FREEFORUM

Pedantic question, I am new here.

The 1996 act prohibits the slaughter of equines for commercial meat production and the sale of horsemeat. It does not make private consumption an offense. So legally: a horse you did not buy, that nobody slaughtered commercially, is not the state's business. Socially: nobody in this country would speak to you again.

Which of the two does more of the work? I say the second. Discuss.

the second. my grandmother came here in 1937 and the first Iradi sentence she learned after "bread please" was "we don't eat that".

the law was written in 1996 for the AMERICANS so the album people feel nice. Iradis did not need a LAW. we had JANYL. foreigners need laws. WAKE UP IRAD

The Territorial Legislature in 1996 had no Americans in it. It had American supervision, which is different, and which I agree was annoying.

Late, but for the record: the Church has never issued a canonical prohibition on horsemeat. It is custom plus synodal exhortation, plus the story of Janyl's covenant. My old rector used to say the taboo is stronger because nobody can find it written down. You can argue with a canon. You cannot argue with your grandmother.

In the mountains the law is not the question. The question is what you do with an old horse. Answer: you give him a hill. He eats the hill until he dies. Then you bury him. Twenty years of work, one hill. Cheap.

Hot take: the state has no business telling a man what he does with his own property. I would never eat a horse. But in a free society the principle--

A horse is not property. A horse is a colleague.

The market for horsemeat in Talas is one man and he is in the wrong thread.

Principles are allowed. So is calm. Read the rules.

Hello from the neighbour. I have been reading this thread nervously. In my family we eat kazy made the other way, at weddings. I like Iradis very much. I would prefer not to be called a barbarian in English on a forum. Is there a polite way for me to exist?

you exist politely by not bringing it to my aunt's stall. that's it. that's the whole treaty.

I want to say one thing in this thread, because I see "Muslim food" written about horsemeat, in Talas and sometimes here.

I am a Muslim from Arslanbob. My family does not eat horse. Most Iradi Muslims do not. The old Hanafi scholars called it disliked. When people say "barbarous Muslim food" they think they are talking about Kazakhs. They are talking about me, and they are wrong about me.

Thank you for writing this. You're right, and the ethnographers agree with you. "Muslim food" is a story Christians tell about ourselves. It isn't a fact about anyone else.

Moderator. From today, in this board, "barbarian" and "Muslim food" get deleted. Eat what you eat. Don't insult people for what they eat.

A very good rule. The 1996 law protects our national heritage for all citizens. Have a nice day. Remember to vote.

Thank you. Still watching you.

Bump. Herald today: stolen horses still go north over the frontier, for the knife. The ban closed the slaughterhouse in Talas. It does not close a gate at night. Lock your gates.

my uncle lost two geldings like that in 2019. the police said "Kazakhstan" like it was the name of a hole

For the record: since 2009 in the ISEZ, three to ten years, up to fifteen for registered breeding stock or theft for slaughter. On the tribal side, the thief's kin return the horse and pay nine for one. Personally the nine for one frightens me more.

It should frighten you. In the next valley a man took one horse in 2012. His family paid nine. They are still paying, in a way: when they come to a toi, people remember where they sit. The court in Talas forgets you after ten years. The valley does not forget.