
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

who do YOU blame and why? bonus points for conspiracy theories.
altalt: best joke you've heard lately, horsemeat or otherwise?
altalt: lunch??
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:51, 138 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

So i got tickets to the Grand National
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:52, Reply)

When they start finding whoresmeat, then we'll know Battered's trip to Poland was sucessful
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:53, Reply)

i heard that some of it might even be donkey.
niiiiiiiiiiiiiice.
dumbest comment of the year goes to one that was on "the sun", i think (surprise surprise), something along the lines of "the sooner a meteor hits and destroys us the better, we humans are the ones who shouldn't be here." what the actual fuck?!
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:55, Reply)

horse, cow, donkey, sheep, goat - it's all just meat off a random herbivore, where's the issue?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:01, Reply)

1 some people might have a moral issue with eating horse, which is up to them
2 the labelling is completely wrong. and all because some thieving cunt thinks he can get 4 euros a kg if he puts "beef" and 90c a kg if he admits "bit of horse, pigeon and donkey"
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:03, Reply)

Pigs are more intellengent than horses and we eat them without issue
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:05, Reply)

so don't ask me!
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:05, Reply)

I was talking about you going "donkey .... niiiiiiice"
Labelling is the issue. Nowt wrong with eating donkey in general.
And anyone who has a moral issue eating horse but will eat cow or pig needs to be taken outside, quick shot to the back of the head and buried in an unmarked grave, the fucking pathetic hypocrites.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:05, Reply)

i'm not sure you can do that. if people want to draw their own line as to what is acceptable, surely that's up to them? eg they are happy to eat cow but not pig, or happy to eat mutton but not lamb... freedom of choice, innit.
i'm not saying it's not a stupid choice, but it's one they should be able to make, sweetness.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:10, Reply)

You can't bleat it's a moral objection though. Because it bloody isn't. Selectively refusing to eat things you think are cute is being pathetic, not taking a moral stance.
The only moral stance is your one, which is to refuse to eat all animals on moral grounds. Even if it is daft.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:13, Reply)

i thought a moral was a guideline or belief and therefore people can have their own set according to them. if that moral means that they can't eat a baby animal but they can eat it once it's over 2 years old, for example, then fine for them.
it doesn't mean they aren't idiotic. but it's their own belief.
all meat sucks and tastes disgusting. this is the only moral anyone needs.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, Reply)

It's defined by human behaviour and beliefs, not the actions of an individual. And, yes, your age one is fine (if odd) because it's making a distinction that could be seen as morally valuable (allowing baby animals more time to live). There's no morality in distinguishing between two species simply on the basis you think one is cuter. It'd be a bit like saying it's OK to exploit Chinese people but not anyone else.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

but if it's something you believe in intensely and you live by it, why can that not be a "moral", if a "moral" is a belief? does it have to apply to a wider group than an individual? that seems Wrong, as just because other people are as dumb as you are doesn't make it moralistic. it just means more of you are Wrong.
or right on better examples than eating one animal but not another, like not fingering babies or something.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

otherwise being gay would be immoral, as would being black.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

Just think about what you're saying. You can't "choose" a set of morals. They are property of our species, pretty much, not individuals.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

Except for when his brother is selling Olympics tickets.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

albeit i forcefed him neon orange aftershock. i don't think he's ever been quite the same.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:34, Reply)

is a moral stance
"not eating some animals purely because you think they are cute"
is hypocritical.
Forgetting law, morality would stay that rape is wrong. Morality doesn't say rape is wrong, unless they are ugly, at which point it's OK. Does it?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

can you define that for yourself?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:33, Reply)

is not whether eating animals per se is moral or immoral. It's that it's selective, which would be moral hypocrisy.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:15, Reply)

because you wouldn't be able to get it up
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:35, Reply)

How else do we get cheap electronics?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

2 It's not "some thieving cunt" I will lay money this was known about by the companies involved. This is simply what happens when you race to the bottom in terms of price.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:07, Reply)

but I assume you meant 'animals other than humans'
I reckon there's an argument that eating endangered animals is immoral or at least not clever. I think you could also make a moral argument that eating animals over a certain level of intelligence is iffy.
I do, however agree that the difference between cows and horses is only that people see horses as pets, see also dogs. this has no moral validity.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:10, Reply)

You could draw a taste and health distinction on that level, I suppose, but not a moral one.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:13, Reply)

I'm sure a dog could live on veg, any ideas what they feed them in korea? the ones that are bred for food?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:17, Reply)

hence the fucktard vegans who keep them as pets on a veggie diet end up messing up their health.
But I'm guessing for food it's a low meat diet for better flavour, but they would be farming young dogs for meat so I don't suppose long term health is their concern.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:20, Reply)

it's not like any other farmed meet animal is fed anything like their 'natural' diet anyway, unless their health is necessary to their purpose.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:20, Reply)

It's like me selling you a high end PC and filling it with low end components, then fucking around with the reporting systems in the operating system.... and you only finding out when you're running benchmark software on it.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, Reply)

the moral point would be "I ordered a Toshiba annd got a compaq, this is immoral"
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

It's more like you've ordered a 3.2ghz quad core processor, and they've given you a 2.6ghz duel core, and the operating system is reported as a 3.2ghz.... and you only use 2ghz anyway so don't really notice the difference. BUT, then, one day you run a benchmark on it, and it's reported at a 2.6ghz duel.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:44, Reply)

a horse is not a slower processor, it's just a different brand, it's an intel, not an AMD. there is a legitimate argument about mislabelling the product, that aregument could even be said to be a moral argument.
however "it's immoral to eat horsies" is just bollocks.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

But what I'm saying is that you can say it's okay to be annoyed that you bought a low end system when it was labelled as a high end system, but you can't be annoyed because you feel that using low end components is somehow morally objectionable compared with high end components. They are all components at the end of the day.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:20, Reply)

... but I disagree, you've bought it under false pretences.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:26, Reply)

what I'm saying is that you can be annoyed that you bought horse meat thinking it was beef, but I don't think you can be upset that you ate horsemeat because you think it's wrong to eat horses while thinking it's okay to eat cows.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:28, Reply)

I still disagree though, in the respect for some people. To some people, a horse to them is how I'd see a dog. Jockeys and mounted police, for example, would regard a horse as an almost equal, and would be horifide that someone was using their species as food; and worst, cheap food.
Although there is no religion that I know of that regards a Horse as a superior/inferior animal (such as a hindu would a cow, or a jew would a pig)... would you say the same if it turned out to be meat from an animal held in that regard?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:43, Reply)

just because we label one animal "pet" and another "food" has no moral significance, it's just convention.
edit: I also don't care what "some people think", some people are fucking stupid.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:47, Reply)

from what you should wear on your head, to how you have your beard, to how you treat women, let alone what animals you should eat.
Back in the dark ages it made sense to tell people not to eat pork or shellfish because it stopped people getting ill, but that's no longer the case.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:49, Reply)

If I threw a pig corpse at a mosque, it would have a far different meaning than if I threw a chicken corpse.
For those who chose to hold the animal in high regard, they're not saying nobody else can do what they want, but their choice should be respected for that individual.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:57, Reply)

but I don't agree with their views and I don't agree that they should be treated differently by virtue of their belief in nonsense.
Selling someone pork when it should be beef should be considered to be as bad as selling someone horse meat when it should be beef. I don't see that it's any worse because some people have decided that pig is bad but beef is okay. I don't think that is a justifiable position to take.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:04, Reply)

I agree that it should be treated no goodly/badly, but I disagree that it should be disregarded as a non-issue.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:23, Reply)

I am morally bound to tolerate your religion, provided it does not hurt others. I am not bound to respect other people's silliness, just their right to be silly.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:05, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:22, Reply)

only that it's not immoral to eat/sell horse.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

despite not doing any testing yet, and then on Sunday says there might be a risk as the horsemeat may have contained all sorts of drugs and it then turns out it might have come from Romania, which isn't allowed to sell it's horesmeat because all their horses have "horseAIDS"
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:55, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:55, Reply)

Dodgy Slavs up to their usual slippery antics.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 11:58, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:03, Reply)

But since all this stuff is in shite processed food it's not likely to affect me, since I wouldn't touch that shit with Monty's and Battered pushing.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:00, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:00, Reply)

but the vegetable shepherds pie was actually v nice. however, it was bought in sheer desperation, i never buy ready meals. i don't like the idea that i can buy it on 1 feb and it doesn't go off for 3 weeks... what the fuck is in it?!
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:04, Reply)

cheapskate home brew chat?
post modernist hamster seduction?
gay noncing?
feeding pennies to cats?
mortgaging your bumhole?
lefty handwringing bleeding gash blogging?
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:05, Reply)

Lasagne is now 3/1.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:00, Reply)

It's interesting that the story's gone from a 'filler/bulking agent' in burgers having 'traces of horse DNA' to outright substitution of horse meat for beef! Now the Irish are blaming the Polish suppliers who, in turn, are blaming the Romanians - how far does this meat travel FFS! Now it's been reported that there's a Cypriot 'meat broker' in teh suply chain too - so much for Buy British/Locally sourced.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:07, Reply)

selling in the uk, sourcing its stuff from france and spain, who in turn sourced from romania, by the look of it.
but yes, the finger has to point somewhere at people who think it's ok to pay £1 for 4 burgers and not think that just ain't right.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:09, Reply)

We should cut their incomes to solve the problem.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, Reply)

and leech out bacon milk
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:22, Reply)

buy British? They should be fucking grateful it's actually meat. Seriously, if you buy ready meal lasagne at £2 for a family of four, I can't believe you can have any objections unless it's actually poisoned.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:09, Reply)

( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:12, Reply)

These companies aren't claiming that it contains British meat at all.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:12, Reply)

why people are on their high horse (aha!)
But seriously, how often are checks done? it's probably been in food for years.
Tastes delish.
Bollockneighs
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

to actually use beef. They'll have been paid to supply beef, but because no bribe was forthcoming, they took their cut out of using cheaper materials.
Lots of horses in Romania.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:28, Reply)

that some of the stuff they give to horses isn't legally allowed into the human food chain, which is why it's an actual problem rather than just a labelling issue. I could be wrong though.
( , Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:50, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »