On 05/06/2021 13:36, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2021 12:26:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I take it you don't understand the concept of work either then?

Do you? Then you would be wrong. ;-)

So, please expand exactly what you mean by 'work' here and what
animals you think should be doing it and why?

Working animals like horses and dogs often lead a very happy life.

Ah, 'often'?

But I'd
guess that has escaped you.

DickHeadxx, is that you?


Are you referring to Dave? If so that is disingenuous.

Ok, yes, you have quoted one of the scenarios where animals working
with humans is likely to be the least of the issues (of course you
would) but what YOU might need to consider is just how we might
normally get an animal to do what *we want* when it might not want to.

Don't you train your dog to defecate and urinate on command?

Traditionally is would be though fear and pain (circuses and 'breaking
horses' to ride etc), and it's still done coercively using play.

Are you against the training of animals?

Every time whilst training a dog to do something for us we get it's
attention using a distraction (toy or food) we are influencing it's
behaviour to suit us, making it do something it would rarely do (for
us) if left to it's own devices, even if it had the skills / ability
to do it biologically / instinctively.

Isn't that slavery? Paying your pet with food when it pleases you?

Now, try training say a cat or scorpion to sniff drugs on demand and
see how well that works out for you, just using the offer of play or a
treat.

Are you saying we can eat cats because they can't be trained, so easily?

With consent (assent / dissent) and assuming you can't speak horse
(and many don't seem to be able to read an animals body language or
they wouldn't assume they are 'ok' about being killed), an animal will
often have to way up the outcome of using either fight or flight to
avoid a particular situation. So, if a horse is tied up and you put a
saddle on it, you might then assume that it's happy with it when 'no
reaction' is simply a sign of submission ( exploitation), not
consent.

Quite, in much the same way you keep your dog indoors and train it to
defecate and urinate when you want them to?

Capturing a wild animal or breeding one to make work for you (even in
reward for food, protection or shelter) is slavery and exploitation.

Then why do you keep dogs, can't you see how inconsistent your argument is?

We seem most willing to do this to creatures that can't so easily
fight back (especially once they have been trapped / manhandled like a
pig into a gas chamber, not so easy with a leopard or hippo).

That is why we are a higher animal, except there is little need of
training an animal about to be slaughtered.


And there aren't many leopards or hippos in civilised Western Countries,
that also as it happens has a population with the lactase persistent
gene. It's not all coincidental.