is horse meat readily available in your country?

HORSE LASAGNE (100% Beef)

Where my parents live and where I grew up there's a lot of farms there that breed horses primarily to export as meat. Knowing the type of people that live around there, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they slaughtered the horses there and sold off a bit of meat for UK distribution on the side for a little bit of cash. Well at least out of all this I can get a false sense of superiority for being vegetarian I suppose.

Also:

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:15 PM, kinski said:

why would anyone want to eat horsemeat? and i don't get why people need to eat any other land animals beside cows, pigs and chickens. you mosnters. eat a dick!

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:12 PM, Candiru said:

Horsecock pepperoni is quite common in my blustery seaside village.

I have no problem with eating horse.

I do have a problem with mis-labelling of products.

But yeah, why the hell would you buy a microwave lasagne when they are so easy to make from scratch and will taste ten times better.

I would say we buy 90% of our meat from independent butchers, and if it is from a supermarket I make sure that it is British / free range.

Same goes with veg actually, as locally sourced as possible. I'm sick of picking up green beans from the local co-op supermarket and seeing they are from Peru or Egypt.

Horse. Yeah, its' really good. You can get it in every supermarket and butcher around here.

It is weird seeing people from the US saying that horse meat is common over here. I've never seen it on a shelf in the grocery store any where. Maybe that is because I am from liberal yankee twat country? Not sure.

  On 2/11/2013 at 8:50 PM, thanks robert moses said:

It is weird seeing people from the US saying that horse meat is common over here. I've never seen it on a shelf in the grocery store any where. Maybe that is because I am from liberal yankee twat country? Not sure.

i've never seen horse meat for sale in the usa. the only place i might've seen it (but don't remember) is jungle jim's, but they have kangaroo meat and other crazy shit too.

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:33 PM, rixxx said:

Hopefully people will start to realise if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price. We never used to eat meat every main meal and we certainly didn't evolve to do so.

that's a highly politicized argument and one that seems tinged with more than a smidge of bias.

You state that "if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price", which I interpret as "if you eat meat at all, then you've to pay the price"

then you go on to say that we didn't evolve to eat meat, yet the human body does require protein found only in meats, especially with expectant mothers and their child. At least that's as I understand it. I could be wrong, and probably am on that specific point.

but what you just said is still clearly a biased opinion.

I might have seen it once of twice in Texas, but they sell just about all mammal meat there at one place or another.

lol

lol

lol

lol

lol

  On 2/11/2013 at 8:59 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:33 PM, rixxx said:

Hopefully people will start to realise if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price. We never used to eat meat every main meal and we certainly didn't evolve to do so.

that's a highly politicized argument and one that seems tinged with more than a smidge of bias.

 

You state that "if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price", which I interpret as "if you eat meat at all, then you've to pay the price"

 

then you go on to say that we didn't evolve to eat meat, yet the human body does require protein found only in meats, especially with expectant mothers and their child. At least that's as I understand it. I could be wrong, and probably am on that specific point.

 

but what you just said is still clearly a biased opinion.

Hmm? Rixxx only said we didn't evolve to eat meat at every meal. That's certainly true (historically and biologically). It's not really political or biased.

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:13 PM, luke viia said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 8:59 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:33 PM, rixxx said:

Hopefully people will start to realise if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price. We never used to eat meat every main meal and we certainly didn't evolve to do so.

that's a highly politicized argument and one that seems tinged with more than a smidge of bias.

 

You state that "if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price", which I interpret as "if you eat meat at all, then you've to pay the price"

 

then you go on to say that we didn't evolve to eat meat, yet the human body does require protein found only in meats, especially with expectant mothers and their child. At least that's as I understand it. I could be wrong, and probably am on that specific point.

 

but what you just said is still clearly a biased opinion.

 

Hmm? Rixxx only said we didn't evolve to eat meat at every meal. That's certainly true (historically and biologically). It's not really political or biased.

I guess you missed that part where she said "if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price"

that's a statement dripped in bias if ever I read one.

No, I didn't miss that, I just think you're spinning the statement in ways she didn't actually say. Meat production is expensive, and if you want to eat meat, it makes sense that you should pay for it. You want to use a product, so you pay for the product. I'm still trying to find the bias. It takes around 10x the water supply to raise animals that it takes to harvest equivalent energy in crops. We currently use about 1/3rd of our arable agricultural land worldwide to grow crops just to feed livestock. To feed livestock. They shit out 90% of that energy just doing their livestock thing, and we can't generally return the nutrients to the soil because the animals have a diet including hormones and antibiotics. If you think that's biased then I urge you to familiarize yourself with trophic levels and soil cycles.

*neighsaying*

So, now that we've established that horse meat is tasty...

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:25 PM, luke viia said:

No, I didn't miss that, I just think you're spinning the statement in ways she didn't actually say. Meat production is expensive, and if you want to eat meat, it makes sense that you should pay for it. You want to use a product, so you pay for the product. I'm still trying to find the bias. It takes around 10x the water supply to raise animals that it takes to harvest equivalent energy in crops. We currently use about 1/3rd of our arable agricultural land worldwide to grow crops just to feed livestock. To feed livestock. They shit out 90% of that energy just doing their livestock thing, and we can't return the nutrients to the soil because they're pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. If you think that's biased then I urge you to familiarize yourself with trophic levels and soil cycles.

i'm not spinning the statement, i'm reading it as presented.

and for you to get the context of meat production from that statement is in itself, a massive stretch. since there was no predication for that in the context of the entire post.

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:27 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:25 PM, luke viia said:

No, I didn't miss that, I just think you're spinning the statement in ways she didn't actually say. Meat production is expensive, and if you want to eat meat, it makes sense that you should pay for it. You want to use a product, so you pay for the product. I'm still trying to find the bias. It takes around 10x the water supply to raise animals that it takes to harvest equivalent energy in crops. We currently use about 1/3rd of our arable agricultural land worldwide to grow crops just to feed livestock. To feed livestock. They shit out 90% of that energy just doing their livestock thing, and we can't return the nutrients to the soil because they're pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. If you think that's biased then I urge you to familiarize yourself with trophic levels and soil cycles.

i'm not spinning the statement, i'm reading it as presented.

 

and for you to get the context of meat production from that statement is in itself, a massive stretch. since there was no predication for that in the context of the entire post.

All you've said about the statement is that it's biased. You haven't at all suggested how. I may have misread the context of her post (which had to do with health effects of horse meat due to chemicals), but it certainly isn't a "massive stretch" to add in the fact that meat production - be it horses, cows, alligators, wtf ever - ties into both the cost and the health of the end users of the services.

So if you don't mind, please explain what exactly is biased about rixxx's statement. You've genuinely got me interested to know if you have a point or if you're just trying to be right about nothing.

http://www.touchmusic.org.uk/recipebook/meat/mika_vainio.html

you do realize osc knows the terminator, right? i'm just saying, you might wanna agree with him on this.

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:37 PM, luke viia said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:27 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:25 PM, luke viia said:

No, I didn't miss that, I just think you're spinning the statement in ways she didn't actually say. Meat production is expensive, and if you want to eat meat, it makes sense that you should pay for it. You want to use a product, so you pay for the product. I'm still trying to find the bias. It takes around 10x the water supply to raise animals that it takes to harvest equivalent energy in crops. We currently use about 1/3rd of our arable agricultural land worldwide to grow crops just to feed livestock. To feed livestock. They shit out 90% of that energy just doing their livestock thing, and we can't return the nutrients to the soil because they're pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. If you think that's biased then I urge you to familiarize yourself with trophic levels and soil cycles.

i'm not spinning the statement, i'm reading it as presented.

 

and for you to get the context of meat production from that statement is in itself, a massive stretch. since there was no predication for that in the context of the entire post.

 

All you've said about the statement is that it's biased. You haven't at all suggested how. I may have misread the context of her post (which had to do with health effects of horse meat due to chemicals), but it certainly isn't a "massive stretch" to add in the fact that meat production - be it horses, cows, alligators, wtf ever - ties into both the cost and the health of the end users of the services.

 

So if you don't mind, please explain what exactly is biased about rixxx's statement. You've genuinely got me interested to know if you have a point or if you're just trying to be right about nothing.

I'm not trying to be right, just stating it how I read it. I'm probably wrong./

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:53 PM, Alcofribas said:

you do realize osc knows the terminator, right? i'm just saying, you might wanna agree with him on this.

lol

  On 2/11/2013 at 8:59 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 2/11/2013 at 6:33 PM, rixxx said:

Hopefully people will start to realise if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price. We never used to eat meat every main meal and we certainly didn't evolve to do so.

that's a highly politicized argument and one that seems tinged with more than a smidge of bias.

 

You state that "if you want to eat meat than you've pay the price", which I interpret as "if you eat meat at all, then you've to pay the price"

 

then you go on to say that we didn't evolve to eat meat, yet the human body does require protein found only in meats, especially with expectant mothers and their child. At least that's as I understand it. I could be wrong, and probably am on that specific point.

 

but what you just said is still clearly a biased opinion.

We did evolve to eat meat but not as much meat as eat currently eat.

Some people have meat in their lunch and for dinner everyday, what Im saying is that you don't need to eat meat seven days a week. During the war meat was a treat that you had say, for sunday roast and the left overs were used to create a stew and to make a stock. We don't have this same attitude to meat- many people buy these cheap ready meal with no conscious of what goes on in the meat industry.

I get annoyed when people are angry because its horse meat and say 'it's cruel' etc etc when they would happily buy beef or value chicken that has had an atrocious life so that they can buy it. People should look into buying less meat but of better quality.

  On 2/11/2013 at 9:25 PM, luke viia said:

No, I didn't miss that, I just think you're spinning the statement in ways she didn't actually say. Meat production is expensive, and if you want to eat meat, it makes sense that you should pay for it. You want to use a product, so you pay for the product. I'm still trying to find the bias. It takes around 10x the water supply to raise animals that it takes to harvest equivalent energy in crops. We currently use about 1/3rd of our arable agricultural land worldwide to grow crops just to feed livestock. To feed livestock. They shit out 90% of that energy just doing their livestock thing, and we can't generally return the nutrients to the soil because the animals have a diet including hormones and antibiotics. If you think that's biased then I urge you to familiarize yourself with trophic levels and soil cycles.

 

 

*neighsaying*

This basically.

1) Humans can live without meat

2) If you eat meat then you don't get to be being outraged at the inhumane treatment of animals you don't like the taste of