6 ms·

I'm fascinated by how irrational people are about food. In California, it's a felony to slaughter a horse. And that isn't some old law that no one's bothered

I'm fascinated by how irrational people are about food. In California, it's a felony to slaughter a horse. And that isn't some old law that no one's bothered to repeal, it came about through a ballot initiative in 1998. A few other US states have bans, and the federal government allocates zero dollars to the mandatory screening of any horse meat factories, so it's effectively banned nationwide. I don't see how it's anyone else's business what I do with an animal that belongs to me. Especially eating it, which is in the natural order of things. 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?

peteretep 11y ago
> how irrational people are > the public wouldn't have cared if there was no safety > issue But there was a safety issue, so it wasn't irrational. Also people do seem pretty clear on not eating animals which are also widely kept as pets, with the exception perhaps of rabbit.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  From the research I've done, the main safety concern was Bute given to horses, and it seems like it's actually very rare for horsemeat to test positive for it and that when present, the amounts are not significant. Am I missing something? >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.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  Separating the two sentences that you did from the comment as a whole weakens the argument that the poster was making. 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. I don't see how this is a rational position. >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > 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 There, you quoted it just after you called it an irrational position O_o > 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 how much research you've actually done here? Public opinion on dog meat in Korea is shifting ... pretty much in lock-step with the increase of keeping dogs as pets in Korea. Additionally, people don't keep meat breeds of dog as pets. I wonder if you'll use historic cannabalism as an argument that humans are irrational for avoiding eating each other next?
    - meric 11y ago
      Maybe there's no hard-coded login inside a human brain that says "this is a human being, do not eat him" - but rather, the repulsion to eat something could be proportionally related to perceived easiness that thing could have a relationship with us.
    - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
      Your comment about there being a dividing line is only restating "pigs are food, dogs and cats are pets" rather than offering a rationalization for why this is the case. Sure, there is a dividing line, but why is there a dividing line? What makes the parakeet so different from the chicken, the cat from the cow? 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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
steve19 11y ago
If you sell me food, I expect it is what you say it is. The horse is irrelevant beyond that it is cheap meat. I would be incredibly annoyed if I purchase American Grass Fed Beef and received Italian Pork disguised as beef. 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.
- wildmusings 11y ago
  >If you sell me food, I expect it is what you say it is. The horse is irrelevant beyond that it is cheap meat. 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.
- _nedR 11y ago
  I agree with you. If the majority choose to adhere to a particular cultural norm or taboo, that is their choice. 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-festival 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-cats-dogs-meat-china http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/eat-cat...
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> I don't see how it's anyone else's business what I do with an animal that belongs to me. 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.)
cr1895 11y ago
>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. 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.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Horse meat isn't consumed in Britain either, which is where the the mislabeled meats were discovered. I see what you're saying about the scandal though, that does seem to me like a reason to be upset.
  - creshal 11y ago
    The scandal was all over Europe, even in countries where horse meat is consumed. Problem one was substituting horse meat for beef or w/e (kind of a dick move). Problem two was using horse meat unfit for human consumption spiked with all sorts of veterinarian antibiotics (actually dangerous).
- belorn 11y ago
  The outrage was very similar when a second meat scandal occurred in Sweden when fair trade marked high quality beef was substituted with a imported cheap alternative. No one likes being made a fool and paying 2-3 times the actually value, and different quality of meat has different amount of nutrition, water content, risk of human transferable diseases, toxics and antibiotic/environmental footprint. Most people also have a strong dislike of fraud, and do not like the knowledge that their money got into the hands of criminals.
  - cr1895 11y ago
    This is also unfortunately a rampant problem in seafood: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/bait-and-switch/388126/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/bait-and...
jmspring 11y ago
Sigh. 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.
tjholowaychuk 11y ago
People are ignorant, that's why they can't put two and two together. They're brainwashed and set in their stubborn ways, or have not spent enough time with animals to realize that they don't deserve the bullshit we put them through. We're basically all Nazi's to be blunt. 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.
- oilywater 11y ago
  Exactly, these laws and actions are failed (or maybe successful) attempts at trying to rationalize immoral behaviour. They convince themselves - believing they are kind and compassionate - that there are humane ways to end a life, humane rape, humane slaughter, humane immoral acts. It's a comedy.
oilywater 11y ago
> Especially eating it, which is in the natural order of things. 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.
- douche 11y ago
  I'll take the way I've seen pigs and cows slaughtered when it comes time for me. Getting fed out of a nice trough of grain and never seeing the sledgehammer coming down is far more humane than getting your veins pumped full of nitrogen mustard and getting zapped with radiation for months. 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).

peteretep 11y ago

> how irrational people are > the public wouldn't have cared if there was no safety > issue But there was a safety issue, so it wasn't irrational. Also people do seem pretty clear on not eating animals which are also widely kept as pets, with the exception perhaps of rabbit.

marcoperaza 11y ago
From the research I've done, the main safety concern was Bute given to horses, and it seems like it's actually very rare for horsemeat to test positive for it and that when present, the amounts are not significant. Am I missing something? >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.
garrettgrimsley 11y ago
Separating the two sentences that you did from the comment as a whole weakens the argument that the poster was making. 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. I don't see how this is a rational position. >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
- peteretep 11y ago
  > 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 There, you quoted it just after you called it an irrational position O_o > 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 how much research you've actually done here? Public opinion on dog meat in Korea is shifting ... pretty much in lock-step with the increase of keeping dogs as pets in Korea. Additionally, people don't keep meat breeds of dog as pets. I wonder if you'll use historic cannabalism as an argument that humans are irrational for avoiding eating each other next?
  - meric 11y ago
    Maybe there's no hard-coded login inside a human brain that says "this is a human being, do not eat him" - but rather, the repulsion to eat something could be proportionally related to perceived easiness that thing could have a relationship with us.
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    Your comment about there being a dividing line is only restating "pigs are food, dogs and cats are pets" rather than offering a rationalization for why this is the case. Sure, there is a dividing line, but why is there a dividing line? What makes the parakeet so different from the chicken, the cat from the cow? 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.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

steve19 11y ago

If you sell me food, I expect it is what you say it is. The horse is irrelevant beyond that it is cheap meat. I would be incredibly annoyed if I purchase American Grass Fed Beef and received Italian Pork disguised as beef. 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.

wildmusings 11y ago
>If you sell me food, I expect it is what you say it is. The horse is irrelevant beyond that it is cheap meat. 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.
_nedR 11y ago
I agree with you. If the majority choose to adhere to a particular cultural norm or taboo, that is their choice. 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-festival 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-cats-dogs-meat-china http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/eat-cat...

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> I don't see how it's anyone else's business what I do with an animal that belongs to me. 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.)

cr1895 11y ago

>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. 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.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Horse meat isn't consumed in Britain either, which is where the the mislabeled meats were discovered. I see what you're saying about the scandal though, that does seem to me like a reason to be upset.
- creshal 11y ago
  The scandal was all over Europe, even in countries where horse meat is consumed. Problem one was substituting horse meat for beef or w/e (kind of a dick move). Problem two was using horse meat unfit for human consumption spiked with all sorts of veterinarian antibiotics (actually dangerous).
belorn 11y ago
The outrage was very similar when a second meat scandal occurred in Sweden when fair trade marked high quality beef was substituted with a imported cheap alternative. No one likes being made a fool and paying 2-3 times the actually value, and different quality of meat has different amount of nutrition, water content, risk of human transferable diseases, toxics and antibiotic/environmental footprint. Most people also have a strong dislike of fraud, and do not like the knowledge that their money got into the hands of criminals.
- cr1895 11y ago
  This is also unfortunately a rampant problem in seafood: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/bait-and-switch/388126/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/bait-and...

jmspring 11y ago

Sigh. 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.

tjholowaychuk 11y ago

People are ignorant, that's why they can't put two and two together. They're brainwashed and set in their stubborn ways, or have not spent enough time with animals to realize that they don't deserve the bullshit we put them through. We're basically all Nazi's to be blunt. 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.

oilywater 11y ago
Exactly, these laws and actions are failed (or maybe successful) attempts at trying to rationalize immoral behaviour. They convince themselves - believing they are kind and compassionate - that there are humane ways to end a life, humane rape, humane slaughter, humane immoral acts. It's a comedy.

oilywater 11y ago

> Especially eating it, which is in the natural order of things. 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.

douche 11y ago
I'll take the way I've seen pigs and cows slaughtered when it comes time for me. Getting fed out of a nice trough of grain and never seeing the sledgehammer coming down is far more humane than getting your veins pumped full of nitrogen mustard and getting zapped with radiation for months. 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).