• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

article-horsemeat contaminated

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    J Swan- In Ca after they outlawed slaughter horse abuse cases dropped. In IL after Cavel burned down, horse abuse cases dropped during the 2 yrs it was closed.
    I don't understand your "arguement" about the tax laws. Yes, the change in tax laws prompted people to sell off horses to slaughter in the late 80's, but each yr the number of horses slaughtered has decreased, in some years by the same number of horses currently being slaughtered today...yet there is no huge influx of unwanted horses or huge increases in abuse.

    Again...We do not have horse slaughter for human consumption overseas because there are too many horses here. We have it soley because of a demand by foreign countries that want to eat horsemeat, and a desire by foreign companies to make a profit satisfying that demand. To say that we slaughter horses because there are too many would be like saying we slaughter chickens, pigs and cows because there are too many...it's ludicrous.

    Comment


    • #42
      So the horses were shipped elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. You don't offer facts to back up your assertion. Do you mean horse abuse cases at the plant dropped or abuse cases in the state? And what other factors were there? Change in the law, different political climate? This is an example of anecdotal evidence. It's worthless.

      The high numbers after the law changed may not be relevant taken in context. This type of "spike" is often seen in different industries due to such changes. I think stasticians have a name for it.

      I never said we slaughter horses because there are too many. I don't see India or American Hindu's trying to stop cow slaughter in the US - and at least they have a religious reason for opposing it. If there was enough demand for horsemeat - people would raise them specifically for slaughter. But since Europe has their own horses, that's not practical.

      Unless there is a concrete plan, with funding, that ensures every single unwanted equine goes to a well tended green pasture where every single veterinary and training and biological need is met until the end of its natural life stopping slaughter is illogical. We euthanize healthy animals every day and dump their bodies in the landfill. At least some people eat horsemeat.

      Think it through. Stop the diatribes.
      Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
      Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
      -Rudyard Kipling

      Comment


      • #43
        JLK- I am not sure where you are getting your information, but I did provide a link to the official FDA press release in my post that listed the known side effects of Bute. Phenylbutazone was given to humans as a pain reliever until it was pulled from the market due to reports of severe side effects and some deaths. When I get home tonight I will try to find some more evidence that bute IS a known carcinogen, if the FDA's word is not good enough for you. Not to say that it should be; no study is final until it has been replicated.


        And Jswan:
        "In the end, it's about control.

        It ends up not about about horse slaughter, but some sort of game to see how much "better" one person is over the other.

        This is how people justify flying planes into buildings. My moral code is better than yours. And since you won't see things my way, I'll lie, and beat you over the head until you give up."

        If you have proof that I have posted something untrue, then please share it. I certainly wouldn't like to get a reputation for not having my facts straight and, as a member of a debate team, I'd like to know if using facts provided by the FDA is not a reliable way of getting the truth. I once again would like to add that I have been nothing but polite to County, and that any snark in this argument has not come from my side.

        I enjoy a good debate, and County always provides me with something resembling a counterpoint to my points. I don't think I am 'better' than him in any way. However, I do think that I have analyzed what may be a different set of facts from the ones he has analyzed, and that I have come up with a more logical conclusion than he has. I would certainly love it if he would look at my data on phenylbutazone as a contaminant and choose to reverse his stance on horse slaughter, but that is extremely unlikely. I would also love it if he provided me with data countering my point- perhaps the impact on the economy of horse slaughter, or a study saying bute ISN'T toxic to humans? That is also unlikely, however, since he has not yet presented anything besides his opinion.

        If there is anyone in this thread trying to say that his or her viewpoint is better than someone else's solely on the basis of opinion and morals, and without the benefict of a factual backup, I am certainly not that person. If you will look through my original posts, nearly every one has included a reference to a FACT provided by either a government authority, or an OPINION given by County in a previous thread.

        Jetsmom- Thank you. I, too, would like both County and JSwan to back up their opinions of me with some objective facts.

        JSwan, I would love to see your "scientists and dispassionate, reasoned discourse," particularly if it contradicts my facts from the FDA and USDA. I am always interested in facts, and I try to keep an open mind when it comes to something objective, well thought out, and TRUE that disagrees with me.

        On legislating morality- okay. I will agree that morals are not always the domain of courts and Congressmen. For example, I support gay marriage, because there is no reason to prohibit people from marrying due to someone else's moral code. However, there are exceptions to the rule that the government should not legislate morality. The doctrine of Classical Republicanism, originating in ancient Rome, gives the example of the Public Good.

        You are proposing laissez-faire economics by opposing a widespread ban on horse slaughter, correct? I will counter your argument with the public good, as horse meat may contain carcinogens. Kids with cancer aren't automatically from wealthy families. Cancer treatment is expensive, and some of these families are on welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc., meaning the government has to use some of YOUR tax money to pay for their cancer treatments. Not to mention the intrinsic harm to the public good of the loss of children to cancer. When public safety is at stake, the government DOES have the right to legislate morality.

        Do you support slaughter for export for human consumption of dogs and cats? If not, that is your morality, and legislation so far supports it. I oppose slaughter of horses for the same purpose, and I hope that someday legislation will support me, not because I think I am better, but because I feel that, after reviewing objective facts on the matter, I have come to the right conclusion in opposing this practice.
        "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

        -my gelding is a ho clique-

        Comment


        • #44
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J Swan:
          You don't offer facts to back up your assertion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Please, JSwan, offer YOUR facts. Honestly. I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I would actually love to see where you are getting all these facts and reasoned discourse to which you refer.
          "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi

          -my gelding is a ho clique-

          Comment


          • #45
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jetsmom:
            greysandbays- Every law on the books in every state is an effort to control behavior...but it doesn't mean that it is wrong to have those laws. There is a law against torturing animals, because "it is icky and I don't like it". But torturing animals is also inhumane. Ditto the horse slaughter issue.

            </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
            It's sure wrong to have some of those laws!!!!

            People are stupid creatures by nature. So it stands to reason that any law that gets passed is going to have a fair amount of stupidity in it. Therefore, laws should not be passed willy-nilly because a bunch of stupid people get all addle-pated and go tearing off on a crusade.

            There is a saying in the Natural Horsemanship cult that any "punishment" or "correction" to a horse should be "as little as possible, but as much as necessary". That same rule should be applied to lawmaking, istead of this "more is better and let's control everybody on everything" crap that we're careening toward.

            Comment


            • #46
              J Swan your arguments are illogical. We don't have cow slaughter facilities in India or any other place that has a culture that holds cows sacred. That's why they don't try to get us to end slaughter of cows in the US. The ones who live in our country must accept that we view cows as food animals. If I moved to France, I would not be trying to get them to stop eating horses...They, as a country, view them as food animals. We are not trying to ban slaughter of horses in foreign countries that see horses as food animals. We want it banned in the US where selling horsemeat for human consumption is illegal. The majority of the US looks at eating horses the same way as we look at eating dogs.
              You seem to think that if horse slaughter is stopped, we will have more cases of abuse and neglect. Yet, slaughter is legal now and yet we have abuse and neglect. The people abusing horses are not the ones that are using slaughter as an outlet to dispose of them. The cases of the states that had the number of abuse cases drop (Ca and IL for the 2 yr period Cavel was shut down) were the number of cases in the state...not at the plants...as there weren't any plants in those states.
              You make a comment that you think the decline in horse slaughter #'s is because they were shipped elsewhere. It wouldn't be cost effective to ship an extra 70,000 horses out of the country rather than slaughter them in our existing facilities. The numbers are from the USDA...hardly anecdotal.
              Rather than spout off self righteous garbage that has no basis in fact and make unfounded assertions (the flying planes into buildings mindset analogy that you used in an earlier post), please do some research or at least offer some concrete proof. I at least can provide USDA numbers that back up my claims.

              Comment


              • #47
                I prefer the work of Dr. Temple Grandin. Anyone interested in animals would find it interesting - especially given her perspective as an autistic person. I don't believe any of her works discusses drugs - it mainly focuses on humane treatment of animals in the abbatoir. I would like to meet her.

                Shahrazade - I didn't say anyone was rude. Don't make this something personal - as I have no opinion good or bad of anyone on this Board. I simply don't care about y'all enough to have an opinion. I pointed out that these discussions turn into "I'm better than you because...." in your case I believe you mentioned eating grass fed beef. I think the distinction is lost on the steer. Dead is dead. Unless you live naked in a cave and drink dew from leaves - everyone here is part of a chain. Even those on a debate team.

                Gotcha. None of my tax money is going to kids getting cancer from horsemeat. It's eaten in Europe and I don't give a fig what they eat or don't eat. One point for me.

                Don't give me "it's for the children" tactic. Every activist uses that - from gun control, to abortion, to every conceivable issue. "Think of the children...." another emotional appeal. Bleh. If we outlawed everything that could harm us the world would be a boring, colorless place.

                And I'm not opposing a ban on slaughter. I'm merely questioning those who support it. I get back a lot of emotional appeals about companion animals, deserved retirement, etc. Not every person in the US feels that way about horses. Or dogs for that matter.

                The dispassionate, reasoned discourse I refer to is what I'm looking for. Because I've yet to see any - especially on this Board. Nothing personal.
                Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                -Rudyard Kipling

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #48
                  On the contrary, all law is based on morality. It's wrong to steal, murder rape, etc. because it's immoral to do so. Morality is what keeps the human race from total chaos. That cliche' that you can't legislate morality is so stale and so untrue, it was an old buzzword.


                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J Swan:
                  Funny you mention that - when I lived in Germany and went to the movie theater - they showed the old American Marlboro tv ads from the 70's before the movie started. Aren't the Japanese the biggest smokers in the world? Something like that.

                  I'm not picking one side or the other in this argument - my views are my own. But if facts don't sway people, I don't think it justifies lying, manipulation, brow beating and even violence. In the end, you can't legislate morality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Jetsmom to you my remarks were rude to me they were not. Only one means anything to me it shouldn't be to hard to figure out which one that is.
                    Quality doesn\'t cost it pays.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      jetsmom -

                      Soooo you're telling me that the thousands of horses would normally be sent to slaughter will not be victims of neglect? Isn't that how some of them ended up there anyway?

                      I've never been called self-righteous before. Don't much care for it - especially since I'm not. Take time, as much as you need, to read my posts fully and completely. When a group of people become so overwrought and fanatical about their beliefs, twist what others say, and want to force their agenda down other people's throats - the extreme form of that is terrorism. I see many similarities in some of the writings of AR activists, some anti-slaughter people, and other political groups. It concerns me. Especially since my employer was subjected to a PETA attack.

                      I look forward to all these thousands of horses having good, happy homes once the plants close down. If that happens, I'll be clapping and cheering.
                      Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                      Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                      -Rudyard Kipling

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        greysand bays...I guess I'll just have to disagree with your feeling that "people are stupid creatures by nature." I think there are some extremely smart people in society, some average and some extremely dumb. If you truly believe that all people are stupid creatures, maybe you might consider broadening your circle of friends/acquaintances to increase the odds of finding the smart ones. Or it could be that your having the outlook that "everyone is stupid", prevents the smart ones from wanting to associate with someone that has such a pessemistic view of other people.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shahrazade:
                          If you have proof that I have posted something untrue, then please share it. I certainly wouldn't like to get a reputation for not having my facts straight and, as a member of a debate team, I'd like to know if using facts provided by the FDA is not a reliable way of getting the truth.

                          If there is anyone in this thread trying to say that his or her viewpoint is better than someone else's solely on the basis of opinion and morals, and without the benefict of a factual backup, I am certainly not that person. If you will look through my original posts, nearly every one has included a reference to a FACT provided by either a government authority, or an OPINION given by County in a previous thread.

                          JSwan, I would love to see your "scientists and dispassionate, reasoned discourse," particularly if it contradicts my facts from the FDA and USDA. I am always interested in facts, and I try to keep an open mind when it comes to something objective, well thought out, and TRUE that disagrees with me.

                          On legislating morality- okay. I will agree that morals are not always the domain of courts and Congressmen. For example, I support gay marriage, because there is no reason to prohibit people from marrying due to someone else's moral code. However, there are exceptions to the rule that the government should not legislate morality. The doctrine of Classical Republicanism, originating in ancient Rome, gives the example of the Public Good.

                          Do you support slaughter for export for human consumption of dogs and cats? If not, that is your morality, and legislation so far supports it. I oppose slaughter of horses for the same purpose, and I hope that someday legislation will support me, not because I think I am better, but because I feel that, after reviewing objective facts on the matter, I have come to the right conclusion in opposing this practice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          You aren't looking for objective FACTS. You have fallen into the debater's trap of deciding your position (that horse slaughter should be illegal because you like horsies) and are using that position to decide if you find "facts" credible and hunting for "facts" that support your position and denying the existence/validity of "facts" that contradict your position.

                          As "member of a debate team", aren't you obliged to be prepared to argue either side of whatever issue is assigned and spout forth to convince in favor of your assigned position? Have you tried this with the horse slaughter issue?

                          P.S. When I was a quarter centry younger, I was foolish enough to be anti-slaughter also. It took several years, but reality and common sense eventually did a number on that opinion!

                          Comment

                          • Original Poster

                            #53
                            Let's take into consideration how many horses are currently being abused and neglected and obviously slaughter IS available and they aren't being sent to kill. So that number of neglect and abuse cases should not change. I think we need to give it a chance to see if ending slaughter has an impact. We only have 8 months with this new ammendment so it's a brief moment in history where the entire nation should pause the horse killing.

                            In all fairness to the horses this is the very least we should offer them.

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Actually Susan P - are those activities immoral or are they criminal because they deprive the victim of their rights?

                              Is stealing wrong because it's wrong, or because it deprives another person of their property?

                              How would you feel if American Hindi's advocated for a ban on cow slaughter based on their set of morals? Or if people tried to stop kosher slaughter? Or if Muslim's tried to force American girls to wear a hajib?

                              Eeek... that's what I'm referring to.
                              Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                              Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                              -Rudyard Kipling

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by greysandbays:
                                It's sure wrong to have some of those laws!!!!

                                People are stupid creatures by nature. So it stands to reason that any law that gets passed is going to have a fair amount of stupidity in it. Therefore, laws should not be passed willy-nilly because a bunch of stupid people get all addle-pated and go tearing off on a crusade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                Also, the government is secreting selling straw figures of us to repay its WW2 debts and injecting anti-stimulants into our drinking water to prevent rebellion.

                                By this logic, because I find spousal and child abuse to be "icky" and/or distasteful, we should condone it? Ah, that makes much sense. As it so happens, I also dislike such normalities as cannabilism, rape, child molestation, incest, and drunk driving. Let's legalize those, so all the non-extremists who aren't raisin' a fuss can go ahead and have a beer with a side of human brain after a nice romp with their 10 y/o. Why, heck, that's something *everyone* can enjoy! Let it be known that I am hereby renouncing my extremist, radical ways and dumping any sense of right and wrong. Now that I am free of humanity, I'm able to enjoy my god given rights of posession of nuclear WMDs, and will use this newfound power to bomb you. BOOM! I win. Maybe now I can write that book I've been wanting to - "Animal cruelty for fun and profit." But heck, I *like* my animals, so should I start with yours instead?

                                Okay, that's too disgusting for me to even espouse sarcastic remarks about. The great thinkers in human existence have formed words to what we, as people, seem to have an inherit knowledge of: moral relativism and social contract. To live in a society and benefit from its protection, resources and freedoms, you knowingly give up different freedoms and rights based upon the moral compass and consequent laws of that society. Translation: if you don't like it, get out.

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  #56
                                  Actually I believe that America has spoken by simply not eating horses for so many years that it is proven repugnant to them. It has become socially unacceptable and that is a valid reason to ban it just as we do not eat dogs or cats in the United States. I'm sure we are pretty much repulsed by Asian countries eating Sun Bears, dogs and cats as well as other animals that they find acceptable and we consider not for food.

                                  Society can judge these standards so to say that because someone likes horses and doesn't think they should be eaten can be a valid arguement if there are enough people that agree. This was part of the arguement made by John Ensign in support of the ammendment, and congress supported it.



                                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You aren't looking for objective FACTS. You have fallen into the debater's trap of deciding your position </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    greysandbays-

                                    Thank you for saying what I could not. Good debaters can take any position and advocate for it.

                                    Many years ago, when Loreal hair coloring wasn't making a fortune off me, I was even a member of PETA for one year. Boy was I naive..... and stupid..... I won't make that mistake again.

                                    Susan P - if there is good to come out of this hiatus - I would like to know.
                                    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                                    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                                    -Rudyard Kipling

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #58
                                      It's immoral to do those things which harm others. How do you really separate the two. Isn't it immoral to deprive someone of their rights? I'd hardly compare forcing someone to wear something to ending certain practices. Until you can change the law about eating dogs and cats you don't really have an arguement IMO.

                                      Cruelty to animals is already against the law, horses aren't food animals in this country, why do we want to let our horses be slaughtered, their blood saturating American soil and feeding the Europeans. They have horses, we can't control what they do to their horses but we can control what they do to ours. We have the right to do that too.

                                      I think we should be glad to give a chance to end horse slaughter for human consumption. There will be some horses that go to zoos, the hunt and some could go to dog and cat shelters but not through the commercial slaughterhouses. Temple Grandin designed those slaughterhouses for cows not horses. You should take another look at her more recent comments. I've heard that she's made some comments about the horse slaughter industry. Who could possibly consider them humane?

                                      Horses are not our food, I'd like it to stay that way and not let foreigners profit off our horses slaughter. They don't even pay tariff on horsemeat as they do cattle.

                                      How many horses are stolen that end up in slaughterhouses? The evidence is quickly destroyed.



                                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J Swan:
                                      Actually Susan P - are those activities immoral or are they criminal because they deprive the victim of their rights?

                                      Is stealing wrong because it's wrong, or because it deprives another person of their property?

                                      How would you feel if American Hindi's advocated for a ban on cow slaughter based on their set of morals? Or if people tried to stop kosher slaughter? Or if Muslim's tried to force American girls to wear a hajib?

                                      Eeek... that's what I'm referring to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        If we suddenly stopped slaughtering pigs, chickens, cows... then I'd say we had too many.

                                        Where are 65,000 horses that no one wanted going to go? To say there aren't going to be any horses without homes is also ludicrous. The horse adoption organizations are already overwhelmed. Soo.. where will they go?

                                        Do you really think that those trainers at Suffolk Downs, & Fingerlakes wanted to sell any horses for slaughter? What about those owners who had no idea their animal went to a feedlot?

                                        jetsmom.. I understand what you're trying to say.. horse production will go down based on supply and demand. However.. there will be a gap.... Where will the horses that are currently being sent to the slaughter plants go??
                                        Originally posted by susamorg
                                        Have your good rides but don't forget to stop and smell the horses .

                                        Susan
                                        Fundamental Horsemanship

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Hey, I'm a bit cranky today what with my horse dying and all, so I might as well just say what I've been wanting to say to the pro slaughter folk for years, though I have held my tongue so as to not offend anyone. It's okay though; seems we don't need to worry about causing offense in a society where such trivialities are considered devices of "the man" trying to crush our civil rights.

                                          I'm anti-slaughter, as anyone who has actually researched and considered the matter should be. Frankly, I've been studying this issue and writing about it for years. When I began my initial research, I had no opinion, because at surface level it's not apparent whether it's just an Animal Rights reactionary cause, or if there is genuine concern with the practice. I was surprised at how quickly I realized that it was the latter. My guess is that anyone with half a brain who put in 30 minutes of research into the topic - from experts, not online message boards - would agree with me.

                                          Here's why: the anti-slaughter 'faction' is continually backing up each and every statement with solid fact and evidence. The pro-slaughter side makes blanket statements derived solely from opinion, does not refute the claims of the other side, has no convincing arguements with any factual basis, and rarely if ever stays on the actual topic. We are talking about slaughter. Not your civil rights, not your opinion of the government, not even abuse and/or neglect (though the anti-slaughter folk do have some irrefutable points on this subject and its relationship to slaughter).

                                          I have never heard a pro-slaughter advocate argue anything but heresay. Let's see... what are the usual questions? Oh - "OMG WTF ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE OTHER 65K HORSES?1?!?!?!one111 NO ONE WANTS THEM!" This question has been answered so many times that it blows my mind that people can STILL ASK IT. I'm not going to answer it here because I abhor redundancy.

                                          Another good one: "HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTS HORSE ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND SO IF YOU'RE ANTI SLAUGHTER YOU'RE PRO NEGLECT." See above. Do I have deja vu, or has this been addressed about a thousand times?

                                          One of my favorites - this relates directly to the OP, and is the only argument that has some merit because it's an attempt to refute other evidence. "I LIVED IN/KNOW SOMEONE IN [forgeign country] AND I NEVER HEARD OF MASS POISONING THROUGH HORSEMEAT." Gee, I know people in Louisiana who weren't affected by hurricane Katrina. OMG IT MUST HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IT'S ALL A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OUR CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND USE THEM FOR TERRORISM! There's also the similar reply of "WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE EATING HERE AT HOME? ALL MEAT IS TAINTED ANYWAY." I especially like this second variation because it seldom to never comes with any factual evidence other than the poster's opinion as to whether this is true or not. Then again, I suppose each of you who toute this banner could be FDA officials. Or maybe you're crooked meat producers. I actually don't care, because until you can provide real evidence, it doesn't matter if you're the Prime Minister of CowWorld - your word is not proof. Both of these still detract from the actual topic of slaughter, too. I'm not asking if horses should not be slaughtered because their meat is worse than that of other animals. There is proven evidence that there are hazardous substances in horsemeat, and that most foreign consumers are not aware of this.

                                          I'll make an exception for my redundancy rule just this once to repeat that "Your word is not proof, evidence, or any scientific means of arguement." Until the pro-slaughter people can come up with anything new or that has any evidence whatsoever (oh, and coicidentally, not facts from the slaughterhouse's newsletter, either), there's no point trying to hold a dialogue, because we can bombard you with fact after fact until we're blue in the face and if all you say is "Fuzzy bunny fuzzy bunny fuzzy bunny," the point has already been made.

                                          Oh, JM*H*O, though.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X