Peterkin

Thighs and calves. Jockeys - and for that matter, point-to-point riders - don't have their seat on the saddle most of the time; they're crouching in the stirrup. The calf muscles must be sufficiently developed to support the rider's own weight for sustained periods in that awkward position, and also to raise their seat up repeatedly. The thighs are mainly used to give subtle directions. Arm strength doesn't come into play: a five-year-old child can injure a horse's mouth (indeed, beginners have to be watched closely, not to pull on the reins.) Halter reins (no mouthpiece, no metal) require better communication with the horse. In either case, brute force should never apply.

Not again, no.

All sports are physical. Men and women both have bodies, muscles, joints, ligaments, lungs and hearts. The question whether muscle/mass ratio is the decisive factor in a particular sport.

Because you have no understanding of or regard for them. Another of your assumptions?

Fine. If that's your assumption, that's your assumption. All I ask is that you stay away from horses.

FWIW - what Beecee alluded to wasn't my position.

Like as not, it's a gelding.

I mean very simply: a horse (just like a car or a man) has a maximum speed, faster than which he cannot run and a maximum height and length that she can jump,beyond which she cannot jump - even when unencumbered by bit, saddle and with rider. Try running with a gag in your mouth and a monkey on your back, see if it enhances your performance. And, no, a rider cannot reduce his or her own weight by physical effort: as previously stated, the weight limits are set by the Racing Commission; if a jockey is underweight, it's made up by lead weights. If a rider tries to force them to exceed their capacity, the horse will be injured or killed - and very possibly, the rider, as well. Skill and mental acuity are not sex-determined characteristics. Neither is depth of vision, anticipation of other rider's moves, pacing, positioning out of the gate, judgement of whether to move on the inside or outside, when to take the horse in hand, when to give him his head, how long to hold back and when to start the final sprint. If you want something more scientific than a statistical comparison of wins, go to a sport that lends itself to more objective measurement.

Okay. So leave the horses out of it; they'll only muddy up the results even more. The race is not between jockeys; it's between horses. A rider can do lots of things to a horse: bruise him with spurs, hit him with a whip, wreck his mouth, break his spirit, turn him against humans altogether - or persuade him to try his hardest - what the rider cannot do is make a horse run faster than he can run. Winning is a complicated matter, but it doesn't ultimately boil down to the jockey's physical anything: good riding is about rapport, timing, spatial acuity, understanding of the track conditions as they relate to the mount's ability and temperament - lots of unmeasurable talents and qualities. It's too complicated for scientific research: all you get are statistics, and those are already muddied up with long-standing prejudice and subjective assumptions. Horse-racing is simply the the wrong sport for assessment or comparison of human abilities.

There may be temperamental and sociological differences that don't show up in the study, because there are no scientific mertics available. Horses are alive. They're finely tuned to the emotional state of another creature, especially their partner in a contest. If you're looking for a sport where the human isn't required to provide the motive-power, race car driving would be a lot easier to test.

Sorry - I misinterpreted the question; that should read: "Yes, they would." In fact I accepted your evidence at face value and withdrew from the argument. Yes. I'm agreeing again. And apologizing again.

Even better!

It's good to have everyone's obsessions, political histories, ignorances and agendas cleared up, innit?

Strictly speaking, it's the father who is worshipped, not the son or the prophet, who are mere conduits to the Creator's Mercy.

They wouldn't. Thank you for answering for Beecee. It seems to me that either both or neither should be taken literally, not one of each - my preference would be neither.

So, nothing? OK You are familiar with the point of diminishing returns? We passed it a little while ago. So there must, somewhere, be a poster or article falsely claiming that drug prohibition doesn't work. Beecee challenged the various examples given for propaganda in favour of prohibition and won't produce a counter-example. I didn't expect him to. But I also didn't expect Covid protests to be enlisted in favour of drug laws. It's a surprising ol' world.

How will that prove your claim? Sure. No problem. Now that you do understand, just bring proof - it doesn't have to be an air-tight case; just any little bit of evidence that anyone ever did

No need. I asked for one single example of false propaganda to turn people against prohibitions: I'd like to see proof that this happened. I asked for one single example of a fabricated propaganda campaign against prohibition. Going back around to the enumerate laws you approve of is not the answer.

I had the impression dimreepr did not intend that exaggeration to be taken literally, but rather as an ad absurdum argument in response to Beecee.

I already told you this: Budgies and parrots often like to have a mirror in their cage - they do seem to understand that it's their own reflection, because they'll posture at it - what seems like the equivalent of a small child pulling faces. Why? They won't know until they study science in school. How would a child's understanding of mirrors - which varies by age and experience of child; don't try in on the Rumanian orphans! - shed any light on consciousness? Which animal? How do you it's recognizing itself? Kittens usually think it's another cat and either threaten it or try to play with it. They sidle up close to the reflection, go around and try to look behind the mirror (because house-cats are familiar with windows) After about six months of age, most cats, introduced to a mirror for the first time take a cursory look, front and back, and then ignore the reflection: it's nothing to do with them. Dogs generally take no interest after the first sniff: it's nothing to do with them. Neither cats nor dogs are as vision-dominant as we are; birds are much more so. Mirrors may be utterly mesmerizing to you and other humans, but they're not much use to animals. Pyramid construction? Calling instinct instinct takes nothing away from the awareness or deliberate thought processes of anybody. Human have consciousness, awareness, instincts and cognition - as do most other animals. Instinct and reasoning have their separate functions in different kinds of life.

No, but the perceived 'social necessity' of alcohol sure makes it harder for alcoholics to recover.

It isn't always. Allowances are usually made - by the courts, by parents ^^^ and by many people who don't get quite so high on their own moral outrage - for the very young, the physically and psychologically damaged, the weak and the desperate.

That would assume that every drug addict became one through his own her own free, informed, uncoerced adult choice.

Isolated bits of evidence will do. One single

I'd like to see proof that this happened.