|
On June 29 2011 09:09 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Id much prefer Predator > Prey Humans are animals.
Technically yes, but they are a unique form of them, which makes them more than just plain animals.
On June 29 2011 09:10 Hekisui wrote:
Even if humans > animals, why human false beliefs > real animal suffering.
What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human?
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs?
When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare.
|
On June 29 2011 09:05 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:03 FliedLice wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. I hope you aren't serious. entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition?
So chopping of a thieves hand and stoning women for a divorce is totally fine too, right?
It's religion man.
people seem to come up with the most retarded things saying "FREEDOM YO!"
|
On June 29 2011 09:07 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper.
|
On June 29 2011 09:11 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:05 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 09:03 FliedLice wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. I hope you aren't serious. entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition? So chopping of a thieves hand and stoning women for a divorce is totally fine too, right? It's religion man. people seem to come up with the most retarded things saying "FREEDOM YO!"
It has little to do with their religion. Im against religion myself, but all for freedom. If it was their cultural tradition, would you still be against it?
|
On June 29 2011 09:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:07 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens! I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper.
Ever hear of the term "running around like a chicken with its head cut off" ?
|
On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
|
On June 29 2011 09:10 Zetter wrote:
Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs?
When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare.
It's not about claiming for yourself the right to be the authority on how the world ought to be interpreted.
It is about realizing there is only one objective reality and that factual comments are either true or false. It is either a fact that an animal suffers more, less or equally as much when slit conscious or unconscious. Religious people can claim all they want they can decide what is correct and what is erroneous all by themselves. They can claim all they want that it is part of their religious freedom do believe an objective reality doesn't exist or is either what they want it to be. They can claim all they want that all science in the world is wrong because their god tells them something else.
They can claim all they want that something that is erroneous becomes correct the moment they believe it as a religious ideology.
But that doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Where does it say in the Dutch constitution you can never be wrong about something as long as it is a religious view? It doesn't say that anywhere.
Religious people have the right to be wrong. But they don't have the right to break the law by claiming they have the religious freedom to be wrong exactly because they believe they are right.
It's so easy to make a reductio ad absurdum here, but I see others have already made a few attempt. Correct your views, seriously.
|
On June 29 2011 09:15 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:13 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:07 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens! I'm sure you have a point that you're trying to make in your mind but it's not coming across on paper. Ever hear of the term "running around like a chicken with its head cut off" ?
I guess you missed it but I was hinting with my last post that you could probably form a better argument if you wrote more than ten words instead of expecting the reader to infer what you are trying to argue.
|
On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Humans > Animals Therefore New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy.
But to make it more specific, I could also say:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
On June 29 2011 09:20 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:10 Zetter wrote:
Do you have the right to judge, that muslim/jewish beliefs are false beliefs?
When muslims/jews believe they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat, do you have the right to deny their eternal peace, just because you are of the opinion, that they have a false belief? Humans stand over animals, so their religious freedom stands over the animal welfare. It's not about claiming for yourself the right to be the authority on how the world ought to be interpreted. It is about realizing there is only one objective reality and that factual comments are either true or false. It is either a fact that an animal suffers more, less or equally as much when slit conscious or unconscious. Religious people can claim all they want they can decide what is correct and what is erroneous all by themselves. They can claim all they want that it is part of their religious freedom do believe an objective reality doesn't exist or is either what they want it to be. They can claim all they want that all science in the world is wrong because their god tells them something else. They can claim all they want that something that is erroneous becomes correct the moment they believe it as a religious ideology. But that doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Where does it say in the Dutch constitution you can never be wrong about something as long as it is a religious view? It doesn't say that anywhere. Religious people have the right to be wrong. But they don't have the right to break the law by claiming they have the religious freedom to be wrong exactly because they believe they are right. It's so easy to make a reductio ad absurdum here, but I see others have already made a few attempt. Correct your views, seriously.
You can't be serious. Of course a religious view could be wrong. But people wouldn't believe in their religion, if they wouldn't think that they are in fact right.
A jew/muslim (or at least an orthodox jew/muslim) actually thinks that they go to hell, if they eat non kosher/halal meat. That is the objective reality for them. And the dutch constitution gives them the right to believe that.
And as I said, the eternal life of a human being is worth a lot more than the earthly life of an animal.
|
On June 29 2011 09:10 Hekisui wrote:
What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human?
I would pick a human life over the life as a cow, but I have no perfectly sound and objective argument for that.
And even if it is objectively true that humans > cows, what does it matter if we can't convince cows that this is true?
Preservation of the species. If saving the human instead of the cow will help keep the human species alive, and I have to pick one, I will kill the cow.
On the other hand, preservation of the self. If the other human will decrease the chance of my survival because of his food requirements, then I will kill the human and keep the cow so I can drink its milk.
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
But it does.
Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality.
I would argue sentience and language are pretty big indicators that we aren't just 'animals'.
|
On June 29 2011 06:20 adrenaLinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 04:07 ScrubS wrote:On June 29 2011 04:04 RealQ wrote:On June 29 2011 04:02 SpearWrit wrote:On June 29 2011 03:58 emythrel wrote:On June 29 2011 03:55 SpearWrit wrote:On June 29 2011 03:54 emythrel wrote:
However, I personally can't stand people who do something "because its traditional" or "because of their religion" when there is a far cleaner, safer and more humane way of achieving the same goal by using modern technology and practices. Therefore I am totally against halal/kosher because it is clinging to outdated and completely ridiculous beliefs (in my opinion, yours may differ and that's fine lol). That means you don't know what halal/kosher is. Try and read up on it before posting. It is based on religious beliefs, if thats you're only reason for doing it.... its stupid. I did edit my post to say that if it is equally quick and painless then its fine, even if the reasoning behind it is stupid. Religious beliefs, then, are stupid? That's rather arrogant. I will not continue a discussion with you, if by the get go my reasoning is already condemned to be "stupid." Religion itself is stupid Religion and animal welfare are both stupid. So far it hasn't been scientifically proven that animals suffer more when they are butchered halal/kosher. Therefore, it is just way easier and better to allow it (eventho its bs, as i agree with u) What about human welfare? Both Jews and Muslims are upset and suing in San Francisco where there is a voters initiative trying to get forced circumcision on males under 18 years of age (the legal age limit) banned. Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 05:58 Holcan wrote:On June 29 2011 05:54 MilesTeg wrote:
Another populist law to get the islamophobic voter. You guys seriously don't have anything better to do?
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting.
Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP.
(this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...) The French are so blatantly racist towards the Islamic Religion. In Quebec there was a vote against the hijab, even though maybe 60? people total wear religious garb over their head in Quebec. Its like, really? you're going to cost the governemnt thousands of dollars because you're so racist you cannot allow 60 people to practice their religion?? Well, religions have costed the government MILLIONS of dollars trying to get things like same-sex marriage banned.
Contrary to popular belief, religion is a set of ideals, people who follow religion are not the religion itself. What you meant to say is that the Christian Majority often spends the governments money in ways that are not beneficial to the country as a whole, to which has no counter argument to what I said in the first place. What does the price of rice in China have to do with French people being prejudice towards the Islamic Faith?
Also Gay Marriage effects the entire country, not only is Marriage a legal binding term relating to the state, but it also a bond that thousands of people commit to every year, its a little bit different than 60 people wearing religious garb on their head.
|
The thing is, cutting the animal's throat is relatively humane compared to some things that have been (and probably still are) being done by other meat industries/companies. I voted for animal welfare, but the poll is worded in a pretty biased manner. Really, I'm ok with them not stunning animals first, as it still seems to be a humane way to kill them.
|
On June 29 2011 09:24 MozzarellaL wrote:
Preservation of the species. If saving the human instead of the cow will help keep the human species alive, and I have to pick one, I will kill the cow.
How is preservation of the species and preservation of the self unique to humans?
Show nested quote +Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that. But it does.
I don't think I want to argue with someone who hare a morality below that of those who are far below that of the Taliban.
Really, the worst thing you can be is an immoral person. You just claimed to be part of the .0001% least moral people on the planet. Well done!
Show nested quote +Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality. I would argue sentience and language are pretty big indicators that we aren't just 'animals'.
How much humans can suffer can be measured. But I don't see how our ability to communicate through language has any bearing on our right to cause unnecessary suffering.
I never claimed humans are not special. I just claimed it isn't obvious to say human suffering is more important than animal suffering when the suffering is equal.
But remember that the context was about how extremist religious people suffer by being offended by reality is more important that real animal suffering caused by slitting throats.
|
Replying in parts because there is so much wrong with this post.
On June 29 2011 08:46 Hekisui wrote:
This is an extremely simple debate but loaded because of religious people who compare stuff with WWII.
It was decided that butchering should be done in the most animal friendly way. In the modern world we have ways to measure stress and pain and means to reduce it.
Therefore, it was banned to butcher without first making the animal go unconsciousness. Only when they were unable to feel pain, it was allowed to kill them.
In the Netherlands under the constitution, religious people have more rights than nonreligious people. Freedom of religion is very strong here and you can do things that are illegal otherwise if it us under the umbrella of religion. Freedom of speech is one thing. You can call for gay people to be killed as long as you can claim it is a religious view. If it is a religious view, you are protected. If not, it is illegal under other laws.
Yea, not true. Under Dutch law you would be prosecuted calling for violence against a group of people, even in the case of religious leaders and it has already happened for less (case of the imam in Rotterdam).
Same with schools. People can get money from the taxpayer to fund their own school if and only if the school is based on religious ideology. It's part of freedom of religion to get free money to have a religious school. Other ideologies can't get this money because religion is not like other ideologies. It has special rights.
Also not true. Schools of any kind can apply for funding from the dutch government, as long as certain criteria regarding quality are met. The various montessori- and 'free school' movements all have a place and they receive funding from the government.
Because of the special status of anything religious, it was still allowed to butcher without stunning as long as it was under the umbrella of freedom of religion. In the torah it states that an animal is only kosher if it can walk 4 paces after the throat is slit. If not, the animal is probably sick and not safe to eat. This is perfect fine stone age logic. Stone age logic no longer applies. But it is seen as religious dogma right now. Not following religious dogma is considered a sin.
All completely silly.
If you ask me the religious people have an argument. What needs to happen is the constitution has to be changed. The constitution is what it is now because of the persecution of protestant Christians. Freedom of religion needs to be protected but it needs to put non religious people on an equal level with religious people. It doesn't do that because the text is archaic and obsolete. Not having a religion is currently not protected by the constitution. Non religious people are second class citizens. You can't start a Keynesian school. But you can start a Scientology school, using taxpayer money. When you claim Keynesian is a religion it suddenly gets special privileges and you can fund a Keynesian school.
If Keynesianism claims to be a religion then suddenly other constitutional rights are removed to allow for religious practices, if the religion of Keynesiamism demands for this.
Again, this is simply not true. You can freely create any kind of school you want, along any line of thought, as long as you meet certain criteria. Iederwijs is a perfect example of this.
Under the current constitution, children have no freedom of religion. Children are brainwashed by tax payer money in schools founded on this religion. No one protects their right of growing up without believing they can be of another religion than the religion of their parents.
This case just shows the freedom of religion needs to be entirely removed from the constitutional. Freedom of religion is already part of freedom of speech and expression. Religion as an ideology is just like any other ideology, be it economic, scientific, cultural, or whatever.
So yes, this new law does collide with the constitutional rights of religious people, and that's exactly the problem. It shouldn't.
If someone slits your throat when you are perfectly conscious, you will suffer. If you are unconscious and someone slits your throat, you will feel way less. The law says animals should be slaughtered only in the least painful way possible. So that bans halal and kosher slaughtering because in the bible or quran they didn't have anesthesia, obviously.
Your opinion. Can live with it.
Right now, Muslim people don't dare to say much. But jewish people are very vocal. They bring up Hitler and what he did and lie that if the throat of an animal is slit fast and skillfully enough, you can't feel it.
Also, they bring in other issues about if eating animals should be moral even if you slaughter in the least painful way.
Then these Jewish people threaten to go to terrorist state of Israel. I say, go. We don't need you in our modern society. Don't use the holocaust argument against us. Don't bring up that you were in a concentration camp.
Nobody is bringing up Hitler but you. It is true that in any debate involving jews there is a quick connection made to WWII, but nobody is making this case here or actually threatening to go to Israel. This ban doesn't mean anything, you will still be able to buy halal meat in every supermarket in Amsterdam. Are some of the more religious jews upset, sure, but it isn't exactly an uprising.
And you put it in a very hateful way.
So really religious people are lying and the animal rights party, who are vegetarians and want to abolish factory farming completely, just put their finger at a very sore point in our society.
On top of that, Islamic clerics claim that slaughtering an animal while it is unconscious is perfectly halal and a large percentage of halal meat in the Netherlands is already slaughtered that way.
When some religious group claims the only non sinful way to slaughter an animal is to throw it off the highest building in the country during working days at 4 PM, does not allowing that mean you are denying their right to have the religious ideology they choose to want?
Really, if we give religious people special rights, were do we draw the line.
As for protection minorities especially, I am fully for that. Why? Because in a democracy, minorities are weak and have little power. Their rights need to be protected especially well. But animals are part of this group. Animals need to be protected. Greeks believed animals and rocks were the same thing. Now we know mammals suffer as much as humans and other animals are not far off. They are just less smart and their consciousness is at a way lower level.
So yea, again your opinion. Generally tho, I'd consider using less irrelevant facts.
|
On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Humans > Animals Therefore New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
But the Patriots are better than the Dolphins...
|
On June 29 2011 09:24 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Humans > Animals Therefore New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy. But to make it more specific, I could also say: Humans > Animals Therefore Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal
I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
|
On June 29 2011 09:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:24 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Humans > Animals Therefore New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy. But to make it more specific, I could also say: Humans > Animals Therefore Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist.
By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
|
On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:
Humans > Animals
Therefore
New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins
Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well
this is complete hyperbole and you know it don't be stupid
|
On June 29 2011 09:41 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:36 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:24 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life Humans > Animals Therefore New England Patriots > Miami Dolphins Interesting.. I possess the ability to write down logical fallacies as well It would be interesting, if my conclusion was a logical fallacy. But to make it more specific, I could also say: Humans > Animals Therefore Eternal Life of a human > Fleshly life of an animal I could see that being used a moral argument for Muslims/Jews toward Halal/Kosher. However our laws aren't made by organized religion so a superstition about eternal life isn't a very compelling argument for a secularist. By the means of freedom of religion, the government is obligated to guarantee religious fulfillment to each and everyone of it's citizens.
Is that the law in your country? Because it's not the law in mine
|
On June 29 2011 09:32 Hekisui wrote:
How is preservation of the species and preservation of the self unique to humans?
They aren't. You were asking for objective moral whatever to determine which is worth more, I gave that to you.
I don't think I want to argue with someone who hare a morality below that of those who are far below that of the Taliban.
Really, the worst thing you can be is an immoral person. You just claimed to be part of the .0001% least moral people on the planet. Well done!
I have a very well defined set of morals, thanks!
How much humans can suffer can be measured. But I don't see how our ability to communicate through language has any bearing on our right to cause unnecessary suffering.
It shows we're the fucking kinds of this planet, and we get to do whatever we want to the lower beings of this planet, understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
