Are French horse eaters worse than American cow, pig, or chicken eaters? Keep in mind that unlike the last three animals, horses aren't raised for food. Animals raised on factory farms live in infinitely more squalid circumstances than horses destined for the dinner plate. [The law's supporters] say that transport conditions to Mexico are appalling, with, in the words of the American Welfare Institute, horses "typically hauled for more than 24 hours without rest, water, or food in trailers that provide little protection from weather extremes. They are often forced onto cattle trailers with ceilings so low they injure their heads." That may well be true, but shutting down the domestic slaughterhouses has increased exports. So now more horses are being sent off to Mexico.
But, runs the counterargument, if the AHSPA passes and the export trade is banned, American horses will roam free and live happy lives. There are hundreds of horse rescue operations in existence, they say, and unwanted horses that would otherwise be slaughtered would be adopted and cared for.
But is that really the case? Most horses sent to slaughter are past their prime and unwanted by the farmers or ranchers who own them. Patricia Evans, of Utah State University's Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Sciences Department, says that more horses are being abandoned now that domestic slaughterhouses have been closed. The advocates "predicted that shutting down domestic slaughterhouses wouldn't increase neglect and abuse, but we're in the real world," she said. "Unfortunately, kids get abused and so do animals."
Horselover Facts
Animal welfare activists are pushing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would ban "the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption." Ken Silverstein parses the problems with the bill:
Comments to "Horselover Facts":
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 10:48am | #
Let's see--I'm a farmer with an old useless horse that I no longer want. I used to sell it to a slaughterhouse, maybe in Mexico. If I can no longer do that, what do I do?Animal activist answer: horse lives until natural death, cavorting in the green fields.
Real answer: I shoot the fucker and bury it with my backhoe.
Good job, activists!
Syloson of Samos | November 28, 2007, 10:50am | #
But, but horses live the lives of cartoon animals, right?Wishful-thinking based legislation is exempt from the Law of Unintended Consequences; why can't you people get that through your heads?
From the post title, I thought this might turn out to be a Philip K. Dick reference.
sixstring | November 28, 2007, 10:57am | #
Animal activist answer: horse lives until natural death, cavorting in the green fields.You forgot the part about how keeping the methane and CO2 spewing beast alive will contribute to equinogenic global warming. What's an activist/environmentalist to do?
Hey, I made up a word.
Michael Pack | November 28, 2007, 10:57am | #
Once again Congress steps in where they do not belong.Mr. Ed must Die!Mike Laursen | November 28, 2007, 11:08am | #
Hey, I made up a word.Hey, pretty good. Only three hits in Google, including your comment. "Bovinogenic" only gets four hits.
Yeah, no matter what happens, some idiot is going to make a Dick reference.
Jesse Walker | November 28, 2007, 11:11am | #
Why can't it be both, Sam? The title is a VALIS reference. The post is an animal story. Everyone's a winner!Neu Mejican | November 28, 2007, 11:15am | #
PKD was an animal lover.So kudos for the Valis reference.
I understand Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank are huge supporters of this act.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 11:36am | #
Should we allow dogs to be sent to Mexico to be made into food? How about cats? Why not allow domestic dog and cat slaughterhouses, I mean, otherwise all those dogs will just have terrible neglected lives. While we are at it there is a problem in this nation with homeless kids, we could just eat them too. I mean otherwise these kids will just be abandoned.The sum and substance of Libertopian Wisdom...
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 11:37am | #
"Philip K. Dick in the Pet Section of a Wal-Mart"Man or Astro-man?
I can't seem to find a link to an mp3.
Tom | November 28, 2007, 11:37am | #
"Real answer: I shoot the fucker and bury it with my backhoe."During my 5-year rural sojourn, our property backed up to a pasture where my neighbor ran a few dozen head of cattle, including a couple of bulls.
One day I happened to look toward the pasture and noticed one of the bulls with stiff legs, if not exactly pointing to the sky, at least rigor mortising in that general direction.
Here came my neighbor on his backhoe. Wandering over to the fence to watch the goings on, I was expecting him to scoop out a grave for Ol' Toro, but instead he dismounted with a gas can, doused the bloating bull, and chucked a match on him.
I asked him why he didn't just bury the bull.
"I ain't gonna waste time digging a hole for that big fucker," was the gist of his answer.
The environs did smell like steak for the next few days.
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 11:43am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,I never thought about how libertarianism advocates eating children! You've really struck a mortal blow to libertarianism there. Wow, I'm staggering around stunned. You've finally shown us horrible libertarians the error of our ways and we promise to go forth and sin no more.
Your work is finally done here. I'm sure there are thousands of other comment boards that would benefit from your asinine hyperbole. Go. They need you.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 11:47am | #
Well SugarFree, if you don't want sarcasm then stop acting like the Law of Unintended Consequences can explain everything and deflect meteor showers all at the same time.If you give a libertarian a fish he will eat it.
If you give a libertarian a fishing pole he will fish with it.
If you give a libertertarian an explanation of the Law of Unintended Consequences they will use in reference to any policy they don't like.
J sub D | November 28, 2007, 11:49am | #
I understand Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank are huge supporters of this acName two people smarter than a dishrag who care what those two think. I dare you!
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 11:50am | #
You know the problem with outlawing rape? It creates a market for rape and more women are raped.The LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HAS SPOKEN.
You know the problem with outlawing child pornography? It creates a market for it and with the incentive to produce it suddenly there is more of it.
The LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HAS SPOKEN.
Damn, this thing has more uses than Green Lantern's ring and makes me look like I'm smart!
Oh, stop beating a dead horse. You've finally put use in our place. You are needed elsewhere, Liberal Avenger!
fyodor | November 28, 2007, 11:51am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,Um, so if we think there's no moral difference between eating pigs and eating horses, then we've obscured the difference between eating any animal and eating humans?
Makes sense to me.
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 11:52am | #
As usual, MNG goes hysterical and hyperbolic on a post regarding animal issues. Maybe you could try not to be a) so predictable, and b) so annoying.I don't think I've ever read typing that conveys, without sound, shrill hysteria more than your animal posts. It's uncanny.
Oh, stop beating a dead horse.
Pun intended, or excellent slip?
ChicagoTom | November 28, 2007, 11:52am | #
Should we allow dogs to be sent to Mexico to be made into food? How about cats? Why not allow domestic dog and cat slaughterhouses...Yeah sure, why not?
I'm not getting the point you are trying to make. Are certain animals supposed to be food and other not?
If I remember correctly, horse meat was not considered something not to be eaten even in the US.
What, all of a sudden horses are a protected creature that should only be used for noble things, like racing?
Jesse Walker | November 28, 2007, 11:54am | #
MNG: I can't help noting that there were no references to the Law of Unintended Consequences -- either the real thing or your odd version of it -- in your original comment.ChicagoTom | November 28, 2007, 11:55am | #
If I remember correctly, horse meat was not considered something not to be eaten even in the US.To clariffy...I should have said :
If I remember correctly, in decades past, horse meat was considered something to be eaten even in the US. I know many people from older generations who have eaten horse meat on more than one occasion.
fyodor | November 28, 2007, 11:56am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,Instead of caricaturing libertarians as unthinkingly stupid, perhaps you could show how the argument being employed, that horse owners would not necessarily treat their old horses better just because one marketable use for them has been made illegal, is faulty?
And then perhaps we could actually have an intelligent conversation about it?
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 11:56am | #
fyodor-the point is that you can't just say "what about the unintended consequences" in opposition to any government prohibition. In the empirical world government prohibitions decrease the number of certain phenomena all the time.Ahh Episiarch, now you may conjure up the animal rights activist who exists in your fevered imagination of Left Wing Boogeymen...
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 11:57am | #
Episiarch,Pun intended, or excellent slip?
Which would get you to respect me in the morning?
Matt J | November 28, 2007, 11:57am | #
Should we allow dogs to be sent to Mexico to be made into food? How about cats? Why not allow domestic dog and cat slaughterhouses, I mean, otherwise all those dogs will just have terrible neglected lives.Why not? As it stands now we just cremate the ones the pounds kill. What a waste of protein. I'm sure certain parts of the world would be more than happy to grill them up instead.
While we are at it there is a problem in this nation with homeless kids, we could just eat them too. I mean otherwise these kids will just be abandoned.
Eating homeless kids would be very unsatisfying. Not enough meat on the bones and what's there is far too stringy. On the plus side they would be very low in cholesterol.
x,y | November 28, 2007, 11:57am | #
I love animals. They're delicious.******Stolen from a bumper sticker. Sue me.
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 11:58am | #
Ahh Episiarch, now you may conjure up the animal rights activist who exists in your fevered imagination of Left Wing Boogeymen...You can take pages from joe's book all day and it won't change the fact that you go ballistic on animal threads. Reading your posts almost makes me hyper because you are so worked up.
x,y | November 28, 2007, 11:58am | #
Feed the homeless to the hungry. Kill two birds with one stone.Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 11:59am | #
"Should we allow dogs to be sent to Mexico to be made into food? How about cats? Why not allow domestic dog and cat slaughterhouses, I mean, otherwise all those dogs will just have terrible neglected lives. While we are at it there is a problem in this nation with homeless kids, we could just eat them too. I mean otherwise these kids will just be abandoned."IF we ban domestic slaughterhouses, THEN dogs will just be unloved, homeless and treated badly.
IF we ban the eating of kids, THEN kids will just be neglected and abused.
The UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of the ban are worse than the conditions before the ban.
That's what I'm making fun of Jesse, and the references to the Law of Unintended Consequences seemed pretty up front there in my first point (quoted here).
J sub D | November 28, 2007, 11:59am | #
As Johnny Carson once pointed out, horses are dumber than pigs. Farmers are in general agreement with that evaluation. Eat the equine idiots and put them out of their stupid existence.Slightly OT, I recall horsemeat for sale at the local A&P when I was a child, circa 1963. IIRC, beef prices had spiked and some folks were eating horse as a response. There were no protests. Some headshaking, yes. But no horse buggerers lobbying the legislature to ban the practice.
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 12:00pm | #
Which would get you to respect me in the morning?Head. Really, I would have even more respect for you.
x,y | November 28, 2007, 12:00pm | #
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsorVintage Maddox.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:02pm | #
EpistarchBut that is just it, I'm usually laughing at the poor reasoning that goes on in these threads, not hysterical. Ironically, its you that always shows up first to these threads like a fly on dung to insult those "activists."
Matt J | November 28, 2007, 12:03pm | #
I understand Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank are huge supporters of this act.Name two people smarter than a dishrag who care what those two think. I dare you!
I don't blame them. Careers don't last forever and they don't want to end up as some bistro's lunch special.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:06pm | #
It's not that certain actions might have unintended consequences, but that the conditions before the action, or without, were worse before the unintended consequences.Making it more expensive to ship horses to be eaten will mean there will be much, much less of it (its called incentives people, it's libertopians who are supposed to have the obsession with classical economics for pete's sake). Now the unintended consequences can be dealt with in a variety of ways, but the question is, has a moral wrong been averted? Before you go all ballistic with "but, but the government should not avert moral wrongs" perhaps you can explain who will enforce the tort and criminal laws in Libertopia? Super Market Man and his Friedmanite Ring of Power?
carrick | November 28, 2007, 12:06pm | #
It's all disney's fault.Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 12:07pm | #
But that is just it, I'm usually laughing at the poor reasoning that goes on in these threads, not hysterical. Ironically, its you that always shows up first to these threads like a fly on dung to insult those "activists."You aren't really somebody who should be criticizing the reasoning of others.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:09pm | #
Well, if you feel neglected Epistarch, when you start reasoning I'll start criticizing you too :).Aresen | November 28, 2007, 12:10pm | #
Real answer: I shoot the fucker and bury it with my backhoe.Actually, it's worse. The horse gets put in a tiny paddock with little or nothing to eat and slowly starves to death while its hooves overgrow, resulting in painful contraction of tendons, laminitis and founder. In addition, the horse's coat becomes infested with lice and mange and its stomach and intestines are destroyed by worms.
Shooting or otherwise killing them is merciful by comparison.
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 12:12pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy -Episiarch has no need to make up an animal rights activist in his head.
In this thread, you have equated the eating of horses with the eating of children. It's difficult to get more "crazy animal activist" than that.
With that out of the way -
Surely even you can agree that a scenario where it's legal to eat pig but not legal to eat horse - or dog - makes no sense, and that the only two scenarios that make sense are "all domesticated animals can be eaten" and "no animals can be eaten"?
fyodor | November 28, 2007, 12:15pm | #
MNG,Again you stick with the caricature and show no interest in addressing the actual argument being made.
In fact, there will always be both intended and unintended consequences of any law. If not allowing horses to be slaughtered for food is worth creating an incentive to abandon them instead, then the law is a success. Congratulations animal welfare advocates.
Franklin Harris | November 28, 2007, 12:17pm | #
What a coincidence. The unintended consequences have already started.Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:17pm | #
You're right Aresen, that is an awful fate, and we should have laws against it. We do, animal cruelty and neglect laws, in every state of this nation.However, the folks against horse slaughter for food argue that the conditions in the horse slaughter industry are also cruel and they want to take action to end that as well. It's not just squeamishness about eating this particular meat (though even that is not so crazy, after all the human race has had a long standing working relationship with these animals that makes many of us feel like we "owe" them better than that; think of all the great generals who owed their lives to their horses and honored them). Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps the conditions are better than many that will be faced by horses in other situations. Will everyone prevented from shipping their horse to the slaughterhouse end up starving it or shooting it? That's an empirical matter few of us are qualified to answer. But to just assume that every government prohibition will just by its existence make the problem worse because of the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES is laziness...
Minion of URKOBOLD | November 28, 2007, 12:19pm | #
I NAME THE HORSE MUHAMMAD AND THEN EAT IT. THEREBY GAINING CROSS-OVER INSULT UTILITY.Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:20pm | #
"In this thread, you have equated the eating of horses with the eating of children. It's difficult to get more "crazy animal activist" than that."fluffy, you're smarter than that. Read what I wrote again. It's called satire. I was demonstrating that arguing that government prohibitions always create incentives to make things worse is just stupid, after all we don't think that banning the eating of children will create massive incentives for child abandonment and neglect. But again, you, unlike Epi, are usually smart enough to see such things.
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 12:22pm | #
after all the human race has had a long standing working relationship with these animals that makes many of us feel like we "owe" them better than that; think of all the great generals who owed their lives to their horses and honored themRight! And Caligula made his a senator. So what does that mean exactly?
Jesse Walker | November 28, 2007, 12:23pm | #
the point is that you can't just say "what about the unintended consequences" in opposition to any government prohibitionThat's true. You have to point out the unintended consequences and make a case that they're significant enough to care about.
Which happens to be exactly what Ken Silverstein (who isn't a libertarian) did in the post I quoted.
RICK SANTORUM'S DOG | November 28, 2007, 12:24pm | #
NOT ONLY A LABOR RELATIONSHIP, BUT A LEISURE RELATIONSHIP, TOO!*reaches for a handi-wipe*
Matt J | November 28, 2007, 12:25pm | #
think of all the great generals who owed their lives to their horses and honored themThink of all those soldiers who ate theirs in a pinch.
What's wrong with eating horse? I've eaten horse salami numerous times and it's delicious. This is worse than the foie gras ban.
Sulla | November 28, 2007, 12:29pm | #
Generally speaking, there are two reasons for banning (criminalizing) an activity. (I think this oversimplification is sufficient for the purposes of the thread).1) An action is (believed to be) inherently immoral/evil/bad/wrong, e.g., rape. For these activities, the law of unintended consequences is irrelevant. Even if it were somehow determined that a law banning rape actually caused more rapes, it would be difficult to argue that we should repeal the law, because rape is inherently bad.
2) An activity is banned because for public policy reasons, i.e., its effects on society or a subset thereof. Hypothetically, imagine a law that banned short skirts because we believe that it leads to more rapes. If we find evidence that this law in fact leads to more rapes, that would be a more fitting application of the law of unintended consequences. The actual effects of the law undermine our true goal.
Here, if the true goal of the activists is to prevent the slaughter of horses on american soil because it is inherently wrong, then outside considerations become much less important. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the true goal is to reduce cruelty to animals or provide better treatment for horses. To the extent a ban on American horse slaughterhouses actually undermines this goal, it is perfectly fair to reference the law of unintended consequences.
Aresen | November 28, 2007, 12:29pm | #
MNGI have been a horseman for 25 years and, as my father was a veterinarian, I have had contact with the horse industry for my whole life.
As Jesse states, the number of cases of neglected horses has risen dramatically since the horse slaughterhouses began being closed down and is a direct consequence of the closures.
Where previously an owner could get a few dollars by selling the animal for slaughter, it is now easier to simply abandon it.
critic | November 28, 2007, 12:32pm | #
Read what I wrote again. It's called satire.Satire requires some actual talent.
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 12:39pm | #
Don't try and throw him off, he's got the idea that libertarians just scream "Law of Unintended Consequences!" instead of pointing out the actual consequences. You won't get him off script, it's silly to even try. He's built such a fine libertarian strawman in his mind that he not only thinks the boxing match is fair, but that he's winning.Is there a central clearing house for people like this? Not trolls exactly, but hectoring lecturers that think a few ham-handed barbs is going to change anyone's mind? Are they given certain boards to harass or is it a spontaneous swarming effect?
swillfredo pareto | November 28, 2007, 12:40pm | #
Surely even you can agree that a scenario where it's legal to eat pig but not legal to eat horse - or dog - makes no sense, and that the only two scenarios that make sense are "all domesticated animals can be eaten" and "no animals can be eaten"?I am in complete agreement with the concept of the thread, and I don’t have a problem with people who treat dogs and cats humanely eventually eating them. But I disagree with that final statement that it is simply all or no. One of the reasons that dogs were domesticated in the first place was to be companions to humans. Depending on which version of their origin you believe the sociability of wolves was specifically exploited. Not all animals were domesticated to be eaten. That may be something some people do with a dog but I don’t think it was ever a big part of the animal husbandry. Pork chops and drumsticks were designed to be eaten.
critic | November 28, 2007, 12:40pm | #
However, "Mr Nice Guy" does represent a fine example of unintended irony.THE SOLUTION | November 28, 2007, 12:48pm | #
AS PRESENTED BY TO TO COELO.Isaac Bartram | November 28, 2007, 12:49pm | #
Think of all those soldiers who ate theirs in a pinch.In an interview shortly after WWII Gen Wainwright was asked if their was a use for horses in the modern American army. His response was something like, "Well, we ate our horses at Corregidor."
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 12:53pm | #
Well, actually SugarFree many libertarians do just shout out slogans. I often try to distinguish between such libertarians who are thoughtful and what I try to call "Libertopians" which just yell out "LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" or "DEMAND KURVE" (to borrow from joe), but I sometimes forget to (you know, just like many people on this site forget that there are more or less thoughtful animal welfare activists [or are they all Sarah Jessic Parker]). But even the thoughtful ones seem to have a knee jerk reaction to any government prohibition, one that I was satirizing. I mean, certainly its intuitive that there is a market in child pornography just like there is one in horsemeat, and certainly there are children who are on the verge of being neglected and abused just like there are horses in the same plight, so why ban child pornography when to do so would mean many people, who without such a ban, would not abandon their kids, but instead would "use" them? I mean, Libertopian logic would conclude that now these parents would have a interest in keeping the kids in good shape (wouldn't want to harm the "merchandise"), and these kids would be better off? Well, it's insane and sickening to think that way. We ban child pornography because it is sickeningly immoral, harmful and wrong to use children in such a way. We also want to make less of it, and we will use the law to provide a disincentive in relation to it. Likewise thoughtful animal welfare activists think horse slaughter, or the conditions surrounding the industry, is immoral and wrong, and we want to prohibit it and make for less of it.On another level, there is the Libertopian tendency to assume that the methodology of classical economics has human behavior all figured out. Is it a fact that the taking away the incentive to ship your horse off to Mexico increases incentives to starve or kill your horse (does banning child pornography actually lead to MORE child pornography, or less?)? These empirical matters cannot necessarily be worked out quickly with a deduction from classical economics axioms.
And it was this I was mocking, just as most of the posts above mine mocked animal welfare activists. See?
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 12:59pm | #
I understand Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank are huge supporters of this actWell, SJP looks like a horse, so I guess this makes sense.
If the French want horse meat, let the French raise horses. In America horses are not commonly used as livestock anymore, horses are pets. Our laws should reflect this change in our national culture. Stop doing what is easy and start doing what is right. Saying that the only result to closing slaughterhouses is animal abuse is a false dilemma. We have animal cruelty laws, enforce them!! Otherwise, in the name of free trade we really need to allow for dog slaughterhouses so the meat can be shipped to the Far East where they enjoy it. Then you can have your Fido and eat him too. And the first asshole on this board that calls me a crazed liberal deserves a swift kick in the nuts. Libertarians can have standards other than everyone for himself.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 1:00pm | #
I've never claimed to be a libertarian, though I do sympathize with many positions they take. I subscribe to Reason. I like Bailey's articles on neuroscience, Walker and Gillespie's on culture, Sullum on decriminalization, Wiegel's political scence updates and Balko's essential policing of the police (I usually skip KMW, Howley and Moynihan).But yes, I disagree with libertarians on some fundamental points, and yet I like to post on H&R. Sorry if that bothers you SugarFree, and interesting to note that the many "ham-handed barbs" that you agreed with that were posted before my initial post bothered you so very little :).
Rhywun | November 28, 2007, 1:02pm | #
I would have thought that people would treat their horses with the same respect they treat their cats and dogs, i.e. by not abandoning them in their back yard to starve to death. But I'm a city boy, what do I know.Theophanes | November 28, 2007, 1:05pm | #
Dog meat is one of the most delicious substances on earth and I pity you poor individuals who have never sampled pooch flesh.I lived in China for a couple of years.
Russ 2000 | November 28, 2007, 1:07pm | #
I understand Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank are huge supporters of this act.Ironically, I would eat Sarah Jessica Parker. But only while she's living. And young. When she's old or dead, I ain't going within 2,000 feet of her.
ChicagoTom | November 28, 2007, 1:10pm | #
In America horses are not commonly used as livestock anymore, horses are pets.Really? Those are "pets" that I place my $2 perfecta bets on?
We have animal cruelty laws, enforce them!!
Using horses for food is cruel? But using cows and pigs and chickens and deer and rabbits is not?
Aren't rabbits domestic animals that are kept as "pets"? Should they not be able to be made into stew either? If you find horse meat objectionable, don't eat it. Leave others who do alone.
Let's not pretend that you are standing up for the rights /dignity of animals. Last I checked, veal is raised in pretty fucking shitty conditions but I don't think there will be much support for bans on that.
Tom | November 28, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Based on what I've heard from my horse-owning friends, they often feel very much like boat owners: The happiest day of your life is when you buy your horse. The second happiest day of your life is when you sell your horse.Horse are expensive as hell to own and properly care for. The closest I've ever come is owning two very large dogs. Vet bills mount at the animals age and those long leg bones become fragile. At the end, it is best to have them humanely euthanised.
That's why I don't get those who literally abandon horses to starve to death or die of sickness. If they can afford the animal in the first place, why can't they afford to have it humanely put down? There are vets who, unlike human docs, still make house calls.
And I do count a bullet in the head as humane.
sixstring | November 28, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Ironically, I would eat Sarah Jessica Parker.See Matt J at 11:57. Same problem with skinny actresses.
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 1:14pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy,Horse slaughterhouses lead to child pornography.
No scandalous guilt by association mudslinging there at all. No utterly false equivalence between horses and children.
It's not the ham-handedness that bothers me so much as the bad faith under which you pose questions. You're not asking questions in order to start debate, you just want to kick the hornet's nest and gloat over the buzzing. Most here sense your bad faith and that's why they don't care to "debate" you.
jimmy smith | November 28, 2007, 1:15pm | #
Fifty years ago, in the army we had cold cuts in the mess hall every Sunday. It was referred to as "Donkey Dick". Not sure if that is a literal description or what, tasted like liverwurst but who knows. We were soldiers and we were young, and hungry.Skoal | November 28, 2007, 1:16pm | #
I miss the old MNG.Aresen | November 28, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Rhywun | November 28, 2007, 1:02pm | #I would have thought that people would treat their horses with the same respect they treat their cats and dogs, i.e. by not abandoning them in their back yard to starve to death. But I'm a city boy, what do I know.
Rhywun:
Wish that were true. At the farm where my horse is boarded, we constantly see "feral" cats: Pets which were simply driven out into the country and abandoned by their owners.
Our last two barn cats came from exactly this source - loving pets dumped off by their former owners. Our barn cats were extremely lucky - they found a place where they were cared for and loved. Most abandoned cats are killed by predators. The rest live in fear of humans.
Abandoned dogs generally starve to death or get hit by cars.
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 1:20pm | #
OK, Mr. Nice Guy, you were being Swiftian. Point taken.An argument is now being made in this thread that horses have a special relationship with humans, and that relationship makes it immoral to eat them, and that the law is therefore writing a wrong.
Isn't this just "We only want you to eat ugly animals" under another name?
I would never, ever, ever eat a dog or a cat - but I can recognize that this preference of mine is essentially irrational, and is the result of the fact that I anthropomorphize my pets. There's no real moral basis for my preference, and I wouldn't seek to enforce it on everyone else.
John W | November 28, 2007, 1:24pm | #
Hey Chicago Tom, try reading the post and not taking items out of context. I said that animal cruelty charges should be used in cases of abuse that supposably come from shutting down slaughterhouses.And to anyone who thinks they can kill pets (dogs, cats, rabbits, ect.) in America and not have criminal charges placed against you, good luck with that. Pets are raised to be pets. Food is raised to be food. The sad thing is that the FDA would have more to say about it than the ASPCA.
R C Dean | November 28, 2007, 1:30pm | #
I would eat Sarah Jessica Parker. But only while she's living. And young.Well, you've missed your chance.
I would never, ever, ever eat a dog or a cat - but I can recognize that this preference of mine is essentially irrational, and is the result of the fact that I anthropomorphize my pets. There's no real moral basis for my preference, and I wouldn't seek to enforce it on everyone else.
Fluffy nails it.
Seriously, despite all the high-falutin' folderol about "changes in our national culture", isn't this just more legislation based on the "ick" factor?
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 1:31pm | #
John, I just want to know the moral rationale behind the prohibition. I've certainly been known to freak out on these pages, but if you hang around long enough I'll try to give you some rationale to justify my thinking. I can't see any basis in any legitimate moral tradition to grant rights to animals of any kind. There's certainly no natural law basis for it, there's no Judeo-Christian basis for it, there's no utilitarian basis for it, etc. It has no place in any coherent system of ethics. It's based on absolutely nothing but hysterical emotivism. Your dog isn't really a person, John.Aresen | November 28, 2007, 1:37pm | #
Seriously, despite all the high-falutin' folderol about "changes in our national culture", isn't this just more legislation based on the "ick" factor?Never tasted "ick". What's it like?
;)
Minion of URKOBOLD | November 28, 2007, 1:37pm | #
"Never tasted "ick". What's it like?"HORSE, OF COURSE.
neigh | November 28, 2007, 1:40pm | #
The French have to eat our OLD horses. Despicable! Get those people some fresh YOUNG horse!SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 1:44pm | #
Horse meat is quite sweet actually. I think "ick" sums up the flavor of troll. That's why Minion can't keep a girlfriend.[BURN!]
adrian | November 28, 2007, 1:45pm | #
dondero: it's obvious you want a war against islam, so why don't we start here in the US where it would be pretty easy to round them all up and kill em. This is something even you can do super-patriot. Hitler (Godwin!) started the cleansing in his own country which seems like a smart way to start.-adrian
adrian | November 28, 2007, 1:45pm | #
wrong thread, ignore meMr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 1:47pm | #
fluffyIn answer I think "yes." Horses are getting some more protection than other animals because of certain cultural and historical connections, protections that may not be "rational." But then I don't think that all our actions, and maybe not all our laws, need be rational (in the least they need not conform to a principle that until all laws are rationalized we can make none). I can't rationally explain to you why I think my wife is more fun to be with than other women, but I do and act appropriately. Do you think a pro-life person is being irrational if they can't bring themselves to vote for a ban on abortions in the case of rape and incest? I mean, in a way this is the same thing (instead of only protecting cute animals we only protect "proper" fetuses).
And I'm not sure we can not enforce some of our irrational ethical preferences on other people (there are many philosophers who take the meta-ethical view that nearly all foundational moral positions are not rational): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism
In fact I think this is how law evolves, often through "sentiments" that are are cultural/historical as much as rational products. I'm not sure that is bad, but then I used to be a big fan of Burke...
Sugarfree: of course I did not say slaughterhouses leads to child porn, I was trying to demonstrate what I felt were the absurd implications of applying the principle that we should not prohibit the bad treatment of some class that cannot care for itself because then the class may be treated even worse, and to be honest while I probably could have used a less inflammatory example I 1.was lazy and 2. am a frequent poster on H&R and a little tired of the regular mocking of anyone who gives a hoot about animal welfare (a mocking I again point out that for some reason bothers you much, much less than the occasional mocking of libertarianism found here, which seems to send you off crying).
In answer to your other question, I do think a more rational position would be "eat them all or none." I think most on the animal welfare side would say "none."
Rhywun | November 28, 2007, 1:50pm | #
we constantly see "feral" catsAgree that many treat their dogs and cats like shit too, but some people seem to think it's acceptable in the case of horses. I don't.
PS. I have no problem with (other people) eating them, or "putting them out of their misery". It's the letting them starve to death with no apparent shame that I find reprehensible.
mike | November 28, 2007, 1:51pm | #
I think the comment about Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank was made in jest because both of them look like horses.John W - you can eat rabbit in the US. I'm sure there's legislation governing how it is to be killed, etc. to be fit for consumption, but it can be done. Also, people make pets out of pigs and sheep and turtles and fish, and we eat all of those things.
Would you advocate that we ban eating those animals? Or would you advocate that we ban having those animals as pets?
Minion of URKOBOLD | November 28, 2007, 1:52pm | #
Horse GoulashHighFructoseKornSyrup Free is bitter because Minion's reindeer-flavored TAINT is much tastier than his tofu-with-mixed-veggies TAINT.
Ayn_Randian | November 28, 2007, 2:02pm | #
I'd eat Sarah Jessica Parker...right now.Although, I've been in Iraq a while, so the above should be considered in light of that.
But I think she's hot.
/not kidding.
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 2:03pm | #
My taint is redolent of truffles and rosewater. Or, at least, that's what your mom told me![BURN!]
Minion of URKOBOLD | November 28, 2007, 2:05pm | #
She mentioned that, in passing, I think. Ah, yes. Always has had a weak spot for truffles and rosewater....Can anyone tell me why horse slaughterhouses were shut downin the first place? Was it because people think EATING horse is morally wrong or due to inhumane treatement?
Employment Officer to the URKOBOLD | November 28, 2007, 2:09pm | #
"Can anyone tell me why horse slaughterhouses were shut down in the first place?"OUTSOURCING TO INDIA. TOOKOURJOBS!!!!!!
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy,Yes, tell yourself that what I was doing was crying because of your mocking. Boo-hoo. You have wounded me to the quick with your keen insight to my psyche.
If you don't like being mocked for animal activism, try not to let the blog door whack you on the ass on the way out. Fighting mocking with mocking? Bad Faith Express, coming soon to a theater near you!
Aresen | November 28, 2007, 2:13pm | #
RhywunI agree completely.
The problem is multiple:
1) Kids grow up and move away. They (and their parents) can't face the hard choice of putting the animal down, so they avoid it. This usually means that they find a place that says they will take care of the animal, but the property owners have no idea what caring for a horse entails.
2) Owners - kids in particular - lose interest in horses. They stop caring about the animal and are not responsible enough to see that the animal is cared for.
3) People have property and get a horse, not realizing the commitment that requires. There are cases where people go away on vacation for months, assuming that the horse will be OK in a 30 foot square grassy paddock. ("Pasture board" requires about 2 acres per horse MINIMUM. Plus a clean water source.)
4) Riding stables go out of business. The owners simply walk away. They have no emotional commitment to the animals.
5) Dude ranches in remote areas simply leave the horses on the range through the winter - or abandon them entirely when the business fails. Domestic horses are generally not equiped to survive in the wild. A very few survive.
As I said before, this problem has become worse with the closure of the slaughterhouses.
rana | November 28, 2007, 2:17pm | #
"PS. I have no problem with (other people) eating them, or "putting them out of their misery". It's the letting them starve to death with no apparent shame that I find reprehensible."Rhywun,
I agree. Whether or not an argument can be made that eating an animal is morally wrong, Im not sure (personally, I like to eat meat). But there is a moral element to the treatement of the animal. There is no need to be a sadistic SOB.
VM | November 28, 2007, 2:21pm | #
Actually, crying while mocking MNG is accurate. Crying from laughter.Remember that crying from laughter has several side effects:
sniffles
gafawing
chortling
snickering
and Erectile Dysfunction.
J sub D | November 28, 2007, 2:24pm | #
If the French want horse meat, let the French raise horses. In America horses are not commonly used as livestock anymore, horses are pets.Horses are DUMB ANIMALS! Not just in the general "don't be cruel to a dumb animal" sense, but relative to other farm animals. If we can eat a pig, who's far too smart to let itself be ridden into battle, we can eat/slaughter horses. I, and many others, don't give a good goddam about "certain cultural and historical connections" between humans and stupid ass horses.
They are stupid and edible, deserving no more consideration than a cow, a buffalo, a white-tail deer or a llama. If it bothers you so much, feel free to boycott restaurants and grocery stores that sell it. Or buy the damned beasts and let them them live out their lives in luxury. I imagin horse on the hoof, headed to slaughter ain't that darned expensive. It's not your horse, it's not Sarah Jessica Parker's hosre, IT'S THE OWNERS HORSE!!!
If you don't have property rights, you don't have any rights.
mediageek | November 28, 2007, 2:25pm | #
Unintended consequence of this law?Why the forbidden fruit factor.
Now I have a hankering for a horse steak.
nom nom nom
John W | November 28, 2007, 2:27pm | #
Mike- again, please read the post and don’t take items out of context. I said killing PETS. Yes you can kill rabbits and pigs in this county, but those animals needed to be raised as food or are wild game. Going into your local pet store to pick out dinner is going to land you in a heap of trouble.Fluffy- No my dog is not a person, it’s a pet. I’ll be honest, the idea of having pets isn’t something I have sat down and rationalized to myself or anyone else. So in the spirit of winging it, here goes.
Pets only have additional consideration because humans have made them companion animals. They are brought into our families and treated differently than any other animals. As humans we have decided to extend to them protections that we reserve for our family. This is not to say that they are human but simply that we have decided to treat them humanely. Now, livestock lives by other rules and to me that is fine. If we as Americans decide that horses need to be split into two categories (just like rabbits, pigs, goats, ect) and say that a food horse is food and a pet horse is a pet, fine, but right now ALL horses can be both. We have brand inspections at any horse sale, it is not hard to differentiate which horse have been companion animals (pets) and which are livestock (food). I don’t care that Chinese eat dogs, or that the French eat horse. I care that the French are eating our pets. Period. We don’t export dog as a meat item and horse (or some horses) should fall into the same consideration. Pets are pets. Food is food.
Isaac Bartram | November 28, 2007, 2:30pm | #
Most abandoned cats are killed by predators.In Australia it's the feral cats that are the predators. They are decimating some of the domestic animals that hitherto knew few major predators.
It's also true, to a much lesser extent, in Florida where small mammals are likewise being eaten by feral cats.
VM | November 28, 2007, 2:31pm | #
Media -can I use the hooves for glue? I need better adhesive for my DUNDEROOO costume...
And there's nothing wrong with eating your pets
(okay. That was probably unnecessary.)
VM | November 28, 2007, 2:35pm | #
Thanks, Media!Could you also save the neck stump for some sweet, soft lovin'?
Matt J | November 28, 2007, 2:37pm | #
I think the comment about Sarah Jessica Parker and Hillary Swank was made in jest because both of them look like horses.DING! DING! DING!
Mike wins the prize!!!
Apparently I suck at satire too.
Isaac Bartram | November 28, 2007, 2:40pm | #
John WAs far as I know there are places all over the USA and Canada where you can buy rabbits.
The sellers do not care if you are buying them for pets or for food. And most will tell you as much.
The only criterion to be applied to whether one can kill an animal is that needless pain and suffering should be avoided.
mediageek | November 28, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Could you also save the neck stump for some sweet, soft lovin'?No. I learned from watching Iron Chef that horse mane fat is actually a delicacy.
Isaac Bartram | November 28, 2007, 2:46pm | #
...it is not hard to differentiate which horse have been companion animals (pets) and which are livestock (food).Ummm,...it's not like there's any objective difference. The only distinction is based on your insipid sentimentality.
capelza | November 28, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Horses are not "dumb", having been manipulated by one or another most of my life...they are "dumb" like a cat is "dumb"...yet I am the one feeding and caring for them...Blaming the closing of slaughterhouses for the current abuse of anyt horse lets the abuser off the hook.
Like other "pets" or children, if you can't seriously commit to caring for them, don't have them in the first place.
And as for banning horse meat in the U.S....it's the general culture. Horses, like dogs and cats are in the "protected" group in our cultural mindset...not so elsewhere. You want horsemeat, slaughter your own or move to France.
You want "long pig" move to Polynesia a couple hundred years ago. Cultural acceptance of what's okay and what isn't is an important factor...fair or not.
J sub D | November 28, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Going into your local pet store to pick out dinner is going to land you in a heap of trouble.Many moons ago I had a friend with a pet boa constrictor. These beasts don't eat often, but they do eat a lot at a meal. Now he COULD have gone to the pet store to buy rats to feed his pet, who he had much affection for. He didn't do that. Instead, being frugal, he went to the want ads in the local paper looking for "Free puppies to a good home" listings. I didn't have a problem with that either. Why not?, you ask. Why bother getting upset over an unwanted animal?, I reply.
I don't need to make artificial distinctions between pets and livestock. Both are animals, property. They are for the owner to do as he wishes with. Not you, John W., not you, Mister Nice Guy, not Sarah Jessica Parker, not the congress of the United States, the owner. Why do so amny people have difficulty with this concept?
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 2:53pm | #
We don’t export dog as a meat item and horse (or some horses) should fall into the same consideration. Pets are pets. Food is food.No, animals are food. The fact that we become attached emotionally to some, or use others for labor, doesn't change that fact.
If you dropped dead tomorrow in your house and nobody knew, after a few days your pets would get hungry and would eat you. Why not return the favor?
Episiarch | November 28, 2007, 2:57pm | #
Instead, being frugal, he went to the want ads in the local paper looking for "Free puppies to a good home" listings. I didn't have a problem with that either. Why not?, you ask. Why bother getting upset over an unwanted animal?, I reply.Damn, even I'd balk at that. Mainly because puppies are just so damn cuuuute. Actually, I would then force myself to do it just to put down such idiotic sentimentality. Maybe do kittens instead. Nothing cuter than a kitten. The mewing as it got swallowed would be brutal.
x,y | November 28, 2007, 3:02pm | #
The only criterion to be applied to whether one can kill an animal is that needless pain and suffering should be avoided.Do you happen to mean morally or legislatively? I can respect the former. Maybe I'm just an a**hole, but I see no need for the latter. If animals are property, people should be able to do with them as they please. This includes owning them as pets, eating them, or torturing them. If anyone thinks any of these is morally wrong, you should be able to speak your mind. But legislating is where I draw the line.
the innominate one | November 28, 2007, 3:03pm | #
if we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?If you torture an animal, you're a sick fuck, and one who should be locked up.
Pat Robertson | November 28, 2007, 3:09pm | #
If you smoke cigarettes, you're a sicko, and one who should be locked up.Dave T | November 28, 2007, 3:12pm | #
I got bored about halfway through this thread, but I don't exactly see the problem with eating horses, cats, or dogs? Just because I choose to have cats as pets doesn't mean I think other people can't eat them. People have pigs as pets, and I find bacon to be delicious.PS Feel free to join my facebook group "stop congress from banning the eating of delicious horses!"
Rhywun | November 28, 2007, 3:14pm | #
I don't need to make artificial distinctions between pets and livestock. Both are animals, property. They are for the owner to do as he wishes with. [...] Why do so amny people have difficulty with this concept?Because the implications are grotesque. I'm very far away from being any kind of "animal rights activist", but even still I find the concept of animals as "property" to be repellent.
x,y | November 28, 2007, 3:17pm | #
Rhywun,You and I both find torturing animals to be "repellent." But would you favor a law (civil or criminal, take your pick) prohibiting people from torturing animals? I wouldn't for the record.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 3:18pm | #
"If animals are property, people should be able to do with them as they please." But this is exactly the issue. Animal welfare advocates don't see animals as property (at least not the same as inanimate property). In fact, our nation has pretty much never seen them as exactly the same (which is why you can be arrested for being cruel to your dog but not your couch).SugarFee-waah, did I hector you? So sorry. Some libertarians love to dish it out, but when you mock them "Uhhh-wah, Uhhh-wah".
VM-I imagine Erectile Dysfunction is a longstanding (or not) problem you may have and unrelated to my comments on animal welfare threads
Dave T | November 28, 2007, 3:20pm | #
Rhywun: Repellant? Really? In what way do I not OWN my cats? Are they free to leave? If someone walks up to one and gets it to follow them home with a can of tuna, do I not have the right to take it back because I have no property/ownership of it? They are JAILED in my house.Animals are absolutely treated as property, and I don't see anything repugnant about calling it what it is, or continuing that practice.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 3:23pm | #
"But would you favor a law (civil or criminal, take your pick) prohibiting people from torturing animals? I wouldn't for the record." Now x, y, from other threads I know that you would pass a law preventing an embryo from being tortured. Now it strikes me that a horse or dog has more ability to feel pain or reason than an embryo, and since you said in the past your protection of the embryo is not religious based, I'm curious as to why the embryo deserves that protection and the dog does not? Let's make it more interesting, let's say its not an embryo but a terminally ill infant (one that will die before it is one year old). If no law to protect the dog, why a law to protect that infant? Because it can reason (not as well as a full grown dog)? Because it can feel (so can the dog). Because it can accept, understand, etc., rights and obligations so we owe it rights and obligations (infants don't know a right from the crap in their diaper)....Or because the Bible tells us so?
Cynicus | November 28, 2007, 3:23pm | #
Awww, cute and cuddley. Reminds me of the story about why the guitar is shaped like a woman with a hole in the middle...because cowboys got lonesome, and cows have such lovely big brown eyes.We could end this foolish discussion by all becoming vegans. Oh, wait! Plants have feelings, too!
Let's all starve to death.
Steve E | November 28, 2007, 3:23pm | #
... please read the post and don’t take items out of context. I said killing PETS. Yes you can kill rabbits and pigs in this county, but those animals needed to be raised as food or are wild game. Going into your local pet store to pick out dinner is going to land you in a heap of trouble.
Actually, I remember distinctly the scene "Pets or Meat" about rabbits for sale in Flint, from the only Michael Moore movie I ever found entertaining "Roger & Me".
But back to the original topic--I think horses are stately, noble animals, and I enjoyed the horsemeat I was served in Japan.
Sulla | November 28, 2007, 3:25pm | #
Because the implications are grotesque. I'm very far away from being any kind of "animal rights activist", but even still I find the concept of animals as "property" to be repellent.x,y is correct. There is both the moral aspect and the legal aspect. From the moral side, it makes some sense to rely on feelings about the inherent value of certain animals. On the legal side, though, there should be some basis for prohibiting certain actions or drawing distinctions about the status of animals. If animals are not property, what are they? Where would we draw the line between property and some other categoery - mammals, vertebrates, all animals, etc.?
I think it is immoral to cause pain to animals just for no other reason than sadism, and it probably is generally a sign of some deeper issues. However, it does not follow that this moral view, or any other moral view should automatically become the basis for law.
Jim Bob | November 28, 2007, 3:30pm | #
You know the problem with outlawing rape? It creates a market for rape and more women are raped.The LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HAS SPOKEN.
I'm late to the thread as usual, but I got this far and I just needed to point out that it takes genuine dedication to be this stupid.
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 3:31pm | #
Mr. Nice Guy -Well, part of the problem is that person / property is a dichotomy that it's hard to avoid. If animals aren't property, they're people. If they're not people, they're property. We can try to think about making up some category that is neither of those, but it's hard to see a real way to wedge that into our thinking and be consistent. After all, some people keep rats as pets. Other people poison the rats that try to infiltrate their homes. Still others experiment on rats. It seems to me that only the "property" designation is consistent with all of these approaches to the rat question.
By the way - I hope that the house of the guy who feeds puppies to his boa constrictor burns down, with his snake inside it. The puppies aren't people, but lying to people trying to place puppies as pets isn't acceptable. And besides, snakes are horrible creatures that all deserve to be in house fires anyway. [Yup, all of that was irrational, but I'm going to surrender to the dark side in this particular case.]
John W | November 28, 2007, 3:32pm | #
I don't need to make artificial distinctions between pets and livestock. Both are animals, property. They are for the owner to do as he wishes with. Not you, John W., not you, Mister Nice Guy, not Sarah Jessica Parker, not the congress of the United States, the owner. Why do so amny people have difficulty with this concept?J sub D, I won’t even comment on the sick shit you posted before this, just because your buddy got away with this doesn’t make it right. As a civilized people we have decided to afford certain protections, not rights, to animals that we consider companion animals. So NO, animals are not strictly property. Most of society already understands this and in time the law will catch up with new concepts in humanity. Now I could be wrong and we could just go on doing as we damned well please with animals but email me in twenty years and see who is gloating.
If you dropped dead tomorrow in your house and nobody knew, after a few days your pets would get hungry and would eat you. Why not return the favor?
Episiarch, because they are PETS. We are supposed to be better than this.
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 3:37pm | #
"Let's make it more interesting, let's say its not an embryo but a terminally ill infant (one that will die before it is one year old). If no law to protect the dog, why a law to protect that infant? Because it can reason (not as well as a full grown dog)? Because it can feel (so can the dog). Because it can accept, understand, etc., rights and obligations so we owe it rights and obligations (infants don't know a right from the crap in their diaper)...."Well, the quasi-Randian answer would be to say that "morality" is the set of rules human beings require to interact with one another, and that animals lie completely outside of it. Tigers can eat men without being immoral because morality does not apply to tigers.
If morality is the set of rules human beings require to interact with one another, one early requirement we're going to run into is that human beings don't get to define each other out of that moral sphere. In other words, I can't evade the requirements of morality relative to my dealings with Africans just by asserting that Africans aren't people. [And historically people did just that.] The infant is a human being because it's self-evident that it's a human being, and we don't get to define it out of its humanness.
Some people extend that to embryos. I personally do not.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 3:37pm | #
"Well, part of the problem is that person / property is a dichotomy that it's hard to avoid. If animals aren't property, they're people. If they're not people, they're property." Fluffy, I certainly think this is a false dilemma. We can have rational conceptual distinctions finer than this, think of kids. They are not persons that can contract, or vote, or move out when they want, but we owe them certain things. And then think of couches, which we can burn, beat or drop salsa on to our heats content and noone gets upset. Animals are somewhere between there, and that seems obvious to me. And the law actually recognizes this distinction, animals have more rights than your couch, less than kids, and even less than you or I.Jesse Walker | November 28, 2007, 3:38pm | #
If animals aren't property, they're people. If they're not people, they're property. We can try to think about making up some category that is neither of those, but it's hard to see a real way to wedge that into our thinking and be consistent.Why can't they be a fuzzy category, not people but not mere rocks either? If something doesn't fit into sharply defined black-and-white categories, our moral response to it should recognize that fact rather than ignore it.
This means that some issues -- animal welfare, abortion, children's rights -- might not lend themselves to tidy, universal solutions. So be it.
Jesse Walker | November 28, 2007, 3:39pm | #
Hmm. Looks like MNG and I have reached at least one point of agreement.Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 3:41pm | #
"Well, the quasi-Randian answer would be to say that "morality" is the set of rules human beings require to interact with one another, and that animals lie completely outside of it." fluffy-I'm pretty sure its unhelpful to, when debating why only humans get ethical consideration, to say its because ethical considerations is what humans need between each other. Are you saying that ethical consideration is only warranted by the utilitarian concerns of us getting along? Cause it strikes me that is not only wrong, but not even Randian.."The infant is a human being because it's self-evident that it's a human being, and we don't get to define it out of its humanness." I never said it wasn't human. I asked what about it gives it special treatment not given to a dog. That of course is the point, what about humans gives them moral consideration that other animals lack? You can't answer by saying "well, the humans are human, that's why."
J sub D | November 28, 2007, 3:47pm | #
Oh, wait! Plants have feelings, too!Kirlian Photograpy is proof.
rana | November 28, 2007, 3:47pm | #
"Do you happen to mean morally or legislatively? I can respect the former. Maybe I'm just an a**hole, but I see no need for the latter. If animals are property, people should be able to do with them as they please. This includes owning them as pets, eating them, or torturing them."x,y,
So by this logic I can beat the crap out of my own dog and torture him for shits and giggles but I cant do the same to my neighbors dog. OK, there is consistency to your "property" argument but we are human arent we? and as such we have reason, and reason tells us that torture brings needless suffering to another living being. This should bring about a sense of compassion from most humans unless you are a sick sadisctic phsycopath, in which case deeper issues exist.
SugarFree | November 28, 2007, 3:50pm | #
am a frequent poster on H&R and a little tired of the regular mocking of anyone who gives a hoot about animal welfareBoo-fucking-hoo. Yeah, once again I'm the one that's crying?
Fluffy | November 28, 2007, 4:25pm | #
That of course is the point, what about humans gives them moral consideration that other animals lack? You can't answer by saying "well, the humans are human, that's why."Actually, there are probably people at this site who could argue this a lot better than I could, but I'll take a shot.
Rand approached morality by first making the common-sense observation that only valuing entities can experience any value at all, moral or otherwise. That makes the bedrock moral value the life of the valuer, because if you're dead nothing can be of value to you, moral or otherwise.
Rand believed that she could identify a nature for man that would allow her to build a moral edifice on top of that bedrock principle: Given man's nature and the nature of the reality in which he lives, certain behaviors promote and maintain the bedrock moral value of his life, and some don't. Identifying which behaviors are which is "morality".
This is in fact an argument that makes morality a prudential matter, but not a utilitarian one. Morality becomes rational self-interest.
Constructing morality in this way means that it cannot apply to entities that don't share enough of man's nature to make them, in effect, "men". Rational aliens from another planet would be "men", morally, and we'd have to treat them as such. But cats aren't, because they simply don't share enough in common with us.
A dog cannot "steal". A tiger cannot "murder". These are categories that only apply to men.
Rand also went to a great deal of effort which I won't duplicate here to argue that rational self-interest requires the default state of our interactions with other men to be non-initiation of force and negotiated exchange. Again, these are categories that only apply to men.
Under such a view of morality, you actually do end up saying "the humans are humans, that's why."
Mr. Nice Guy | November 28, 2007, 4:33pm | #
"Constructing morality in this way means that it cannot apply to entities that don't share enough of man's nature to make them, in effect, "men". Rational aliens from another planet would be "men", morally, and we'd have to treat them as such. But cats aren't, because they simply don't share enough in common with us." What is the thing(s) that aliens would, and cats would not, "share enough in common with us" that would give the one morality and the other not? And whatever that thing is, does the terminally ill infant have it? I mean, is that the alien looks like us, because I can imagine a sentient alien that looks less like us than the cat. In the same vein, does the terminally ill infant value? If not it does not share in this bedrock found