Why Won't You Say Nup to The Cup?

afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 14:14
Last edited 31/10/2019 - 14:15

There's been plenty of mainstream coverage recently about the ugly stuff that goes on in horse racing and associated industries. This is as good as any place to look into it. There have for a long time been more comprehensive treatments like this but until it hits the telly no-one wants to believe it. (Both those links are from organisations that aren't driven by animal rights at all).

Imagine: Millionaires buy a horse, get trophies for their performance, then when the horse can't live up to their ever exceeding expectations they are popped off for a bullet, or whatever undignified death is cheapest. Break a leg? Get a bullet. Lose a few races race? Get a bullet. Millionaires - like our fave Gerry Harvey - that could easily sustain hundreds of horses if they saw them as anything but commodities and investments.

And that's aside from the fact that these horses are being bred purely to satisfy our whims for entertainment and are pushed hard their whole lives.

There are so many better things to get dressed up and pissed for on a Tuesday. Why would you partake in anything this vile industry offers?

Entertainment Melbourne Cup

Comments

  • k-rokfm on 31/10/2019 - 14:20
    +67

    Ironic that everyone only gets on their high horse about this around the same time

    • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 14:44
      +56

      It's moral dissonance. Most people care about horses this time of the year, dogs during the Yulin festival, dolphins during the Taiji Cove drive, seals during the Canadian seal clubbing season, and cows and chickens and pigs and other animals they routinely kill - well, them never really, because that would actually mean accepting some form of culpability and not projecting.

      So I'm just using the available slot as much as I can.

      • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:14

        accepting some form of culpability

        Culpability implies some kind of wrongdoing. What's wrong with eating animals?

        Cliffs notes only please.

        • TheGiantTomato on 01/11/2019 - 09:52
          +18

          There’s a free documentary on YouTube that looks into Australian farming practices, called “Dominion”. I suggest watching it to learn how meat is made.

          Cliff notes don’t do it justice, sounds like you’re after an easy way out: Cramped living conditions, never setting foot outside during their lifespan, cows have their horns cut (no anaesthetic), chickens have their beaks burned back (no anaesthetic), pigs have their tails cut off (no anaesthetic). I don’t think many people would treat their pet dog like this so probably be pretty upset if they learned about how livestock is treated.

            • pe arl on 01/11/2019 - 21:24
              +20

              @Scrooge McDuck: Are you saying that because various humans and lives are being tortured and killed this very minute, which shows nature is cruel and senseless, that that's just the way of life and we don't need to think about or act on life mistreating life? By your logic, we should just forget about ethics and sit on our hands about all the cruel, senseless acts humans do to other humans and animals around the world, because hey, nature is cruel and senseless.

              • Scrooge McDuck on 01/11/2019 - 21:42
                +1

                @pe arl: I'm not prescribing anything to anyone. I'm explaining my own apathy.

            • chubbychicken on 02/11/2019 - 07:43
              -5

              @Scrooge McDuck: Unless your eating organic / free range meat you might as well be eating garbage.. An animal that’s been fed antibiotics, steroids, growth hormone and god knows what other garbage all it’s life. Quality over quantity every time..

            • vindictus on 03/11/2019 - 05:56
              +1

              @Scrooge McDuck: that's some weapons grade apathy you've got there. I wish I could also care so little about things. You're aware it's also shit for the environment too right?

        • vindictus on 03/11/2019 - 05:54

          Nothing if we're hunting them to survive. Everything if we're breeding them into existence by the millions, killing them at 10% of their lifetimes after (for most of them) treating them like shit, and only to have bacon and burgers which we don't need in any way shape or form

      • Blue Cat on 01/11/2019 - 19:20
        +1

        Canadian seal clubbing season

        Well that's something new I didn't even know existed.
        Looks exciting. Thanks!

    • crentist on 31/10/2019 - 17:39
      +48

      Is it? Is it ironic that people mostly complain about a thing when it cycles back to popular attention?

      Is it ironic that people will complain about malls filled with annoying Xmas decorations from around this time of year, and not earlier? Do you think it means that they support it in March, then change their minds every November?

      Or do you require people to complain about Xmas jingles all year round before you would take them seriously at the end of the year?

      • k-rokfm on 01/11/2019 - 10:22
        -2

        Its ironic because you say that it cycles back to popular attention, while it is still a massive industry during the other parts of the year. While people will turn their back on horse racing for 2 weeks of the year, then just ignore it for the rest. Its typical of the "what do we hate this week" internet mob mentality.

        Its also ironic because were talking about horses and I used a horse related pun

        • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 15:02
          +30

          That's not what this is. Horse racing is always crap. But at this time of year it suddenly gets celebrated as something good and people who don't know how crap it is get swept up in the hype. Which means it's a good time to point out to them that it's not something to celebrate, because it's actually crap.

          OP isn't asking people to get up in arms about the horse racing industry, just not to join the big party in it's honour.

          Your post sounds typical of the "how can we shoot this messenger" internet mob mentality that actively ignores any issue by creating some unrealistic set of hoops for people to jump through and then deciding that they lack credibility for no real reason and completely avoiding the topic.
          eg Pointing out that horse racing is bad at melbourne cup time = not caring at other times. For all you know OP does plenty the rest of the year. But it doesn't actually matter if they do or not, it's just an easy excuse to ignore the issue being brought up. You could always find another excuse if you wanted.

          It's ironic that you would accuse anyone of lacking credibility as a way to deflect from the issue. It would be much more honest of you to say that you personally don't care about this kind of thing and would rather just make snarky attacks for no particular reason and degrade the conversation just because it makes you feel good or you don't like being told what to do or whatever.

      • SlickMick on 01/11/2019 - 18:08
        -2

        Yeah, seems pretty ironic to draw attention to something that you'd prefer people didn't partake in.

        The only thing I get from this post is "oh yeah, Melbourne Cup. Maybe I should organise a sweepstake" whereas if they'd kept their trap shut there'd be 1 less purson supporting it.

        • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 18:15
          +5

          You hadn't heard of the Melbourne Cup? It tends to get a lot of attention on it's own, even without people pointing out the bad side of it.

          Crap did I just tell you about Xmas too? I guess if I hadn't mentioned it no one would ever realise it's happening.
          The irony.

    • Diji on 01/11/2019 - 14:08
      +12

      I think it's more that speaking up about it when it's in the public eye draws more attention, groups become more vocal about it, and it gets more coverage. It's not as though there aren't groups advocating for horses and against racing at other times of the year but it's not covered in the media as much.

    • vicosads on 01/11/2019 - 15:30
      -6

      yeah its people with empty meaningless lives, finding some meaning in the latest "moral" outrage trend on social media, very sad how this broken society has ruined these people so much :(

      • payton on 01/11/2019 - 15:51

        +1
        People not being happy with their own lives and seeks fulfillment trying to fix some perceived injustice in the world.
        PSA: the media/groups telling you : 'here's what you should be angry about!' have their own agenda in doing so. By getting yourself into it, you're doing their bidding.

        • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 17:39
          +10

          PSA: the media/groups telling you : 'place a bet on the melbourne cup and treat it like a special event' have their own agenda in doing so. By getting yourself into it, you're doing their bidding.

          • payton on 01/11/2019 - 19:19
            -5

            @crentist: a group people enjoying themselves and having a good time VS a group of people trespassing into farms, being a public nuisance, wasting police resources and being miserable sods their entire life

            Which one would you rather have in Australia?

            • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 19:20

              @payton:

              a group of people trespassing into farms, being a public nuisance and being miserable sod their entire life

              wtf are you talking about?

              • payton on 01/11/2019 - 19:23
                -3

                @crentist: don't worry someone will explain it to you at some point

                • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 20:01
                  +1

                  @payton: Okay so you don't actually have a point, and just brought up something unrelated to this discussion.

                  • payton on 01/11/2019 - 21:02
                    -8

                    @crentist: Hint: this thread doesn't revolve around you. You not having any idea on recent events doesn't make what i wrote 'pointless'.

                    And please, come up with something other than parroting the people you reply to.

                    • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 21:12
                      +1

                      @payton:

                      Hint: this thread doesn't revolve around you.

                      Haha okay? Is that even in response to anything? Are any of your replies?

                      Because this is 3 replies in a row that don't seem to have any point, beginning with some weird question directed at me about which hypothetical group of nobodies is cooler or something.
                      And no, randomly bringing up the actions of some protesters is not a relevant point.

                      And please, come up with something other than parroting the people you reply to.

                      lol your earlier post in this thread literally begins with "+1"
                      And it's not parroting when it's edited to ridicule your own statements. That's mockery, parody, satire, whatever.

                  • abuch47 on 02/11/2019 - 18:31
                    +3

                    @crentist: The conservative playbook

        • vindictus on 03/11/2019 - 05:59
          +3

          lol imagine caring about living things being treated like shit. (profanity) sheeple amirite

      • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 17:38
        +14

        Why is "moral" in quotes like that? Where does this assumption come from that anyone who doesn't like something that's pretty objectively unpleasant must have been tricked into pretending to have feelings?

        I find it very sad that you would call them ruined people from a broken society, when you are simply decrying others for giving half a crap about the world around them.

        • vicosads on 01/11/2019 - 19:14

          its a manufactured outrage, same thing happens every year

          • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 19:58
            +11

            @vicosads: Well that would be fitting then, since the melbourne cup is manufactured fun. For people with empty meaningless lives, finding some distraction in the latest "exciting" activity on social media.
            It just happens to be built on an industry that's been documented doing some ugly stuff.

            Except that "manufactured" implies that it's false. Which seems to somehow imply that it's unjustified. Which seems to have the intention of excusing the bad stuff that has been documented, by attacking the credibility of the people who are "outraged" (ie any level of criticism) and not addressing the validity of any of the criticism itself.

            Which, given the predictability of that type of dismissive response in any discussion of social issues, seems quite manufactured itself. Right down to the use of a stereotype like "the latest moral outrage trend". But unlike the "manufactured outrage" leveled at something like the horse racing industry, it's an apparently false response that doesn't contain any actual substance.

            So you've basically accused others of seeming fake, by seeming fake yourself. But at the same time dismissed any actual substance to their argument without adding any of your own. Essentially hollowing out any potential discussion.

            Which I guess makes sense if you've been relying on the gambling industry and others like it to tell you how to enjoy a meaningless life through distraction.

        • payton on 01/11/2019 - 19:23

          because real life isn't that black & white, good vs evil fairytale you were told at school.

          • crentist on 01/11/2019 - 20:07
            +5

            @payton: Yea which is why it doesn't make sense to dismiss something by labeling it some '"moral" outrage trend'

            Thanks for supporting my criticism of oversimplified labeling of the world

    • Oliver on 01/11/2019 - 20:45
      +11

      i'm against horse racing and dog racing. all animal racing.

      I thought baird or whoever the premier was at the time was initially brave to call for a ban on grayhound racing but then he was a complete (profanity) when he reversed his decision and actually ended up making the situation worse than before.

      ban horse racing
      ban dog racing

      • imcold on 02/11/2019 - 23:21
        -2

        I'm also against making humans run faster, jump higher and swim faster purely for entertainment.

        Ban the Olympics games and all professional sports.

        How dare you..

        • vindictus on 03/11/2019 - 06:01
          +4

          what is consent

          • imcold on 03/11/2019 - 09:22
            +4

            @vindictus: None. There are some countries that force kids to train from 4 years old so they can focus their whole childhood on the Olympic games or some parent might force their kids on other sports like tennis. They have zero say in the matter. Clearly child abuse.

            • itsme56 on 06/11/2019 - 12:10

              @imcold: We also force Children to go to school and use their minds. They have zero say in the matter. Clearly child abuse.

  • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:21
    -3

    if they saw them as anything but commodities and investments

    This is key though. Plus, are you saying people shouldn't be able to sell horses?

  • p1 ama on 31/10/2019 - 14:21
    +47

    Why would you partake in anything this vile industry offers?

    I really don't care for horse racing, never have, never will. I don't get what enjoyment there is out of seeing animals run around. I think the entire fanfare that goes around it is silly and I don't understand why we have a public holiday over it.

    However, that said, the idea that the racing industry is somehow objectively worse than every other industry is just not true. We are cruel to animals in our every day lives. We eat animals, we keep them locked up in cages, use them for testing drugs…etc. I'm not saying that any of this is right or moral, but rather, that humans have been taking advantage of animals for thousands of years.

    • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:23
      -6

      Are we really any worse than a natural predator who would run a horse till exhaustion, tear at it repeatedly till it dies from blood loss, and then eating it, possibly before it's dead?

      We might do it on a much larger scale, but to each individual horse, it only dies once.

      • outlander on 31/10/2019 - 14:59
        +35

        Much worse.

        A key factor in judgement is the matter of choice. Homo Sapiens choose to do what they do. Other species are largely living on impulse and instinct.

        • ozhunter on 31/10/2019 - 15:11
          -3

          End result is the same.

          • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 15:46
            +26

            @ozhunter: Really? How many other species breed and kill 60billion terrestrial animals and a trillion marine animals every year, even though they can survive well without them?

            • ozhunter on 31/10/2019 - 16:42
              -6

              @afoveht: That's a lot. In a few years, it sounds like we'd be overrun by them.

              If we didn't kill them, they'd all be alive? Or we don't kill them, but seclude them to certain areas so that they'd rip each other apart?

                • ozhunter on 31/10/2019 - 17:26
                  -6

                  @afoveht: Haha, good one.

                  Also noticed your silence on the second part of the comment.

                  • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 18:04
                    +21

                    @ozhunter: No, I was just so intellectually consumed by your first nugget, so very original and never heard or considered it before, that I needed a rest.

                    But to your point, the fraction of animals killed by natural predation will be lower than that of those killed within agriculture, which currently stands at about 100%. Also considering that free (undomesticated) animals make up less 20% of warm blooded biomass, the amount of deaths would automatically be that much lower.

                    • ozhunter on 31/10/2019 - 18:19
                      -6

                      @afoveht: No problem, take your time.

                      Isn't humans eating animals also predation?

                      The more animals that survive each year means there's more animals to die. Each one still only dies once.

                      • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 19:28
                        +13

                        @ozhunter: Thank you - you know I'm quite protein deficient so I need to take it easy.

                        Death and predation are natural parts of life, brutal for sure, and the weak/slow pay dearly, but ultimately provide an evolutionary service to their species as they are weeded out.

                        Breeding 60billion animals into existence each year, just to kill them, is a human invention. We intentionally breed them to be increasingly docile, creating species which are pathetically vulnerable and ready to exploit. That's not predation, that's something entirely different. We could just, you know, not do that, and live off crops. If we stopped killing and breeding them now most would be gone within a few years.

                    • ozhunter on 01/11/2019 - 13:56
                      -3

                      @afoveht: Does the amount of deaths actually matter?

                      If a million pigs are born, a million will die. They only die once each.

                      Back to the Melbourne Cup, I don't care for it. Should animals for pets/entertainment? Yes, as long it is done humanely. What is humane can vary greatly.

                      • afoveht on 01/11/2019 - 14:02
                        +6

                        @ozhunter:

                        Does the amount of deaths actually matter?

                        Would you rather a sniper indiscriminately and randomly shoots you, or that your entire family is captured and bred and killed and sold ad infinitum, or maybe that you and your family were just left alone?

                        • ozhunter on 01/11/2019 - 14:04
                          -1

                          @afoveht: Neither, I'm human.

                          Animals are animals.

                          • afoveht on 01/11/2019 - 14:08
                            +5

                            @ozhunter: Humans are animals.

                            What, apart from might, do you think gives you the right to impose on another animal, completely ignoring their interests to live, when you yourself would expect (or at least hope) such interests to be respected by others?

                            • ozhunter on 01/11/2019 - 14:12
                              -3

                              @afoveht:

                              Humans are animals.

                              I disagree.

                              What, apart from might, do you think gives you the right to impose on another animal, completely ignoring their interests to live, when you yourself would expect (or at least hope) such interests to be respected by others?

                              The fact that they are animals.

                              In your view, does the life of an ant or worm is as valuable to that of a human?

                              • afoveht on 01/11/2019 - 14:52
                                +8

                                @ozhunter:

                                Humans are animals.

                                I disagree.

                                I guess this conversation is over.

              • chrisharry53 on 01/11/2019 - 09:47
                +4

                @ozhunter: Obviously we would not be over run by animals if we didn't eat them or breed for racing, etc. Cows are artificially inseminated, etc, etc so you have dairy cows for example.

                • LlamaOfDoom on 01/11/2019 - 23:57

                  @chrisharry53: What percentage of agricultural livestock do you believe are conceived by AI?

              • Never Pay RRP on 01/11/2019 - 11:05
                +4

                @ozhunter: So we deliberately breed livestock in large quantities for the purpose of generating meat. Animals would not reproduce like that or survive in such vast numbers in nature. Hence your "overrun" comment is ridiculous.
                Fwiw I am not vegetarian

                • ozhunter on 01/11/2019 - 13:52
                  -2

                  @Never Pay RRP: @christharry53

                  @AndrewCh

                  No, I didn't seriously think we'd be overrun by animals. I think they'd kill each other first.

                  I agree with eating animals, not necessarily with the breeding practices.

        • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:12
          -1

          Do you think the horse cares?

          • outlander on 31/10/2019 - 15:14

            @HighAndDry: No. Do you?

            • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:16

              @outlander: I believe in listening to the PoV of the victim…. so if the horse doesn't care, neither do I, I guess.

              • outlander on 31/10/2019 - 15:30
                +5

                @HighAndDry: So then I suppose you don't care about what happens to babies below the age of 18 months, by that logic.
                Bit of a cruel way to live, but I doubt you're alone with that opinion.

                • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:31
                  -5

                  @outlander: No, babies below 18 months can still feel pain. And they also won't care if the pain is from an accident or deliberate.

                  My point is about choice - does the horse suffer any more because its pain is from a deliberate choice, than if the pain is from "impulse"? No.

                  • outlander on 31/10/2019 - 15:41
                    +16

                    @HighAndDry: Babies feel pain, horses feel pain. Neither can conceptualize that pain or express it in a language that is understandable by the average person in a court room. Doesn't mean its not a factor worth consideration.

                    Now, if that pain leads to some wealth that is hard to achieve otherwise, there is an argument that the sacrifice of one is justified for the good of many. But in this case, its so a bunch of drunk idiots can dress up, and be drunk idiots.

                    I think we could easily do away with the horses, and just have jockeys riding other jockeys. This would be vastly more entertaining, in my opinion

                  • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:31
                    +7

                    @HighAndDry: hahaha stupidest comment in this thread so far.

                    Mate all mammals have a nervous system, brainstem and a brain. They can all feel pain.

          • rompastompa on 31/10/2019 - 15:18
            +1

            @HighAndDry: I'd rather be eaten by a lion than being eaten by a human, if that counts.

            Unless of course it means survival of my family. Hmm.. moral dilemma.. calls for a new post?

            • kahn on 31/10/2019 - 15:42
              +1

              @rompastompa: Most ozbargainers wouldn't represent a healthy meal.

            • imcold on 03/11/2019 - 09:34

              @rompastompa: That's a bad choice, a lot of animals in the wild eat their what the catch as quickly as possible, so some other predator doesn't come along and steal their kill. This means the lion may start eating at an animal when it's still alive.

        • Melong on 03/11/2019 - 09:48

          Perceived choice…

      • p1 ama on 31/10/2019 - 16:01
        +1

        Are we really any worse than a natural predator who would run a horse till exhaustion, tear at it repeatedly till it dies from blood loss, and then eating it, possibly before it's dead?

        It's an interesting moral question, and it's really about whether the ends justify the means.

        For example, I do think that eating animals (whether it's humans doing it, or animals doing it) is somehow morally better than simply shooting animals or making them run for our own pleasure, for example, just because one is for survival and the other is for enjoyment.

        It's much in the same way that killing someone in self defence is much different from murder.

        Either way, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, just trying to raise counter-points as food for thought.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:30

        Are you a bit confused?

        Like you said animals aren't humans…? From your logic it's very different scenario comparing natural predators in the wild vs humans in modern society

    • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 14:24
      +7

      However, that said, the idea that the racing industry is somehow objectively worse than every other industry is just not true. We are cruel to animals in our every day lives. We eat animals, we keep them locked up in cages, use them for testing drugs…etc. I'm not saying that any of this is right or moral, but rather, that humans have been taking advantage of animals for thousands of years.

      Absolutely. There's something that can be done about it - like not willingly partaking in any of it. But hey, if I say any more about that I'll get accused of being militant and extreme.

      that humans have been … for thousands of years.

      Murder, rape, war, slavery - those too.

      • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:28
        +1

        You're free to buy the horse yourself and stable and feed it until it dies a natural death.

        • kahn on 31/10/2019 - 14:45
          +15

          Will that happen? Neigh.

        • manlol on 02/11/2019 - 09:00
          +12

          I guess you're secretly in favour of child homelessness because you don't adopt homeless children? Oh, what's that? People have finite resources and this is a stupid argument?

          • HighAndDry on 02/11/2019 - 16:51
            -5

            @manlol: Oh so the concept of finite resources applies to the whiners? Why does it not apply to the people they're whining about?

      • p1 ama on 31/10/2019 - 15:57
        +3

        Absolutely. There's something that can be done about it - like not willingly partaking in any of it. But hey, if I say any more about that I'll get accused of being militant and extreme.

        I agree, but my point is that horse racing (in the grand scheme of things) is a really, really small issue. If you want to make a stand for animal welfare (and I applaud you for doing so), there are many other "issues" which are much more worth your time and energy.

        The problem I have with activism is that it's almost always driven from moral outrage or anger rather than a coherent plan to get anything done or changed. That's a discussion for another day though.

        • afoveht on 31/10/2019 - 16:04
          +15

          Go through my comment history. Pick any topic (most have a common theme), choose one you think is important and I'll gladly rehash it with you and others.

          Here's a plan: everyone take personal responsibility for your actions and stop doing unnecessary shitty things to others sentient beings.

        • Diji on 01/11/2019 - 14:32
          +15

          Being a small issue, it's also a really easy one to say no to. Advocating for vegetarian/vegan diets is a big one because it impacts the very food people eat, and it's understandable that people take issue with not eating meat. It's a huge lifestyle change and the debate around it reflects as much.

          Racing is purely an entertainment/leisure activity and cutting it out of your life isn't a big deal. It's causing suffering to animals so people can have a punt and an excuse for socialites to gather (as though they need one).

          Here's a plan: ban racing, give the socialites their gathering by changing it to "Spring Carnival". Invite fashion designers, wine producers, craft breweries, whatever, to show off and peddle their goods. Tell horse breeders, trainers, and owners to take a (profanity) hike.

          Course, that won't happen because there's too much money in the ponies.

      • payton on 01/11/2019 - 15:25

        +1 internet point for you, for being civil in this thread, OP

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 23:39

      We are cruel to animals in our every day lives

      Cruelty to animal is the first and worst sign of sociopathic behaviour.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 16:12

        *animals

  • Ugly on 31/10/2019 - 14:52
    +2

    Why is horse racing "vile"? Thousands of cows, pigs, chickens and other animals are slaughtered for human consumption every day. What's the difference?
    Is it because we don't eat the horses afterwards?

    • Daabido on 31/10/2019 - 15:01
      +2

      Actually, about 137 million chickens are killed world-wide every day, according to great God Google. Also, 800,000 cattle and 4 million pigs.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 15:05
      +14

      Because we don't try to win its trust and cooperation first.

      I'm no animal activist but animals are either friend or food. Never both.

      • outlander on 31/10/2019 - 22:17
        +7

        You don't eat your friends?
        How very strange.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 22:56
          +11

          Only special friends.

        • macdaddyjordan on 01/11/2019 - 12:11

          only friends with benefits

    • Cluster on 31/10/2019 - 15:26
      +26

      Whataboutism.

      The fact that some animals are bred for, and used for food consumption does not impact the horse racing industry or justify its actions.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 12:18
      +5

      You're comparing the bare necessity of survival that's been part of the circle of life since before Earth even had any animals on land vs torturing animals for the sole purpose of leisure and sports betting.

      Not even comparable.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join