The outrage in Europe was largely due to horse meat not meant for human consumption making it into the food supply chain, right? The revulsion that many Americans feel about eating horse just isn't as prevalent in Europe.
As for some animals being more protected over others: sometimes, in a democracy, you just have to roll with the majority. We tend not to like our pets to be eaten.
But there are also people (and it is not a small minority) trying to impose their culture and taboos on other people. Just look at all the pressure and calls for action against Chinese and Koreans over their consumption of dog-meat. Here is an example of a petition that gathered over 4 million votes (https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-yulin-dog-meat-eating-fest...)
This article seems to cover the ethical and moral points, nicely : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/eat-cat...
I agree that food should be labeled honestly. People who engage in that kind of dishonesty should be punished. But the high pitch of the outrage was very clearly because of the horse-meat taboo.
>As for some animals being more protected over others: sometimes, in a democracy, you just have to roll with the majority.
I agree, I certainly don't think people should break those laws. It's not a cause worthy of rebellion and all the harm it does. But that can't be an argument in favor of the majority's position. That would be an argument from majority, a logical fallacy. Bad ideas should be refuted.
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of throwing people in jail for, say, setting a cat on fire. Whether it belongs to them or not doesn't really figure into that sentiment.
(The same applies for, say, a pig. It's not about cuteness.)
> how irrational people are
> the public wouldn't have cared if there was no safety
> issue
Also people do seem pretty clear on not eating animals which are also widely kept as pets, with the exception perhaps of rabbit.
>Also there seems to be a pretty clear dividing line between pets and food.
Maybe in the time and place in which you exist, but in others the distinction is not the same. I have a pet dog, but I also enjoy bosintang. Is there a rational basis for why I can't have bosintang in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_meat
> You don't address the point they made about people
> having no qualms about eating pig meat while
> simultaneously forbidding the consumption of cat and
> dog meat
> > Also there seems to be a pretty clear dividing line
> > between pets and food
> I have a pet dog, but I also enjoy bosintang. Is
> there a rational basis for why I can't have bosintang
> in the US?
I wonder if you'll use historic cannabalism as an argument that humans are irrational for avoiding eating each other next?
I'm familiar with the changing public opinion, but shifting public opinion does not constitute a rational basis. I assume that you would not approve of eating dogs if the practice was increasing in popularity. I also know that people don't keep nureongi as pets, but I'm not sure why you brought it up. Are suggesting that because they are specifically bred for slaughter this makes them OK to eat?
From my perspective I see a group of people trying to force their views on others. I'm intimately familiar with this story because I've seen it in many different forms. For example, for years my father and many of my friends did not have the right to marry in the US because of people just like you. Many justifications for this bigotry were offered, but in the end it all boiled down to "it makes me uncomfortable."
So, what's the rationale for why eating pigs is OK but eating cats and dogs is off limits? Is it just personal discomfort? Help me understand.
It often does. The Supreme Court will refuse to hear cases that it thinks should be decided by a political process. Politics is the process by which public opinion becomes law.
But since you asked, no, it does seem rather arbitrary. I'm not sure where you wanted to go with that argument. I would not eat dog, but I happily eat pork. I don't have a rational explanation for why, but neither do I care enough about it to want to try to change it.
If I did, I would probably go in the direction of eating dog rather than to stop eating meat entirely. It would not take much to push me in that direction. A few weeks in Korea might be enough for me to get over it.
>Also people do seem pretty clear on not eating animals which are also widely kept as pets, with the exception perhaps of rabbit.
I understand that apprehension. I'd probably have the same apprehension if a plate of dog meat was put in front of me, at least at first. I've had pet dogs and I cared a lot about them. But to throw someone else in jail over it? That ruins families, childhoods, and lives. Just so we can live with the fantasy that Fluffy is a person.
I'm not even 100% against meat, primarily because I know some people will never be convinced, however the regulations regarding cruelty and laws against filming etc are total crap.
Yeah, those claws that you use to hunt your food down are pretty natural.
Appeal to nature is an argument flaw and if you are rational you shouldn't use it.
Humans ate meat because they saved their energy. Do you know how they saved it? The non-human animals were walking around collecting nutrients so humans didn't have to waste that time. These non-human animals were nutrient packed and it allowed humans to save time, have more offsprings and survive.
Today, there's no energy savings. Today we bring the food to the animals, filtering millions of tons of nutrient filled grains through inefficient bodies that waste almost everything on keeping their temperature - their body warm. It is as far from nature as it gets.
You can't say there's something special about flesh that you need to survive, and there's nothing else that has it.
You like the luxury of eating meat, you like the taste, you like the texture. It is a luxurious activity that you allow yourself to have, ignoring the effects on the environment, ignoring the suffering (and yes there is no such thing as humane murder, rape or slaughter), doing it just for your pleasure. And it recently turned out to be almost an equivalent to cigarette smoking - so it's entirely irrational from a health perspective but that is the case for most of the luxuries.
That's fine with me but don't try to rationalize it, it is in its complete entirety - irrational.
It is also ironic that you pointed out a perfect example of speciesism (humans preferring one species over another) and you couldn't label yourself as a speciesist. It is also ironic how you pointed out the irrationality in other people, not seeing your own when it was right in front of you.
Chemotherapy for terminal cancers should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Meat is tasty. It's a pain in the ass to raise and deal with those damn animals, and we wouldn't bother with them if they weren't good to eat or produced milk or eggs that are useful. The evolutionary forebears of the horse and the cow are extinct or well on the way there in the wild.
Maybe more people should have the experience of slaughtering a pig or steer, dressing it out, hanging it, then cutting it up. It's a great biology lesson, you'll learn which cuts of meat come from where, and you'll become very suspicious of supermarket meat (hint - real hamburger is not bright red like that).
"My life experience has given me a better understanding of what is happening, and what a mistake it is to believe there is anything called "humane" slaughter. Animals have families and feelings, and to think that kindness before killing them is an answer is totally wrong. ...
There is always fear in their eyes. They know exactly what is going to happen. So for anyone to claim there is such a thing as humane slaughter, well, that's the greatest oxymoron in the world." - Howard Lyman, former rancher
I also like this story:
I meet a woman in a club, buy her drinks, make her laugh, dance with her, she's having the time of her life, we go to my place, I make her favorite dish, she drinks the best wine, music is playing, she feels absolutely great, sitting on couch, watching her favorite movie, meanwhile, she's sipping that drink, that has date rape drug in it. She passes out, I rape her. Humanely. Next morning she feels a bit drowsy, she thinks it's the alcholol, she smiles, says she felt perfect although she can't remember the rest of the evening. I was gentle, she doesn't feel raped. John Doe, humane rapist
It is absolutely irrational to call slaughter humane. This rationalizing to make things morally right is the common mistake people make. It is a mistake in deduction and reasoning.
Some philosophers would probably say I'm a deontologist, and they would say that consequences of a deed make a deed wrong not that the deed itself is wrong - which is my opinion. Are there no consequences to massive animal slaughter and flesh consumption? Is waste of tax-payer's money a consequence big enough, maybe climate change, massive pollution?
Any rational process, any non-laughable branch of philosophy will say that slaughter is immoral and that there's nothing humane about it - and that humane is an adjective that cannot stand by it.
I have no problem with people eating meat, but people who rationalize it through appeal to nature, through skewing morals, that's what I have a problem with.
I can't parse a coherent position out of the rest of this, or find any real relation to what I said. I'll be charitable and assume you pasted in a response in the wrong place...
I do it sometimes, I apologize if it confused, probably should have replied to myself.
Your post shows the typical HN response where libertarianism comes into play. It's about as bad as discussions around age, sexism, or visa issues.
Anyone can bring a ballot measure forth, and well, in CA, people with horses are in general as full of their self importance as your blowhard post. Oh and people think horses are cute, so it passed.
Regarding meat substitution, late 70s/early 80s Jack In the Box was substituting Kangaroo for beef.
There was a large blow back.
Sometimes it is out of emotion, sometimes it is out of misrepresentation.
As mentioned in the interview, there was a massive scandal in Europe about horse meat being substituted for beef in some products. No one would have batted an eye if it was turkey being substituted for chicken, or lamb for beef. Regulators would obviously have punished those responsible, but the public wouldn't have cared if there was no safety issue. But horses, and everyone loses their minds. How bizarre. It's the same thing with cats and dogs. People have no problem with killing pigs, and they sure love their bacon, but a lot of those same people would throw you in jail for eating cats or dogs. I don't understand it. Yes, I get that cats and dogs are pets. Are people really willing to ruin a human being's life, just to support the fantasy that little Fluffy is a person?