equines, most of them are quite subtle and shy if you're 'new' to them, but have little to no qualm about telling / asking you something if they know / trust you well enough.
Wish I was better at working with Horses, but just never had the chance or guidance to do it right. My eyesight was always a limiting factor and because you're young in this area 'the old farts always know better', even if you have a new idea that could actually work better. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
11-24-2018, 07:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2018, 07:15 AM by 30-30.)
Andrew, horses are not only dependent on regular (best: daily) exercise to maintain muscle tension and flexibility, they are also incredibly intelligent and curious personalities that are at least similarly dependent on intellectual exercise as well. If a rider can establish the actual work out of the saddle as that, an intellectual exercise, you´d be surprised by how much the horse itself wants to be ridden as the horse sees it as some kind of game it enjoys to play with you. Without physical exercise, a horse will become lame quite quickly...and without regular intellectual exercises, forms of hospitalism behaviour can quickly develop out of the horse´s boredom. You simply cannot overestimate how much horses need interaction that challenges them intellectually and they absolutely don´t mind being ridden , they even can become angry at you if you don´t work out with them. My Tinker mare gets grumpy when I don´t work out with her...and don´t get me started with what my little Lipizzaner diva does if I keep the saddle off her for more than three consecutive days. Especially my Lipica lady seems to see riding her as a "must have", she obviously feels set back when I don´t work out with her for more than two days. But it all depends strongly on what kind of relationship you develop, the more you are friendly and forgiving if she makes a mistake, the more a horse will see riding not as some form of domination, but an act of teaming up, an act of trust you put in your horse...and as a non rider, you will never be able to fully understand this special kind of connection that can only be established with a horse from the saddle.
I took my late Hannover mare out for a walk, sitting bareback on top of her. We rode through the vineyards and then, we came to a path that some bloke (one of the grape farmers, I guess) had littered a shitload of fine sand onto. When we came to that spot, she tripped a bit and all of a sudden, she was down on her front leg joints, with me sitting on her back. I started to lose my balance and was starting to topple over her lowered neck and head, then she did something I never would have expected. Instead of doing the natual movements (shifting weight to raise back onto her front hooves) , she threw back her head to SAVE ME FROM FALLING OFF. Only after she made sure that I wasn´t kissing the dirt, she tried to rise. She actively kept me sitting on her back. Andrew, that´s the kind of connection you can only get from sitting in the saddle and no kind of "Bodenarbeit" (ground work) will ever give you that same level of teaming up. When you mount, a horse puts its life into your hands...but you also put yours into his/hers. And the horses will see it that way. Riding, when done with the highest possible respect and benevolence for the horse, is irreplaceable if you really want to become a "-phile", an actual friend of the horse. No domination, just mutual trust to the fullest extend.
|
