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.
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?
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.
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.
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
you’re treating “reddit” like a magic word that invalidates anything i say, lmao
No actually, I am being a complete dumbass by actually addressing what you say when I should dismiss it because it is already invalid
Because I actually believe in people and even though I identified you correctly as an internet troll who has no beliefs and simply wants to argue about nothing at your very first comment, I still tried to open a dialogue with you several times and every single time I have regretted it
I never actually accused you
shot
your defense of horse riding implies that you might in the future decide to do so
chaser
You really thought you had something here didn’t you? All you’re telling me is that you don’t know how to read. That is not an accusation that you have ever ridden a horse.
i will remind you my OP was comparing semantics between dog training and equine training
And I will remind you that at no point have I been interested in arguing about those semantics, which is what I told you the moment you opened that discussion with me in the first place. I find it much more interesting to discuss the actual activities and not the arbitrary fucking glyphs we use to represent them, which is why I will be the dumbass once again and attempt to discuss that with you here:
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.
I accused you of being interested only in redirecting the discussion to the semantic argument I had no interest in, primarily. This entire time I have been pointing out (again, correctly) that your entire goal in this conversation was to avoid discussing the ethics of the issue which was my interest and to instead get bogged down in arguing about the semantics of the term “breaking” as it is applied in horse and dog training (again I will add that it is applied differently)
because i don’t necessarily believe it’s true
The reason I interpreted your unwavering desire to bog the discussion down with an argument about the semantics of the terms used to describe dog and horse training as a desire to defend the ethics of horseback riding is because I see the specific type of dog training in question (teaching the dog to poop outside instead of in the house where it has to live) as an unambiguous, obvious, undebatably positive thing for the dog. I assumed that no reasonable person would consider it to be acceptable to let a dog just shit all over the place and then have to walk around and sleep and eat and play in a shit covered house. If you, like me, assume training a dog to shit outside is unambiguously good, then your attempt to redirect the discussion to a semantic argument in which training a dog to shit outside and training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it are equated would be seen obviously as a defense of the latter.
I assumed that no reasonable person would consider it to be acceptable to let a dog just shit all over the place and then have to walk around and sleep and eat and play in a shit covered house
is this fr the core of this entire shitflinging argument? complete misalignment of priors. dogs that aren’t housebroken are outside dogs. that’s their ‘natural’ (deeply anthropogenic ofc) state. not dogs who live inside but shit everywhere. i can see how that would seem unreasonable, but that read legitimately did not occur to me at all.
is this fr the core of this entire shitflinging argument?
Isn’t it wild how fast misunderstandings can be resolved when you have the guts to actually put forward a view instead of treating everything like a debate? The moment you clarified that you aren’t trying to defend horse riding it became much easier to step back and determine where the disconnect came from. The entire time, my position has been crystal clear: riding horses is animal abuse, animal abuse is bad, training a dog to shit outside is not animal abuse and is not bad.
You made an argument that I interpreted to be in defense of horseback riding, and I stated that interpretation clearly and immediately. Why exactly did it take you so long to clarify that that was not the intention of your argument? What reason, if you were interested in good faith discussion, could you have had for knowingly allowing the other party to discuss under the assumption that the argument you were making was a completely different one from the one you were actually making?
dogs that aren’t housebroken are outside dogs. that’s their ‘natural’ (deeply anthropogenic ofc) state.
Here I have to disagree. We invented dogs. Their natural state is to live with us. I see a dog living outside or in the ‘wild’ as the ‘unnatural’ state for a dog. They evolved not, like their wolf ancestors, to live in the wilderness, but to live with us protected by our tools and our shelters. Because we bred them that way.
Anyway, that’s just a digression. The point is which way is more ethical. To me it seems very obvious that if the two choices are don’t bother to teach the dog to choose where it shits and force it to stay outside or do teach it to choose where it shits and allow it to benefit from the shelter of a human domicile, the latter is the more ethical choice.
not dogs who live inside but shit everywhere. i can see how that would seem unreasonable, but that read legitimately did not occur to me at all.
We must have quite different life experiences, because I have met plenty of dogs kept inside and not taught to appropriately handle their waste.
I have also met plenty of neglected dogs kept outside, but I’ve never before thought there was a particular link between that and training them to poop in the right places.
Now, I’d like to circle back around to the actual original point. Training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it: necessarily abusive and done only in the service of more abuse. Training a dog to poop outside: not necessarily abusive and done in the service of affording the dog a more comfortable, safer, healthier, happier life inside shelter.
‘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)
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.
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?
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 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.
that is exactly what you fucking said. you can’t cede a fucking millimetre and you’re calling me a reddit debatebro
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.
you’re treating “reddit” like a magic word that invalidates anything i say, lmao
shot
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
No actually, I am being a complete dumbass by actually addressing what you say when I should dismiss it because it is already invalid
Because I actually believe in people and even though I identified you correctly as an internet troll who has no beliefs and simply wants to argue about nothing at your very first comment, I still tried to open a dialogue with you several times and every single time I have regretted it
You really thought you had something here didn’t you? All you’re telling me is that you don’t know how to read. That is not an accusation that you have ever ridden a horse.
And I will remind you that at no point have I been interested in arguing about those semantics, which is what I told you the moment you opened that discussion with me in the first place. I find it much more interesting to discuss the actual activities and not the arbitrary fucking glyphs we use to represent them, which is why I will be the dumbass once again and attempt to discuss that with you here:
I accused you of being interested only in redirecting the discussion to the semantic argument I had no interest in, primarily. This entire time I have been pointing out (again, correctly) that your entire goal in this conversation was to avoid discussing the ethics of the issue which was my interest and to instead get bogged down in arguing about the semantics of the term “breaking” as it is applied in horse and dog training (again I will add that it is applied differently)
The reason I interpreted your unwavering desire to bog the discussion down with an argument about the semantics of the terms used to describe dog and horse training as a desire to defend the ethics of horseback riding is because I see the specific type of dog training in question (teaching the dog to poop outside instead of in the house where it has to live) as an unambiguous, obvious, undebatably positive thing for the dog. I assumed that no reasonable person would consider it to be acceptable to let a dog just shit all over the place and then have to walk around and sleep and eat and play in a shit covered house. If you, like me, assume training a dog to shit outside is unambiguously good, then your attempt to redirect the discussion to a semantic argument in which training a dog to shit outside and training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it are equated would be seen obviously as a defense of the latter.
is this fr the core of this entire shitflinging argument? complete misalignment of priors. dogs that aren’t housebroken are outside dogs. that’s their ‘natural’ (deeply anthropogenic ofc) state. not dogs who live inside but shit everywhere. i can see how that would seem unreasonable, but that read legitimately did not occur to me at all.
Isn’t it wild how fast misunderstandings can be resolved when you have the guts to actually put forward a view instead of treating everything like a debate? The moment you clarified that you aren’t trying to defend horse riding it became much easier to step back and determine where the disconnect came from. The entire time, my position has been crystal clear: riding horses is animal abuse, animal abuse is bad, training a dog to shit outside is not animal abuse and is not bad.
You made an argument that I interpreted to be in defense of horseback riding, and I stated that interpretation clearly and immediately. Why exactly did it take you so long to clarify that that was not the intention of your argument? What reason, if you were interested in good faith discussion, could you have had for knowingly allowing the other party to discuss under the assumption that the argument you were making was a completely different one from the one you were actually making?
Here I have to disagree. We invented dogs. Their natural state is to live with us. I see a dog living outside or in the ‘wild’ as the ‘unnatural’ state for a dog. They evolved not, like their wolf ancestors, to live in the wilderness, but to live with us protected by our tools and our shelters. Because we bred them that way.
Anyway, that’s just a digression. The point is which way is more ethical. To me it seems very obvious that if the two choices are don’t bother to teach the dog to choose where it shits and force it to stay outside or do teach it to choose where it shits and allow it to benefit from the shelter of a human domicile, the latter is the more ethical choice.
We must have quite different life experiences, because I have met plenty of dogs kept inside and not taught to appropriately handle their waste.
I have also met plenty of neglected dogs kept outside, but I’ve never before thought there was a particular link between that and training them to poop in the right places.
Now, I’d like to circle back around to the actual original point. Training a horse to stop fighting when you abuse it: necessarily abusive and done only in the service of more abuse. Training a dog to poop outside: not necessarily abusive and done in the service of affording the dog a more comfortable, safer, healthier, happier life inside shelter.
Where is the connection?
‘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)