Jswan- OK, yes, the horse meat is in Europe. I muddled my point as I was running late and typing faster than I was thinking. But if County is correct, then the kids getting cancer from illegally buted cows might indeed use your tax money- and do you really want to pay for people to break the law?
greysandbays- Au contraire, mon ami. This is not a debate forum. It's a horse forum, so I'll argue the side of the issue on which I fall. Yes, I have looked at facts from both sides, and as I have repeatedly said, I'd love to see more of these facts the pro-slaughter people keep mentioning without giving links or specific quotes or statistics. I reviewed both sides of the issue and tried to remain as objective as possible, and I realized that, from the facts on both sides that I have seen, the only good reason for preserving horse slaughter is the economic benefit it provides to certain farmers. That one reason is not enough for me. As I have also previously said, I try at all times to keep an open mind; if you have some pro-slaughter facts to share, I will read them. It is not impossible to change my mind. If, for example, you could prove with facts and science that 70,000 horses would starve slowly rather than be slaughtered quickly if horse slaughter was banned in the US, then I might be convinced- provided you could also prove that most horsemeat is no more carcinogenic than other, better regulated meat products.
TB or not TB- Exactly. If we are to ban all legislation of morality, then we have to legalize bestiality, child pornography, murdering one's wife for infidelity...
J Swan- Actually, the use of children in my case IS reasoned and factual. The body weight of most children is lower than that of most adults. That means smaller quantities of toxins can harm a child. Mercury in fish is an example of this. Children are also legally- and this is a fact- not given the right to sign away their own fundamental rights. This means that kids don't, by law, have the choice to do things that are obviously stupid and dangerous, such as smoking cigarettes, although some do so anyway. I merely feel that, as knowingly ingesting carcinogens is not a choice a child can normally legally make (again, ref. smoking), nor a choice most children have the capacity to understand, the government has an interest in preserving the public good by preventing this.
There are two ways to prevent any child from ingesting bute in horsemeat: Either ban slaughter, or ban all medications given to horses that can be toxic to humans. Banning slaughter has some negative impact on certain small farmers, and really ticks off the people behind the big exporters. Banning medications would anger the veterinary associations and the companies that manufacture these medicines. One of the two should be done, in the interest of public safety, and I support the first option over the second.
Also, Dr. Tempel Grandin lives in my state, and I greatly admire her work. I look forward to the possibility of studying with her at CSU in the future. If you are implying that she has given facts in support of slaughter, I would like a link to them so that I can understand her position.
greysandbays- Au contraire, mon ami. This is not a debate forum. It's a horse forum, so I'll argue the side of the issue on which I fall. Yes, I have looked at facts from both sides, and as I have repeatedly said, I'd love to see more of these facts the pro-slaughter people keep mentioning without giving links or specific quotes or statistics. I reviewed both sides of the issue and tried to remain as objective as possible, and I realized that, from the facts on both sides that I have seen, the only good reason for preserving horse slaughter is the economic benefit it provides to certain farmers. That one reason is not enough for me. As I have also previously said, I try at all times to keep an open mind; if you have some pro-slaughter facts to share, I will read them. It is not impossible to change my mind. If, for example, you could prove with facts and science that 70,000 horses would starve slowly rather than be slaughtered quickly if horse slaughter was banned in the US, then I might be convinced- provided you could also prove that most horsemeat is no more carcinogenic than other, better regulated meat products.
TB or not TB- Exactly. If we are to ban all legislation of morality, then we have to legalize bestiality, child pornography, murdering one's wife for infidelity...
J Swan- Actually, the use of children in my case IS reasoned and factual. The body weight of most children is lower than that of most adults. That means smaller quantities of toxins can harm a child. Mercury in fish is an example of this. Children are also legally- and this is a fact- not given the right to sign away their own fundamental rights. This means that kids don't, by law, have the choice to do things that are obviously stupid and dangerous, such as smoking cigarettes, although some do so anyway. I merely feel that, as knowingly ingesting carcinogens is not a choice a child can normally legally make (again, ref. smoking), nor a choice most children have the capacity to understand, the government has an interest in preserving the public good by preventing this.
There are two ways to prevent any child from ingesting bute in horsemeat: Either ban slaughter, or ban all medications given to horses that can be toxic to humans. Banning slaughter has some negative impact on certain small farmers, and really ticks off the people behind the big exporters. Banning medications would anger the veterinary associations and the companies that manufacture these medicines. One of the two should be done, in the interest of public safety, and I support the first option over the second.
Also, Dr. Tempel Grandin lives in my state, and I greatly admire her work. I look forward to the possibility of studying with her at CSU in the future. If you are implying that she has given facts in support of slaughter, I would like a link to them so that I can understand her position.
.
Comment