Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

You Are The [Magical Ponycorn Meat] You Didn't Even Know You Were Eating

The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
edited February 2013 in Debate and/or Discourse
CAB%20rib%20eye%20steak.jpg

This is my most favorite thing to eat most of the time: rib-eye beef steak, cooked medium rare. Steak is so fantastic that it's become a cliche staple main course for restaurants that want to garner a reputation as being a ritzy venue for fine dining.

Beef steaks are cuts of meat from these animals:
black_horse_running.jpg


Wait. I don't think that's right. Beef is cut from cows, and that's a horse

Well, you can certainly play this game better than most food inspectors, apparently.


If you haven't heard, about six major meat producers in Europe as of this writing have had their products tested on the shelves as being 'adulterated' with either horse or pork (in some instances, the product was entirely horse); ABP Food Group, Spangero, Comigel, HJ Schypke, Frigilunch and Sodexo.


Eh, a little pony meat never hurt anyone

The issue is less that horse meat was substituted in (because it's a cheaper meat) - although that itself is certainly taboo in places like Ireland - and more that any meat could've been substituted in at all and then sold to consumers. People could've been eating rats or war orphans from Darfur for all the inspectors apparently knew (or rather, didn't know).


That's an exaggeration. No company would actually sell people Soylent Green

It is an exaggeration, but this kind of lapse in regulation is dangerous, and consumers have every right to know what the fuck they are putting in their mouths.
peterhall2.jpg

That is what remains of the Hall family; Peter Hall was killed when he consumed some meat that was contaminated with BSE. About a dozen deaths used to occur every year in the UK as a result of someone eating a meat product contaminated with BSE; the regulatory agencies were supposed to have sharpened their pencils and buckled down to solve the problem of lax regulation.

And now we learn, apparently, that half of the time they don't even know what kind of meat is in the fucking package, much less what the meat might or might not be contaminated with.



I have had a longstanding boycott against meat products because it's my opinion that breeding animals for slaughter isn't ethical (especially now that synthetic meats are entering the marketplace); I'd eat meat, because it's one of the best sources for protein available and, I won't lie, it tastes wonderful - but I won't buy it.

The recent scandal in Europe has made me rethink my policy, and pushed me - at least for now - into full vegetarian status. Because I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable consuming something that can be labeled '100% FOOD!' and yet nobody has actually checked that this is a true statement before it's packaged and sitting on a supermarket shelf.

With Love and Courage
The Ender on
Honk
«13456

Posts

  • B:LB:L Registered User regular
    Horse meat makes you big and strong.

    Just ask this guy

    http://i56.tinypic.com/16ku96r.gif

    10mvrci.png click for Anime chat
    [Tycho?]Peter EbelKnuckle DraggerSoggybiscuit
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I'm just counting the days until rat meat is actually found in '100% BEEF!' products, and people start making excuses for that too.

    With Love and Courage
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    America had a scandal over pink slime in our beef a year ago that has since blown over. Panels were formed and meat packing owners were questioned and Texans cried for better standards. Governor Rick Perry wanted pink slime to only be called pink slime.

    I don't think anything changed in the long run. People forgot all about it after the story faded.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Oh, right. The 'Soylent Pink'. Wikipedia says the meat producers insisted on calling it, 'lean finely textured beef'.

    With Love and Courage
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    For what it's worth, beef farmed and sold in the UK is incredibly traceable. Down to farm, herd, and individual animal a lot of the time. This is mostly because of the BSE thing.

    Other European countries are not nearly as rigorous. The other issue is that pretty much everything that has turned out to be horse has been heavily processed somewhere in its supply chain: so stuff like pre-made burgers, ready meals, processed sausage, etc.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Oh, right. The 'Soylent Pink'. Wikipedia says the meat producers insisted on calling it, 'lean finely textured beef'.

    Meh. I'll go against the grain and say that was overblown. It looks unappetizing, and processed food in general is kinda meh, but at least, you know, it was the right animal and regulators knew it was going in there. The customer may not have realized what was in their burger, but then the customer also doesn't want to know how sausage gets made. It was, at least, being made in the open in accordance with established standards and blah blah blah.

    This whole horseburger thing, though. Yeah. If you can't tell me whether that's horse or cow, we're seeing a huge systemic problem. That's not a matter of "some food processing methods may be unappealing to customers if they saw them," that's "regulators have no fucking idea what's going on inside the factory."

    spool32ZombiemamboKanaCasualPLAshrykea5ehrenShadowhope
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2013
    Our country only has two states when it comes to stories like these, and they are "duh-wha?" and "ZOMG!" The latter is reserved exclusively for things that don't much matter, while the lformer is for actual issues of import.

    The pink slime issue was ZOMG, and most Mad Cow scares here are ZOMG, even though neither are really worth freaking out over. This regulator thing will probably go duh-wha, which is a shame, because you know, holy shit.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    mcdermottArthil
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Oh, right. The 'Soylent Pink'. Wikipedia says the meat producers insisted on calling it, 'lean finely textured beef'.

    Meh. I'll go against the grain and say that was overblown. It looks unappetizing, and processed food in general is kinda meh, but at least, you know, it was the right animal and regulators knew it was going in there. The customer may not have realized what was in their burger, but then the customer also doesn't want to know how sausage gets made. It was, at least, being made in the open in accordance with established standards and blah blah blah.

    This whole horseburger thing, though. Yeah. If you can't tell me whether that's horse or cow, we're seeing a huge systemic problem. That's not a matter of "some food processing methods may be unappealing to customers if they saw them," that's "regulators have no fucking idea what's going on inside the factory."

    I can't disagree on the matter of the 'lean finely textured beef' except to say that I don't think you can call 'meat' that has been processed so heavily that it's become pink goop 'beef' in any sense. But, fundamentally, yes - it did come from a cow.

    This 'mystery meat labeled as 100% beef' scandal, of all the news distractions lately, has been the one that's struck me on a personal level the most. Last night I literally opened my freezer, looked at the steak in it and thought, "They probably have no fucking idea what that is actually made of. I have no idea what it's actually made of. I mean, it's very likely to just be a cut of beef, and it's silly to think that there's anything necessarily wrong with the local meat producers just because six of them in Europe were scamming people. But still. I don't want to eat that anymore."

    And I love steak. I can't even describe how much I love a well cooked rib-eye.

    But, for now, the idea of eating one is disgusting to me.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    These situations often irritate me. There is no actual problem with persons consuming horse instead of cow or piggie, with respect to nutrition and protein consumption. The "issue" is that people have oogie-grossout reactions to the idea of eating horsemeat.

    There are plenty of cultures in which consuming horse is normal, or even a delicacy for special occasions. Given that people were unable to discern, on their own, that they were consuming horse rather than cow it seems that we can conclude that they enjoy eating horse, so long as they don't think that what they are eating is horse.

    It's not the case that the horse meat served was not food, or not edible, or not a source of protein, or not of nutritional value. So, your last sentence, and reaction to the situation, seems a bit silly. It's not that persons were eating non-food items. Rather, they were eating a food that wasn't the food they thought they were eating.

    It's a problem of cultural biases and preferences, not an issue of actual nutritional concerns for the biological organism.

    So, a reasonable response would not be to avoid meat altogether, but rather to simply add "horse" to the list of things that are delicious.

    ArthilMoridin889
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    These situations often irritate me. There is no actual problem with persons consuming horse instead of cow or piggie, with respect to nutrition and protein consumption. The "issue" is that people have oogie-grossout reactions to the idea of eating horsemeat.

    There are plenty of cultures in which consuming horse is normal, or even a delicacy for special occasions. Given that people were unable to discern, on their own, that they were consuming horse rather than cow it seems that we can conclude that they enjoy eating horse, so long as they don't think that what they are eating is horse.

    It's not the case that the horse meat served was not food, or not edible, or not a source of protein, or not of nutritional value. So, your last sentence, and reaction to the situation, seems a bit silly. It's not that persons were eating non-food items. Rather, they were eating a food that wasn't the food they thought they were eating.

    It's a problem of cultural biases and preferences, not an issue of actual nutritional concerns for the biological organism.

    So, a reasonable response would not be to avoid meat altogether, but rather to simply add "horse" to the list of things that are delicious.

    The problem isn't that it was horse meat - the problem is that they called it a specific type of food, and regulators were apparently none the wiser.


    To use my exaggerated example: If someone packaged up dead human being meat, sold it as, "100% BEEF!" and you bought it and thought, "Gee whiz, this is fantastic beef!" would it then be fair to say that well obviously you really enjoy eating other human beings?

    People were scammed into buying types of food that they didn't realize they were buying. If the producers were able to slip-in horse, it would've been trivial for them to slip in, well, whatever the fuck they wanted that was cheap / readily available. The only thing stopping them from doing it is the regulation body, and it failed spectacularly.

    Moreover, if they didn't even know what type of meat it was, how the fuck could they have known it was safe for your consumption?

    With Love and Courage
    PLA
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    These situations often irritate me. There is no actual problem with persons consuming horse instead of cow or piggie, with respect to nutrition and protein consumption. The "issue" is that people have oogie-grossout reactions to the idea of eating horsemeat.

    I agree that the issue of not wanting to eat some animals over other animals simply because of how cute they are can be dumb.

    However it's kind of important for food labels to match what's inside.

    Knuckle DraggerPLAshrykea5ehrenJobless Anarchist
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Yeah. The point is that the food inspection regime is a fucking joke, apparently, and you have little to no idea of what you're actually putting inside your body.

    I personally enjoy horsemeat, but I also enjoy knowing what I'm eating. Especially if I'm paying a premium price for this 100% Angus Lean Ground Beef.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    To use my exaggerated example: If someone packaged up dead human being meat, sold it as, "100% BEEF!" and you bought it and thought, "Gee whiz, this is fantastic beef!" would it then be fair to say that well obviously you really enjoy eating other human beings?

    Sure. We just need to be clear in the distinction between "eating other human beings" and "the idea of eating other human beings".

    In your example, Player-A consumes Meat-X, and enjoys the taste / flavor / texture of Meat-X. We can say that "Player-A enjoyed the taste / flavor / texture of Meat-X." If we then learn that Meat-X is Human, we can replace any instances of "Meat-X" with "Human". When we replace "Meat-X" with "Human" we may find that Player-A has a strong reaction against the idea of consuming Meat-X. And that's fine. We simply need to articulate the distinction between:

    1) The act of eating Meat-X, which resulted in enjoyment.
    2) The idea of eating Meat-X, which resulted in emotive opposition.

    When the act of eating Meat-X results in enjoyment, and the idea of eating Meat-X results in emotive opposition, it may be time to alter one's mental conception of what eating Meat-X entails.

    Time to add "horse" to the list of delicious things.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    That's the key, safety.

    Honestly, I think regulation at the idea of eating horse versus cow is silly. That's not the problem.

    The problem is that this means, from a quality assurance standard, that we have no way of knowing if it was food, or if it would kill people, or anything.

    At which point the only thing keeping the producers from killing people is that they don't want to, and that it's bad PR. But history has shown that at some point, saving a few extra bucks overrides that, and your peanut butter kills you.

    And that's just what goes on in a system that supposedly has some semblance of regulation. Prior to that? Anything goes. As long as the number of customers killed isn't enough to significantly diminish the market, go wild.

    If they can freely substitute horse for cow, we are losing the semblance of regulation. That's bad.

    The EnderZombiemamboPLA
  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    GoT10611_DaenerysEatsHorseHeart_1308870916.jpg

    Hey guys, whatcha talkin' about?

    Mr RayNiceguyeddie616
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Also the horse meat in question wasn't raised for human consumption and could have contained growth hormones or other artificial additives dangerous to consumers someone just decided to chuck that shit in with the regular beef and walk away and that is an issue.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Eventually, instead of Meat-Y, it winds up being arsenic.

    Or just Meat-Y with enough salmonella or E. coli that it may as well be.

    Then your emotive state becomes irrelevant, because you are dead.

    If the plant is freely substituting Meat-Y for Meat-X, this is the next step.

    Vladimus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I agree that horse is likely delicious, and people need to get over that aspect.

    But you are really missing the entire fucking point here. Don't worry, you're not alone.

    PLARhan9
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Poor robot.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Like if they want to sell horsemeat go ahead I might even try it but it has to be raised for human consumption and sold as horsemeat because that's the basic standards expected by society you jackholes

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
    Vladimus
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2013
    Quid wrote: »
    However it's kind of important for food labels to match what's inside.

    To some degree. I don't understand the actual bio-chemical distinctions between cow-protein and horse-protein, and don't care to research it at the moment. But if these two proteins are functionally identical, with respect to human nutrition, then I'm not sure why it matters.

    If there actually is a functional distinction? Then, sure, it's important that consumers know that they're eating horse-protein and not cow-protein. But if those proteins are functionally identical? Fuck it.

    The other part of this issue, that people seem to ignore, is that it's not practical to expect food regulators to test every single steak. Just looking at this article:

    "The Food Standards Agency (FSA) on Friday said it had conducted 2,501 tests, 2,472 of which had come back negative for horsemeat levels above 1 percent, with 29 results testing positive for horsemeat levels above 1 percent."

    That's a lot of tests, and not a lot of instances of horsey.

    In a perfect world a food regulator would know the exact story of where my particular steak came from, down to the name of the cow. But we don't live in a perfect world. So we play the odds.


    Edit: This seems like an instance of the thing that happens every now and then, when someone looks at Food Defect Action Levels and freaks out because they've probably eaten insect fragments. It seems like the best strategy is to read The Jungle, and get over it.

    _J_ on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    GoT10611_DaenerysEatsHorseHeart_1308870916.jpg

    Hey guys, whatcha talkin' about?

    I understand this reference!

    *glee*

    Caveman Paws
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    Like if they want to sell horsemeat go ahead I might even try it but it has to be raised for human consumption and sold as horsemeat because that's the basic standards expected by society you jackholes

    Exactly.

    People need to get over the fact that it was horse, but then stay very, very angry at the fact that it was NOT cow.

    Because the realm of "not cow" includes things worse than horse.

    QuidKnuckle DraggerCasualPLAshrykeMoridin889Jobless AnarchistCantido
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Sure. We just need to be clear in the distinction between "eating other human beings" and "the idea of eating other human beings".

    So, let's talk real world here, J:

    If you were sold a food product that you were told was entirely cow, and it turned-out to made of human, would that make you mad? Mad enough to, say, at least consider contacting a solicitor?


    Yeah, some people in Ireland were rightly pissed-off that they were deceived into eating animals that they had moral objections against eating. Apparently that's just 'oogie-grossout reaction' in your book, because apparently you get to judge what is or isn't a legitimate moral objection.

    I wouldn't have that same objection to horse meat, but I can hardly begrudge someone who does and was scammed into doing something they think is unethical.


    With Love and Courage
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    To some degree. I don't understand the actual bio-chemical distinctions between cow-protein and horse-protein, and don't care to research it at the moment. But if these two proteins are functionally identical, with respect to human nutrition, then I'm not sure why it matters.

    Allergies.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    If you were sold a food product that you were told was entirely cow, and it turned-out to made of human, would that make you mad? Mad enough to, say, at least consider contacting a solicitor?

    Have you not read J's post history?

    Guy literally thinks he's ruled emotion out of his reactions.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Also religious/moral convictions.

    Which you may not care about but others do!

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    In a perfect world a food regulator would know the exact story of where my particular steak came from, down to the name of the cow. But we don't live in a perfect world. So we play the odds.

    You are incredibly ignorant and misinformed, you know that, J?

    As someone already pointed-out in this very thread, which I guess you couldn't be bothered to read before coming to do your usual pseudo-intellectual tapdance:
    For what it's worth, beef farmed and sold in the UK is incredibly traceable. Down to farm, herd, and individual animal a lot of the time. This is mostly because of the BSE thing.

    There are already your supposedly 'impossible' systems in place, because the countries involved decided that it was important enough to have those systems. They aren't perfect, but they do make sure that the overwhelming majority of the time, the meat in the package is what it says it is.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Nurse, Veteran, Army Mom, Ficus, Space Dad, Survivor Contestant God Bless This Mess Registered User regular

    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    However it's kind of important for food labels to match what's inside.

    To some degree. I don't understand the actual bio-chemical distinctions between cow-protein and horse-protein, and don't care to research it at the moment. But if these two proteins are functionally identical, with respect to human nutrition, then I'm not sure why it matters.

    If there actually is a functional distinction? Then, sure, it's important that consumers know that they're eating horse-protein and not cow-protein. But if those proteins are functionally identical? Fuck it.
    There is a gradient of meat quality. Our cow-protein if you will, is derived from a standard chain of protocols and sterility and so on. Our horse-protein is derived from ???????. From a quality perspective, that is really gross and potentially harmful.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Sure. We just need to be clear in the distinction between "eating other human beings" and "the idea of eating other human beings".

    So, let's talk real world here, J:

    If you were sold a food product that you were told was entirely cow, and it turned-out to made of human, would that make you mad? Mad enough to, say, at least consider contacting a solicitor?


    Yeah, some people in Ireland were rightly pissed-off that they were deceived into eating animals that they had moral objections against eating. Apparently that's just 'oogie-grossout reaction' in your book, because apparently you get to judge what is or isn't a legitimate moral objection.

    I wouldn't have that same objection to horse meat, but I can hardly begrudge someone who does and was scammed into doing something they think is unethical.

    Morality / Ethics is dumb. Go read the history of western ethical / moral debates, and try to come away from it with the notion that this results from correct thinking, and not just a reification of emotive nonsense.

    Ok, so that's the moral / ethical considerations solved.

    As to the "I thought it was X, but it was Y" and my reaction? I'm not sure. It seems like I would only be in that situation if I had my own food lab, and did tests on all my meat purchases, which isn't likely to happen. So let's stipulate that I buy X, pay for it, and then while walking out the door someone jumps out and says, "Surprise! You just bought human!"

    In that case I hadn't consumed the product, so there's no need to be irritated on those grounds. If I was somehow prevented from eating the product, or read that the human-protein was not healthy, and so decided to not eat it for health reasons, I guess I would be irritated that I'd spent $X on something I didn't / couldn't eat. But it still doesn't seem like a big deal.

    I try to have realistic assessments of the situation in which I live. I'm paying money for a food item that came from I-know-not-where, and am trusting "the system" to have deemed the item fit for consumption. But I don't think that some regulator stared at my particular steak, or particular can of soup. I'm just playing the odds in the hope that I don't get the can full of flies, or the steak full of horse.

    It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, given that I'm aware of the fact that the bulk of the food industrial complex is disgusting and problematic. Said another way, I'm not as shocked as other people seem to be...and I wonder why other people are shocked.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    This seems like an instance of the thing that happens every now and then, when someone looks at Food Defect Action Levels

    And this right here is just stupid. I can only assume at this point that you've immediately jumped to not actually reading posts.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Because people are different and have different perspectives/opinions robutt

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    Fun story: I ate a type of sausage for over a year before reading the ingredients and seeing that there was horse in it. By that point it was too late to feel anything but mild curiosity at that fact.

    But yes, the news will continue to run this as "You may have eaten horse, which is bad because nobody wants to eat a horse" and not "You may have eaten horse, which is bad because if horses are just wandering into slaughterhouses and getting processed blindly, the outlook for the cowboy riding it at the time isn't so good either".

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
    Void SlayerMagic PinkAngelHedgieFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudshrykeJobless AnarchistApothe0sisRingo
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    However it's kind of important for food labels to match what's inside.

    To some degree. I don't understand the actual bio-chemical distinctions between cow-protein and horse-protein, and don't care to research it at the moment. But if these two proteins are functionally identical, with respect to human nutrition, then I'm not sure why it matters.

    If there actually is a functional distinction? Then, sure, it's important that consumers know that they're eating horse-protein and not cow-protein. But if those proteins are functionally identical? Fuck it.
    There is a gradient of meat quality. Our cow-protein if you will, is derived from a standard chain of protocols and sterility and so on. Our horse-protein is derived from ???????. From a quality perspective, that is really gross and potentially harmful.

    No no, you see, there are trace amounts of insects in any given meat therefore standards aren't necessary.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    If we can't have perfect standards we shouldn't have any standards at all I guess?

    Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    As to the "I thought it was X, but it was Y" and my reaction? I'm not sure. It seems like I would only be in that situation if I had my own food lab, and did tests on all my meat purchases, which isn't likely to happen. So let's stipulate that I buy X, pay for it, and then while walking out the door someone jumps out and says, "Surprise! You just bought human!"

    In that case I hadn't consumed the product, so there's no need to be irritated on those grounds. If I was somehow prevented from eating the product, or read that the human-protein was not healthy, and so decided to not eat it for health reasons, I guess I would be irritated that I'd spent $X on something I didn't / couldn't eat. But it still doesn't seem like a big deal.

    What if you got the food home, ate it, and then were told the following day on the news, "Did you eat Beef Corp's 100% BEEF! product? Because it turns out that was actually made of Darfur war orphans."

    Because that is the equivalent to what actually happened in the real word: horse breeders in Ireland bought food 'beef', ate it, and were then told that they were eating horses. If your objection to their anger is 'Well, ethics is DUMB!, they told me so in grade 10, before I dropped out of high school!', I don't find it very compelling.

    With Love and Courage
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Fun story: I ate a type of sausage for over a year before reading the ingredients and seeing that there was horse in it. By that point it was too late to feel anything but mild curiosity at that fact.

    But yes, the news will continue to run this as "You may have eaten horse, which is bad because nobody wants to eat a horse" and not "You may have eaten horse, which is bad because if horses are just wandering into slaughterhouses and getting processed blindly, the outlook for the cowboy riding it at the time isn't so good either".

    I'd be more worried about where the spurs and denim end up.

    This article goes into why we can't buy horse meat in the U.S. for consumption. I like this little jewel of reasoning: "Opponents of horse slaughter essentially say eating horses is not part of American culture, equating it to the slaughter of other pets."

    We can't eat horses because we don't eat horses.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    If we can't have perfect standards we shouldn't have any standards at all I guess?

    Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that.

    Pfft.

    A correction teambot is inbound.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Kagera wrote: »
    If we can't have perfect standards we shouldn't have any standards at all I guess?

    No.

    We can't have perfect standards, therefore the standards we have are not perfect. And if you expect perfection, you've failed to grasp the nature of our standards, with respect to perfection.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    If we can't have perfect standards we shouldn't have any standards at all I guess?

    No.

    We can't have perfect standards, therefore the standards we have are not perfect. And if you expect perfection, you've failed to grasp the nature of our standards, with respect to perfection.

    Yes you have indeed failed horribly at this.

    KanaMagic Pink
«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.