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

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?

Blondiescot don't give up on GN. There are always strangely familiar posters who will argue anything.

Iam64

I saw the video, like everyone posting here I found it distressing. I rode until RA stopped me. My daughters rode, granddaughter a recent 5 year old starter.
I read her defence was the horse had moved off down the road. She chastised it stop it doing this again. The most obvious concern to me (apart from kicking the animal and slapping it repeatedly round the face) was the chastisement took place after the incident. The horse had no idea why it was being hit , kicked and frightened.
Anyone working with horses/dogs knows any aversive or praise needs instant delivery, or it’s meaningless

What convinced the jury she was innocent?

This is the most appalling aspect of her defence. Anyone who cares about horses would know that hitting them around the head is likely to make them head shy.

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

fancythat

Though I do get the impresion that several posters are happy with a good ding dong. So [shrug emoji, if there is one].

They may; I don't. Posts by those with a minority opinion do come round more often though.

Kate1949

Yet you are on it DAR. Gransnet is social media.

I know. It's worrying, isn't it? I like to think it is usually better moderated than some of social media, though. Just as it would be if it came under publishing laws.

Blondiescot

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?

Murder, for one. Rape, for another. Or are these not 'wholly' wrong?

If you don't mind I will wait for Dickens to answer.

Blondiescot please stop asking the same "set up by you" question? I have tried to explain that I'm not prepared to answer something we approach from different perspectives, but you continue. So please stop what is beginning to border on harassment.

fancythat - excellent point. There's also the suggestion some posters like to have the last word -

My "prejudice" / informed opinion - wonders if some on here would like to read the following link -?- protectthewild.org.uk/blogs/sarah-moulds-case-shines-a-light-on-speciesism-in-the-uk/

Though I do get the impresion that several posters are happy with a good ding dong. So [shrug emoji, if there is one].

Yet you are on it DAR. Gransnet is social media.

No wish to get caught in any crossfire.
And if I started a thread it would be deemed a thread about a thread.

In general. And not aimied at anyone in particular.
Is it not better sometimes to just say, I wont say any more? Or say, agree to differ?
Rather than an accusation of bullying by one person or another, to someone? After a thread has descended into much ding dong between posters?

Just my thoughts.
Feel free to ignore.

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?

Murder, for one. Rape, for another. Or are these not 'wholly' wrong?

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you not understand, Glorianny, that whilst accepting that she was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering , (not ‘unnecessary cruelty’ as you put it) people (I am one of them) nevertheless believe her actions to have been cruel? That is not saying that we have different standards. For a prosecution for cruelty or neglect to succeed, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that unnecessary suffering was caused, not simply that the defendant acted cruelly. I see no reason why that should preclude any of us from speaking out about cruelty. In this case public reaction has punished this woman much more effectively than the law could have done.

I think your last sentence adequately sums up the reasons once given for lynching people.

I agree Glorianny but I would add tar and feathering, burning to death, drowning, etc. It goes throughout history, doesn't it so I wonder if similar people at different times will always believe they have this right.

Social media as the modern version of stoning. Not great is it.

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?

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you not understand, Glorianny, that whilst accepting that she was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering , (not ‘unnecessary cruelty’ as you put it) people (I am one of them) nevertheless believe her actions to have been cruel? That is not saying that we have different standards. For a prosecution for cruelty or neglect to succeed, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that unnecessary suffering was caused, not simply that the defendant acted cruelly. I see no reason why that should preclude any of us from speaking out about cruelty. In this case public reaction has punished this woman much more effectively than the law could have done.

I think your last sentence adequately sums up the reasons once given for lynching people.

DAR

Absolutists see things as either right or wrong. There is little chance of nuance in an absolutists arguement therefore no point in answering your question which is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

I suspect there are some 'absolutes' DAR - and I won't insult your intelligence by listing them. I'm sure you know that there are some acts that can be considered without debate on absolutism, to be wholly "wrong".

Kate1949

If you kick, punch or slap any defenceless creature it is cruelty. As I said, I'm not a particular animal lover but to see someone being cruel to one makes my blood boil.

Well said, Kate1949. It is wrong. Full stop. No arguments, no nuance.

DaisyAnneReturns

Blondiescot

Absolutists see things as either right or wrong. There is little chance of nuance in an absolutists arguement therefore no point in answering your question which is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

Oh please...
Let me clarify the situation for you. Slapping and kicking any animal is wrong - plain and simple. There is no nuance there. End of story.

If you kick, punch or slap any defenceless creature it is cruelty. As I said, I'm not a particular animal lover but to see someone being cruel to one makes my blood boil.

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

I am sorry if you find that condescending. LondonMzFitz. It wasn't my intention. I wonder why a simple truth makes you feel like that.

Germanshepherdsmum

Is dislike of any form of cruelty to animals prejudice or bias?

Define cruelty, animal and dislike or are these all, for everyone, whatever you decide?

Blondiescot

Absolutists see things as either right or wrong. There is little chance of nuance in an absolutists arguement therefore no point in answering your question which is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

DaisyAnneReturns

^I don't believe I am prejudiced, I regard it as informed decision.^ LondonMzFitz

We would all like, at some point, to believe we are not prejudiced or biased. The only way to stop that prejudice or bias affecting our decisions is to accept that we are, and understand how that might affect our thinking.

Okay, now tell us about condescension!