Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

[Jim Morrison]

you could get lung cancer which is more prevalent in SECOND world countries excuse me

 

[Dre89]

This is going to sound stupid but what defines a second world country?

And why is cancer more prevalent in developed countries?

 

[GreenKirby]

Some people actually think horses shouldn't be eaten?

ITT: Cultural norms

Also, considering what's in hotdogs, horse meat sounds more delightful.

 

[frotaz37]

Pigs and hippos don't seem so carnivorous.

Hippos evolved from Cetaceans aka carnivores so they actually do seem carnivorous. Where pigs evolved from is a bit more tricky, but modern pigs have been widely domesticated so it's no surprise they are not as feral. But you know if you consider wild boars, they're definitely more physically threatening than say, humans. Even so, one counterpoint example does not delegitimize taxonomical classification entirely. It's the same reason one can't point to ungulates and say "Well if they have certain herbivore qualities, humans will have the exact same qualities otherwise they aren't herbivores". Ya know it's like...anteaters don't seem carnivorous either. Yet they still are.

Cancer is most prevalent in developed countries period. Cancer is a developed word disease, so naturally colon cancer is more prevalent, just like every other form.

And WHY do you think that is? Why is colon cancer the most common cancer? Gheb summed it up perfectly.

And yes, what he said about colon cancer is indeed correct. The reason for it is that humans are not adequately equipped to digest meat. A carnivore's digestion is centered around obtaining the necessary nutrients and then secreting the meat as fast as possible, otherwise the raw meat would start to rot during the digestion and cause serious health problems. That can happen with the digestion of meat in the human intestine [or other herbivores]: The meat - even if it's not raw anymore - can start to rot and cause health problems; cancer being the most drastic one of them. This is based on the drastically different length of the intestines; herbivore's [including human's] having between two or three times the length of the carnivore's means that the meat takes a lot more time to digest within our bodies, making it possible for meat to rot during our digestion and cause damage.

Because I'm a 3rd year natural sciences major? \o_o/

So? You didn't answer my question at all. All you've said here is "I am in classes therefore I know stuff therefore I'm right" which is a horse crap argument. So I'll ask you again: "This is a characterization of hunting" how do you know? Are you an expert on evolution and biology? How do you know that other herbivores don't share this trait?

Calling things terrible for your health is somewhat tenuous. Meat as a primary dietary source with little to no other intake is bad, but the same could be said of anything. We still live longer and exhibit superior physical health to generations past, a large part of this being the vast availability of different forms of food. Meat is a source of protein and vitamins. Gorging yourself on it is obviously not going to do any wonders, just like how intaking lots of vitamin A will kill you. Maintaining the biochemical balance in your body is the important thing, and one can still eat meat and do so.

This is like the only argument people have....I swear. No it really can't be said of anything. You will mess yourself up eating just meat way faster than you will eating just vegetables. Meat has protein, sure. But so does every plant food. Meat has vitamins? It has a poor amount of vitamins when compared with plant foods. Yes obviously a person can be healthy if they eat meat sometimes, but the point is that since it's unhealthy, a person who doesn't is going to be healthier. It's really simple and not that outlandish of a claim at all.

We don't have full on carnivorous digestive traits because we're not equipped to survive solely on meat, that doesn't mean we can't eat it. Being alive is bad for our health, really it is, every second we stay alive, free radical chain reactions occur in our body and we lose another few seconds of life.

Again........nobody is saying we can't eat it. Of course we can. Any animal can eat anything. That doesn't mean it's not bad for us. I really wish you would stop with the whole "WELL EVERYTHING IS BAD FOR YOU EVEN LIVING" nonsense because it's completely irrelevant to the conversation and doesn't help you prove your point (assuming you have one) at all.

 

[Pikaville]

A few MMA fighters eat horse meat because it has more protein and less fat than beef.

It's supposedly delicious.

I would try it given the chance.

The again there is little I wouldn't try at least once.

 

[Luigitoilet]

this thread is so boring. we should play horse shoes

 

[Teran]

Hippos evolved from Cetaceans aka carnivores so they actually do seem carnivorous. Where pigs evolved from is a bit more tricky, but modern pigs have been widely domesticated so it's no surprise they are not as feral. But you know if you consider wild boars, they're definitely more physically threatening than say, humans. Even so, one counterpoint example does not delegitimize taxonomical classification entirely. It's the same reason one can't point to ungulates and say "Well if they have certain herbivore qualities, humans will have the exact same qualities otherwise they aren't herbivores". Ya know it's like...anteaters don't seem carnivorous either. Yet they still are.

I was talking from a dietary perspective, hippos will pretty much eat nothing but vegetation yet every now and again they'll eat some meat. Pigs we all know eat just about anything.

And WHY do you think that is? Why is colon cancer the most common cancer? Gheb summed it up perfectly.

This is why fibre is important. Also, other primates eat meat too, but we'll come onto that a bit later.

So? You didn't answer my question at all. All you've said here is "I am in classes therefore I know stuff therefore I'm right" which is a horse crap argument. So I'll ask you again: "This is a characterization of hunting" how do you know? Are you an expert on evolution and biology? How do you know that other herbivores don't share this trait?

That does answer your question. You said "how do you know", and I know because I'm in the study field making me more equipped to know. Spacial awareness is a characteristic of hunting because it allows one to judge distances and gaps. This may seem pretty insignificant, but ultimately for a successful hunt, one has to be able to strike at the perfect moment, and having spacial awareness is key. Also if trained this also extends to having the ability to judge the depth of objects in water despite the refractive effects. This is pretty useful for fishing.

This is like the only argument people have....I swear. No it really can't be said of anything. You will mess yourself up eating just meat way faster than you will eating just vegetables. Meat has protein, sure. But so does every plant food. Meat has vitamins? It has a poor amount of vitamins when compared with plant foods. Yes obviously a person can be healthy if they eat meat sometimes, but the point is that since it's unhealthy, a person who doesn't is going to be healthier. It's really simple and not that outlandish of a claim at all.

Well actually meat isn't a poor source of vitamins. Meat is the richest source of vitamin B12. B12 is markedly absent from all non animal products. Yes that means eggs and stuff have it so technically that doesn't qualify meat, but actually looking at it from a wild perspective, there aren't baskets of eggs lying around all the time, never mind the fact that there's no cheese etc.

Ruminant herbivores get all the B12 they need because of the large amount of bacteria in their 4 chambered stomach, something we don't have. Digesting them usually provides an adequate amount.

Non ruminants have a caecum and the concentration of bacteria here that help in cellulose breakdown also provide the B12, also they seem to eat soil and stuff but that's not really the most effective method.

Humans don't have a caecum nor a 4 chambered stomach. The appendix is nothing but a relic of our evolutionary past. We are primarily herbivorous but to get an essential vitamin, a deficiency of which causes anemia and death, we have to consume animal products (or supplements). Primates like say gorillas, which are entirely herbivorous, will eat insects or eggs, chimps will do the same but also take it one step further and actually hunt. Baboons hunt too, like they will even hunt small gazelle, but that's no surprise because baboons look like satan incarnate.

Again........nobody is saying we can't eat it. Of course we can. Any animal can eat anything. That doesn't mean it's not bad for us. I really wish you would stop with the whole "WELL EVERYTHING IS BAD FOR YOU EVEN LIVING" nonsense because it's completely irrelevant to the conversation and doesn't help you prove your point (assuming you have one) at all.

It is relevant because ultimately everything will wind up having a detrimental effect because our bodies are simply just chemical reactions that aren't perfectly controlled. Something will always cause something else to go wrong. Meat is not bad for us, as long as it's consumed sensibly. sort of like alcohol, a small amount of it really isn't bad, some take it to the point of arguing it's good, but since when did we ever follow the logical part and enjoy it responsibly?

Primates will eat small amounts of animal biomass, not necessarily always meat, to obtain an essential vitamin (or a tasty treat I suppose in the case of chimps). It is a good part of our diet, just not the way society treats it.

 

[frotaz37]

I was talking from a dietary perspective, hippos will pretty much eat nothing but vegetation yet every now and again they'll eat some meat. Pigs we all know eat just about anything.

Okay.

This is why fibre is important. Also, other primates eat meat too, but we'll come onto that a bit later.

Just because something DOES eat meat doesn't mean that it's the most healthy option or that it's even necessary. I've said this a lot already.

That does answer your question. You said "how do you know", and I know because I'm in the study field making me more equipped to know. Spacial awareness is a characteristic of hunting because it allows one to judge distances and gaps. This may seem pretty insignificant, but ultimately for a successful hunt, one has to be able to strike at the perfect moment, and having spacial awareness is key. Also if trained this also extends to having the ability to judge the depth of objects in water despite the refractive effects. This is pretty useful for fishing.

"Because I'm qualified to know" is not evidence."How do you know?" Yes, as how do you know what think you know? You've yet to explain how you know that other herbivores don't share this trait and that it's specific to animals that hunt. You're making connections that seem logical but at the end of the day what "seems" correct is irrelevant.

Well actually meat isn't a poor source of vitamins. Meat is the richest source of vitamin B12. B12 is markedly absent from all non animal products. Yes that means eggs and stuff have it so technically that doesn't qualify meat, but actually looking at it from a wild perspective, there aren't baskets of eggs lying around all the time, never mind the fact that there's no cheese etc.

Ruminant herbivores get all the B12 they need because of the large amount of bacteria in their 4 chambered stomach, something we don't have. Digesting them usually provides an adequate amount.

Non ruminants have a caecum and the concentration of bacteria here that help in cellulose breakdown also provide the B12, also they seem to eat soil and stuff but that's not really the most effective method.

Humans don't have a caecum nor a 4 chambered stomach. The appendix is nothing but a relic of our evolutionary past. We are primarily herbivorous but to get an essential vitamin, a deficiency of which causes anemia and death, we have to consume animal products (or supplements). Primates like say gorillas, which are entirely herbivorous, will eat insects or eggs, chimps will do the same but also take it one step further and actually hunt. Baboons hunt too, like they will even hunt small gazelle, but that's no surprise because baboons look like satan incarnate.

I don't know why you're bringing up that primates hunt. I've already addressed this in a previous post. Yes, sometimes these animals do eat animals. Overall though, the amount they eat ends up being less than an amount equal to a pea per day. This is not a significant part of their diet.

Are you aware that there are thousands of essential nutrients in plant foods that aren't found in animal foods? Just because there is vitamin b12 in meat doesn't mean it's not a poor source of vitamins. Yes you can get b12 from animal foods but hey, pick a vegetable from the ground and you'll get all the b12 you need (which is something like less than a quarter of a grain of rice or something really miniscule) from the remnant bacteria in the soil. Obviously this method isn't logical these days but that doesn't matter, we're far beyond what's natural at this point. Either way, the vitamin b12 argument is overused. When flipped upside down, like I said, you'll see the thousands of essential nutrients in plant foods that can't be found in animal foods. What's stronger evidence for what we should be eating? 1000+ or 1?

It is relevant because ultimately everything will wind up having a detrimental effect because our bodies are simply just chemical reactions that aren't perfectly controlled. Something will always cause something else to go wrong. Meat is not bad for us, as long as it's consumed sensibly. sort of like alcohol, a small amount of it really isn't bad, some take it to the point of arguing it's good, but since when did we ever follow the logical part and enjoy it responsibly?

It's irrelevant because we're not TALKING about other things, we're talking about one specific thing. All that statement is is a plea to emotion. "Oh well everything's bad for us so just don't do stuff too much" is not logical or scientific statement and has no bearing on what we're discussing.

Just because something is "okay in small amounts" doesn't mean it's healthy or that it's what a person should ideally be eating. Also, any amount of alcohol is bad for you. Just like smoking a cigarette is bad for you. Whether it will have permanent detrimental effects on your health if taken in small amounts is debatable, but it certainly is not having a positive effect on your body. The same exact thing can be said about meat.

Primates will eat small amounts of animal biomass, not necessarily always meat, to obtain an essential vitamin (or a tasty treat I suppose in the case of chimps). It is a good part of our diet, just not the way society treats it.

Something that can be replaced easily by something much more healthy is NOT a good part of our diet. Alcohol is not a good part of our diet. Oh but it's not bad in small amounts! Okay, fine. That doesn't make it healthy. Cake has essential nutrients. Does that make it healthy? Does that make it a good part of our diet? Of course not. It's junk food, and you'll be better of eating something healthy. If your philosophy is "everything in moderation" then that's fine, but it doesn't change the reality that humans are equipped to be herbivores, not carnivores or omnivores and that people who don't eat animal products are going to be healthier in general than those who do.

What else needs to be said? My entire point is that animal based food, as a significant part of ones diet, is going to have a negative impact on ones health. It's one of the first things I said, so I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is.

A well balanced vegan diet is the healthiest known diet and that's pretty much all there is to it. "WELL YOU CAN OVERDOSE ON SPINACH IF YOU EAT TOO MUCH " yeah okay -______-

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Let it go, frotaz. At this point you're not going to accomplish anything anymore. It's fairly evident that our consumption of meat is a problem on many different levels, the question is to what extent somebody acknowledges said problem. If somebody doesn't care about meat being unhealthy you can't expect him to change his mind with your assertions.

 

[1048576]

I kinda skimmed through the thread. The impression I get is that it's pretty well decided that eating meat is less healthy than the best alternative. Is that your entire argument, or is the end of all this that humans shouldn't eat meat? I'm not seeing how you get from A to B.

 

[Spelt]

Let it go, frotaz. At this point you're not going to accomplish anything anymore. It's fairly evident that our consumption of meat is a problem on many different levels, the question is to what extent somebody acknowledges said problem. If somebody doesn't care about meat being unhealthy you can't expect him to change his mind with your assertions.

You took the entire thread and basically just summed up all of your posts.

gg

 

[Luigitoilet]

I believe Frotaz said that he wants meat eating to be outlawed.

 

[Claire Diviner]

No matter the argument, humans will forever eat meat. We've been eating it since even before biblical times, and even if "we're not designed to digest meat properly" it hasn't stopped us for thousands of years from eating it. If people, like Frotaz, finds meat to be a bad thing, then let them not eat it. Won't stop, like, 95% of the world from getting their carnivore on. The way I see it, it means more meat for us.

Now about that horse meat thing...

 

[frotaz37]

What is the point of saying anything you just said?

 

[1048576]

No matter the argument, humans will forever commit murder. We've been committing it since even before biblical times, and even if "we're not supposed to commit murder properly" it hasn't stopped us for thousands of years from committing it. If people, like Frotaz, finds murder to be a bad thing, then let them not commit it. Won't stop, like, 95% of the world from getting their stabby on. The way I see it, it means more murder for us.

Now about that horse meat thing...

I think you should stop posting.

Edit: I realize I probably haven't made the point to you. The point is, just because you don't do something doesn't make the problem go away. It's like saying that people should be allowed to own nuclear warheads and if you don't like that, you don't have to get one. While that statement is true, the act of not getting one doesn't nullify the fact that people are allowed to own nuclear warheads.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Are we really putting eating meat on the same level as nuclear warfare? I'm all for melodrama but that's pushing it!

 

[1048576]

What? No of course not. I'm explaining why it's sometimes reasonable to deny people the freedom to do something (as opposed to simply abstaining yourself) by providing one example. I chose the most hyperbolic example I could think of to minimize the number of people disagreeing with it.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Oh. carry on then

 

[Spelt]

What? No of course not. I'm explaining why it's sometimes reasonable to deny people the freedom to do something (as opposed to simply abstaining yourself) by providing one example. I chose the most hyperbolic example I could think of to minimize the number of people disagreeing with it.

That is still a terrible comparison.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The bolded parts # added to the quote really apply though. And even if you are unable to [or don't want to] understand the point then try to insert "human meat" into his argument instead of nuclear weapons. That should make it abundantly clear that everybody doing it has nothing to do with it being OK. The amount of people being wrong about a thing doesn't relativate how much you are in the wrong. The holocaust wasn't less of a problem just because like 6 million people didn't see the problem with it. Killing life isn't less of a problem just because 95% of the world population is ignorant towards "murdering" including the slaughter of animals. It's still murder.

 

[Deleted member]

okay so this is coming down to if you put killing an animal (for consumption) on equal grounds with killing a human.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I wouldn't mind having a slaughterhouse industry for rich people instead of sweet innocent cows and horses and piggies.

 

[Strong Badam]

this is being given way more attention than it should be lol... aren't there more important things going on in american politics right now than this

 

[Luigitoilet]

this is being given way more attention than it should be lol... aren't there more important things going on in american politics right now than this

like this?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=315058

or this?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=315636

or this?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=314286

all threads you haven't posted in. why not bump one of those? why just post in here instead to tell us what people should be talking about?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

okay so this is coming down to if you put killing an animal (for consumption) on equal grounds with killing a human.

You have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Luigitoilet]

You have no reason to believe otherwise.

Don't do that.

You may have no reason to believe otherwise. Don't be presumptuous and speak for other people please.

 

[Jim Morrison]

You have no reason to believe otherwise.

Actually, it was in the Bible that animals are not equal to humans, which is good enough reason for me.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Don't do that.

You may have no reason to believe otherwise. Don't be presumptuous and speak for other people please.

I'm not taking any person's point of view here. Objectively, you have no reason, logic or evidence that humans are "above" the other animals and even if you were able to prove that it wouldn't be prove that we can just kill animals for our own pleasure [considering tat meat is superfluous for our nutrition].

Actually, it was in the Bible that animals are not equal to humans, which is good enough reason for me.

Good one.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I'm not taking any person's point of view here. Objectively, you have no reason, logic or evidence that humans are "above" the other animals and even if you were able to prove that it wouldn't be prove that we can just kill animals for our own pleasure [considering tat meat is superfluous for our nutrition].



Good one.

We CAN kill animals for our own pleasure. The mere fact that we are physically able to do so without consequence is "proof" enough to me. In an Darwin sense, we ARE above many animals because we are smarter and stronger and more adaptable.

Also, I'm not in a position to say that anyone is wrong in their beliefs. I think it's useless and immature to be like "oh right you're a Christian, so you're ******** and your beliefs are a joke". Smug atheism/agnosticism is the most annoying thing about the internet.

I don't consider all forms of life to be equal. If I did, I would have a nervous breakdown everytime I took a step because of the insects I'm squashing underfoot, or when I use a piece of paper and think of the tree that suffered for my personal benefit. Why is that? I don't know, maybe we are hardwired to be more protective of our own respective species than others. I'm sure a cat, if it had the cognitive ability to recognize its own sentience and the differences between it and other life forms, would also consider other cats to be the "most important" animal as well. I dunno, it's all conjecture. My point is, I think anyone who is certain in their own belief structure without doubt, and to the point where they are actively tearing down someone else's with no discussion is at least a little bit foolish. The only thing I know is that nobody knows anything. In my eyes, humans are "above" others because we have the tools to have complete and utter control over any other species we want minus bacteria and viruses and such.

 

[Pluvia]

Indeed, meat is murder, tasty tasty murder.

We are above other animals hence the fact we're higher on the food chain. You're kidding yourself if you think other omnivores wouldn't do what we're doing if they had our abilities.

 

[Deleted member]

right, we have used animals for our own purposes (this goes back to riding horses and herding sheep), and now we finally reached a point in our technological development we don't necessarily have to, people get up on their high horse and proclaim we should treat animals as equals.
half of them are hypocrites too because if it has a cute face it must "live" but as soon as they see a spider they swat it.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I just started crying...as I typed I realized that every time I mash my fingers on the keys I am wiping away thousands of innocent skin cells without repentance all for the pleasure I get from the words I type. Then I stopped crying because I figured that I was probably drowning millions of cells on my cheeks in the process. Man, I'm progressive. If only all of society was like me

 

[1048576]

This argument bears a lot of resemblance to the abortion debate. I don't see anything particularly egregious about considering an animal as life worth protecting, and I'm hoping I don't have to point out the relevant differences between a horse and a skin cell (sexual reproduction, for one). I think caging, force-feeding, and eating ant vs. horse vs. human is ultimately an arbitrary moral decision. What about a ******** human? What about an ancephalic one? Can you even call that human?

 

[Deleted member]

I don't really see the relevance of pulling handicapped people into this unless you're going to kill them for consumption or something.

 

[1048576]

Well that's my point. I'm trying to find an argument against killing humans for consumption that still allows for killing horses for consumption. What characteristics of a human make them off limits, and what constitutes a "human." It's pretty cut and dry right now whether or not an entity should be called human, but that's because we don't have the technology yet. As far as I can tell, there's no intrinsic property that other animals don't have and that all humans do have.

 

[Deleted member]

to respond to you very first question, the fact that it's not our own species makes all the difference here. it's in our genes to not kill each other. mental illness, deep religious conviction and deals purely for self betterment (money/drugs and such [or a kill/be killed situation]) can sometimes override this, but by nature it is wrong to kill your own species. this is true for almost every species. so when facing the choice of killing a horse for consumption and killing a fellow human, the choice is easy.

what makes humans different?
to give a very basic example: making fire.
the fact that we are able to develop technology and advance it all the time is a pretty big difference. yes monkeys fight wars, use tools and such; and some animals being able to count. but they don't actually further develop those skills. that's a pretty huge difference and is what has brought our species to what it is today, and why we can actually have this debate. because if we were still stuck in say pre-roman times, we needed the animals we were using (horses, chicken goats etc).

 

[1048576]

So if a human couldn't make fire it's okay to cage and eat him, right?

If there was a trained horse that could make fire would all horses be off-limits?

 

[Luigitoilet]

I say the most "valuable" thing that mankind brings to the plate is the capacity to invent.

If a horse invented the wheel, the lever/fulcrum system, electricity generators, etc etc. I would definitely be hesitant to eat horses.

 

[Dre89]

I love animals (I'm thinking of studying zoology, and have volunteered at a zoo and vet before) but I've never understood the argument for not killing animals.

They say that we're not different or superior to them, just that we're a more intelligent animal. Yet animals kill each other, so if we're just anias why can't we do it too?

And if they say that we're different, they're admitting we are in fact superior to them.

Personally, I think these people think like this because they live in urban environments dettached from nature.

The only reason why we can live today in a way which we don't harm
animals is because we destroyed and urbanized their habitat to begin with.

Like 90% of what we know about animals is a result of technology we wouldn't have if we didn't destroy and urbanise their habitat.

Even if humans never urbanized their habitats and didn't kill them directly we'd still harm/kill them by outcompeting them for resources.

 

[frotaz37]

I don't understand people trying to argue that humans are superior to animals.
It's funny too because the only argument seems to be "we can think and they can't" which is not only false, but it's also a pretty awful justification for the way animals are treated by humans.