It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Horse Slaughterhouse Approved by USDA to Produce Meat for Human Consumption

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For me, eating dog/cat is not about it being a pet. It is about them being carnivores. Unless we are dealing with ocean going animals, I just find eating predators repugnant.

I have tried a few predatory type animals before. I don't like them, typically. I also don't like anything from the swamp. So things like muskrat, or any other swamp food, is just out of my range. I have yet to taste a swamp creature that didn't taste like the term "swamp creature". Since I don't eat that stuff, it is a small club.
edit on 2-7-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


I would give most anything a try. In saying that, I would most likely try to avoid eating bear, tiger, or lion. Mostly out of respect.
But you make a interesting point. I haven't eaten many carnivores (turning a blank at the moment actually) that aren't fish. I heard cat are delicious though...but...that's Mr. Fluffy!!! Cant eat that!




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not only will it make the death meaningless but in many cases long and painful as they starve.

I completely agree. I know that is seems a few posters though seem to be confusing horses with humans. They are not the same. If they don't want to eat horse fine, don't leave it there and let others eat it. No one is asking to do anything to hurt other people or even be cruel to horses. People get stupid over the idea of what is pets and what is food.

Sorry but if it comes down to it pets or not they will die quickly and be cooked and eaten with love. Their life and death would mean that I can live. If they starve and I starve then we both die a meaningless and painful death.

A horse is a horse of course of course, unless that horse is on your plate. That is how I think a great many see it. I blame shows like Mr. Ed and all for some of this as well as the Pop that pushed to make eating horse a taboo.

Raist



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dianec

That isn't suffering in my opinion. That's killing to feed their people and doing it both in the most efficiemt way possible. Anything may suffer when it dies! Do you have any idea of the comparison in here. Why don't you do some research on the other end of things in here.


Driving hundreds of buffalo off a cliff in order to butcher and save at most a couple of dozen is certainly efficient! About as wasteful as it gets, but efficient. But those glorious and honorable "Native Americans" wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I have done all the research I need, seeing as how I grew up on a family farm. And owned horses. I KNOW what I am talking about because I LIVED it! Go try to blow smoke up someone else's kilt!



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Yep, people should check facts, those numbers you are giving are mostly horses that are pets at least in the U.S.

According to figures from the BLM the wild horses that exist in the 10 continuous states where they are free amount to around, and I quote...



Wild Horse and Burro Quick Facts

Contact: Tom Gorey, BLM Public Affairs (202-912-7420)

Updated as of June 21, 2013


Wild Horse and Burro Population

The Bureau of Land Management estimates that approximately 37,300 wild horses and burros (about 31,500 horses and 5,800 burros) are roaming on BLM-managed rangelands in 10 Western states, based on the latest data available, compiled as of February 29, 2012.
...

www.blm.gov...


That's without mentioning that most horses that are used as pets have been selected by humans to mate for their traits so most of them are watered down selections made by their owners for their specific traits and were not a product of natural selection.

But you go ahead and keep laughing about a topic you really know nothing about.


edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by Dianec

That isn't suffering in my opinion. That's killing to feed their people and doing it both in the most efficiemt way possible. Anything may suffer when it dies! Do you have any idea of the comparison in here. Why don't you do some research on the other end of things in here.


Driving hundreds of buffalo off a cliff in order to butcher and save at most a couple of dozen is certainly efficient! About as wasteful as it gets, but efficient. But those glorious and honorable "Native Americans" wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I have done all the research I need, seeing as how I grew up on a family farm. And owned horses. I KNOW what I am talking about because I LIVED it! Go try to blow smoke up someone else's kilt!


You seem to be pretty angry at my comparing how natives in particular treated animals versus how we do today (not on farms but as my origional post stated slaughterhouses - big industry). I'm sorry your so defensive on the matter. I know my history on specific tribes well and I'm well aware what they did (have spent time with these people and their elders, and had a client who worked in a slaughterhouse). You can google the treatment of animals - dont need to hear about it first hand.

What they did not do is cause suffering to animals long term but rather killed and used the whole animal. They didn't kick and punch them or stick them in pens barely big enough to hold them so they could urinate and more on each other. There is a big difference. If I were hungry or needed to feed my family I would do what I needed to do as well, and if that included waste (killing extra buffalo to get a few meals) so I could eat I could justify this. The reason for waste was different than how we waste in this country at this time. And how do you know if I glorify or not. I was speaking on a narrow subject (how animals meant for food are raised and killed). I'm really sorry you have taken such offense to this and it makes you so sick. I'm well aware native Americans had faults but how they dealt with their food was not one of them in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You still haven’t realized have you even though it has been said multiple times.

HORSES IN THE US ARE NOT NATIVE. The Americas are not their original natural habitat. However we still have plenty in the US alone we have more than any other nation.

So in your mind 37.000 wild horses and nearly 9.5 million pet hoses in just the US is endangered.


I am sorry but I think you lack the basic understanding of the term endangered.
And you try to make a comment about talking of things you know nothing of.

POT MEET KETTLE
at least I know what endangered species means which is more than you seem to understand.

Don’t worry I will keep laughing so long as you keep saying dumb things.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana

Driving hundreds of buffalo off a cliff in order to butcher and save at most a couple of dozen is certainly efficient! About as wasteful as it gets, but efficient. But those glorious and honorable "Native Americans" wouldn't do anything like that, would they?

I have done all the research I need, seeing as how I grew up on a family farm. And owned horses. I KNOW what I am talking about because I LIVED it! Go try to blow smoke up someone else's kilt!


You are right about the fact that the "peaceful co-existence of ancient native Americans and nature" has been exaggerated, and in other threads in the past I have mentioned the fact that some native tribes did use to steer hordes of buffalo into cliffs to just get the meat from some of them.

The fact is that in the U.S. there is no real need to use horses as meat, there are plenty of other sources.

And again if we are going to use the fact that there are some people who want to eat meat and because of this it should be okay to use horses as a source of meat, then what about those other people who do want to eat human flesh? Shouldn't they also have a right to be free and choose whatever they want to eat?

(the following part is not specifically addressed to you Montana)

I know some people in here, just to argue, would claim "yes those people do have a right to eat human flesh as long as blah blah blah", but the fact is that such arguments are not a real reason for this behavior. What will be next, we are going to allow parents to murder their born babies even if they have no health issues?... Oh wait, there are people who do want that to happen... Never mind ...

Anyway, even if I don't agree with horses being used as a source of meat I believe people should be free to have their own opinions, even if they are morally wrong, and based on ignorance.


edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

You still haven’t realized have you even though it has been said multiple times.

HORSES IN THE US ARE NOT NATIVE. The Americas are not their original natural habitat. However we still have plenty in the US alone we have more than any other nation.


I probably know their history better than you ever will. I know that horses were introduce by the conquistadors from the 15th century onwards, but just because they were introduced is not a good enough reason to use them as a source of meat... You should really think about your arguments...


Originally posted by Grimpachi
So in your mind 37.000 wild horses and nearly 9.5 million pet hoses in just the US is endangered.


I am sorry but I think you lack the basic understanding of the term endangered.
And you try to make a comment about talking of things you know nothing of.


Wow... I do guess that ignorance is indeed a blessing for some...


If we are only left with domesticated horses what we will end up with eventually will be basically something similar to burros since domesticated horses have been selected and mated as choices made by HUMANS and not the horse itself... BTW, I am not saying that horses will magically turn into burros, I said "similar" because domesticated horses and what breeds to use for mating are selected by humans.

In the wild, only the strongest horses and the most "naturally" sturdy ones to disease are the ones that survive and this strength is carried in their genes to their wild offspring. If only domesticated horses existed this natural strength and sturdiness will die off and eventually we will only have something similar to cats.

BTW, as an example of what I am talking about you do know that domesticated cats are a selection made by humans right?... So, if all wild the lions, tigers and other similar species were to die off or were driven into extinction eventually all we will have left are "domesticated cats"... The same will happen to horses if we only allow domesticated horses to exist.

Care to please show us more of your ignorance pretty please?...



edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are confusing horses with people again and legal with illegal.

Cannibalism is legal (again this is not what the thread is about yet you continue to bring it up, hint horses are not people). People can and do eat human flesh in the U.S. All that is required is that the person willingly (read that again Willingly) donate a part of their body. It is not murder nor is it taking something without permission, it is legal because someone is saying here I want you to have this.

So back to this thread and it real topic. Humans consuming horse meat. This should be legal, it is stupid that it is not legal. Why are horses so special that they cannot be eaten? What is it about horses that they should be kept off the menu? Is it because a few people think they are pets? You understand the whole pet thing is only recent right? Before this they were work animals and again they were used as food during the great depression.

Horses are not people, please stop bringing up that if we allow this we are going to have cannibalism being next. That is one of the most foolish attempts at an argument one can create. Because we allow horse meat to be eaten we will suddenly allow parents to kill sick children? Really? Are you even trying to form a cognitive argument? We are discussing horses, not people.

Again I question your idea of eating beef knowing that cattle have best friends and are stressed when separated from their best friends? What makes farmed horses (not wild horses) so special that they cannot be eaten?

However, again I will point out that wild horses are nothing special or different from farmed horses. The modern horses you see today in the wild are ancestors of those brought over from Europe. There had not been a horse in the U.S. since the ice age and they went extinct.

Raist
edit on 7/3/13 by Raist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Care to please show us more of your ignorance pretty please?...


I will show you yours.

You said you believed horses were endangered species then I proved you wrong in fact you even helped me prove you wrong with your next post.

So all the other crap you are bringing up really has nothing to do with the fact that you were talking out you’re…… But hey I understand you can’t admit you are wrong so instead you are trying to change the conversation into something it never was.

There I showed you your ignorance. Or do you still insist horses are an endangered species? If you do ignorance isn’t your problem maybe willful ignorance but not plain ignorance.


Do you at least understand they are not endangered species that was the only thing I was trying to set you strait on.

I can only hope you can comprehend what that term means but I have my doubts considering your posts.






BTW, as an example of what I am talking about you do know that domesticated cats are a selection made by humans right?... So, if all wild the lions, tigers and other similar species were to die off or were driven into extinction eventually all we will have left are "domesticated cats"..



BTW house cats and tigers are sister species but lions, leopards and jaguars are more closely related to each other.
Lions and Tigers are in a different subfamily, Pantherine, the housecat is in Feline, along with the other species.
edit on 3-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
And again never did I write that horses are humans, or that legal or illegal means the same thing...

First of all, my point has been that your arguments on this particular topic really hold no water whatsoever because the same arguments you used to try to claim "it is okay to use horses as a meat source", can be used to allow other immoral actions to occur.

Second, I explained that even with my disagreement that "horses should be used as a meat source", I believe people can have their own opinions. Even those based on ignorance.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi


I will show you yours.

You said you believed horses were endangered species then I proved you wrong in fact you even helped me prove you wrong with your next post.
...


You should learn to quote in "context'... In context my point was about WILD horses, Mustangs in specific, being driven to extinction.

Here, let me try to help you see what I meant from one of my first posts in this thread...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
...
Anyway, this seems to be Obama's way, and his administration's way to deal with the wild Mustangs that have been deprived of their freedoms for at least almost 2 decades, and are being kept in pens by the government.
...






Originally posted by Grimpachi
BTW house cats and tigers are sister species but lions, leopards and jaguars are more closely related to each other.
Lions and Tigers are in a different subfamily, Pantherine, the housecat is in Feline, along with the other species.
edit on 3-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Oh boy...

Let me allow the facts do the talking.


Lions (Panthera leo) are the largest of all African cats. They are the second largest cat species worldwide, smaller than only the tiger. Lions range in color from nearly white to tawny yellow, ash brown, ochre, and deep orange-brown. They have a tuft of dark fur at the tip of their tail.

Lions are unique among cats in that they are the only species that forms social groups. All other cat species are solitary hunters.
...

animals.about.com...



Cats (Felidae) are a diverse group of carnivores that includes domestic cats, lions, tigers, ocelots, jaguars, caracals, leopards, mountain lions, lynx and many other groups of cats. Cats are graceful, agile predators that have acute eyesight, muscular bodies and a sharp set of teeth.
...

animals.about.com...

Capiche, or no capiche?...


edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are confusing horses with humans because you keep bringing up "if we allow horses to be eaten we should allow cannibalism according to your logic". You are equating horses to humans in that manner. You are bringing up cannibalism when it has not a thing to do with eating horse meat. You are bringing up parents killing sick children when it has nothing to do with eating horse meat.

There are millions of horses in the world, raising some for food is not going to end the species. Eating horses is not immoral. What gives you the idea that it is? Why are horses so special but cattle are not? Why is it okay to eat pigs, turkeys, chickens, and ducks but not horses? Your logic is flawed in more than one way and you are trying to push your sorry arguments off on to others. You have some sort of warped emotions wrapped up in this thread and you are equating horses to humans with your arguments. It is obvious to others but not you because your emotions are out of control. You are bringing up cannibalism as if it is illegal and by eating horse meat we will allow the eating of human flesh. You are basically saying that because people want to eat horse they will want to eat humans. Then you went off talking about parents killing children as if this was some sort of abortion thread (and even in that sense the agreement would make no sense).

Eating horses is a normal thing, they have been a food source for a much longer time than they have been pets. Modern horses in the U.S. are not native and they are not endangered. Even so wild horses are not the topic of those being eaten. We are discussing farm raises horses, not humans or cannibalism (I need to point that out so you understand this thread is about eating horse meat not eating human meat).

I am not sure why you are going off on wild tangents instead of sticking to the topic of eating horse flesh. Please explain why horses are not to be eaten? Why is eating horse immoral? Is there some sort of holy text that states the eating of horse flesh will doom one to hell in the after life? I do not recall ever hearing that sermon in church personally, but I guess it might have been on one of the weekends I was not there. So tell me why is eating horse flesh immoral? Are there other animals that are also immoral to dine upon?

Raist



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You see the word CAT and think they are the same.


OMG I do not know if I can lower my thinking to your level long enough to explain this so you can understand.




Felidae, the cat family, which includes lions, tigers and panthers
Felinae, the subfamily of Felidae that includes domestic cats and smaller wild cats

Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid. The most familiar felid is the domestic cat, which first became associated with humans about 10,000 years ago; but the family includes all other wild cats, including the big cats.

Extant felids belong to one of two subfamilies: Pantherinae (which includes the tiger, the lion, the jaguar, and the leopard), and Felinae (which includes the cougar, the cheetah, the lynxes, the ocelot, and the domestic cat).

The first felids emerged during the Oligocene, about 25 million years ago. In prehistoric times, a third subfamily, known as Machairodontinae, included the "saber-toothed cats", such as the well known Smilodon. Other superficially cat-like mammals, such as the marsupial sabertooth Thylacosmilus or the Nimravidae, are not included in Felidae despite superficial similarities.

Felinae is a subfamily of the family Felidae, which includes the genera and species listed below. Most are small to medium-sized cats, although the group does include some larger animals, such as the cougar and cheetah. The earliest records of the Felinae are ascribed to Felis attica from the late Miocene, 9 million years ago (Mya), of western Eurasia.[2]

link

OK let me explain. There is a reason for species and sub species definitions but to put this in terms you can understand. Just because they are CATs does NOT mean they can cross bread their DNA is not compatible. Unlike horses where you can crossbreed which you were comparing them to. If you wanted to make a comparison you should have used domestic dogs and wolves not lions, tigers, and housecats. OH crap I am still laughing.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist

You are confusing horses with humans because you keep bringing up "if we allow horses to be eaten we should allow cannibalism according to your logic". You are equating horses to humans in that manner. You are bringing up cannibalism when it has not a thing to do with eating horse meat. You are bringing up parents killing sick children when it has nothing to do with eating horse meat.
...


It is not my point, I made it clear I am against cannibalism, among many other things and including using horses as a source of meat... My point is that OTHER PEOPLE have been using similar arguments to yours, and will continue to proclaim their inhumanity should be allowed because "so and so is allowed"...

Your arguments have dealt with "because in the past and in some circumstances people have had to use horses as a meat source it is ok"... My argument has been that just because of PAST actions doesn't mean it is ok, because then the same could be said that other PAST ACTIONS are ok as well...

BTW, neither did I write that horses being used as meat in other countries should be banned... My argument is about what is and has been happening in the U.S., which is what this thread is about...

Your arguments are not real reasons to use horses as a meat source, just like claiming that because there are 9 million DOMESTICATED horses in the U.S. is a good enough reason to claim it is ok for the roundups of wild Mustangs, which only amount to up to 37,300 in the U.S, or the abuse being done to them...




edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Who said anything about abusing horse either wild or farmed? You are seeing something in my posts that is clearly not there.

You still have failed to answer my questions, you continue to ignore them.

What makes eating horse immoral? How do you feel about eating beef knowing that cattle have best friends and are stressed when they are not with their best friends? How is eating horse more immoral than eating any other farmed animal?

Thanks
Raist



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

You see the word CAT and think they are the same.


OMG I do not know if I can lower my thinking to your level long enough to explain this so you can understand.

...


*facepalm* Where in the world did I say they are the same?... You still fail to understand what making an argument in context means...

There is a reason why I wrote "DOMESTICATED CATS", and my argument in that context was why "DOMESTICATED CATS" will be the only ones to exist if wild cats like lions, tigers etc become extinct. (See, this is part of the reason why I usually have to put certain words in large letters, and even in bold, some people just don't seem to get your point even when it is in written form...)

Cats are really cats, are really cats... but you keep on laughing please...



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



You are trying to lecture on context after all the stuff you have been saying. Really?????


First you are the one who went on about horses and donkeys then made the comparison to cats you are also the one who has made the comparison of cannibalism to eating horse meat.


Seriously check yourself I am not the only one here that thinks your head is spinning and you’re all over the place.


I am off to bed before you drag me down to your level.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist

Who said anything about abusing horse either wild or farmed? You are seeing something in my posts that is clearly not there.


It's been part of the history of "horses being used only as work animals"...

You claimed yourself, and I quote...


Originally posted by Raist

There is no reason horses should not be raised for food. Throughout history horses have been nothing more than a work animal used to keep people alive either in battle or for farming. In the times of the great depression and even in other events it was horse meat that helped some to survive. I see no reason any animal cannot be used for food so long as it is not treated with cruelty.
...


Part of the history of horses being used "only as a work animal" has been the abused done to them to work them to death. You did mention you yourself do not agree with that, but the fact is "the history concerning horses" has been that many of them were worked to death...



Originally posted by Raist
You still have failed to answer my questions, you continue to ignore them.

What makes eating horse immoral? How do you feel about eating beef knowing that cattle have best friends and are stressed when they are not with their best friends? How is eating horse more immoral than eating any other farmed animal?

Thanks
Raist


So you only find some of the treatment of horses as immoral, but not other reasons such as them being used as a source of meat?... Well, according to "history", when horses were according to you only viewed as "nothing but a work animal" they were abused constantly... What makes your reasons/views any more moral than mine?...




edit on 3-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

You are trying to lecture on context after all the stuff you have been saying. Really?????


My point has been that the arguments given by some of you are not real reasons for horses being used as a meat source, or only allowing DOMESTICATED HORSES to exist as you seem to think should occur...

Just because IN THE PAST horses were abused, and were used only as "work animals", and were even eaten is no excuse for them being used as a source of meat today. I even pointed out the fact that horses are really low on fat. Humans not only need protein but we need fat as well as veggies, and other food sources.

Yes, you should really learn to understand comments in the context they are made.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am off to bed before you drag me down to your level.


Riiight, it's not like some people who think that posting laughing faces makes their point valid heh?...




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join