Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

[Dre89]

I'm guessing you haven't read any philosophy if you think that's what the argument is.

But tell me, why can't we do what other animals do and kill other animals.

Dolphins kill penguins for fun. Why can't we do that too? We're just animals.

And explain to me how we are supposed to live without harming animals. We can only do that now because we destroyed and urbanised their habitat.

Even if we didn't do that, we would have outcompeted them for resources even if we didn't hunt them for food.

So tell me. what was the ideal way civilisation was supposed to operate without harming animals?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

But tell me, why can't we do what other animals do and kill other animals.

Animals kill others only if it's needed for survival. The dolphin killing penguins example is something I'm hearing for the first time and I'd really love to see citation for that. In either case, I don't see how you can draw a conclusion from "There are cases of dolphins killing animals for fun" to "humans are allowed to murder animals".

 

[Spelt]

animals don't need to eat meat anymore than we do.

 

[Pluvia]

I'm pretty sure Foxes kill more than they need Gheb.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

So we're on the same level as Foxes now? I thought the justification for us to consume meat was because we're "higher" than the other animals but whenever the situation seems to fit you'll immediately put us on the same level as them. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

 

[the melon!!!!!]

I'mma just go ahead and post something a bit on topic with the thread's OP.

Horse meat is ****ing delicious. I can agree with this.


Now on to the argument at hand.

Some of you people are INCREEEEEEEEEDIBLY ignorant to other's opinions here. If a species other than ourselves were to achieve sentience and the ability to invent on a scale similar to ours, things would be much different, yes. Here's the little problem with that: THEY HAVEN'T. Some animals have come about 10% of the way (personal est., idk exactly XD), but that's NOT EVEN CLOSE to the many mental bounds that humans have achieved over time. Why argue with what ifs when the answer to them is already no?

Now here's another thing I'll bring up. Give me an example of a creature at the top of their respective food chain NOT killing for food (which we are doing right now, let's face it, killing cows isn't fun, killing horses MOST CERTAINLY isn't fun). What you are trying to do right now is argue against nature. Seems a bit conceited to me, somebody thinking that they have the ability to change the course of human way of life on a whim AS WELL AS nature itself because they think something isn't fair to all the creatures. Well, LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR TO THE LITTLE GUY! Sometimes animals will struggle with survival, hopefully in a couple thousand years, they will develop to defend themselves and survive longer. Until then, they take advantage of what they've been given, and live their lives the best they can. Survival of the fittest, Darwinian law.

In regards to slaughter, one must understand exactly HOW LARGE the human population is in the world. 6.84 Billion people. BILLION. WE GOT ****ING TONS OF US HERE! How do you expect us to keep with our human ways as omnivores and have all of us eat meat as well as vegetables WITHOUT mass production (an ability sentience has given us , HOW ABOUT THAT?). Slaughter is animal mass-production, pretty much. It's the best system we got. It's what we kinda need to feed ALL these people. Do you have any idea how long it would take to balance out the economy, our food supply, etc. if we were to get rid of meat? DECADES. Maybe more.

SO.

You can go ahead and hate on the system as we have it right now, believe me, I know it isn't good. But you guys are kinda moving a little bit fast here. You can't just start by saying NO MEAT. That's waaaaaaaay too fast, try smaller. This horse thing is a good one, maybe work from here, but DON'T SAY NO MEAT. Say NO HORSE MEAT. You don't want to be projecting a world of no meat to natural meat-eaters, they're not ready yet. Work with them one meat at a time until eventually there won't be much option left BUT to go NO MEAT altogether!


In summary: Quit raging, save your raging energy for APEX. Don't change nature so harshly, START SMALL, DUM-DUM!!!



FOR YOUR HEALTH!

 

[Crooked Crow]

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

I believe these are also known as socialist countries.

About the main topic at hand, eating meat is unhealthy in large enough quantities because of the low levels of carbohydrates and excessive amounts of protein which our digestive system is not biologically inclined to handle. Moderation of meat, however, is fine.

Humans are omnivores- we need to incorporate both vegetables and meat, but meat should still be consumed less because it's a lot more prone for wearing down our bodies than grains or vegetables would be.

Does anyone here think horses are more intelligent than cows or pigs? Like dogs and cats, they're capable of forming sentient relationships with humans?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

We most certainly do not need to incorporate meat.

 

[1048576]

Ugh smashboards. Frostaz had a huge exchange with Dre the end result of which is that humans are not meant to eat meat, and meat consumption is unhealthy for humans. Why do they even bother?

 

[Deleted member]

Animals kill others only if it's needed for survival. The dolphin killing penguins example is something I'm hearing for the first time and I'd really love to see citation for that. In either case, I don't see how you can draw a conclusion from "There are cases of dolphins killing animals for fun" to "humans are allowed to murder animals".

monkeys fight wars.

 

[Crooked Crow]

We most certainly do not need to incorporate meat.

Maybe not anymore. Our ancestors definitely did, though. Don't nitpick that tiny tangent and disregard my entire post.

I'm more or less agreeing with Frotaz and yourself, just with a splash of what Teran also said. I'm acknowledging the fact meat is extremely unhealthy, and should be eaten in lesser quantities than other food groups, but where is your evidence that moderate amounts of meat consumption is detrimental?

 

[Spelt]

So we're on the same level as Foxes now? I thought the justification for us to consume meat was because we're "higher" than the other animals but whenever the situation seems to fit you'll immediately put us on the same level as them. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

Wow...

That comment was a counter-argument to your earlier post. I don't see where he (or I) stated or even implied that we are better/worse than animals, it was a simple comparison of behavior between multiple species.

Like always your arguments revolve around putting words in people's mouths and twisting their posts to fit your needs.

Just stop.

 

[Dre89]

So we're on the same level as Foxes now? I thought the justification for us to consume meat was because we're "higher" than the other animals but whenever the situation seems to fit you'll immediately put us on the same level as them. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

This is a massive word twist.

Yes the argument for animal consumption comes from the belief that we're different and superior creatures. The point is if we aren't, and we're just more intelligent animals, then we should be able to do what other animals do, which is kill other animals.

And AR activists have been trying to demonstrate we're not that different, just more intelligent.

In fact the article I read which revealed that dolphins killed penguins for fun was actually trying to show that we're not superior because it was originally thought we were the only animal capable of killing for reasons outside of survival.

Jane Goodall's discovery that chimps used relatively complex tools to hunt termites was a big thing for AR because it was originally thought humans were superior because we were the only animals capable of using tools.

Basically the whole AR movement has tried to show that we're just more intelligent animals. I'm saying if we're just animals, seeing as other animals kill, we should be able to too. As I stated before, it's ironic because most of these discoveries that aid AR are a result of technology which we wouldn't have if we hadn't urbanised and destroyed their habitat.

And yes, animals kill outside of hunting.

I don't have a specific article for the dolphins but it's well known and it'd be pretty easy to find by looking up.

I can give plenty of other examples:

Hippos killing crocodiles.
Male lions who have recently taken over a new pride killing the cubs of the old male.
Baboons killing leopard cubs.
Crocodiles in the Serenghetti killing wilderbeasts when they're already fully and thus don't eat them.


I could give a million more examples, but I chose these examples very specifically. These instances are instances where the animals kills another animal which it does not eat, and its victim is not a competitor for a food source.

Even then, if you consider a lion killing a leapard 'survival' because it is a competitor for a food source, then that would justify us killing a plethora of animals.

The reality is we probably kill animals for less reasons than other animals do.

Numbers- I'm not saying meat isn't bad for us health-wise, I'm saying it isn't bad for us morality-wise.

Plus, animals which we originally supposed to be herbivores have adapted to be carnkvores and thrived. For example the Pacu fish (interestingly they have teeth very similar to ours), a herbivore was introduced into rivers off Papa New Guinea. Due to the lack of food it turned carnivore, and if anything began imbalancing the evosystem due to its domination.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my original questions about how civilisation was supposed to operate without harming animals.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Some of you people are INCREEEEEEEEEDIBLY ignorant to other's opinions here. If a species other than ourselves were to achieve sentience and the ability to invent on a scale similar to ours, things would be much different, yes. Here's the little problem with that: THEY HAVEN'T. Some animals have come about 10% of the way (personal est., idk exactly XD), but that's NOT EVEN CLOSE to the many mental bounds that humans have achieved over time. Why argue with what ifs when the answer to them is already no?

This. What some people don't get is that the reason humans are labeled superior to other creatures isn't for the ability to think, but for their ability for innovation and imagination. The ability to invent and create, and thus the ability to adapt not physically, but mentally. Last I checked, it was humans that invented the car, and invented ways to cross oceans and to blast off into space, not an animal. The closest thing we have to invention are chimps using rocks as hammers. Other than that, their brain limits their creativity.

Now here's another thing I'll bring up. Give me an example of a creature at the top of their respective food chain NOT killing for food (which we are doing right now, let's face it, killing cows isn't fun, killing horses MOST CERTAINLY isn't fun). What you are trying to do right now is argue against nature. Seems a bit conceited to me, somebody thinking that they have the ability to change the course of human way of life on a whim AS WELL AS nature itself because they think something isn't fair to all the creatures. Well, LIFE ISN'T ALWAYS FAIR TO THE LITTLE GUY! Sometimes animals will struggle with survival, hopefully in a couple thousand years, they will develop to defend themselves and survive longer. Until then, they take advantage of what they've been given, and live their lives the best they can. Survival of the fittest, Darwinian law.

This. Another thing some people can't comprehend is that we're not the only ones who kill for meat. I laugh when I see posts saying we don't need meat in our diet or that we're not evolved enough to digest meat. Like, where in the holy mother of sunny Jesus do they get that info? What's more droll is that they provide no proof that we're unable to digest meat properly, trying desperately to prove what is already a moot point.

In regards to slaughter, one must understand exactly HOW LARGE the human population is in the world. 6.84 Billion people. BILLION. WE GOT ****ING TONS OF US HERE! How do you expect us to keep with our human ways as omnivores and have all of us eat meat as well as vegetables WITHOUT mass production (an ability sentience has given us , HOW ABOUT THAT?). Slaughter is animal mass-production, pretty much. It's the best system we got. It's what we kinda need to feed ALL these people. Do you have any idea how long it would take to balance out the economy, our food supply, etc. if we were to get rid of meat? DECADES. Maybe more.

Agreed, but that won't stop the naysayers from trying to ignore this point and say we don't need meat, as if that's going to suddenly stop thousands of years of culture that revolves around meat consumption. Seriously.

You can go ahead and hate on the system as we have it right now, believe me, I know it isn't good. But you guys are kinda moving a little bit fast here. You can't just start by saying NO MEAT. That's waaaaaaaay too fast, try smaller. This horse thing is a good one, maybe work from here, but DON'T SAY NO MEAT. Say NO HORSE MEAT. You don't want to be projecting a world of no meat to natural meat-eaters, they're not ready yet. Work with them one meat at a time until eventually there won't be much option left BUT to go NO MEAT altogether!

This is a more civilized way to do it. Will it work? I seriously doubt it, seeing as there's a whole world to try to convince, and let me tell you, some cultures are never willing to get rid of meat from their lives.

In summary: Quit raging, save your raging energy for APEX. Don't change nature so harshly, START SMALL, DUM-DUM!!!



FOR YOUR HEALTH!

And with this, you win at this thread.

Ugh smashboards. Frostaz had a huge exchange with Dre the end result of which is that humans are not meant to eat meat, and meat consumption is unhealthy for humans. Why do they even bother?

I still want to see proof, be it a source via link, or some kind of documentation that states meat is bad for humans. Saying something like that with no proof is just plain ignorant in my opinion. I'm guessing a vegetarian/vegan extremist, but that's the only conclusion I can come up with.

Oh, and 1048576, I found your attempt at trying to flip my words to be amusing, but it proved nothing at all. You call it "murder"; the rest of the world calls it "putting food on the table". Nice try though.

 

[Dre89]

Sol it is was originally thought humans were due to the ability to invent and use tools. That was shattered when chimps were witnessed using sticks to catch termites.

Different chimps in different colonies have also developed different variations on the tool. For example one colony put brush- like shrubbery on the stick to catch termites better.



Things like cars and houses are a result of the same concept but with just a lot more intelligence. Gorillas could use that logic to say they're superior to us due to the gap in strength.

There are a number of different arguments circulating as to why we're superior, but the tool one was shattered awhile back.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Sol it is was originally thought humans were due to the ability to invent and use tools. That was shattered when chimps were witnessed using sticks to catch termites.

Different chimps in different colonies have also developed different variations on the tool. For example one colony put brush- like shrubbery on the stick to catch termites better.



Things like cars and houses are a result of the same concept but with just a lot more intelligence. Gorillas could use that logic to say they're superior to us due to the gap in strength.

There are a number of different arguments circulating as to why we're superior, but the tool one was shattered awhile back.

I know they use tools. The point is that we have constantly evolved and innovated our tools, and I doubt primates would have enough intelligence to create anything too advance. Only when they discover and figure out how to use fire or a wheel is when I will be impressed and take back my belief that humans are superior forever; at that point, superiority is limited only by potential. At this rate, however, we have so many years to develop our intelligence, nature's other lesser beasts will be hard-pressed to catch up.

 

[Dre89]

I know they use tools. The point is that we have constantly evolved and innovated our tools, and I doubt primates would have enough intelligence to create anything too advance. Only when they discover and figure out how to use fire or a wheel is when I will be impressed and take back my belief that humans are superior forever; at that point, superiority is limited only by potential. At this rate, however, we have so many years to develop our intelligence, nature's other lesser beasts will be hard-pressed to catch up.

Except that's the same quality just in a higher quantity.

Again, gorillas could say they're superior to us and shouldn't be considered the same as other animals due to their superior.

The only thing that would make us truly superior and distinct from other animals is a unique quality featured in no other animals in any quantity.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Except that's the same quality just in a higher quantity.

Again, gorillas could say they're superior to us and shouldn't be considered the same as other animals due to their superior.

The only thing that would make us truly superior and distinct from other animals is a unique quality featured in no other animals in any quantity.

You speak of "True Superiority"? I don't believe that to be...

Actually, on second thought, there's a creature called "The Water Bear". Microscopic in size, but if there's one creature on Earth (or in known existence) that has the potential for "True Superiority", it's a safe bet that THAT would be it. It has moot for intelligence, but makes up for it in being nigh indestructible. A fascinating animal, if I do say so myself.

 

[King5280]

Except that's the same quality just in a higher quantity.

Again, gorillas could say they're superior to us and shouldn't be considered the same as other animals due to their superior.

The only thing that would make us truly superior and distinct from other animals is a unique quality featured in no other animals in any quantity.

or numerous unique qualities that place us in a superior position in terms of the ability to adapt, survive, and thrive which is what the point of evolution is. humans are indisputably at the top of the food chain. people eat meat because the majority enjoys it. there are animals that would have no moral objections eating a human and i have no problem returning the favor. im not sure why i'd need to ever eat horse meat but having the option doesnt bother me a bit. also there probably wont be too big a market for horse meat snacks regardless lol.

 

[Dre89]

or numerous unique qualities that place us in a superior position in terms of the ability to adapt, survive, and thrive which is what the point of evolution is. humans are indisputably at the top of the food chain. people eat meat because the majority enjoys it. there are animals that would have no moral objections eating a human and i have no problem returning the favor. im not sure why i'd need to ever eat horse meat but having the option doesnt bother me a bit. also there probably wont be too big a market for horse meat snacks regardless lol.

The point is that there's a difference between saying that we're the most evolved animal on the planet, and saying that we're distinct from animals.

My point is that either way, it would be morally permissable to consume animals.

 

[Sol9000]

Oh thank Meta Knight!

I thought the topic name was HOUSE slaughter instead of Horse slaughter-- Ew...

I'm not eating that, Obama!


Sol9000, Kicken' yo haterz sinc 2008

 

[Sol9000]

The point is that there's a difference between saying that we're the most evolved animal on the planet, and saying that we're distinct from animals.

My point is that either way, it would be morally permissable to consume animals.

I pity humanity either way

 

[-LzR-]

This thread was a very interesting thread. Interesting points from Gheb that I hadn't ever heard of before.
Oh well, like half the stuff I eat is meat, but I like the taste, so hell, why not?

 

[Shorts]

I hate how certain animals are considered too noble or graceful to eat or whatever while others aren't. I will gladly eat horse meat if it tastes good. **** horses.

Yeah. Cept cats.

Seriously though... **** horses.

 

[JonnyW]

I hope horse meat taste good.

 

[R h y m e]

inb4 PETA outrage response.

 

[Fuelbi]

So we can eat chicken and cow but we're not allowed to eat horse?

**** animal rights, I don't give a **** how animals die just as long as I get a nice steak on my plate. I mean might as well kill horses as well since millions of chickens and cows are killed per day. It wouldn't be fair to exclude one group from death if other groups are being killed in mass especially if that one group tastes any good

 

[Vinylic.]

I don't care if it tastes good. It is considered taboo as horse are companions and pets.
And slaughtering race horses, Trail horses, and show horses is really wrong.