Asklemmy

43853 readers

588 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Automobiles replacing horses: ethical consequences (reddthat.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering -- as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Of course it’s a win for the horses. Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not there yet unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer

This guy PETAs.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This guy wants to be born into slavery and die from exhaustion.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd rather be born into slavery than have some arrogant self-aggrandizing narcissistic cunt decide wether my life is worth living.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That escalated quickly

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think he wants to be my friend.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Maybe if you were more overtly pancake? That might help..

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How's that different from the human experience?

You're implying that literally all horses were abused, always.

That's incredibly stupid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He said nothing about abuse, only suffering.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

So literally all horses suffer, always?

Have you ever worked with horses? (I'm assuming no, but I have to ask.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not

If you believe this, does that give you a moral imperative to start a nuclear war and end the suffering of future human generations?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I never said kill all horses/humans/whatever. The difference is between taking lives away and not forcefully breeding life for the purpose of enslavement.