• PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    OP I think you should relax. I get what you’re trying to do but you have to understand “Okay we’re going to ban you” as a very predictable result of the personal nature of how you’ve chosen to approach it, and repeatedly trying to send the same message to people who have indicated they want you to stop. YDI

    • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Okay we’re going to ban you

      This did not say that, read the modlogs again. The horse has also indicated they dont want to be chained up, ridden on and imprisoned.

      The lemmyworld instance is allowing disagreement on posts, So folks are allowed to make such comments.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        “Disagreement” is fine, as was your initial comment mostly. Once someone’s heard your message, and explained to you that they don’t want to hear more, that is their right to do, and you need to stop repeatedly trying to communicate further specifically to that person that same specific message. The fact that you feel they are violating some other type of right in some other context doesn’t change that.

        It’s a very different thing, saying that your general opinion is that horses shouldn’t be kept as domestic animals. That I don’t think anyone would have an issue with. It’s totally different when you are telling one specific person that they are bad, and not stopping repeating the message when asked to, or even when banned. I don’t think there is really any well-moderated forum where that’s allowed.

      • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        …Have they indicated that? We’ve only been shown a picture of a horse. That’s not enough to make that very aggressive claim.

          • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            No, I saw them. My point stands. Is there any thing to indicate the horse is unhappy about the chains, cells or rider? From the post itself, we have to assume the horse is pretty chill about their circumstances. Why do you assume otherwise?

            • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Conclusions and potential relevance: Weight and a saddle induce an overall extension of the back. This may contribute to soft tissue injuries and the KSS. The data from this study may help in understanding the reaction of the equine back to the challenges imposed by man when using the animal for riding. Source

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The policy is not currently in place. But if it were, it does specifically say a small amount and respectfully.

        If you went with

        You can’t morally justify chaining up a sentient, breathing creature for your own amusement.

        And left it at that, it would have fallen under that policy, if it were in effect. As it is, with heavy passive aggressiveness and sarcasm, well, you’re on your own.