![[Ed says Nay]](http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4958/1794/320/dont_trust.jpg "Ed says Nay")
Dallas Morning News | Kevin B. Blackistone: "Among the amendments in the [2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill HR2744] was one that could shut down in the United States the absolutely sickening business of slaughtering horses – including some that once were raced for our entertainment – for human consumption."
Kevin Blackistone does not object to breeding, training and using horses for human entertainment, only for human consumption. Others might object to using rodeo bulls for human entertainment, but don't mind eating hamburger. Hindus object to eating beef. Jews and Muslims object to eating pork. Christians don't have a strong taboo against eating horse meat. Most Americans are just squeamish about the practice. I wish Kevin Blackistone had tried to lay out a logical argument why his particular taste in meat should be enshrined in law, but not others. He apparently sees it as self evident, but it isn't. Blackistone offers no reasons why readers should share his revulsion.
1 comment:
Besides the argument that there's no logical difference between eating horse meat and eating beef, there's also a practical argument, raised by Jay Novacek in a column in the Star-Telegram. He writes:
"People who eat meat, wear leather shoes and are avid hunters are suddenly taking exception to the humane slaughter of horses that are no longer wanted or needed. The trouble is that this proposed legislation will not save a single horse -- not one. ... In many cases, the animals will starve and be deprived of veterinary care."
Post a Comment