this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024

216 points (100.0% liked)

Main

15774 readers

60 users here now

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!

gun-unity State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

guaido Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

smoker-on-the-balcony Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

frothingfash Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

just-a-theory An Amainzing Organizing Story

Main Source for Feminism for Babies

data-revolutionary Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide

ussr-cry Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

liberal@hexbear.net

EcoSoco@hexbear.net

DashEightMate@hexbear.net

AlephNull@hexbear.net

marxisthayaca@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Koolio@hexbear.net

itsPina@hexbear.net

WhyEssEff@hexbear.net

quartz242@hexbear.net

LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net

chamomile@hexbear.net

Alaskaball@hexbear.net

InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net

216

Be like Sugar. But with work. (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 month ago by Alaskaball@hexbear.net to c/main@hexbear.net

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Babs@hexbear.net 54 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My main takeaway is that maybe we shouldn't be riding horses for fun.

[–] sweatersocialist@hexbear.net 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yeah that's what penises are for

[–] miz@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

imagining an old time western saloon with a bunch of penises tied up at the rail outside

[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It seems possible different horses have different preferences and enjoy different things

[–] Babs@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Personally I am a big fan of having an extra 200lbs on my back telling me where to go.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago

are you busy later?

[–] booty@hexbear.net 35 points 1 month ago (3 children)

but they love to be ridden!!! it's not animal abuse! they love it! it doesn't hurt them! it's good for them! tHeY lOvE iT rage-cry

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If anyone should get ridden it's me!

[–] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

To paraphrase a song I half-remember; save a horse, ride me!

[+] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] booty@hexbear.net 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's why you have to "break" them in order to get them to let you climb on, because they just naturally love it so much bean

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

we use the same language to describe teaching a dog not to shit inside 'housebreak'. we don't typically imbue that with a negative association.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok let me just be direct then so you animal-abusing fuckheads stop playing word games with me like redditors

Leave the fucking animals alone. They are not built to carry your dumb ass around. It causes pain and stress and long-term medical problems. The animal, even if you abuse it into allowing you to do this, cannot give informed consent for it because it cannot be made aware of the long-term risks associated with the act. No person who truly cares about animals would use them as vehicles.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you've made an argument based on the word you can't suddenly be precious and pretend it's somehow off limits to interrogate that! reddit=actually replying to the argument you've made, not the (unstated!) moral assumptions you have behind it

i don't ride horses, dipshit. you did not address what i said whatsoever, i can appreciate animal cruelty can make someone angry but your reply was disproportionate and unpleasant.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You don't see why I find it unreasonable and dishonest to compare the use of the term "housebreaking" to refer to training a dog to not shit in the house (beneficial to the dog, detrimental to no one) to the use of the term "breaking" to refer to abusing a horse into allowing you to ride it (detrimental to the horse, beneficial to you)

Not only is the term different, because in housebreaking a dog you are "breaking" the behavior and not the animal, but the act itself is so dissimilar that there is no reason to compare them except as a dishonest way of defending animal abuse

i can appreciate animal cruelty can make someone angry but your reply was disproportionate and unpleasant.

My reply was proportionate to your defense of animal abuse which is far more unpleasant than any insults I could ever come up with to throw at you (all of which would be deserved)

Finally, yes I dispensed with the semantic arguments in my previous reply because it doesn't fucking matter. The semantics are not the point. I didn't want to get into the weeds about this. The point is that if you defend or attempt to normalize the abuse of horses then you fucking suck.

Also you call the "moral implications" of my comments "unstated" and honestly I don't see how you could possibly be commenting in good faith if you think that. Re-read my comments. My top level comment in this thread explicitly calls out horse riders as animal abusers and mocks them for justifying it. If you think I left the moral argument "unstated" and that this conversation has always been about the fucking semantics it's only because you are in denial and want the conversation to be about semantics.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

housebreaking

breaking

this comparison is dishonest? it's the same fucking word. don't play 'word games' unless it's me pretending slapping a noun on a verb completely removes all context and meaning from it

yes I dispensed with the semantic arguments

if only you actually had

in housebreaking a dog you are "breaking" the behavior and not the animal

defend this. where is it written that when people say 'housebreak' for dogs they are very specifically talking about behavior but 'break' a horse is totally not related to the behavior of bucking riders and in fact, exclusive to the subjugation of the natural character of the horse. is shitting inside not a natural behavior of dogs?

the act itself is so dissimilar that there is no reason to compare them

ah yeah, people never coerce or use violence on dogs to train them. utterly unheard of

training a dog to not shit in the house (beneficial to the dog, detrimental to no one)

defend this. what benefit does a dog get from not being allowed to shit where it pleases

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Shitting inside is not the natural behavior of a dog but there is a difference between holding a poop in until you go outside and carrying a person on your back. If someone isn't bringing their dog out to poop and forcing them to hold it in to an uncomfortable point it's comparable to riding horses. I don't see how the situation benefits the dog here, but it is dog-neutral as long as you aren't being specifically negligent or abusive. The act of riding the horse is abuse in itself. So one is teaching a behavior that is for your convenience but doesn't harm the animal and the other harms the animal. I'm sure there are etyomolgical similarities between breaking a horse and housebreaking a pet but housebreaking has turned into a more colloquial term distinct from 'breaking' a horse. Words being the same doesn't really mean much when the context of their use is clearly different. A well seasoned solider isn't one who's covered in cumin and tarragon and a well seasoned meal hadn't fought many battles.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A well seasoned solider isn't one who's covered in cumin and tarragon and a well seasoned meal hadn't fought many battles

this is the core of a fantastic joke with a lil set up

So one is teaching a behavior that is for your convenience but doesn't harm the animal and the other harms the animal

this is where the trouble is. from a human perspective i recognize a distinct similarity, but i am not veterinarian enough to make a judgement on how true that is from a biological standpoint. does the weight of people/cargo on an equine make it so? is pulling a wagon as damaging as putting things on their back? how often are these activities done, does that matter?

i don't expect you to answer those, i just have a bit of skepticism around this from studying people with very fundamental relationships with horses on the steppe. it's hard to imagine that horses have had a place below and less care than other animals in societies that prised them so much, y'know?

[–] miz@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm gonna be workshopping this seasoned soldier joke for a while. I feel like maybe we could tie it in with Biden's fabulisms about his uncle being eaten by cannibals

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

lets-fucking-go the LAYERS of this joke

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Care is irrelevant here, riding horses is really bad for them, same with making them pull stuff. Plain and simple. For riding, it's a lot of weight constantly on their spine and for hauling carts and stuff, that's physical labor a horse was never meant to do. I was gonna say we don't industrialized dogs, but we do and did even more in the past but the majority of dogs that people have now are mostly just there to be pals, that evolution never happened when cars replaced horses, we stopped needing dogs as useful hunting and gathering pals but we still enjoyed their company where it seems any attachment to a horse is based mostly around the riding of it. And like, I raised huskies and have had them lead a sled and had the youngest one we raised learn to haul me around on a skateboard when we moved into town, so I'm not totally innocent here, but well and this is my personal observation here, the huskies really really wanted to do it and the horses I've seen have seemed less enthusiastic

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] booty@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't see how the situation benefits the dog here,

Seriously? You don't think that it is detrimental to any animal to live in its own shit? I expected "show me some scientific evidence that it is good for a dog not to have to live in a pile of its own feces" from the dishonest animal abuse supporting dipshits but I didn't expect it from you

I really thought that anyone arguing in good faith would take for granted that teaching a dog to go outside to poop is beneficial to the dog in the same way that it is beneficial to a child to teach it to poop in the toilet

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I agree it does benefit the dog that way, but that is only because you're also keeping a dog indoors more than it probably wants to for your own convenience which I figure kinda evens it out. I guess I also assumed the owner would clean up the indoor dog shit cause they would have to live with the same pile

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] booty@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

defend this.

refuse-the-question No.

I'm done playing reddit debatebro with you. Fuck off. Stop defending animal abuse.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

jagoff jagoff jagoff jagoff

[–] booty@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Genuine question, why does it so upset you that I don't want to host a scored and moderated debate about this semantic point you refuse to let go of that I have said multiple times that I was never interested in? Every single time I tried to redirect the conversation to what actually mattered to me the entire time, you came back harder on the semantics. The one time I actually indulged you and got into the weeds about the semantics, you mocked me for doing so. Why the hell would I even consider this discussion with you after all of this behavior was considered together? It is on a topic I don't care about, with a person who is defending something I find indefensible and disgusting, who is defending it in ways that are dishonest, and who has only been an asshole to me even when I engaged as you seemingly desired.

In short, there are two wolves inside you. Both of them are redditors. Evict them. two-wolves-1 two-wolves-2

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i am not upset you won't engage in a moderated debate. you've insulted me repeatedly, even in this reply! this paternalistic attitude you've adopted 'i know you ride horses (i physically cannot), you're a redditor (ive been on here as long you)' is absolutely incompatible to actually having a conversation with someone.

i'm sure you wouldn't respond well to someone insulting you, i mean i just have in response and you didn't. so why would you expect that i would?

[–] booty@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you've insulted me repeatedly, even in this reply!

Don't go to bat for animal abusers and I won't insult you. The difference between me insulting you and you insulting me is that you deserve it.

'i know you ride horses

I never said that. I called you an animal abuser for defending horse riding regardless of whether you engage in it yourself. I don't know you, I don't care who you are or what you do. What I do care about is the shit you say because that is all that exists here. And what you are saying is in defense of animal abuse.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I never said that

Leave the fucking animals alone. They are not built to carry your dumb ass around

that is exactly what you fucking said. you can't cede a fucking millimetre and you're calling me a reddit debatebro

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

'Your' in this context refers to people in general and not you specifically. Or even if it's about you it still doesn't imply that you've ridden a horse it just says they weren't put on earth to be ridden by you (and by implied extention anyone else)

[–] booty@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Right. They aren't built to carry you around and you should leave them alone. I did say that. Where exactly did I claim that you personally ride horses? My comment was, in the first paragraph, addressed to "you animal-abusing fuckheads." Plural. How exactly will you claim that I was referring to you and you alone?

I was speaking generally. They aren't built to carry (your; general) dumb ass around. Anyone's dumb ass. They aren't built to carry people or things around. They are animals, and are best suited to carrying themselves and nothing else.

And even if I was speaking specifically to you I never actually accused you of having ridden any horse in your life. However, your defense of horse riding implies that you might in the future decide to do so, and I would like to reiterate again that you should not do that. Because that would be animal abuse.

Now I've had to write three paragraphs of wordy refutation of your dishonest claims, once again demonstrating why my first reaction to your reddit bullshit was to refuse to engage with it.

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

you're treating "reddit" like a magic word that invalidates anything i say, lmao

I never actually accused you

shot

your defense of horse riding implies that you might in the future decide to do so

chaser

i physically fucking can't ride a horse! i will remind you my OP was comparing semantics between dog training and equine training, not a claim that training horses to be ridden is a good thing. despite like 6 replies where you insist everything i've said has been in service of that, i literally never said it. because i don't necessarily believe it's true

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why on earth would a horse prefer to carry someone around for no benefit to themselves?

[–] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For the same reason dogs like to chase a ball and bring it back to someone. We made them this way, over thousands of years.

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dog chase stuff in nature. It's a big part of being a dog. Horses don't carry things on their backs if left alone.

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Dogs (i.e Canis familiaris) don't exist in nature in the sense ClimateChangeAnxeity means. Dogs exist chase balls solely because humans have bred retrieving instincts into dogs.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

Save a horse, ride a hunk!

soviet-bottom

shy

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 28 points 1 month ago

No gods no riders

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 21 points 1 month ago

Mane tactic. kelly

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 17 points 1 month ago

Incredibly main creature

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Don't horses sleep standing up?

[–] miz@hexbear.net 14 points 1 month ago

they can sleep either way

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't sleep standing up

[–] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Syllogistically I now know you aren't a horse. Don't doxx yourself so easily

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago

The first lesson of post-college at work: “C” is the new “A”. Do C- or lower quality work? You’re fired. Do C+ or higher quality work? You get laid off and porky gets pickier with who he hires in the future.

load more comments