Announcement

**Sava** · September 8, 2006, 10:09

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, the reason to be humane is so the animal doesn't suffer, not to "maximize yield of the meat". So it'd be ok to torture the horse since they are merely a commodity at that point?

This is irrelevant because healthy animals produce more meat and are healthier for human consumption. Healthier animals are animals that are better fed (with grass or organic feed, not animal feed), not put under stressful conditions (because stressed animals do not develop lean tissue), and animals that have room to move around.

Most "factory" farm conditions are inhumane and also produce low quality meat. Those conditions should be banned.

The effect is that meat is more expensive and less profitable, but hey... I'd rather pay more for healthier, higher quality meat. And this shouldn't be a question of choice. It should be mandated by law... for the sake of the animal and for the health of human consumption. Both are equally valid concerns.

**Imran Siddiqui** · September 8, 2006, 10:14

Originally posted by SpencerH
A total red herring. The slaughter of horses is regulated by the USDA, just as it is for every other livestock in America.

This is an effort by various tree-hugger types to prevent us from eating animals (at all).

Which is why it enjoyed such widespread support. The majority of the House are all tree hugging vegetarians, right?

Some comments by supporters of the bill:

Wow... one guy thinks horses are close to human as you can get... that means they aren't treated inhumanely at all. Nope.

I love this "Proponents include the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the biggest horse doctors' group."

Gee, I wonder why?

Perhaps because they care about the humane treatment of which the animals they care for? Vets tend to be very protective of animals if you hadn't noticed.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · September 8, 2006, 10:25

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, the reason to be humane is so the animal doesn't suffer, not to "maximize yield of the meat". So it'd be ok to torture the horse since they are merely a commodity at that point?

Issues of humane treatment are irrelevant as the most inhumane treatment of all is inflicted upon them namely, slaughter.

The only compelling reason to treat the animals as humanely as possibile is then reasons of economics, wherein treating them as gingerly and cleanly as possible yields the greatest amount of highest quality and safe for human consumption product.

Twisted around if more torturous means of handling the animals yielded higher quality and/or greater quantities of product by all means it would be employed. Or don't you eat milk fed veal?

Humanizing animals for slaughter is a game for wimps that never worked on a farm.

**MrFun** · September 8, 2006, 10:28

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Why the only reason to be humane is in order to maximize yield of the meat. They are sentenced to death already the only reason to be humane is in order to achieve highest quality meats that are safe for consumption.

At the point they enter the state of being food stuffs they are merely a commodity.

You're very cold.

I can never support wanton torture and mistreatment of animals, no matter what the end result of the animal will be.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · September 8, 2006, 10:31

Originally posted by MrFun

You're very cold.

I can never support wanton torture and mistreatment of animals, no matter what the end result of the animal will be.

You learn very quickly not to get attached to feedstock animals. Its business nothing more.

**Lorizael** · September 8, 2006, 10:50

I'm in agreement here with the people that like to kill animals. I seriously see no point (other than in producing the best quality food) in treating "humanely" a thing you've already decided to kill.

What's made better by the humane destruction of a living creature?

**Sava** · September 8, 2006, 10:51

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Wow... one guy thinks horses are close to human as you can get... that means they aren't treated inhumanely at all. Nope.

It means that the representative in question isn't being objective and isn't paying any attention to the facts. That person is simply voting based upon emotion and bias. Furthermore, the question of humane treatment is not really being addressed. It's about preventing a particular animal from being used as food, as Spencer indicated.

An intelligent person would have recognized this fact immediately based on that particular response.

**Imran Siddiqui** · September 8, 2006, 10:53

Originally posted by Sava
It means that the representative in question isn't being objective and isn't paying any attention to the facts. That person is simply voting based upon emotion and bias.

Which, of course, means that horses sent to slaughter aren't being treated inhumanely.... though an intelligent person would have realized that one had little to do with the other. Too much to ask for, I guess.

**SpencerH** · September 8, 2006, 10:53

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Which is why it enjoyed such widespread support. The majority of the House are all tree hugging vegetarians, right?

This isnt even a good strawman. As for why it has widespread support, I dont know. Politicians support lots of stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. I suspect that in this case they are as emotionally swayed as you appear to be.

Wow... one guy thinks horses are close to human as you can get... that means they aren't treated inhumanely at all. Nope.

So the USDA properly regulates the humane slaughter of other livestock but not horses? Or perhaps you believe that no livestock is humanely slaughtered? Now where have I heard that before?

Perhaps because they care about the humane treatment of which the animals they care for? Vets tend to be very protective of animals if you hadn't noticed.

No I havent noticed that and my family has had lots of business dealings with vets.

Why aren't the vets supporting different regulations or better monitoring if they're so concerned with humane treatment? Perhaps the ranchers should send the additional vets and disposal bills to the vets association.

**Velociryx** · September 8, 2006, 11:02

Which is why it enjoyed such widespread support. The majority of the House are all tree hugging vegetarians, right?

My guess is that it (the bill in question) enjoyed such an outpouring of widespread support because it was fluff. Easy. Something to pat themselves on the back for "doing something" while ignoring all the really important matters they could be working on.

Sorry bud (Imran)...you and I agree a fair bit of the time, but compared to what Congress could and should be doing, this is tripe, perhaps a shade more valuable than if all the members of Congress were to try their hand at "Channeling" but not much....

-=Vel=-

**Imran Siddiqui** · September 8, 2006, 11:02

Originally posted by SpencerH
This isnt even a good strawman. As for why it has widespread support, I dont know. Politicians support lots of stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. I suspect that in this case they are as emotionally swayed as you appear to be.

Yeah, it was a pretty bad strawman by you. Most Congressmen aren't tree huggers and are pushing this.

So the USDA properly regulates the humane slaughter of other livestock but not horses? Or perhaps you believe that no livestock is humanely slaughtered? Now where have I heard that before?

Two things. One, as Sava pointed out, slaughterhouses are for the most part inhumane to the animals and their standards should be increased, namely how many animals in an enclosure for one.

Second, horses are different than cattle who have been bred for slaughter. Horses are not bred for slaughter, which means they are decided less docile than cattle. They fight, they thrash around. Treating like cattle means they get beaten around to get them to do what docile cattle do.

Why aren't the vets supporting different regulations or better monitoring if they're so concerned with humane treatment? Perhaps the ranchers should send the additional vets and disposal bills to the vets association.

They've been lobbying to do something about this for a long while. They probably realized that more stringent regulations and better monitoring was a no go (because of the costs inherant in such a thing would have to be taken into account in the federal budget).

**Dinner** · September 8, 2006, 11:05

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because the way horse slaughter is done is very inhumane. I guess they could mandate humane slaughter (and set rules on what that would be)... but this was easier.

I don't see why it would be any less humane then slaughtering cows. It's jsut people are used to eating cows and not horses.

**Bosh** · September 8, 2006, 11:25

horse meat

dog meat

throwing away perfectly good meat that could be eaten

**Kuciwalker** · September 8, 2006, 11:53

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Slow is correct. Horse meat is eaten in large quantities outside the US. Horses are slaughtered for consumption in those countries. It's not as trivial a matter as you seem to think. It isn't like banning the slaughtering of cats or dogs for human consumption.

You mean it's not trivial, just stupid?

**Kuciwalker** · September 8, 2006, 11:54

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why should this be banned? If people like to eat horse meat that means more beef for me. This is idiocy.

QFT. And more pigs too

Announcement

Congress spends time"wisely" bans horses

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment