[ Poll ] Horse Slaughter

What are your views on Horse Slaughter?

For		50.0%	[ 1 ]
Against		0.0%	[ 0 ]
Its cruel and inhumane		0.0%	[ 0 ]
I'm not sure		50.0%	[ 1 ]
Please tell me more, I'm interested in what you know.		0.0%	[ 0 ]

Total Votes: 2

[black_wing_angel]

Eeyore Goldsworth

black_wing_angel

Sure. Who wouldn't want someone else to do their job for them, without pay?

Uh, if you think it's okay for humans to oppress and kill other weaker humans, I'm not entirely sure how to argue with you. We seem to missing a common underlying belief that unnecessary suffering is bad, and thus murder, theft, subjugation, assault, etc., are bad. With your reasoning, all those things are morally okay.

Not in my own, personal beliefs. But yeah, I guess you could say that.

Welcome to the real world, where not everyone agrees on the same things you do.

Quote:

Quote:

Which it is not.

It is illegal to MURDER humans. Some killing of fellow humans, is actually legal.

That's semantics. I'm not concerned with what the law says, but rather what is ethical.

Who cares what's "ethical"? Has anyone ever been carted off to the slammer, because they did something "unethical"?

Besides, ethics are subjective. I might find killing house mice unethical, for the same reason you find animal harvesting unethical.

But I'm willing to bet you've lain a few mouse traps, in your time, haven't you?

Quote:

Quote:

Do you b***h at the sharks that kill people, too? They do the same thing, don't they?

Sharks don't have the moral awareness to know any different. We do. What they do is an instinctive reaction to others being in their territory. What humans do is cause suffering and take life for a completely unnecessary reason.

In other words, they are less evolved.

Thus, they are lesser than humans.

Thank you for supporting one of my earlier points.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes it is. Because THOSE are people. Not lesser animals.

But why does it matter that they're animals? How does that make them logically lesser? Aside from the fact humans can kill and exploit them, because strength is not a moral justification for causing harm.

To you.

To me, it may be.

Quote:

Quote:

You see, "morals" are subjective. That's why we have "laws" which are OBJECTIVE

Incidentally, that's also why laws are the only thing which are important, here.

Objective
-adjective
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

I don't know how you can claim laws always objective. It's people with subjective morals that make laws. Example: Jim Crow laws.

No, sorry, I want to discuss whether or not eating meat is ethical, not whether or not the law says it is. You can't simply claim everything the law does is right. Provide me with reasoning as to why I am wrong, other than "the law says".

Impossible. When you deal with "personal opinions", as we are, there is no "proof", one way, or the other.

Quote:

Quote:

When did I say I don't consume veggies? I just don't EAT them. I drink them, with fruit juice, to mask the taste. It's called V8 V-Fusion.

Alright, I must have mis-read.

You are forgiven.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, I managed to survive for almost 20 years, before I grew any tolerance for "veggies". I seriously did not eat any veggies, during that time frame, aside from potatoes, corn, and green beans. And from what I hear, potatoes and corn aren't even veggies.

How are they not veggies? I'm slightly confused by this comment.

That's just what I was told. Apparantly they're "starches".

Quote:

Quote:

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it's pointless to worry about it, if "cancer" is your only concern.

I don't think I said cancer specifically, but anyway.

Actually, you did specifically mention cancer.

Quote:

Quote:

Unfortunately, consuming meat, by default, does not negatively affect your health, to my knowledge.

No, not to my knowledge. Fair enough.

Ok then.

[Eeyore Goldsworth]

black_wing_angel

Not in my own, personal beliefs. But yeah, I guess you could say that.

Welcome to the real world, where not everyone agrees on the same things you do.

There isn't any need to be condescending. I am more than aware people have different beliefs than me.

But I'm a bit confused. You seem to be agreeing that your reasoning before (that it was okay for a stronger being to oppress a weaker being) meant all those things I mentioned (rape, assault, etc.) were okay, but that you didn't personally think they were. Explain to me how your belief that is it okay to eat meat based on the fact animals are weaker does not translate into you believing it is okay for a weaker being to be oppressed by a stronger being.

Quote:

Who cares what's "ethical"? Has anyone ever been carted off to the slammer, because they did something "unethical"?

I was under the impression that this thread designed to discuss the morality of slaughtering horses, not what gets you put in jail. I am more than happy to leave this debate if that's all you want to talk about.

Quote:

Besides, ethics are subjective. I might find killing house mice unethical, for the same reason you find animal harvesting unethical.

I never claimed ethics weren't subjective. That ethics are subjective doesn't mean that I cannot ask someone to justify their ethics.

Quote:

But I'm willing to bet you've lain a few mouse traps, in your time, haven't you?

I haven't, actually.

Quote:

In other words, they are less evolved.

Thus, they are lesser than humans.

Thank you for supporting one of my earlier points.

I will again ask how being "less evolved" takes away a being's right to life.

Quote:

Impossible. When you deal with "personal opinions", as we are, there is no "proof", one way, or the other.

Then why are you claiming laws to be objective? What do you think they're based on?

[ZechsK]

[Metalhead.Psycho]

faolan

[Metalhead.Psycho]

I'd like to take over this old topic, which has died.

Horse Slaughter OP,OT



Views, opinions, questions?

If you don't know anything about this, except what you have heard secondhand, or read from petition websites, I encourage you to ask questions before having an opinion.





I'm an Equine Industry/Business major from West Texas A&M. Many of my professors and advisers have been on/ are on Agricultural Boards that discuss these issues at great length and write papers for the legislature to review.

One of the reasons the topic died is because of the federal law banning horse slaughter that was passed. In other words, it's a moot point. But I'm not surprised that a Texas school would fail to incorporate modern legal practice into the curriculum.

We fail to support and recognize this because we know what its done to the thousands of horses that are now sent to slaughter OUTSIDE of the United States since the ban has been enacted.
Now you could very well say that is illegal for the transport of horses over the Canada and Mexico borders for the purpose of slaughter, but how pray tell, do you ever intend to be able to enforce that?

When the US slaughter plants that accepted horses closed down, this stopped the US being able to regulate the humane and ethical treatment of the horses being sent to slaughter. Veterinarians were required to be on hand when the plants were in operation. I'm sure many people would be surprised to find out how many of the horses sent there were receiving better treatment than they were getting in their previous "homes".

When sent to the slaughter houses in Mexico and Canada, there are no laws requiring the plants to use humane methods of ending the horses lives. This is where most people get pictures of abused, sick, dying, and other horrifying images of horses at slaughter.


So now, I ask of all of you who agree with the United States ban on horse slaughter, what do you propose we do with the horses now that fall into government hands? How do you propose they receive proper medical treatment, food, places to live?
How about the ones who are already sick, the ones who can't walk anymore, the ones already dying, but their owners don't have the money to call a vet and have them be put down? Or the owners don't care.
You're condemning these horses to a life of being mistreated because you couldn't bare the thought of their lives being ended to support the life of others.


I'd be willing to bet the reason TEXAS hasn't let this matter die is because 7 of the 11 major/certified horse slaughter houses were located in Texas.
& I was born and raised in CA. So this isn't just Texans who can't stomach the horror the uneducated masses have voted these horses into.

I'm with you on this one. No one kills a horse who could be cured with some antibiotics, it's either not going to ever make a full recovery, or is really so old it serves no purpose. The site that I was lined to by the link in your OP is full of fail and appeal to emotion. It assumes that there are families who would love to care for old horses as pets - don't think so. besides, animals are animals - they are our tools to use as necessary. While we shouldn't make em feel more pain than necessary, killing them swiftly is quite fine.

[Eeyore Goldsworth]

I really have to go to bed now, and will perhaps be able to reply later, depending on how much I have to do tomorrow. Thanks for the debate so far and have a nice evening/day/whatever time it is for you. Bye.

[black_wing_angel]

Eeyore Goldsworth

black_wing_angel

Not in my own, personal beliefs. But yeah, I guess you could say that.

Welcome to the real world, where not everyone agrees on the same things you do.

There isn't any need to be condescending. I am more than aware people have different beliefs than me.

But I'm a bit confused. You seem to be agreeing that your reasoning before (that it was okay for a stronger being to oppress a weaker being) meant all those things I mentioned (rape, assault, etc.) were okay, but that you didn't personally think they were. Explain to me how your belief that is it okay to eat meat based on the fact animals are weaker does not translate into you believing it is okay for a weaker being to be oppressed by a stronger being.

I do not agree with the actions that have been deemed illegal by the government. It's ingrained into my mentality, compliments of the US Government. I can't HELP but disagree with rape, and murder.

However, there is no such law against killing a horse for food.

Quote:

Quote:

Who cares what's "ethical"? Has anyone ever been carted off to the slammer, because they did something "unethical"?

I was under the impression that this thread designed to discuss the morality of slaughtering horses, not what gets you put in jail. I am more than happy to leave this debate if that's all you want to talk about.

And we HAVE discussed that. Unfortunately, it comes down to legality. Otherwise, we're just going to be going back and forth, forever. Because morals are matters of opinion. And odds are, you're not going to shake me, and I'm not going to shake you.

Although, in all fairness, it's much more likely that I would shake you, than the other way around.

Quote:

Quote:

Besides, ethics are subjective. I might find killing house mice unethical, for the same reason you find animal harvesting unethical.

I never claimed ethics weren't subjective. That ethics are subjective doesn't mean that I cannot ask someone to justify their ethics.

But as long as my justification doesn't please you, it's not going to be enough, is it?

I already justified my ethics. They're not human, so they're expendable. That's not enough to please you though, is it?

No more than "they're also sentient beings" is enough justification to please me.

What we have, is a stalemate. You're not going to change my opinion, and I'm probably not going to change yours.

Quote:

Quote:

But I'm willing to bet you've lain a few mouse traps, in your time, haven't you?

I haven't, actually.

So you just let your basement be infested with mice?

Does your landlord know that?

Quote:

Quote:

In other words, they are less evolved.

Thus, they are lesser than humans.

Thank you for supporting one of my earlier points.

I will again ask how being "less evolved" takes away a being's right to life.

Because the world revolves around one simple law of nature. The strong survive. Those who are better adapted, are allowed to live. Those who are not so well evolved, perish.

And we are at the top of the chain. We are so well adapted, that we honestly have conquered every animal out there. I would be surprised if there is even 1 animal out there, which man has never been able to kill, given our advanced technology.

However, there are comparitively few animals out there, which pose an honest threat to humanity. And most of the ones that DO, we have knowledge that can help us avoid such a fate.

Quote:

Quote:

Impossible. When you deal with "personal opinions", as we are, there is no "proof", one way, or the other.

Then why are you claiming laws to be objective? What do you think they're based on?

They are objective in the sense that they are applicable, regardless of your opinion of them.

If I am caught driving 80 mph in a 65 zone, it doesn't matter if I agree with the law, or not, I'm still subject to the penalties.

However, I'm not bound to obey "ethics" and "morals" that I don't agree with. If I have no moral objection to slaughtering a deer, and the law does not say "You can't do that", then you telling me that it's wrong to kill a deer, can not, and will not, stop me from doing it. Though, a LAW against it, could.

[Alexander J Luthor]

horse slaughter is only cruel because in the us they're seen as big puppies, there are plenty of countries where horses are friends in the yard, workers in the field, then food on the table.

the only reason we farm cows instead of horses is because at the beginning of man, when he picked up a rock and saw two creatures standing there, a horse and a cow, he took a step forward and the horse was like "ooooh no!!" and he flipped the man the hoof and stomped away laughing. whereas the cow was like "ooooh a present for me?? where you going?" - carlos mencia, i forget when

[Luxxfere]

Eeyore Goldsworth

I'm not concerned with current laws, though. My understanding was that this thread was created to discuss the morality, rather than the actuality, of horse slaughter, and by extension, the slaughter of other animals.

It was most definitely NOT created to discuss MORALITY.

It's humane, it's moral, it's necessary. The issue being fired at is the fact the United States voted to ban horse slaughter and the resulting consequences that were not considered.

[black_wing_angel]

[Metalhead.Psycho]

Eeyore Goldsworth

I'm not concerned with current laws, though. My understanding was that this thread was created to discuss the morality, rather than the actuality, of horse slaughter, and by extension, the slaughter of other animals.

It was most definitely NOT created to discuss MORALITY.

It's humane, it's moral, it's necessary. The issue being fired at is the fact the United States voted to ban horse slaughter and the resulting consequences that were not considered.

In that case, I win.

[Luxxfere]

black_wing_angel

[Metalhead.Psycho]

Eeyore Goldsworth

I'm not concerned with current laws, though. My understanding was that this thread was created to discuss the morality, rather than the actuality, of horse slaughter, and by extension, the slaughter of other animals.

It was most definitely NOT created to discuss MORALITY.

It's humane, it's moral, it's necessary. The issue being fired at is the fact the United States voted to ban horse slaughter and the resulting consequences that were not considered.

In that case, I win.

Indeed. 3nodding

[black_wing_angel]

[Metalhead.Psycho]

black_wing_angel

[Metalhead.Psycho]

Eeyore Goldsworth

I'm not concerned with current laws, though. My understanding was that this thread was created to discuss the morality, rather than the actuality, of horse slaughter, and by extension, the slaughter of other animals.

It was most definitely NOT created to discuss MORALITY.

It's humane, it's moral, it's necessary. The issue being fired at is the fact the United States voted to ban horse slaughter and the resulting consequences that were not considered.

In that case, I win.

Indeed. 3nodding

Awesome. 3nodding

[Luxxfere]

http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/


Learn the facts. Think with your brain, not your heart.

[Pyroxene]

Slaughtering horses. Slaughtering cows. Slaughtering pigs. Slaughtering chickens...

what's the difference?

[Pyroxene]

[Metalhead.Psycho]

http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/


Learn the facts. Think with your brain, not your heart.

Agreed. logic and emotion should have a balance. Too often emotions overthrow the logic of the brain causing rational thoughts to be overcome with stupidity

[Akira Fudoh]

animals taste awesome if cooked right.

I havent tried horse yet...but now...

[Nonesuch Solo]

My favorite quote from the website: claiming the horse will be "killed alive."

Wut?