Hot Topics | |
---|---|
GomiGirl wrote:Does capaccio (spelling?) count? If so, add buffalo and kangaroo to the list...
American Oyaji wrote:Nothing wrong with eating horse. Not much different than cows really.
The meat is just tougher. My wife gave me a kabob at a festival, and told me to eat it. I asked what it is, and she said just try it, so I did, and I liked it.
Then she told me it was horse. I said cool. Get me another.![]()
Now eating DOLPHINS on the other hand is Cannibalism. WRONG AND CRUEL.
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:You poor, poor uncultured soul.
katakori wrote:of course there is NOTHING wrong in eating horse, as long as you're not a vegetarian.
why would horse be a "better" animal than any other creature. either killing is a bad thing or it's not, if it's not, than eat it.
killing for fur is bad. killing individuals of your own species is bad. feeding grass-eating animals with flesh (often from similar animals) is wrong and evil. overkilling the destruction of a disappearing species is stupidly bad...
but finding one type of animal more "valuable" than another is just plain childish.
what about babies?? you eat eggs? lamb? veal? baby back ribs? fish roe??
let's not confuse vegetarians' right to not eat meat and right to live extremists here, please.........
by the way, kangaroo is a meat that has to be eaten rare. even if you don't usually have red meat this way. cooking it medium or well done makes it very hard and quite impossible to chew (let alone enjoy). so i guess it's only natural to have it raw altogether. on the other hand, there is no or very limited breeding of kangaroo. it is more like a game animal. so eating it completely uncooked could be quite risky, on an hygiene point of view.
Actually, I have more respect for cannibals.
katakori wrote:Actually, I have more respect for cannibals.
this is usually a vegeterian phrase for 'i don't know how to make a point because what i say is my opinion only and there is no way i can ever convince anyone with it, because i don't actually have a point'.
but it's ok. i respect vegeterians, and vegan, and to a certain extent cannibals...
the thing is that i'm not talking about racehorce, i'm talking about the fact that we are omnivorous animals and that horses are flesh and bones, just like us. you didn't answer my question about eggs. next time you eat fish roe, try to figure how sick it is... then move on to fruits and you'll realise than eating is a cruel thing, no matter what you eat.
eating is not the problem. killing is. unfortunately, life is unfair.
to go back to your comment, yes, i can make the difference between a horse and livestock. can you make the difference between a farm-bred salmon and a sea-harvested tuna? yet you find them both in tins at your local supermarket and it doesn't bother you, does it?
next thing you'll tell me that breeding tigers for their fur and penises is ethical?
Just my opinion
katakori wrote:Just my opinion
that makes so much more sense, suddenly![]()
so what makes dogs and horses 'superior' animals we shouldn't eat? their respect for us as human (because we have forced them into slavery by twisting their instinct)? or the fact that they are beautiful (is there ONE animal on the planet which is not beautiful and wonderful??)?
katakori wrote:next time you eat fish roe, try to figure how sick it is... then move on to fruits and you'll realise than eating is a cruel thing, no matter what you eat.
katakori wrote:fruits are the "eggs" of plants. technically, they are NOT designed to be eaten. they are designed to nourrish the seed until it has the opportunity to create a new individual of the species.
katakori wrote:although you are completely right about the 'effect' the edible characteristics of the fruit has on the reproductive cycle, you are disregarding the original purpose of the fruit itself towards the seed.
the fact that animals (and often wind and water) carry the seed further away from the original plant is darwinism, not the actual wish of the plant itlself (or is it?).
katakori wrote:yes sir!!
so what is the purpose of the horse, anyway??
American Oyaji wrote:katakori wrote:yes sir!!
so what is the purpose of the horse, anyway??
An edible form of transportation? :P
Horses ARE livestock by the way.
And genetically, they arent TOO far from cows.
Are they beautiful? Yeah they are. And they taste good too.
Gai, you are the only one with a hangup eating horse, so you are obviously the odd man out on this issue.
But I guess you will just be a "Culture of One".
Taro Toporific wrote:And of course, there's the common-ly found raw chicken sasami just to get your daily minimum requirement of samonenala.
bejiita wrote:Continuing this topic further, what one finds disgusting is always based on the social mores one grew up with or are influenced by. Personally, I think people tend to find the killing or eating of kawaii animals or animals that are used as pets more disgusting than other types of animals. In some countries, most people would consider eating a cat disgusting. Yet in other societies, cats are no different from any other type of meat. Who's to say which social mores are better? Is one going to argue "my country is more powerful than yours so my social mores should be the standard."
Graphic images linked:
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow1.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow2.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow3.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow4.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow5.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow6.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow7.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow8.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow9.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow10.jpg
http://www.stilemedia.com/?p=meow11.jpg
Gaisaradatsuraku! wrote:My point exactly. any culture that is not capable of recognizing the grace and beauty of the horse is not a culture as far as I am concerned.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests