Re: OT - Talking of scum

On 6/4/09 1:02 AM, Charles wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Dave
<davidcovey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:32 am, "Simon S-B"<baitt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Walter Mitty"<mitti...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:gr8ina$i2t$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7983634.stm
*** happens.
Those people chose to get in that container and knew they were breaking the
law and risking their lives when they did so. The horse did not choose to be
flogged around a circuit which kills almost every year. Another fine example
of you talking bollocks.
Eventually, I think it's inevitable, the Grand National and other,
similar, events will be banned. They run contrary to current feelings
about cruelty to animals but people who like a flutter once a year
shield themselves from the reality of their actions. Most sickening
for me are the way the racing industry applies such epithets as
"courageous" and "brave" to horses as an attempt to make the horse
somehow responsible for its actions. It's how politicians and
generals (indeed the public at large) justify their *** ups - dish
out some medals and ignore the body count. They trot out patent
nonsense about horses "liking to race" - and I'm sure some do - whilst
ignoring the fact that they race only because humans make them. In
the wild, horses will run but (and we have no way of knowing one way
or the other) not for fun. No animal wastes energy for fun, and
whilst some species certainly appear to play, and horses frolic, this
is driven by instinct whereas horse racing is driven entirely by
cruelty. It is a sign of just how poorly developed we humans are that
the same people are prepared to bemoan the fate of humans forced to do
thing against their will whilst totally blind to the cruelty they
inflict or - as is the case with anyone betting on the GN - is
inflicted on their behalf.

I would be more than happy to see the GN and other events run on the
basis that the horses - and riders - were presented at the start and
then it was left to each horse to decide whether they wanted to run.
I rather think that, without being kicked in the ribs or whipped on
the arse, none of them would choose to hare round the course but would
instead settle for a nice nibble of the grass and maybe suss out if
there was anything worth eating in the fences. A nice drink out of
Becher's perhaps?

<tree-huggers view of how the wild creatures live>

...meanwhile, Mummy Rabbit was in her cosy warren with a lovely fire
burning in the hearth. She had smudges of flour on her flushed cheeks
as she had been baking.

The little Rabbits were playing happily with their toys waiting for
their tea, which Mummy Rabbit would be serving up just as soon as
Daddy Rabbit arrived home from work...

</tree-huggers view of how the wild creatures live>

I really do despair at the woolly-minded tree-huggers simplistic view
of the world, particularly with regard to wild animals (and more
particularly vermin).

Animals only survive because man has found a use for them. Without
man's requirements of them, most animal species would be extinct.

Creatures in the wild, where survival of the fittest is the norm, do
not have a happy existence. Their sole purpose in life is simply to
eat, drink and propagate their species. Most species are prey for
other species and as a result are hunted and haunted by fear. They all
die in agony, cold wet and hungry, having succumbed to some disease or
other.

Some are very fortunate to become a friend of man and their quality of
life is considerably enhanced as a result. That they do not enjoy all
the aspects of life that are available to humans, is because of their
limitations.

Why otherwise intelligent people can be wailing and gnashing at the
lot of animals, while rejoicing in the death of another human being
who somehow didn't measure up to their ideals, is quite beyond me.
Fantastic Post Charles.
.

Loading