Danny, the definition of indignant is "feeling or showing anger that was caused by something unjust". Yet, twice you call me indignant as though that undermines my point of view. Worse, the only emotion I expressed, in my last sentence, was disgust and not anger. My use of the word ignorant was not an expression of anger either, it was a measurement of lack of understanding. If the posters I was referring to knew the facts(which I attempted to analyse in my first paragraph) or had thought about it more before posting, they would not have cheered; thus, they cheered out of ignorance. That's a fact that is either right or wrong, but even if it's wrong it doesn't mean I'm acting out of anger.
"You enjoy getting outraged at people, i can tell." I express no outrage. In fact, I think my post is rather calm, rational, and to the point. Your statement to the contrary is hyperbole and unfounded speculation.
Also, I never said I think the girl did nothing, I said there is no evidence of wrong doing. A lack of evidence may imply a lack of wrong doing, but even if we are completely unsure of whether or not the girl was in the wrong, everything in my post would still stand--it would still be completely wrong to cheer at her potentially getting seriously injured.
"Her hit ... really didn't need to be so hard." How do you know it was that hard? The video starts with her hand practically already on the horse. The muscle shaking you see in the horse could easily be caused by the horse itself; they twitch their own muscles to shake flies off.
"I'd be pretty annoyed if someone hit me like that to get a fly on my back" Perhaps you misunderstand when I say "fly"--I'm talking about horse flies. They are large, they live off blood like mosquitoes, and their bites can feel more like a bee sting than a mosquito bite.
"Her push was directly onto the horse's neck which as we all know is a very sensitive area... " Hardly. First, while it's not exactly clear in the video, it looks more like she's pushing on the front of the right shoulder, not the neck. Second, a horse's neck is very muscular; a small girl pushing on it will not bother the horse. In fact, pushing back on the neck/chest is a common thing do when trying to back a horse up, into a trailer for instance. Everything you see the girl doing is absolutely typical of horse ownership. People will also use a horse's mane as a handle in the absence of a saddle and reins; horses are rather robust creatures.
"...over compensated with your prissy ... outburst..." I don't think any of those words accurately describe my post.
I think my post was calm and concise, yet you accuse me of acting emotionally and in error. In the course of articulating your accusation, you employ baseless speculation, exaggeration, and name calling. I think maybe you have things backwards.
edit: removed a superfluous "not have" in the first paragraph.
There's no evidence in this video that the girl did anything wrong. At the very start of the video it looks like she's slapping a fly on the horse--people with horses do that. Then it looks like she's trying to get the horse to back up--also something that people with horses occasionally want them to do. Just because an animal attacks a person doesn't mean the person did anything wrong; horses in particular can be moody and some of them just like to bite. Biting her like it did, the horse could have caused serious injury to her neck or head.
Last time I checked, life was not a sporting event, and the concerns of humans outweighed the concerns of animals. Cheering when an animal mauls a human(a child in this case even!) is ignorant and disgusting.
pedantic...meaning by the book. Yea try to pass a physics course with your fuzzy logic bullshit. By the book is how we roll...just pray the person who designed the plane or car you're in did the same
My description of the anvil's behavior is physically and mathematically sound. In fact, using vector math to break velocities and forces into multiple components is exactly what they teach you in any introductory physics course. Which I did pass, with an A, easily, incidentally.
If we have two horses, A and B, in a race, where A is faster but currently behind B, A will eventually pass B and when it does we could say A "overcame" B. Or, if we have two piles of sand, one of a fixed size and the other constantly increasing in size but currently smaller than the first, when it eventually becomes the larger of the two we could say it "overcame" the first pile.
Gravity imparts an acceleration on the anvil. Acceleration summed over time gives a velocity. We could break the anvil's velocity into a pair of components such as initial velocity vs velocity changes during the evolution of the system, or put more simply as gunpowder vs gravity. As time moves forward, the velocity under the gunpowder column is constant, but the velocity under the gravity column is steadily adding up. When the gravity and gunpowder components of the velocity are equal, the anvil has stopped moving. When the gravity component is greater, the anvil has switched directions. To say gravity "overcame" it seems adequately accurate for casual conversation and, in fact, more descriptive than you would expect from most people in casual conversation. My impression when I heard him say that was that he was actually familiar when the relevant equations.
Don't Be A Jerk To Horses
"You enjoy getting outraged at people, i can tell."
I express no outrage. In fact, I think my post is rather calm, rational, and to the point. Your statement to the contrary is hyperbole and unfounded speculation.
Also, I never said I think the girl did nothing, I said there is no evidence of wrong doing. A lack of evidence may imply a lack of wrong doing, but even if we are completely unsure of whether or not the girl was in the wrong, everything in my post would still stand--it would still be completely wrong to cheer at her potentially getting seriously injured.
"Her hit ... really didn't need to be so hard."
How do you know it was that hard? The video starts with her hand practically already on the horse. The muscle shaking you see in the horse could easily be caused by the horse itself; they twitch their own muscles to shake flies off.
"I'd be pretty annoyed if someone hit me like that to get a fly on my back"
Perhaps you misunderstand when I say "fly"--I'm talking about horse flies. They are large, they live off blood like mosquitoes, and their bites can feel more like a bee sting than a mosquito bite.
"Her push was directly onto the horse's neck which as we all know is a very sensitive area... "
Hardly. First, while it's not exactly clear in the video, it looks more like she's pushing on the front of the right shoulder, not the neck. Second, a horse's neck is very muscular; a small girl pushing on it will not bother the horse. In fact, pushing back on the neck/chest is a common thing do when trying to back a horse up, into a trailer for instance. Everything you see the girl doing is absolutely typical of horse ownership. People will also use a horse's mane as a handle in the absence of a saddle and reins; horses are rather robust creatures.
"...over compensated with your prissy ... outburst..."
I don't think any of those words accurately describe my post.
I think my post was calm and concise, yet you accuse me of acting emotionally and in error. In the course of articulating your accusation, you employ baseless speculation, exaggeration, and name calling. I think maybe you have things backwards.
edit: removed a superfluous "not have" in the first paragraph.
Don't Be A Jerk To Horses
Last time I checked, life was not a sporting event, and the concerns of humans outweighed the concerns of animals. Cheering when an animal mauls a human(a child in this case even!) is ignorant and disgusting.
Launching an anvil 200ft in the air with black powder
pedantic...meaning by the book. Yea try to pass a physics course with your fuzzy logic bullshit. By the book is how we roll...just pray the person who designed the plane or car you're in did the same
My description of the anvil's behavior is physically and mathematically sound. In fact, using vector math to break velocities and forces into multiple components is exactly what they teach you in any introductory physics course. Which I did pass, with an A, easily, incidentally.
Launching an anvil 200ft in the air with black powder
If we have two horses, A and B, in a race, where A is faster but currently behind B, A will eventually pass B and when it does we could say A "overcame" B. Or, if we have two piles of sand, one of a fixed size and the other constantly increasing in size but currently smaller than the first, when it eventually becomes the larger of the two we could say it "overcame" the first pile.
Gravity imparts an acceleration on the anvil. Acceleration summed over time gives a velocity. We could break the anvil's velocity into a pair of components such as initial velocity vs velocity changes during the evolution of the system, or put more simply as gunpowder vs gravity. As time moves forward, the velocity under the gunpowder column is constant, but the velocity under the gravity column is steadily adding up. When the gravity and gunpowder components of the velocity are equal, the anvil has stopped moving. When the gravity component is greater, the anvil has switched directions. To say gravity "overcame" it seems adequately accurate for casual conversation and, in fact, more descriptive than you would expect from most people in casual conversation. My impression when I heard him say that was that he was actually familiar when the relevant equations.