EPTBanning halal/kosher butchering - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Waterhaak
Netherlands525 Posts
| ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:36 shizna wrote: does a lion stun the gazelle before tearing it's throat out? Well you while I am suppose to agree with you...... A lion is a beast, Humans are humans. Beasts have bestial ways, Humans have those ways of humans (Which includes religious butchering btw) | ||
|
zala2023
United States228 Posts
If you really care about animal rights how about you just stop eating them? | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
| ||
|
Coolbeans
Ireland162 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:29 Nuri wrote: This is a stupid law firstly because the whole reason its halal or kosher is to make the animal suffer the least pain possible. It has also been proven that it is the least painful method, So why bother trying to put this law through? Im pretty sure its just to piss of people, I cant think of anyother reason. Have you guys forgotten what corporations do to animals while they are alive? and how they kill them? IDK why people are already arguing how the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals is cruel? Show me a few sources that have all this "proof"? All I have seen on it in this thread is a study from a Dutch university claiming it is in fact worse. I've also seen a few videos of it being done and from the ones I have seen ( I know those vegan propaganda movies always will show worst case scenarios) the slitting of the animals throat while it is alive seems awful compared to when it is knocked out first | ||
|
starmeat_
105 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:29 adrenaLinG wrote: Dutch government is NOT secular if it's saying that stores are not allowed to open on Sunday or if it only recognizes Christian holidays for workers. It's being religious/ethnocentric, NOT secular. I never said it was. Every law can be chased to it's historical roots, and choosing the sunday as a day of rest back then was convenient for everyone for reasons including religion. Over time, it becomes less and less part of religion and more of a traditional given within the country. So now all stores are closed on sunday, and from time to time it causes a little bit of a fuzz for purely economical reasons, but I've never heard anyone publicly argue that the stores should be open on sunday because of religious equality. Sometimes when it comes to secular issues you've got to be able to say 'big deal' and move on. | ||
|
Zetter
Germany629 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:42 MethodSC wrote: There is no difference in the animals meat any way it is butchered, so the humane way should be the only way of killing it. None of them would know the difference either way, so why is this even a discussion? Religion makes you do irrational things. Needing to kill an animal in a particular way is one of those. I don't agree Animal welfare has a lot more problems than halal/kosher butchering. There are millions of animals dying a slow and painful death because of factory farming not even going to be eaten, therefore dying an useless death for example. | ||
|
Pesto
United States121 Posts
"Mammals and fowl must be slaughtered by a trained individual (a shochet) using a special method of slaughter, shechita (Deuteronomy 12:21). Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knife, which is intended to avoid unnecessary pain to the animal as consciousness is lost quickly due to loss of cerebral blood pressure." (from Kosher on wikipedia) Stunning the animal first is more humane. But it is perhaps the difference between a split second of pain before death and none. I wonder how many of the people in this thread actually pay attention to the means by which their meat is slaughtered - if you live in the US and are not eating kosher or halal meat, believe me, your meat is not being slaughtered humanely. | ||
|
smallerk
897 Posts
| ||
|
moltenlead
Canada866 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:44 Coolbeans wrote: Show me a few sources that have all this "proof"? All I have seen on it in this thread is a study from a Dutch university claiming it is in fact worse. I've also seen a few videos of it being done and from the ones I have seen ( I know those vegan propaganda movies always will show worst case scenarios) the slitting of the animals throat while it is alive seems awful compared to when it is knocked out first http://www.scribd.com/doc/18968848/Conventional-Slaughter-vs-Halal-A-Scientific-Examination Western University, western lead scientist. Can't see anyone claiming too much bias in this article, though it is a bit old. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10487 Posts
It's hard to see with the video quality, but there is blood gushing out of its neck the entire time it is running around and slipping on its own blood | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:21 RayzorFlash wrote: Wikipedia in Spoiler featuring study about which method is more painful + Show Spoiler + In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.[13][17] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering Meanwhile, the counterargument from Wikipedia seems to be made on baseless speculation :S + Show Spoiler + In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent advisory group, concluded that the way halal and kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous." I personally believe that the Halal and Kosher way to slaughter animals is MUCH more humane than stunning them and then slaughtering them... I won't even go on the religion/politics implication of this law, but it seems like the animal welfare associations panicking and throwing a hissy-fit upon seeing an animal bleeding, (which would be required for halal/kosher slaughter ANYWAY since the exsanguination is actually the MAJOR part of the slaughter) as opposed to the invisible-to-humans pain caused by stunning I feel like this should be added to the OP. Clearly the poll options are, shall we say, misguided at best, and intentionally manipulative at worst. | ||
|
DizzyDrone
Netherlands629 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:50 moltenlead wrote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18968848/Conventional-Slaughter-vs-Halal-A-Scientific-Examination Western University, western lead scientist. Can't see anyone claiming too much bias in this article, though it is a bit old. It's an interesting read, but it only compares religious slaughter and captive bolt stunning when more methods of stunning an animal are available. It also does not address all of the points I mentioned earlier. Animal stress and mistakes during slaughter are still very real possibilities. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:56 BlackJack wrote: The only time I've witnessed Halal slaughter is from an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. It didn't turn out too well. I tried to upload the clip to youtube but it had a stupid green bar but it's still somewhat watchable.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEO-sEcWJY Now here's what I was talking about and trying to show to other people...but couldn't find the video. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
 As long as you're not torturing it of course.I don't think the government should really dictate this sort of thing but hey it seems most ppl want the govt to regulate every little single thing. sigh. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
So I think the poll in OP is a little weird and dumb. Obviously we didn't have electroshocking back in the day. | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:15 domovoi wrote: People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly. What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday? Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you! This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone. Why would the government forbid people from operating stores on Sunday? Your analogy makes no sense. At a certain point, antiquated religious beliefs go to far. A certain unnamed religion also says gays should be stoned, so by your logic government shouldn't interfere when they stone gays? Fact is, the supreme rule of law should always be the country's law. And protecting animals from suffering (and whether this law does or not is another matter entirely) should be a government concern. | ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
| ||
|
EcksperT
United States35 Posts
| ||
| ||
