This is a terrible standard for evidence, as I’ve already demonstrated. You’ve already been shown multiple times by multiple users here that riding horses is detrimental to their health.
My standard of evidence is literally just evidence. You and one other poster have cited studies, claiming that they demonstrate that riding horses causes them horrible pain and injury, when the studies do not actually demonstrate that as I showed by quoting them directly. You aren't actually engaging with either the source material for your claims or the substance of my arguments; you're just repeating the same nonsense like chickens suffer horribly from laying eggs and no I will not actually prove that just trust me bro I can tell I speak chicken bro and becoming more and more personally accusatory.
Do you have anything to say about interests and rights being categorically different and conflicting ethical principles? How can you demonstrate that animals can ever give informed consent to anything? Is it acceptable to fuck a dog just because it's humping you?
There clearly needs to be a different set of principles dictating how to treat animals, specifically one that centers the interests of all sentient beings, which, turns out, doesn't forbid just using animals for things so long as you don't subject them to cruelty (which reminds me: you still continue to ignore sheep, llamas, alpacas, service dogs, medical animals, and so on, who are clearly just fine physically and emotionally), and doesn't place a naive and absolutist concept of consent at the center of all ethical behavior - one that would, by the way, prohibit both necessary but unwelcome medical interventions and revolutionary violence due to "violating the bodily autonomy" of counterrevolutionaries.
You’re right, they wouldn’t merely be wrong due to lack of consent, but for other reasons too.
I wasn't even addressing consent here; this is another totally separate line of reasoning based on use and objectification, which is totally irrelevant. You just don't like the vibe of it, which, sorry, isn't very convincing.
My standard of evidence is literally just evidence. You and one other poster have cited studies, claiming that they demonstrate that riding horses causes them horrible pain and injury, when the studies do not actually demonstrate that as I showed by quoting them directly. You aren't actually engaging with either the source material for your claims or the substance of my arguments; you're just repeating the same nonsense like chickens suffer horribly from laying eggs and no I will not actually prove that just trust me bro I can tell I speak chicken bro and becoming more and more personally accusatory.
Do you have anything to say about interests and rights being categorically different and conflicting ethical principles? How can you demonstrate that animals can ever give informed consent to anything? Is it acceptable to fuck a dog just because it's humping you?
There clearly needs to be a different set of principles dictating how to treat animals, specifically one that centers the interests of all sentient beings, which, turns out, doesn't forbid just using animals for things so long as you don't subject them to cruelty (which reminds me: you still continue to ignore sheep, llamas, alpacas, service dogs, medical animals, and so on, who are clearly just fine physically and emotionally), and doesn't place a naive and absolutist concept of consent at the center of all ethical behavior - one that would, by the way, prohibit both necessary but unwelcome medical interventions and revolutionary violence due to "violating the bodily autonomy" of counterrevolutionaries.
I wasn't even addressing consent here; this is another totally separate line of reasoning based on use and objectification, which is totally irrelevant. You just don't like the vibe of it, which, sorry, isn't very convincing.