No, you do not 'love' your horse if...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wagtail said:
I find it demeans the word 'love' to use it flippantly and thought that it would be interesting to hear others' views on the matter.
Click to expand...
Okay, that is your view. It's clear other people's views differ to a greater or lesser extent. That doesn't make them right and you wrong, or you right and them wrong - because there is no right and wrong (nor a consensus view of it) when it comes to what love actually means - how could there be?

I think perhaps the title could have been worded differently, and maybe it would have sounded less contentious, but it was posted off the cuff.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, it could have been less accusatory - and hence less potentially upsetting / wounding / infuriating.

Can you see why some people might believe you posted to upset and infuriate?

(I personally am not upset.)
 
FlyingCircus said:
I would rather people put their unrideable horses to sleep instead of giving them away/selling them. This is if they have no job (eg, can't be broodmare because hereditary issue, not good enough breeding/ a hard keeper that couldn't be an easy companion).

I feel like if you really loved a horse, you'd keep it even if it was unrideable, to atleast give it SOME level of retirement. (ETA: By this, I mean atleast a summer or two. Not just instant PTS of field sound and happy horse just because it served its purpose).

Merlod said:
I’m not sure people are getting the point, of this, there seem to be two extremes that nobody seems to be seeing past, I think this post was aimed at the first extreme;

1)People who put their horse down as soon as it’s riding career is over, even if it would be field sound and happy retired (and say things like he wouldn’t be happy living out at grass/retired.. um I don't count this as "love" stop pretending you are pts for your horses well-being and just admit it's for you own reasons)

2)People who keep their horses going even when it’s past their time and they are struggling with life (because they “love” them too much and just let the horse suffer on even when it can't get up anymore etc)

And then there are the “normal” varieties of these;

1)People who PTS because their horse is struggling or they can’t afford to keep it and they don’t want it passed from pillar to post.

2)People who retire their horses because they ARE field sound and still understand the horse will be PTS when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Wagtail said:
Exactly. Put much more clearly than I did.
Click to expand...

And there are those who might say that OP falls, or has done in the past, into the 2nd extreme. I am sure she would have been extremely upset if HHO members had criticised her choices on here at the time, rather than keeping their thoughts to themselves. Perhaps she should do others the same courtesy.

It does seem rather strange that OP can profess to 'love' horses regardless of their capabilities, even though she has in the past posted that should her OH change his appearance, especially by putting on weight, she would no longer feel the same about him.

There is a saying which I did not know until I read it on here but which I 'love' :D " Not my circus, not my monkeys ". Pretty apt in this case, I think!,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pearlsasinger said:
It does seem rather strange that OP can profess to 'love' horses regardless of their capabilities, even though she has in the past posted that should her OH change his appearance, especially by putting on weight, she would no longer feel the same about him.
Click to expand...

I remember her writing the exact opposite. That he has put on a lot of weight and that she still loves him. Is my memory faulty, or yours? Can you substantiate what you've written about Wagtail here PaS?
 
fburton said:
Okay, that is your view. It's clear other people's views differ to a greater or lesser extent. That doesn't make them right and you wrong, or you right and them wrong - because there is no right and wrong (nor a consensus view of it) when it comes to what love actually means - how could there be?


Well, yes, it could have been less accusatory - and hence less potentially upsetting / wounding / infuriating.

Can you see why some people might believe you posted to upset and infuriate?

(I personally am not upset.)
Click to expand...

I should hope that you're not upset.

I'm not sure why people get so upset when it doesn't even relate to what they do. It's like if I said people shouldn't say they love their dogs if they then decide they want a new puppy so have the old one PTS. If it doesn't apply to them, why be upset? I could see how it would upset someone who knew I was speaking the truth though.

If you count up the posts though, there are actually getting on for half the contributors who agree with me. I know that many others agree too but are afraid of posting. It is just that the people who like to jump on my threads on a regular basis and purposely misconstrue them in order to have a personal dig have posted tens of times each.
 
Last edited:
Wagtail said:
I'm not sure why people get so upset when it doesn't even relate to what they do. It's like if I said people shouldn't say they love their dogs if they then decide they want a new puppy so have the old one PTS. If it doesn't apply to them, why be upset? I could see how it would upset someone who knew I was speaking the truth though.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean you intended for some people to be upset - to rub their noses in the truth, so to speak, does it? I'm still unclear what you hoped to achieve by posting.

If you count up the posts though, there are actually getting on for half the contributors who agree with me. I know that many others agree too but are afraid of posting.
Click to expand...
If you are trying to gauge opinion, I guess you could have posed the question in a yes/no/it depends poll. (And still could!)
 
fburton said:
That doesn't mean you intended for some people to be upset - to rub their noses in the truth, so to speak, does it? I'm still unclear what you hoped to achieve by posting.


If you are trying to gauge opinion, I guess you could have posed the question in a yes/no/it depends poll. (And still could!)
Click to expand...

I am too unclear what you hope to achieve by these questions, fburton? Could you explain?
 
Wagtail said:
I am too unclear what you hope to achieve by these questions, fburton? Could you explain?
Click to expand...
I would like both to understand the motivation behind what seems to me to be an oddly loaded (agenda laden?) question, and to encourage you to lay your cards on the table so that everyone can see where you are coming from - something there may well be misunderstanding about, given the responses so far.
 
Wagtail said:
I am too unclear what you hope to achieve by these questions, fburton? Could you explain?
Click to expand...

I also queried the reason for your original post Wagtail, I am genuinely unclear what you were trying to achieve. I assumed you were not deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of people struggling with difficult decisions by making them feel judged and inferior, but I still don't understand why you did post it, particularly in the way you did. Sometimes people post wanting help or advice or reassurance or validation, or to get something off their chest, or because they're happy and want to share, or something humorous out of idle curiosity, but I can't figure this one out.
 
I do feel like I have had every question about affordability ignored wagtail :p

I love the afraid of posting argument too :D.

I haven't misconstrued anything which is why I took the time to quote your original post back to you because you seem to have spent most of the thread moving the goalposts somewhat.

It doesn't have apply to people to upset them, or to think that you are out of line and way off the mark deciding what you think love means and saying others can't possibly be feeling it.
 
Wagtail said:
It was sparked by something someone said on here and I didn't want to single them out. It got me thinking about how I would have loved the opportunity to keep my old mare, my horse of a lifetime until her thirties but it was not to be; I was forced to make the decision to PTS. But if she had been happy and healthy then despite not being able to ride her, I would have wanted to keep her in comfortable retirement because I loved her dearly. I find it demeans the word 'love' to use it flippantly and thought that it would be interesting to hear others' views on the matter. I think perhaps the title could have been worded differently, and maybe it would have sounded less contentious, but it was posted off the cuff.

I guess what I was getting at was that IMO some people are deceiving themselves and/or others by saying they love their horses if they view them as so disposable. I think there is a general protectiveness going on in the horse world which makes it taboo to dare to criticize that type of view which is not present regarding other domestic animals such as dogs and this is an interesting point of discussion I think. Maybe if views could change so that horses became less disposable then fewer would be bred and go through the hardships that many endure.
Click to expand...

I suspect it was my post, on the affordability thread - but of course, if you singled it out - or even better, quoted it - that would make it clear that my reasons are those of affordability. So the whole thread has been triggered by a wilful misrepresentation.

Having started this thread and deliberately misrepresented the original post in order to make a hurtful and ridiculously theoretical argument, please have the courtesy to explain exactly where on the "skint" scale we need to be before you consider PTS acceptable. You have been asked to do so several times, have made it clear that "financial circumstances" make it okay, but have continued to insist that some owners who do make that decision for those reasons are in the wrong. Please explain your reasoning.
 
That was where I assumed it had come from hence my queries why financial reasons suddenly seemed to become fine halfway through the thread :p
 
ester said:
I love the afraid of posting argument too :D.
Click to expand...



Why is this funny, Ester? I've deleted three drafts of posts on this thread since it started because I am afraid of being misinterpreted. There has been a lot of misinterpretation going on.
 
So we are button pushing now? Seriously the button should have been pushed on wagtail a long time ago on this thread, button pushing for f E c K I N g I've heard it all now.

The goal posts are changing with every single additional post and then swap again once you get a post of support. Nobody has the right to say what love means to another, I get stick a lot because I refuse to medicate and if my horse was diagnosed with a long term condition needing medication then I wouldn't do it. Had my horse 15years through thick and thin and I don't think one person who has met me wouldn't say I didn't love my horse.
 
Theocat said:
have continued to insist that some owners who do make that decision for those reasons are in the wrong. Please explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. At no time has Wagtail said that anyone is in the wrong to put a horse down for any reason whatsoever. She has said exactly the reverse, several times.
 
ycbm said:
My point exactly. At no point has Wagtail said that anyone is in the wrong to put a horse down for any reason whatsoever. She has said exactly the reverse, several times.
Click to expand...

I think you need to look at this again. She has said that the person doing it doesn't love the horse, so by that she is implying that it's wrong is she not?
 
Because wagtail is one to bring it out fairly regularly on her contraversial threads, I'm surprised she hasn't said she has had PMs from them. It just amuses me a bit that there is some secret HHO massive that would agree with her, for certain, they just haven't posted. It is very presumptive! But then I guess presumptive is the name of the game here anyway.
I must be the worlds worst worrier for being misinterpreted as it happens a lot in my life, I think we can safely say it doesn't stop me posting :)
 
ycbm said:
My point exactly. At no time has Wagtail said that anyone is in the wrong to put a horse down for any reason whatsoever. She has said exactly the reverse, several times.
Click to expand...

that's because she seems to be backtracking on her original post which said
If you really love your horse for itself, as a living, breathing being, then you would keep the horse in retirement, end of.
Click to expand...
and now it seems to be that it isn't as clear cut and end of as she first stated and now if you can't afford it it's fine as well as if the horse is broken. And actually it might only be the case if you replace it immediately with a rideable one? Which is not what was stated at the start. So wagtail has either changed her mind or didn't write what she meant to in the first instance.
 
Black Beastie said:
I think you need to look at this again. She has said that the person doing it doesn't love the horse, so by that she is implying that it's wrong is she not?
Click to expand...

No, she is not. She is not saying it is right or wrong not to love the horse. She is specially saying over and over again that it is not wrong to put a horse down for any reason at all.

The ONLY thing she is saying is that if you can afford to keep a horse retired, and that horse would be happy and healthy retired, then you can't love the horse if you choose instead to have it killed.

Now, I actually agree with that, very limited, point. And I agree because I have had only one horse in my life to whom I would have given a retirement in those circumstances. I freely accept that I simply did not love the others enough, or value the sanctity of life for life itself enough, to retire them.

Discuss that if you wish, but I see no point in continuing to discuss how awful it is to say things which were never said.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
My point exactly. At no time has Wagtail said that anyone is in the wrong to put a horse down for any reason whatsoever. She has said exactly the reverse, several times.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but Wagtail has said that people cannot have loved (or still be loving) their horse if they had it pts because it could no longer be ridden (the phrase "as soon as" is a bit loaded). For some definitions of 'love' this is undoubtedly true. (One could even make "not pts because it could no longer be ridden" part of the definition.) However, I would question whether it can be applied to all definitions of love, and imagine at least the possibility of people being hurt by the suggestion that they didn't love their horse, even if that love would be considered to be somehow inferior by the majority of other people.
 
ycbm said:
No, she is not. She is not saying it is right or wrong not to love the horse. She is specially saying over and over again that it is not wrong to put a horse down for any reason at all.

The ONLY thing she is saying is that if you can afford to keep a horse retired, and that horse would be happy and healthy retired, then you can't love the horse if you choose instead to have it killed.

Now, I actually agree with that, very limited, point. And I agree because I have had only one horse in my life to whom I would have given a retirement in those circumstances. I freely accept that I simply did not love the others enough, or value the sanctity of life for life itself enough, to retire them.

Discuss that if you wish, but I see no point in continuing to discuss how awful it is to say things which were never said.
Click to expand...


She is saying you don't love a horse if you PTS just because you can't ride it which is bull crap, in her original post which has been quoted above, she stated the complete opposite to what she is now posting and what you are now saying.

It's the wriggling around on the self made hook which is the aggravating thing. You stated something so go ahead and own it don't then back out and twist when you find the vast majority don't agree with you. I'm not a popular poster due to the fact that I don't agree with people a lot but I bleeding well own and stand by what I post even when being slated.
 
ycbm said:
I see no point in continuing to discuss how awful it is to say things which were never said.
Click to expand...

The WHOLE THREAD is discussing how awful something is which was never said!

I am taking this personally because it is based on a comment by me, and Wagtail has subsequently taken it upon herself to tell the world that I do not love my horse - in exactly those words. Not only is she wrong about that, but she has misrepresented what I originally said to make her point. Very, very hurtful.
 
ycbm said:
Why is this funny, Ester? I've deleted three drafts of posts on this thread since it started because I am afraid of being misinterpreted. There has been a lot of misinterpretation going on.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can misinterpret the title of the thread .
It's very clear it's not an invitation to discuss the subject to explore it if you like its a clear statement of fact as Wagtail sees it .
 
Am left open mouthed by all this - particularly by the original post which shows a complete lack of empathy.

I love the very bones of my horse but I am not sure how he would take to retirement. If he did not, then it would be the fact that I love him and don't want him ever to return to the stressed, depressed creature he once was that I would PTS. I have known a number of horses over the last 35 years who did not thrive once they couldn't get out and about. My horse's current fieldmate, however, would love to retire when the time comes.

Now I'm joining Illusion100 and bowing out.
 
Goldenstar said:
I don't think you can misinterpret the title of the thread .
It's very clear it's not an invitation to discuss the subject to explore it if you like its a clear statement of fact as Wagtail sees it .
Click to expand...

quite, particularly with the 'end of' statement, that was hardly an invitation that the topic was up for discussion was it. Sorry to hear about your chap GS.
 
ycbm said:
No, she is not. She is not saying it is right or wrong not to love the horse. She is specially saying over and over again that it is not wrong to put a horse down for any reason at all.

The ONLY thing she is saying is that if you can afford to keep a horse retired, and that horse would be happy and healthy retired, then you can't love the horse if you choose instead to have it killed.

Now, I actually agree with that, very limited, point. And I agree because I have had only one horse in my life to whom I would have given a retirement in those circumstances. I freely accept that I simply did not love the others enough, or value the sanctity of life for life itself enough, to retire them.

Discuss that if you wish, but I see no point in continuing to discuss how awful it is to say things which were never said.
Click to expand...

Thank you, YCBM. I have indeed said over and over that I do not think it is wrong to put a horse down for any reason so long as it is treated kindly. I also said it does not make you a bad owner if you do.
 
Wagtail said:
Thank you, YCBM. I have indeed said over and over that I do not think it is wrong to put a horse down for any reason so long as it is treated kindly. I also said it does not make you a bad owner if you do.
Click to expand...

We all get that .
it's not what the threads about .
The threads about your judgement of when others love or don't love horses .
 
Theocat said:
The WHOLE THREAD is discussing how awful something is which was never said!

I am taking this personally because it is based on a comment by me, and Wagtail has subsequently taken it upon herself to tell the world that I do not love my horse - in exactly those words. Not only is she wrong about that, but she has misrepresented what I originally said to make her point. Very, very hurtful.
Click to expand...

If you never said it, then the thread cannot, by definition, be about you unless it names you. The only person who has named you is you.
 
Report me all you want, Wagtail, I stand by what I said. I find your behaviour and attitude completely appalling, there are very few people generally who will arrange to have a horse PTS because it is no longer useful and I would be surprised if they profess to love their horse. All this thread has achieved is to upset a lot of people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top