By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What do you all think about Horse meat?

Tagged games:

Cirio on 07 December 2011
Netyaroze said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
I don't see the problem.

With the exception of endangered scecies, I see no relevant moral difference between eating one animal or any other.
Eating cats or dogs for example only seems cruel in those parts of the world where those animals are popular as pets, causing people to have closer emotional relationships to these species than others. But from a purely rational point of view, there is hardly any moral difference in killing chicken or horses. In fact, one might even argue that eating horses is morally better:
Because to get the same amount of meat as from killing one single horse, you'd have to kill dozens or even hundreds of chicken, so eating horses might result in less animal pain.


Chickens have a very small and primitive Brain. A horse brain is more complex then a chicken brain therefor the suffering is way more developed in a horse. Humans suffer the most because they realize the full extent of suffering and have way more ways to suffer then just pain.

 

Insects/jellyfish never suffer because they react but dont realize what suffering even is. A suffering chicken is in way less agony then a horse just the neural activities in the brain will show that. So you cant make this equation 100 chicken suffering > Horse suffering. We have no way of measuring agony we only know that the more complex the brain the more complex the process of suffering is.

And pigs have a brain that is more developed than dogs. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and most other animals. In fact, I think only humans, chimps, marine mammals and elephants are smarter than pigs (I might be missing a few, but pigs are definitely up there in smarts). So by your reasoning, it is morally incorrect to eat pigs because they can feel emotions such as depression and stress better than most animals. However, we feed our pet dogs pig meat and have a big ol' pig for christmas dinner. So if it is okay to eat a pig, then it is okay to eat dogs, cats, horses, etc.



Around the Network
Cirio on 07 December 2011
Seece said:
Baalzamon said:
Seece said:

Ha, was having a conversation about exotic meat yesterday. Should be banned, along with Venison, Rabbit, all of that. It's unnecessary.

And somehow beef is more necessary?

I hope you realize if venison was banned, people would run into deer about three times as often as they already do in MN.

Yeah Beef, Chicken, Lamb and Pork are fine, I believe we need meat and it's important to our diet. Eating Venison ect, is just doing so for the fact it taste nice, we already have enough alternatives.

We don't need to eat meat to live healthy, nor is eating meat significantly important to our diet. Our ancestors rarely ate meat and only had it in special occassions, yet they lived healthy lives outside of diseases (yes, I know their lifestyles were different, but from a nutritional standpoint they were healthy). The reason we have an obssession with eating beef, chicken, lamb and pork is because they taste nice, not because we need them. Therefore, if one likes the taste of chicken while the other likes the taste of horse, then that person should be able eat whichever meat he desires.



Netyaroze on 16 February 2012
Cirio said:
Netyaroze said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
I don't see the problem.

With the exception of endangered scecies, I see no relevant moral difference between eating one animal or any other.
Eating cats or dogs for example only seems cruel in those parts of the world where those animals are popular as pets, causing people to have closer emotional relationships to these species than others. But from a purely rational point of view, there is hardly any moral difference in killing chicken or horses. In fact, one might even argue that eating horses is morally better:
Because to get the same amount of meat as from killing one single horse, you'd have to kill dozens or even hundreds of chicken, so eating horses might result in less animal pain.


Chickens have a very small and primitive Brain. A horse brain is more complex then a chicken brain therefor the suffering is way more developed in a horse. Humans suffer the most because they realize the full extent of suffering and have way more ways to suffer then just pain.

 

Insects/jellyfish never suffer because they react but dont realize what suffering even is. A suffering chicken is in way less agony then a horse just the neural activities in the brain will show that. So you cant make this equation 100 chicken suffering > Horse suffering. We have no way of measuring agony we only know that the more complex the brain the more complex the process of suffering is.

And pigs have a brain that is more developed than dogs. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and most other animals. In fact, I think only humans, chimps, marine mammals and elephants are smarter than pigs (I might be missing a few, but pigs are definitely up there in smarts). So by your reasoning, it is morally incorrect to eat pigs because they can feel emotions such as depression and stress better than most animals. However, we feed our pet dogs pig meat and have a big ol' pig for christmas dinner. So if it is okay to eat a pig, then it is okay to eat dogs, cats, horses, etc.



No I never said anything about whats ok to eat. I just said we have no means for quantifying suffering therefor its impossible to use the reasoning of Arnold Rimmer.