I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

tickingbird

I’ll also add that there’s no argument regarding her abuse of the horse. She slapped and kicked it - fact!! Is that cruel and unnecessary? Yes it is. Fact. Did she cause unnecessary and lasting suffering to the horse? The courts say not. Is this gossip? NO.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with that tickingbird.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with the fact that she was found not guilty.

Hetty58, I’m rather pleased you’re having a laugh. I’m beginning to feel lying down in a darkened room listening to soothing classics for dogs is where I need to be 🙏🏽🐕

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you the arbiter of whether it is impartial DAR?

No, only what I accept as impartial. I don't tell others how the should think GSM; just that I don't agree.

Are you so afraid, of one person disagreeing with the number on here who generally agree with you, that you are trying to silence that person?

I do "get" that some find it very hard to accept that someone holds a different view but it does happen, even to you

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Are you the arbiter of whether it is impartial DAR?

fancythat

DaisyAnneReturns

Gossip - casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

Does it take a lot for you to be convinced that anything is true?
I think there is another poster as well on GN, who takes much convincing of lots of things. Maybe even two posters!

Only non-prejudicial evidence fancythat. For that it needs to be both be factual and impartial.

I’ll also add that there’s no argument regarding her abuse of the horse. She slapped and kicked it - fact!! Is that cruel and unnecessary? Yes it is. Fact. Did she cause unnecessary and lasting suffering to the horse? The courts say not. Is this gossip? NO.

I’ve just caught up with this thread and rather wish I hadn’t. Talk about wanting the last word and going around in circles. It’s getting just like the trans threads where certain posters go at it ad nauseum.

DaisyAnneReturns

Gossip - casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

Does it take a lot for you to be convinced that anything is true?
I think there is another poster as well on GN, who takes much convincing of lots of things. Maybe even two posters!

Germanshepherdsmum

Well Dickens, after this lapse of time I think we can reasonably assume that ‘you’ is you. Gossip indeed. 🙄

I think so GSM!

Gossip - casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

Well Dickens, after this lapse of time I think we can reasonably assume that ‘you’ is you. Gossip indeed. 🙄

DaisyAnneReturns

You are talking about gossip. I have clearly said that I will not decide someone's future life or whether they have done right or wrong, based on unfounded gossip. So you offer me more gossip and strenuously insist I come to a conclusion about that.

We do not have evidence; we have gossip. We know this can often lead to life-changing outcomes for the people on the receiving end of it.

I mentioned Jo Cox yesterday. Somewhere, people sat at their computers, discussing what they saw as this poor woman's sins, just as you are now. This gossip encouraged one of them to decide she should die. People have sent death threats to the women with the horse. Comments made on here have been extreme.

I am entitled to come on a thread and say that gossip is dangerous and that I will not reach conclusions based on it. Just as you are to continue picking apart what you think you know of other people's lives. It is my "opinion" that such talk should come under the publishing rules. Such law would mean the owners of this site would have to and could, legally control such posts.

I do not think that discussing an event we have no proper evidence about, deciding on the character and guilt of this person, deciding what the outcome should be, is appropriate. I think such gossip should be able to be judged by the law. But I have said this both on this thread and previously, so why continue what is an attempt to justify what you think is okay by attacking me?

As for deciding when something is right or wrong generally, this is such a deep subject and I don't think that this thread's participants want deep, they just want to be angry with someone or some thing.

I'm not sure who you are addressing this comment to - me, someone else?

Who is the "you"?

You are talking about gossip. I have clearly said that I will not decide someone's future life or whether they have done right or wrong, based on unfounded gossip. So you offer me more gossip and strenuously insist I come to a conclusion about that.

We do not have evidence; we have gossip. We know this can often lead to life-changing outcomes for the people on the receiving end of it.

I mentioned Jo Cox yesterday. Somewhere, people sat at their computers, discussing what they saw as this poor woman's sins, just as you are now. This gossip encouraged one of them to decide she should die. People have sent death threats to the women with the horse. Comments made on here have been extreme.

I am entitled to come on a thread and say that gossip is dangerous and that I will not reach conclusions based on it. Just as you are to continue picking apart what you think you know of other people's lives. It is my "opinion" that such talk should come under the publishing rules. Such law would mean the owners of this site would have to and could, legally control such posts.

I do not think that discussing an event we have no proper evidence about, deciding on the character and guilt of this person, deciding what the outcome should be, is appropriate. I think such gossip should be able to be judged by the law. But I have said this both on this thread and previously, so why continue what is an attempt to justify what you think is okay by attacking me?

As for deciding when something is right or wrong generally, this is such a deep subject and I don't think that this thread's participants want deep, they just want to be angry with someone or some thing.

DaisyAnneReturns

Dickens you asked me a question. I have whittled it down to "Is torture wrong"? Unfortunately, you picked a difficult one, as there are two ethical arguments for torture. The first rests on consequence. It considers the need to torture one (guilty) individual to save one or more (innocent) ones.

The second argument rests on an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules (deontology).

The problem with asking me to answer regarding the situation you describe is that I know nothing about it. Just as we actually dont know the facts about the women and the horse. You may have described what actually happened, or it could be very different when we have evidence.

I can guess which line I would take; one seems much more likely than the other based on what you told me. And of course i would rather neither boy or horse were hurt. But I could not come on Gransnet and declare "I am right" and say what the consequence should be. I would rely on the law to do that.

I can guess which line I would take; one seems much more likely than the other based on what you told me. And of course i would rather neither boy or horse were hurt. But I could not come on Gransnet and declare "I am right" and say what the consequence should be. I would rely on the law to do that.

I am not talking about "consequences" for the perpetrator of such a crime, I am talking about the crime itself and suggesting that torturing a child by burning his body with a cigarette is, in absolute terms, wrong.

I don't believe, and I doubt anyone does - anyone of sound mind that is - that torturing a very young child can ever be the subject of an ethical argument.

I hadn't read your new post Dickens, before I wrote and posted my reply to the first one. I will look at it in the morning.

Dickens you asked me a question. I have whittled it down to "Is torture wrong"? Unfortunately, you picked a difficult one, as there are two ethical arguments for torture. The first rests on consequence. It considers the need to torture one (guilty) individual to save one or more (innocent) ones.

The second argument rests on an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules (deontology).

The problem with asking me to answer regarding the situation you describe is that I know nothing about it. Just as we actually dont know the facts about the women and the horse. You may have described what actually happened, or it could be very different when we have evidence.

I can guess which line I would take; one seems much more likely than the other based on what you told me. And of course i would rather neither boy or horse were hurt. But I could not come on Gransnet and declare "I am right" and say what the consequence should be. I would rely on the law to do that.

DaisyAnneReturns

Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

I wondered if I should add a comment, Dickens but I do know I throw a lot at everyone, in a rather selfish effort to gain more knowledge, so I didn't.

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

OK, I wasn't going to be specific because I didn't think it was necessary.

I would consider - for example - an individual found guilty of the torture of a child... the case that came to my mind was one where a small boy had been burned on his hand with the end of a cigarette deliberately (among other forms of abuse) by his father - to be absolutely wrong on any level, and always. Unless you can think of a way in which this 'act' could not be wholly wrong - only "sometimes"?

I know it's not just or even mainly you Dickens, but I am fed-up with the snide attacks.

I will answer, but later. I have pleasanter things to do at the moment.

I know it's not just or even mainly you Dickens, but I am fed-up with the snide attacks.

(1) I said I thought there were some acts which were absolutely wrong - because you were mentioning the "absolutist" argument.

(2) I told you I didn't want to insult your intelligence by suggesting what they might be - believing it would be fairly obvious.

(3) Your response, You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

(4) You "wondered" which acts I was thinking might be considered wholly wrong... seemingly needing an example that would disprove your point.

So I told you about one, an "act" that happened. One that I would stick my neck out and say in absolute terms is wrong, wholly wrong, always wrong.

Why did I do this? Because of your insistence that there are no 'absolutes' when, plainly, there are.

Unless you belong to the Ayn Rand school of thought.

And I don't believe you do.

I third it Callistemon.

Catching up with this thread had me thinking of the Monty Python sketch in which people could choose the short argument or the full half hour.

Suggesting GSM’s comment was in the same league as lynching - don’t be daft.

SM is with us. We are taking part in it. The good news here is the consensus is the assault on the horse was wrong on any level. There’s some issue about whether anything is plain wrong, thankfully we agree child abuse, rape and similar things are well, plain wrong.

Callistemon21

Just got home and 😲
I'm not really sure what some posts are supposed to mean

Don't give up on GN, Blondiescot.

We are all entitled to an opinion and I think most right-minded people would agree that what this woman did was wrong, even if not found to be a criminal act.

I second that Callistemon I do wish there was a 'like' button on gransnet posts!

Callistemon21

Just got home and 😲
I'm not really sure what some posts are supposed to mean

Don't give up on GN, Blondiescot.

We are all entitled to an opinion and I think most right-minded people would agree that what this woman did was wrong, even if not found to be a criminal act.

Except for me apparently Callistemon

Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

I wondered if I should add a comment, Dickens but I do know I throw a lot at everyone, in a rather selfish effort to gain more knowledge, so I didn't.

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

OK, I wasn't going to be specific because I didn't think it was necessary.

I would consider - for example - an individual found guilty of the torture of a child... the case that came to my mind was one where a small boy had been burned on his hand with the end of a cigarette deliberately (among other forms of abuse) by his father - to be absolutely wrong on any level, and always. Unless you can think of a way in which this 'act' could not be wholly wrong - only "sometimes"?

I know it's not just or even mainly you Dickens, but I am fed-up with the snide attacks.

I will answer, but later. I have pleasanter things to do at the moment.

MaizieD

Blondiescot

Wow. Words fail me. I give up. In fact, I may give up on GN altogether...

No, don't do that, Blondiescot.

I am wondering what the comment 'Posts by those with a minority opinion do come round more often though.' actually means.. .

Minority opinion good? Minority opinion bad?

Neither, and I hope everyone would think that a different point of view is just that, although it certainly doesn't feel like it at the moment.

If there are only a couple putting a contrary opinion their posts are likely to come up more often, if others posts are to be answered. It's just a numbers thing.

Just got home and 😲
I'm not really sure what some posts are supposed to mean

Don't give up on GN, Blondiescot.

We are all entitled to an opinion and I think most right-minded people would agree that what this woman did was wrong, even if not found to be a criminal act.

DaisyAnneReturns

I wondered if I should add a comment, Dickens but I do know I throw a lot at everyone, in a rather selfish effort to gain more knowledge, so I didn't.

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

You suggest some acts can be considered to be wholly "wrong". I wonder which acts you are thinking of and should the word always or sometimes be there?

OK, I wasn't going to be specific because I didn't think it was necessary.

I would consider - for example - an individual found guilty of the torture of a child... the case that came to my mind was one where a small boy had been burned on his hand with the end of a cigarette deliberately (among other forms of abuse) by his father - to be absolutely wrong on any level, and always. Unless you can think of a way in which this 'act' could not be wholly wrong - only "sometimes"?