• count_dongulus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    217
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    750 a year? Wtf is this removed smoking. Cost for land, hay storage, water, vet, and farrier. Human time cost to feed them twice a day, get rid of or spread the shit. Blanket, saddle, bridle. You’re looking at a few thousand a year minus the time sink.

      • xploit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 days ago

        Interesting, I recall a colleague in UK mention that it was costing her up to 20k a year. That was her max but not always/everywhere - would have been almost 30k USD at the time, so it sounds considerably cheaper in US but obviously a lot more land available and affordable

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 days ago

          I also had a colleague in the UK casually talking in the break room if she should buy a house or a horse because they were comparatively expensive.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        That link about car cost is from 2021, pretty sure inflation had a significant impact on that in the last few years too, not to mention car companies getting rid of lower end options for a while now.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        cost of owning a car is between 3k and 9k yearly

        Maybe if you drive a fancy new car, but an older, reliable car can be much cheaper. For example, I drive a Toyota Prius that I’ve had for 10 years, and I paid $10k for it (approximately, and cash, so no financing). I’ve driven about 100k miles, spent about $3k on repairs, and have spent about $500/year on insurance. So an estimate for total costs is:

        • gas - $7.8k (~45mpg @ $3.5/gallon)
        • insurance - $5k
        • repairs - $3k
        • depreciation - $7k (assuming $3k value if I sold)
        • taxes and fees - $2k (~$100/year registration + emissions cost)
        • regular maintenance - $500? (I change my own oil, so $20/oil change every 5k miles, plus spark plugs, headlights, etc)
        • tires - $1200 (changed them twice for ~$500-600 each time)

        Total cost over 10 years is $27000, or about $2.7k/year.

        So that $3k/year low end figure is actually a little high for me, and I ended up rounding most of these things up. I’m guessing a cheap EV could come out even cheaper.

        So if you’re cheap like me when it comes to cars, owning a horse could be about 10x the cost of a car.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      Almost all of those problems are solved by your local park.

      Vet costs can be reduced by the skillfull application of healing stones.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yep. Once upon a time, you had to be very wealthy to own a car.

      Now it’s horses.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        Cars are still the most significant expense in most people’s lives after shelter and certainly the most significant in terms of cost per actual time used.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 days ago

          I’d say food is a bigger expense for many, depending on how much they drive and whether they’re paying the car off.

          If you include all groceries, so pet food, toiletries etc, I’d spend more on groceries than my car most years.

          • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            Logically, any intelligent person who has money problems would have bought a cheaper, used car for probably under $5,000 (though how much under depends on area). The monthly payments for that would be minimal or non-existent. You’d still have to pay for gas and insurance, but those would be relatively small costs comparatively.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            Exactly.

            I bought my current used car w/ cash, and it cost $10k. Gas in the first year would be something like $800 (45mpg, 10k miles, $3.50/gal for gas), and insurance would add another $500 or so. Let’s add $1-2k for sales tax, registration, and maybe some random things that need fixing, and round up, so we’re at $14k or so, or $1166/month.

            I’m married w/ kids, and the USDA says I should be spending a little over $1k/month on food. So even in the first year of owning a car, I’d still probably spend more on food than the car. If I was single, divide that by about 3, so the car would be cheaper than food after 3-4 years.

            There’s no way a car is more expensive than food for the average person, assuming a reasonable car and reasonable food consumption.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Playing Red Dead Redemption makes me think that at one point they weren’t that expensive if you lived in a very rural area.

          • Feeding them probably wasn’t too expensive if you had a place they could just graze. Even if you didn’t own a farm, there were probably still wild / common areas where animals could graze.
          • Shoeing / vet care probably wasn’t as expensive when horses were the main means of transportation, so vets and smiths were everywhere
          • In a rural area, you probably already had a barn / stable / shack that you could use to provide the horse with shelter, so it didn’t need its own additional building. If you did need to build a structure, land was cheap and so it was only the cost of labor you had to worry about.
          • Cleaning out the horse poop was a chore, but it could be used as fertilizer, so it wasn’t just something you had to dispose of
          • You’d still need saddles, stirrups, reins, etc. But, that was made from leather and metal and would probably last decades with some basic maintenance
          • Since horses were, ahem, workhorses, not race horses or display horses, they were probably bred to be sturdier and not as prone to requiring medicine or frequent vet trips

          It was probably similar to cars today, where some people had expensive, fancy horses that they spent lots of money on, and other people had old clunkers that they got cheap and then rode until they died.

          I get the impression that when people today talk about hoses being expensive, a lot of that expense is due to them living in a city. My guess is that if you already live on a working farm, adding one horse is not going to massively increase your expenses.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          Eh, it probably wasn’t bad back when everyone had them. If you were a farmer, you already had pasture for your horses to graze on, and you could trade some food w/ the local vet for medical bills. Also, since you probably needed multiple, you probably bred them with your neighbors, making replacement cost really low.

          • XTL@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            That sounds like a huge cost, though less money is used to abstract it.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Indeed. This was obviously written by an anon who knows nothing about horses.

      And that’s an optimistic estimate you’re giving. It assumes that your horse doesn’t have any issues that need tending to if you’re not a complete asshole or animal abuser.

      • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Even completely throwing morality out the window, just keeping a horse in functional condition so that it can be ridden to places would still require quite a bit more than that.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Zero emissions? I know people find it ha ha funny, but farts legitimately contain methane and other green house gassses.

    Cows for example are a large contributor of GHG

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      plus if we had as many horses as we did cars we would be living in a horse shit apocalypse.

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 days ago
      1. If you think a horse has the environmental impact of an automobile, I have a bridge to sell you

      2. Horses aren’t cows

        • Godric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 days ago

          I, uh, errr, uhhhhh…

          Motions vaguely at the four-legged animals

          They’re just different, trust me, okay???

          • AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 days ago

            I dunno, I’ll have to do my own research on this one, my third cousin’s dog walkers nephew’s barber said he read a tweet declaring they were actually the same animal, just one ate more as a youth and has an accent due to the weight.

      • Mercuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 days ago

        I mean you’re not wrong but no matter how small an impact it’s still not ZERO emissions, so the guy you’re replying to is technically correct.

        • Godric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          10 days ago

          Ah yes, good ole technically correct, the weakest and most schlubby shade of correct, whatever would we do without it?

          • Mercuri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Actually, it’s the best kind of correct. But hey, don’t let all that butt hurt bother you. I hear there’s a cream for that.

            I love that I agreed with you and you STILL felt aggrieved, lol.

            • Godric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 days ago

              Jokes on you, clown, I’m never butt-hurt, only butt-turned-on!

              Disdaining the “technically correct” pedants is freeing, try it sometime, you might like it ;)

      • Anivia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        Look at how much calories a horse needs per day, and then look at how much CO2 gets emitted to produce said food. Even the amount of CO2 a horse exhales per day is already significant.

    • 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      This is complete bs.

      Tldr: cows in sheds eating corn is the problem, cows eating natural grass actually sequester more carbon than an empty field.

      Long answer: Photosynthesis can only get carbon from the atmosphere. This carbon is then turned into plant material in grass. This grass is then eaten by the cow. A small portion of this grass will be converted into methane and other byproducts in the cow’s digestive tracks. Some will be turned to energy for the cow and a vast majority will be shit out as raw unprocessed material. This raw unprocessed material, i.e. cow shit, this will last in the environment sequestering more carbon for longer time than just grass sitting there by itself. A grazed paddock will grow more grass than a non-grazed paddock because the cows are eating the fucking grass. i.e. more carbon from the environment is getting sequestered in the grass and the cow shit.

      The only reason that cows get such a bad wrap is that variouse other factors are being counted that really shouldnt be under cows. Deforestation to grow plants to feed livestock, the transportation of meat, livestock feed etc etc.

      A properly managed grass fed beef (like what we have here in australia) actually has a net negative effect on ghg. The factory farmed beef eating corn in a shed thats never seen a blade of grass is whats actually causing the ghg seen in the reports.

      We have already seen this narrarive been used to strongarm small farmers grazing cattle while the multinational farms get away with fucking the environment cos they can afford the cost of beurocracy.

      We are all just 3 warm meals away from anarchy thats something we should do well to remember.

      Ps. Its not “cow flatulence” its “enteric fermentation” (burps) cow farts just makes a better headline.

      Edit: formatting

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 days ago

        I think you should’ve put TL;DR in the beginning, otherwise it looked like you’re arguing cows don’t fart, when you were actually about net effect.

        I never thought about it from this side, but it makes sense, and seems like another way big corporations fuck the world up.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        I can’t believe my eyes, someone that isn’t spouting the usual bullshit about cows and GHG on Lemmy.

        I’ll be gobsmacked.

  • SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    10 days ago

    Horses can’t be beat in the post-apocalypse for speed, but for most other things you probably want a donkey or mule. Far sturdier, easier to handle, can eat anything, and has no regard for wolves.

    • Deme@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      As long as there’s roads or smooth paths left, an ordinary person can do 200 km in a day on a bicycle. A quick search tells me that specifically trained horses can do 160 km in an endurance race. Sure a horse would probably be the fastest in a sprint, but a bicycle has the best travel speed.

      • SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        All roads are gonna be blocked by defunct cars. If we’re more than 5-10 years into the post-apocalypse, the roads are gonna be a series of craters. Still, a mountain bike will beat a horse in terms of utility. I wonder how the two compare in terms of repair-ability.

        • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 days ago

          Horses self-replicate, which bicycles can’t do. Except maybe in the Netherlands, I think they do breed over there.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          Bikes are pretty simple machines. Even if it rides like shit you can keep it rolling with duct tape, a hammer, and spit. Horses are brittle. Injuries that other animals walk off are a death sentence to them, and even with lesser injuries, it takes time to heal

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          I wonder how the two compare in terms of repair-ability.

          So long as you have at least two, horses conveniently produce additional horses which makes repair-ability less of an issue. You simply eat the broken horse, if possible.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Honestly, as long as you have enough horses, you don’t need to wait for them to break in order to eat them, use them for a few years and upgrade to a newer model.

        • Deme@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          There’s a lot more roads than there are cars to fill them and the good thing about bikes is that if you can get past an obstacle on foot, you can carry your bike while doing so. Even if the major highways get blocked by the occasional massive pileup that you can’t climb over while carrying your bike, you can always take the smaller road. And where would all the craters come from? How many artillery batteries and mortar companies do you expect to see in the post-apocalypse?

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            How many artillery batteries and mortar companies do you expect to see in the post-apocalypse?

            Surely they would have had their fill at the start of the apocalypse, no?

            • Deme@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 days ago

              Eh, depends on if we go out with a bang or a whimper. I’m betting it’s going to be the latter.

              If not, then it’s likely that nukes put a stop to the artilleryfest before it has a chance to really get going. And my point about there being a lot of roads in the world still stands. No military would start to target roads in any meaningful scale when they’re going to save their precious shells for the enemy.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                Right, but where are the enemy likely to be? Along major roads and highways. Armies need to move their military equipment somehow, so that’s where you’re likely to see the bombs being used the most. That, and in cities to control the movements of your enemy. I doubt we’d jump straight to nukes, it’s more likely going to be a slog fest with traditional weapons until one of the sides gets desperate (e.g. Russia v Ukraine).

                • Deme@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  Sure, but the roads the enemy is using are a vast minority of all the roads out there, constrained to certain geographical areas. If one happens to be in the middle of it, they’ll have bigger concerns than whether to invest in a bike or a horse.

                  If it’s the apocalypse, then everyone will be desperate.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’ve never really interacted with them, but from what I’ve read, they have no regard for much of anything.

  • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    10 days ago

    I feel hay and grass may end up more expensive than anon thinks… For grass, you need a big place where your horse can graze. Anon either is such a big landowner or intends to rent such land, but it won’t be cheap. Then the hay for when the horse is kept indoors… Gotta be a lot of hay. And the means of bringing and storing the hay may be of non-negligible price. Then there are vet bills, because horses can get sick or injured…

    I knew someone who owned horses long ago. Well, more like someone whose parents owned horses since we were kids. They even had a coach that these horses could pull. But they didn’t use it as a means of transportation unless just doing a simple roundtrip for leisure, and there’s a simple reason for that: You can’t leave your horse for hours on a parking spot. You can tie it up somewhere maybe, but not for a long time, there aren’t many places fit for leaving horses nowadays.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      Lexington, KY has a ton of horse hitching posts/ bike rack posts. That may be because they maintain a fairly decent mounted police division.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      there’s a simple reason for that: You can’t leave your horse for hours on a parking spot. You can tie it up somewhere maybe, but not for a long time, there aren’t many places fit for leaving horses nowadays.

      This is why you just need to move somewhere with a significant Amish population first. Like, significant enough that local infrastructure plans around them.

  • Mercuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    10 days ago

    From what little I know about horses, almost all your time is spent trying to make sure they don’t kill themselves. I can leave my vechile outside in the cold for weeks at a time and not have to think about it.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      My in-laws have some horses on their little hobby farm. They grow and bale their own hay which gives them an excuse to play with their antique tractors and makes it affordable enough to keep the “hay burners” around. I agree the prices anon provides are pretty rediculously low

    • exasperation@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      a bike which is fueled by snacks and doesn’t even shit!

      Well the actual motor that powers the bicycle does shit, though.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      You even get a wide variety of fuel options for your bicycle. I rode one to work every day for a few years, and my fuel of choice was oatmeal, which is healthy, cheap, and delicious (esp. w/ berries and honey).

      Unfortunately, I changed jobs and cycling is no longer practical, but riding a horse is even less practical (can’t really tie them to the parking garage in the city…). Maybe I’ll get an e-bike and get back in the saddle.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 days ago

    You will get an OWI if you ride a horse drunk.

    Source: I know a guy who trained his horse to ride from the bar to his house on its own. Cops still pulled him over because he was sleeping on the horse.

    • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’m pretty sure it depends on the state and whether or not that state considers a horse to be a vehicle/device. Alabama, for example, I believe does not consider a horse to be either, while I think California does. There’s this story that sometimes gets submitted to TIL-type communities where a man from Louisiana was decided to be ineligible for a DUI charge after doing exactly that, but he was still given a court summons for “disturbing the peace by intoxication”.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        In sweden there were some cases where people lost their driving license because they … Walked home drunk so yes it do depends a lot. Guess drunk horse riding there is not legal.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 days ago

      Ignoring lack of parking, slow travel and waste disposal, it’s more like 3-6k if you already live on a farm. 5-10k if you board it with someone, and you’ll likely need a car to get you to the stables.

      A bicycle however…

          • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 days ago

            I was drunk and high out of my gourd one night biking home along Bloor Street and got a ticket for speeding lol. This was maybe 2004. I have thankfully matured since then.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 days ago

              Wow, it’s honestly my dream to get a speeding ticket on my bike. I saw my opportunity one day where there was a school zone and a cop, so I pedaled as fast as I could, but still didn’t get pulled over. I even bombed down a hill doing almost double the speed limit, and still no ticket.

              I’ll get it one of these days.

              • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 days ago

                If you do promise to be as incredulous as I was when he gave me the ticket. Like man don’t you have better shit to be doing? Let’s ignore the fact he thankfully didn’t see me kicking rear view mirrors a couple of blocks previous because they were parked in the bike lane.

                Jesus Christ I was an ornary youth lol

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      US government will let you adopt a horse or mule per year for super cheap as long as you can care for them and can pick them up

      My wife and I are considering a mule for tasks around our acre and it’s less than getting most other animals

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        That’s all well and good, but I’ve spent years around horses and owners…long enough to know that I’d never want one, at least not one you’d actually intend to use for any sort of riding if I had a choice.

        Animals that can be cranky, bite, kick, needs farriers, training, vet bills, meds, food, tack, trailer, shelter, stable, or barn, land to keep the horse healthy and not too confined, constant work for cleanup mucking stalls…

        Every tike you want to go somewhere you hope the horse is agreeable, feet are ok, saddle it up when it maybe doesn’t want to go, get there at a leisurely walk (can’t gallop or trot the whole time), bring food and hope there’s water for the animal….etc. etc.

        $1750 is not horse money. Not by a long shot. Not in the context of this hypothetical argument where one might trade a horse for a car. How many bags of groceries does one bring home on a horse? Oh, now we have to buy a wagon?

        There’s a reason people traded these magical animals for cars.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          I’m reasonably confident that my car cost considerably less than a horse would every year

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Tbf a lot of these issues can be mitigated with good training. But yeah it’s still more work than maintaining a car

          Source : gf is a professional horse trainer

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Not in a way amenable to seal the deal a few cities across, unless you get a one way ride up there and you’re prepared to camp/hotel a few nights on the way back

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Isn’t that the point though. He’s replacing his car with a horse because apparently a horse makes more sense in this guy’s world.

            If after buying the horse you have to use a vehicle to transport it, doesn’t that invalidate the argument?

            • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              I guess, we’d have to consult with the horse-pilled anon OP if he meant to replace absolutely all driving with horse riding, but I was assuming his take was mostly about day to day trips and not necessarily all trips.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Oh I’m not discounting that. Free pianos don’t tend to be cheap either to get tuned, and that’s if you can even tune them in the first place.

  • LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    10 days ago

    Where the fuck you store it though? A shitty car you can park anywhere, a horse is gonna take some space. Especially for us poor fucks where the temperature drops below freezing for part of the year. Car just maybe not gonna start today, a horse might not start ever again.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yeah, don’t spend too much time anywhere near a horse and maybe you can think that. You can even ride one for a bit and probably not notice. But as soon as you need to muck out stalls and get a whiff of horse fart right in your face, you’ll change your tune.