For it to be slavery, the horse would have to be sentient and capable of understanding the notion of money, time, labour and fare pay. Basically your objecting to a horse being used as a horse and fulfilling what is basicallly an adjustment of it's natural relationship to other animals. The enrgy the horse is gives is used inredturn for the care of its needs and food.

To call this slavery is extremely offensive and shows no understanding of slavery, which is the subjection of an equal to forced labour for no pay. The important distinction is a slave involves the subjection of some one who is equal and has (or potentially has) an equal understanding of the world, not a different natural function, cognitive function and understanding of the world.

If you were arguening that animals were going to mistreated in Eastbourne please use this as the title and then give details (you have given no evidence of mistreatment). Please stop playing down slavery by equating it with the use of horses drawing carriages.

slavery existed before "time money labour and fare pay" concepts you gormless human

anyways thinking like a wage slave isn't the criteria for being sentient

rather
desiring to run free and find your own grass
not being trapped and enslaved

if I force you to do what I want and give you what I consider are your basic needs, (ie just enough for you to be able to keep doing what I want) then that's slavery

whatever kind of creature you are

even if you're human

I've always wandered why show jumpers can't escape the confines of the paddock. But then I've also wandered why socialists can't escape the confines of the state.

Try releasing a horse to run free and find it's own grass in sussex and then see how long it lasts you gormless monkey!

I get what you say about wage labour and so on, but unfortunately they form the basis of the capitalist society we live in and so form a measure to fight against (and ultimately get rid of). But until we get rid of them they are still relevant when discussing things like work and slavery.

My argument that slavery can only exist between equals who have a potential for equal understanding of the world still stands. At the moment you have presented your ideas on what a horse wants and desires and your interpretation of a horses actions, not the actual horses ideas.

If you can fully understand and communicate with horses as an equal (and not just act as a human projecting your ideas of right and wrong onto a different species) please tell the horse to start posting on indymedia and argue with me.

You said "if I force you to do what I want and give you what I consider are your basic needs, (ie just enough for you to be able to keep doing what I want) then that's slavery."

It is only slavery if I have the potential to think and understand to the same standard as you. If I am a different species I would not have that potential and I would not be experiencing the same level of exploitation. It is the same way that a lion eating a wilderbeast is not being racist and not murdering by exploiting another living creature for it's food. To argue it is is simply putting human standards (based on modern human morals) on creatures that have no potential to understand or live by human standards.

Pretending that the moral standards (or lack of them) some how universally apply to all animals is forgetting what makes us human and what gives us the potential to build a better society: The fact that we can adjust, control and change our environment rather than simply reacting to it. This ability allows us to exploit others and even make people slaves. It also allows us to understand what it means to be a slave and exploited. Animals don't have this function and so don't have the ability to be made slaves, although they can be exploited. They are simply reacting to their current enviroment, they have no concept of freedom so they have no concept of being deprived of freedom.