I am an abolitionist Vegan. :)
Printable View
I am an abolitionist Vegan. :)
Mahk i am deeply offended by your comments. Horses can be ridden without the use of bits, stirrups or whips. I was never like a 'pimp' and i never thought of horses as 'pets', either :mad:. Don't be so presumptious. You are very pompous!. And please do not patronise me. I lived and worked with horses most of my life until recent years.
As i said though, ultimately i am an abolitionist - i see no other way for vegans. So naturally i include the abolition of dogs kept as 'pets', taken from their mothers and siblings and kept in houses and walked on leashes :rolleyes:. I don't feel cruel or wrong for looking after 'my' dog though. Just don't make so many assumptions. It may be *your* opinion that horse and human cannot have a symbiotic relationship, but it's not my experience atall. Therefore it's not a 'fact' that it doesn't exist, it's your opinion.
I've heard/read this a few times, but is there any statistical evidence to support the idea that this happens in significant numbers? I have heard a few anecdotes to this effect, but I have also come across a number of people (myself included) who began by trying to eat meat that was better from a welfare point of view and then stopped eating it at all. It would be interesting to have some evidence about which effect is more common.
FWIW Britain seems to have an above-average level of interest in animal welfare and more vegetarians/vegans than most other countries, but obviously that doesn't prove any form of causation.
ETA sorry, I see I already said most of this earlier in the thread. Am still not convinced though.
I just wanted to take issue with the circumstance clause. As a mid-twenties professional (who travels a fair bit) with only omni friends and colleagues I'd say that I can't get my head around where you're coming from when you say you "don't hang out with uni students these days". That said, most people are fucking babies when it comes to food so I can see how it can be difficult in many situations. However, I'm not sure it's a good reason to soften your principles to accomodate their shitty lifestyle.
On the other hand, I'm not feeling the puritanical vibes from the other camp, either. I'd agree that abolitionism is the baseline, but the world is complex and we should do what we can where we can without compromising our core beliefs. Maybe that takes me out of the fold and into welfarism because I see many shades of grey in ethical decision-making and would tend toward net profit, generally. However, there are situations where that profit would be negated by an undermining of principle, imho.
With all that said I'm a little sick of the argument, already. Abolitionist philosophy can underpin AR activism if enough Abolitionist Vegans work their way into groups / charities using intelligence and good old people skills. Of course, that might mean they'd have to step down from their priestly duties of thought-policing well-meaning people on forums and instead engage their energies to do something useful in the real world.
gutts
- i only just realised what you meant here by a 'fowl', i guess you mean a foal :confused:.
The mare would naturally wean the foal away in time but yes it is usually done at 6 months of age with domesticated horses.
However you are making a LOT of assumptions here again. When i have broken horses in they have never been younger than 3 years of age and i assure you no 'crops' (whips) were ever involved! :eek:. Also i would like to say that it really isn't that simple to 'force' a large animal to do anything, there should be some mutual respect.
However, because i know (from experience) that not everyone treats horses with empathy and compassion, and because i know there are issues attached with the whole process of breeding and training horses, i choose not to participate any longer - even though i miss my contact with horses on a daily basis.
Just because i have chosen not to ride anymore doesn't mean i make huge assumptions about what other people do though, or assume that anyone with a different opinion doesn't know what they are talking about and should be lectured on the basics of equestrianism :rollseyes_ani:.
Its pretty awful seeing puppies being weaned from their mothers aswell, by the way, i do hope i'm not being too cruel keeping 'my' dog in the house with human beings for company. Maybe i should 'return' her to the wild where she could live in a pack, roaming the countryside and scavenging for food :rolleyes:. I even had the audacity to take her for a car ride today - i'm sure wild dogs never choose to do that! :bigsmile:.
Yes and I suppose no reins dictating there head motion, either. :rolleyes: Get real. You are not fooling anyone but yourself. What makes it immoral and cruel is independent of whether any pain is involved. Horses only can be ridden because we put various restraints on their heads and bodies and indoctrinate them for many months, sometimes even over year, that this is their lot in life and what our dictated commands mean in terms of which way to go, what to jump over, and how fast. To think that horses were "meant" to be ridden by humans is complete speciesism and completely not vegan. We have no right to subjugate any species for transportation, entertainment, racing, jumping, or whatever you want to call it. Thinking "But they want this" is completely delusional.
---
Here we see the more "civilized" form or ridding, English style, including an excellent tutorial in the English subtitles on the sadistic practices euphemistically called "punishment" and "sawing":
[YOUTUBE]lkxOp_xfVEg[/YOUTUBE]
An attitude that "they want it and it is symbyotic" is really quite sad and pathetic IMO. No species wishes to be the subjugated slave of another, it has nothing to do with whether pain is inflicted or not. Bit-less bridles don't erase the crime of enslavement. Again, the fact that humans are capable of doing this in no way justifies it as being permissible morally. It is unethical to enslave another animal species, that's not a matter of "opinion", it is a vegan fact. Just because we know how to keep rats in cages in order to inject them with drugs we wish to test doesn't mean we have the right to, nor keep tigers in zoos for entertainment. These animals were put on earth for their own reasons and it is not our "God given right" to maniplate, enslave, and exploit them, even if we can "without inflicting pain".
For those of you who don't know, in order to break a horse, which means "break it of its independence, spirit, and self determination to do as it chooses until it becomes subservient to humans' orders and is subjugated as a slave", is a lengthy process taking anywhere from up to a half a year or sometimes even longer. After intentionally stealing a foal from her mother to break their bond and show that "humans are in charge now and tell you where you may be and what you should do", bit by bit horses are indoctrinated to accept various head and body restraints such as bridles, saddles, reins, metal bits in their mouths [that's the norm BTW, don't let others fool you it is "rare", although bit-less does exist], etc and eventually the weight of a human resting on their back, an entirely unnatural condition they were never meant to endure. Thinking they were put on earth in order for us to do this to them is a completely selfish, human centric attitude and 100% speciesism. Horses were meant to run free and live on their own without humans and thankfully many wild horse do just that all over the world to this day.
People who advocate they should be gathered up, genetically manipulated by selectively breeding them for our selfish needs, kept entrapped in corrals and tethered in stables to be ridden at our beckon call for our whims, and used for transportation etc. sicken me.
The feeling is completely mutual. How anyone calling themselves a vegan can rationalize horse riding with the prerequisite breaking [indoctrination] as ethically acceptable offends me deeply; I don't care if they claim they exclusively use bitless, it is still manipulative, forced exploitation and enslavement of animals that deserve to be free. Horses are meant to roam in the wild free, without head and body restraints, (bits in their mouths), or humans riding on their backs dictating their motions, whereabouts, and sex lives, as we see here in this group of wild horses:Quote:
Mahk i am deeply offended by your comments....Don't be so presumptious. You are very pompous!. And please do not patronise me. I lived and worked with horses most of my life
http://z.about.com/d/gosoutheast/1/0...es_nps_500.jpg
Mahk you are getting very personal which is something you often accuse others of :satisfied:.
Where do you get your information from, Mahk???. You had a few riding lessons - doesn't make you an expert :rolleyes:.
'Sawing' at a horse's mouth is very bad practice, for one. For another thing it used to take me a few weeks (a bit different to the timescales you mention) to 'break' a horse in - and by that i mean getting them used to being handled/ridden, just as someone 'house breaks' a puppy. I could find pretty much anything on the internet to show any subject in a bad light :rollseyes_ani:.
But..........i really can't be bothered to fight with you. I worked with horses for years, i've looked after all sorts of different horses and ponies (including rescued ones). I've also explained that i no longer ride, and it's because of the ethical issues. Therefore its not my stance to defend the exploitation of any animal, i just hate seeing one sided BS here.
Obviously you know everything about everything and you are a way better vegan than me :p. I bow to your superior knowledge and thankyou for using your time so wisely here, enlightening us all (*bows head*).
ooooh, by the way, i have a child aswell. You know when he was a baby i insisted he wore a nappy :surprised_ani:!. Then i 'broke' him in to eating at the table with a metal knife and fork, and i insisted he wore restrictive clothing at all times, and learn how to use a toilet!!! :eek:.
I am so dominant, damn it!.
Mahk you must feel simply terrible about those riding lessons that you had...........
Yet interestingly you are unable to discredit any of the factual data I have presented.
I most certainly do.Quote:
Mahk you must feel simply terrible about those riding lessons that you had.........
Horse back riding personally, using them for labor, or attending races/jumping competitions and the prerequisite breaking of the horse's free will, spirit, and independence in order to indoctrinate it into a subjective role where it is obliged to accept being harnessed and ridden, a completely unnatural act we have no right to impose, is something I will never do ever again and for the rest of my life. We have no right to steal animals from nature, or breed them, impose our rules, and exploit them for labor.
Vegan Chrissie Hynde, lead singer of the Pretenders, similarly to me once used horses, saw no harm in it, and was once even married on a horse drawn carriage, but now is ashamed of that fact and publicly speaks out against them.
^ oh yeah that's the same Chrissie Hynde that was recently seen on TV showing her complete ignorance of the fact that not all wines are vegan friendly :rollseyes_ani:
Mahk - how can i possibly discredit your 'factual' data - and why whould i want to :confused:.
Please read this carefully:
i have already stated here, more than once, that i no longer keep horses or ride horses. The only horses i am likely to look after in the future would be horses that have been rescued from slaughter.
Therefore, the only reason for my posts here on the subject is that i dislike it intensely when people make sweeping statements. If people make sweeping statements that concern a topic of which i have very little knowledge then maybe i will accept that, or if interested, do some research. If, on the other hand, people make sweeping statements about subjects of which i have a lot of personal experience, then i will put forward my own views based on that experience.
You can find anything you like online to 'back up' your wild accusations. I could (if i could be bothered) do the same to show that there are many people around who work with their horses in a respectful, empathic manner. But let me repeat myself - why would i want or need to do that?. I know it, because i've lived it.
You carry on anyway, i'm never sure what you are trying to prove but feel free to talk to the hand..........:rolleyes:
My "wild accusations" you say? I stand by all my data and no one, including you, has discredited any of it.
That's an oxymoron. We have no right to break horses in the first place, it doesn't matter what technique is utilized, they are all immoral even if there are no bits, whips, crops, pain, etc. It is not our right to subjugate other species for labor.Quote:
I could (if i could be bothered) do the same to show that there are many people around who work with their horses in a respectful, empathic manner.
Didn't Heather Mills make the same faux pas the opening week or her restaurant, IIRC?Quote:
^ oh yeah that's the same Chrissie Hynde that was recently seen on TV showing her complete ignorance of the fact that not all wines are vegan friendly
Also, since there's no such thing as vegan certified wine in the United States, by the Vegan Society nor any other vegan certification/registering body, it doesn't surprise me how she might not be familiar with the how it works in your country. Also not all vegans, nor vegan organizations, are processed based vegans but are rather content based vegans.
erm, as i said, i agree, that is why, as a vegan, i no longer ride/keep horses.
I just didn't like that you seemed to be speaking about *everyone* involved with horses, and making some huge generalisations about them all.
It might be 'factual' to say that some parents abuse their children, it doesn't mean that all parents are abusive - i'm just using that as a comparison.
Abusing animals is, to my mind, a different topic to that of the morality behind the entire concept of whether humans should ever have, and/or should continue to, domesticate animals. Two different things. I was pointing out, - backed up by my own experience - that horse riding is not necessarily an act of abuse. I was NOT saying, however, that horse riding is necessarily morally 'correct'.
Everyone who breaks horses, regardless of method, is committing an immoral and unethical act according to the principals of veganism. There is no "correct or acceptable way" or
to subjugate another species without guilt. The pain from bits, crops, whips, spurs etc, which you have repeatedly pointed out, is completely immaterial. Breaking is wrong in and of itself. Anyone who doesn't renounce their previous use of horses that have been broken and insists on continuing to do so, unlike you and me, is not vegan in my book.Quote:
respectful, empathic manner
have i actually disagreed with this logic?
as i said before, what i dislike is you, or anyone else, making sweeping statements inferring that everyone who keeps horses is abusive in some way.
A person can look after an animal superbly well and have a great relationship with that animal whilst still occupying the potentially 'immoral' position of being 'keeper' of that animal. That was my point.
Here:
[emphasis mine]
Another oxymoron. Breaking a horse, or using one that was broken for you previously by another party, is not "respectful and empathatic" to the horse, by definition, since we have no right to subjugate them as transportation vehicles in the first place, regardless if pain was used.
^ so you think that people who have companion dogs that are treated compassionately and respectfully is also an 'oxymoron'?
as i keep saying til i'm blue in the face, i believe that someone can do something which is ethically 'wrong' as per veganism, e.g keeping a 'pet' dog, without being abusive to that dog - can you not see my point atall?.
I was just trying to correct your sweeping generalisations but i wasn't disagreeing with the moral stance behind abolishing the exploitation of animals.
I agree - at least as far as stirrups and bits go. There should absolutely be no need for whips to play any part in breaking-in though, and i've never seen the process take 6 months or more, as you stated.
It may appear i'm just being pedantic but i have 2 reasons for this:
1) i really dislike inaccurate generalisations
2) i feel it makes vegans look a bit silly when they go about painting groups of people as akin to the Devil. Many many people who have horses love them to bits and simply haven't thought the whole underlying ethics through to any degree, this doesn't make them all abusive 'pimps' who saw at their horses mouths and use whips on them.
It doesn't matter if it take six months or six days, it is still immoral and wrong to break a horse and subjugate it to a transport vehicle.
Adult horses usually take longer to break than young ones and the absolutely worst is adults that have lived at least part of there lives independently and apart from humans, such as wild horses or feral ones. They know subjugation is completely wrong since they've lived the good life of freedom and haven't been raised from childhood to think otherwise, but there's still money to be made so it is still done, although it is not as easy a conversion to break their will. My sources say they may even take up to a year sometimes.
ah, you're moving the goalposts there............i thought we were talking about domesticated 'captive bred' horses so to speak.
i would agree with what you say about breaking horses in that have lived wild, that seems a terrible idea to me aswell :(.
my point about how long it takes to 'break' a horse was not that it's 'ok if it doesn't take long', but just to correct the idea that i felt you were giving out to people who might not know anything about horses. You were giving the impression (to my mind) of a horribly traumatic and very lengthy experience, and i was saying that is a distorted image.
i've said my piece now and will stop at this point.
sorry for anyone who is bored to tears with the direction that this thread has taken :satisfied:.
i want to clarify, as it seems i haven't presented my point here very well:
i think it's definitely questionable, morally, to breed/keep/work/exploit ANY animal.
i also think that it has to be accepted that there are many domesticated animals that need human intervention just now.
i used to work with horses, i had horses myself, i love horses, i looked after my horses very well, they were my friends. I choose not to ride now that i'm a vegan and i have personally taken a different view about what is accpetable.
i do not condemn people who keep pets and/or ride horses as villains, sinners, or abusers and i understand that they have a different view as to what is acceptable.
i *do* condemn anyone who treats animals cruelly or without compassion and respect.
i believe vegans have a duty to keep an open mind, to try and find out facts for themselves, and to do whatever they think is best within the context of their own veganism.
end of :bigsmile:.
I'm an abolitionist, but I believe there is nothing wrong with having companion animals. The benefit is mutual: the pet gets easy access to food, shelter, warmth, in general affection from most pet owners, and the owner gets love and affection in return. Pretty sweet deal for both. I do not agree with neutering or other sterilisation. I do not agree with using the animals as a means to our ends, but it can't be said that a dog isn't happy to see it's owner. Not sure how I feel about taking them from their parents - don't really agree with that unless it would be a greater evil not to do it (i.e the parent cannot take care, or is abusing the young) but it's a tricky area where I think assumptions are easily made. I'll give animals the benefit of the doubt, and suppose they have a bond with their mothers instantly, though there are plenty of children raised by foster parents which are very happy
I don't really agree with your view Mahk. You assume that animals entertain a concept of freedom, liberty, but I think that is a projection of your own beliefs rather than an actuality. A child is not free of it's parents influence, but no one is fussed about that - it's just a fact, nothing to get distressed over.
[emphasis mine] Yet breaking captive bred ones is OK to you? :dizzy:
All breaking of all horses is unethical and wrong. We have no right. Their parentage is immaterial to me; it would seem you feel differently.
False, or more precisely I should say they wouldn't need exercise if they weren't kept in "cages" in the first place. Wild dogs live just fine without us exercising them and wild horses live just fine without us exercising them.Quote:
i thought we were discussing domestic horses, who, like dogs, need exercise (if kept indoors/in stables).
I can hear it now:
"But Mahk, we need to keep animals in cages because it is easier to do
so."
False. We don't need to keep animals at all in the first place. We want to keep animals.
i know i said i was done - but please don't keep patronising me!!! :mad:
i never said we 'need' to keep animals atall, in any way! (stop putting words into other people's mouths!)
the fact is that we do though (keep animals), and you know very well we couldn't just turn them all loose right now (and by 'we' i mean human beings).
btw i also never said that breaking-in domestic horses is 'ok' either, i think you just twist everything :rollseyes_ani:
why do you assume that you are intellectually superior to everyone else here? :confused:.
it really is most irritating :hmm:.