|
On June 29 2011 16:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:02 Samhax wrote:On June 29 2011 15:02 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:58 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:55 Nothingtosay wrote:On June 29 2011 11:49 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:31 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:00 isM wrote:On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote:The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny. Screw the religious traditions. Isn't the intolerance for others view's the same reason you guys dislike religion? This comes off as hypocritical to me, Halal/Kosher butchering is designed to virtually eliminate suffering from the animal. I cannot understand why people believe its okay to insert morals from only one side of an issue. No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress. Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against. No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief. You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you? What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system. Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that. It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way.  My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts. Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them. @Velr Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point. Edit: Yes, that makes him clearly better than you. Good to know. First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there  . No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason. Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago...
Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kosher we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:21 Expurgate wrote:Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation? Show nested quote +Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation.
I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:22 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:12 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:02 Samhax wrote:On June 29 2011 15:02 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:58 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:55 Nothingtosay wrote:On June 29 2011 11:49 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:31 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:00 isM wrote:On June 29 2011 10:53 Whitewing wrote:
The religions have no good reason to follow through on this, other than "lol tradition and religion." Animals not being tormented as they are being slaughtered is so far ahead of religious traditions in my book on the priority list that it's not even funny.
Screw the religious traditions.
[quote]
No, the major reason most people dislike religion is that it's idiotic, poisonous, has no logical reason for it whatsoever, and it gets in the way of human development and progress. Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against. No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief. You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you? What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system. Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that. It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way. My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts. Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them. @Velr Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point. Edit: Yes, that makes him clearly better than you. Good to know. First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there . No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason. Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago... Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kashor we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys.
He also misunderstood me, although slightly. I didn't mean you needed absolute certainty to decide a tradition is a poor one, it actually works in reverse:
The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
|
On June 29 2011 16:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:21 Expurgate wrote:Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation? Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation. I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it.
Actually i don't think the animal die from suffocating, he dies because lack of irrigation for his brain. i could be wrong, i'm not entirely sure.
|
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:22 Samhax wrote:On June 29 2011 16:12 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:02 Samhax wrote:On June 29 2011 15:02 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:58 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:55 Nothingtosay wrote:On June 29 2011 11:49 KhaosKreator wrote:On June 29 2011 11:31 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 11:00 isM wrote:
[quote]
Religion for most is just a guide to a fulfilled life. Yes some people take it to extremes but you take anything to extremes and you are equally idiotic, poisonous and illogical. You cannot assume the views of a select few are matched by the masses either or you are no better than what you are trying to fight against.
No, what I mean is, all religion, regardless of how extreme or inoffensive it might be, is idiotic. It's dumb to believe in something and base real life decisions on that belief when there is absolutely zero evidence to support that belief. You have zero reason to believe that living is "more good" than not living, and yet here you stand. Think of all the damage you're causing to the environment by existing! All that coal and oil you consume, and the trees you cut down to build your home, and the land you occupy that could be occupied by anything else. Unless, you don't value nature over yourself, of course. But you have no reason to value anything over anything else, so why would you? What idiots indeed, having values that are consistent with their belief system. Are you serious? no reason to think that being alive is better than being dead? As far as science goes being dead = game over and I don't think the vast majority of people want that. It's true that people don't want that! But science unfortunately doesn't care either way. My point is that you can't apply "logic and science" to basic things like values. Your values have no logical basis. They wouldn't be values then, they would be facts. Since the religious traditions of any group have no basis in fact, data, or evidence, there is no good reason to hold those values, meaning respecting them is pointless and potentially harmful. So yeah, put the animals to sleep before you butcher them. @Velr Well he is saying we shouldn't respect religious tradition because of science, evidence, etc. And i gave him an example why it's bad to think like that because it leads to a false superiority feeling. That's my point. Edit: Yes, that makes him clearly better than you. Good to know. First, sorry for the little flame, couldn't resist there . No, he's not saying we should disrespect religious tradition. He says we should disrespect religious tradition when we KNOW (so 99%++ certainity) that the religious tradition is bad for some reason. Thats a huge diffrence. Religions have changed many of their old practises/traditions over the curse of time whenever there was overwhelming, scientific, evidence that some tradition/practise was wrong/bad/untrue... There is a reason that for instance catholicism nowadays I diffrent from what it was 200 or even 50 years ago... Well fair enough, but for the hallal/kashor we don't know with 99% certainity that this tradition is bad/wrong. we have contradictory surveys. He also misunderstood me, although slightly. I didn't mean you needed absolute certainty to decide a tradition is a poor one, it actually works in reverse: The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
|
On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad.
This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ).
So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:28 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:25 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 16:21 Expurgate wrote:Maybe we should judge this on a scientific evaluation? Ritual slaughter is slaughter performed according to the dietary codes of Jews or Muslims. Cattle, sheep, or goats are exsanguinated by a throat cut without first being rendered unconscious by preslaughter stunning. Ritual slaughter is exempt from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 to protect religious freedom.
Because ritual slaughter is exempt, some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind limb. In other plants, the animal is held in a restrainer that holds it in an upright position. Whether or not ritual slaughter conforms to the requirements of euthanasia is a controversial question. When ritual slaughter is being evaluated, the variable of restraint method must be separated from the act of throat cutting without prior stunning. Distressful restraint methods mask the animals’ reactions to the cut.
The author designed and operated four state-of-the-art restraint devices that hold cattle and calves in a comfortable upright position during kosher (Jewish; Fig 3) slaughter. To determine whether cattle feel the throat cut, at one plant the author deliberately applied the head restrainer so lightly that the animals could pull their heads out. None of the 10 cattle moved or attempted to pull their heads out. Observations of hundreds of cattle and calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight quiver when the knife first contacted the throat. Invasion of the cattle’s flight zone by touching its head caused a bigger reaction. In another informal experiment, mature bulls and Holstein cows were gently restrained in a head holder with no body restraint. All of them stood still during the cut and did not appear to feel it. Disturbing the edges of the incision or bumping it against the equipment, however, is likely to cause pain. Observations by the author also indicated that the head must be restrained in such a manner that the incision does not close back over the knife. Cattle and sheep struggle violently if the edges of the incision touch during the cut.
EDIT: TL;DR- Ritual throat cutting seems not to be painful to animals, although poor handling before the process can cause them agitation. I imagine that the actual cut isn't particularly painful, but that the lack of air would be distressing. If he is able to provide compelling testable evidence that the animals actually aren't bothered by being suffocated to death, then I'd be completely fine with it. Actually i don't think the animal die from suffocating, he dies because lack of irrigation for his brain. i could be wrong, i'm not entirely sure.
It's a combination of three fatal events occurring: First, blood loss and a loss of blood pressure, which results in blood having a harder time reaching the brain and thus your brain dies. Second, lack of oxygen being provided to the lungs, since the animal cannot breathe, which lowers the amount of oxygen in the blood, which also results in brain death. Thirdly, blood would slowly fill the animals lungs, which is essentially drowning.
Which one they actually die of depends on the exact angle and depth of the cut, but the animal would still suffocate for at least a brief period of time.
It is possible that the animal is unable to register that fact until they are already out, in which case it would be just as acceptable, but this has not been sufficiently shown yet.
|
It's like Corrida, for the sake of the tradition. Why bother? The bull is gonna die and get eaten at the end.
sarcasm...
|
Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc.
If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:34 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad. This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ). So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway.
Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion.
Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it.
You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
|
On June 29 2011 16:37 Corvette wrote:
Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc.
If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
In Switzerland for instance.. Animals are not "things" anymore, they are Animals before the law. Animals have mor rights than "things", so for instance torturing them is forbidden. Halal/Kosher butchering can be called "torturous" to the animal, so it's forbidden.
Btw: Sometimes this law makes for downright stupid rulings, sometimes i like it...
|
On June 29 2011 16:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:34 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad. This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ). So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway. Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion. Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it. You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it. Show nested quote +
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Nevermind, I'm wrong haha. Rice is harmless.
But on topic, I feel that banning it outright is offensive to those cultures. Instead, set up an inspection system like the U.S. has had in mind for the past 80 years that involves personally determining whether or not the individual entity has the resources to comfort the animal in the religious practice. If not, then take their license away.
Banning it across the board seems intolerant to me.
|
On June 29 2011 16:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:34 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad. This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ). So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway. Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion. Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it. You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it. Show nested quote +
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really.
Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time.
And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important.
|
On June 29 2011 16:37 Corvette wrote:
Just to clarify, were talking about the comfort of pigs,cows, etc. right?
I don't understand how this is an issue.
They are pigs, cows,etc.
If the farmer owns them, then he can do whatever he wants with his property.
I have trouble understanding why the method of killing animals for food needs to be conducive to the animals comfort. As long as it is sanitary and there will be no epidemics then there should not be an issue.
Astonishing!
|
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
|
On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right.
well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T.
No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
|
I voted for religious and cultural values. At the end of the day animals are still animals while I think cultural values should always be respected. As an international law student and as a person exposed to many different cultures through my travels and my friends, I am really against the cultural intolerance of so-called liberal western viewpoints that presume a moral highground and treat anything different with orientalism. One example is animal rights, and another is human rights. I think established cultures should have the right, subject to international law and custom, to govern themselves free of criticism from other prejudiced nations. Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage.
However, I think it is free to legislate as it wishes, but I certainly do not respect its insularity.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:46 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:39 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 16:34 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad. This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ). So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway. Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion. Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it. You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really. Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time. And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important.
*Ugh* I thought we just got past this >_<.
You don't need to prove something is harmful or bad, logic and science doesn't work that way. Rather, the people who do it have the burden of proving it is good to do it, or at least that it's not harmful to do it.
I can give at least 10 reasons off the top of my head why those traditions you just mentioned are net harmful, but that's outside the scope of this thread.
Also, the idea that you can't judge something unless you are able to prove that it is bad is wrong as well, you certainly can judge something without knowing with certainty that it's not good.
|
On June 29 2011 17:08 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:46 Samhax wrote:On June 29 2011 16:39 Whitewing wrote:On June 29 2011 16:34 Velr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:28 Whitewing wrote:
........The scientific method is not about disproving things. You don't need to decide a tradition is bad. It works the exact other way around: you need to prove a tradition is good. If you can provide a good reason why a tradition is a good one, that's great. If you can't, then it should be abandoned. I don't need to provide a reason why the tradition is bad. This, while true... Is just not how our world works when it comes to "tradition"... I mean, by that logic we could scrap tons of our traditions because they make absolutley no sense, no matter religious or "other"... (Throwing rice at a wedding? What a waste, how dare you! ). So now there needs to be solid evidence/proof that some tradition is "bad" to stop it, else you won't find enough people that are willing to stop it anyway. Right, but we're not dealing with how the world actually works, we're dealing with how it should work with this particular discussion. Throwing rice at a wedding might have a good reason: it's fun to do, and people enjoy it. Since it doesn't actually harm anyone beyond having to clean up the rice, there's no ramifications that outweigh the benefits of people enjoying it, so it's an okay one. Sure, it's kind of pointless really, but one could make the argument that there's a good reason for it. You're correct in the sense that most people don't understand what it means to be rational, so to actually make an effective change you probably will have to attempt to disprove it.
I can't agree, if the tradition is proven neutral, it shouldn't be abandoned. It doesn't has to be good. a bad/wrong tradition sould be abandoned, i'm ok with it.
I think you'd be hard pressed to come with a tradition that actually qualifies as completely net neutral, assuming you can quantify it, but that's a whole other discussion that's surprisingly a lot more complex than it looks like on the face of it. You are right though, if it is proven to be net neutral or not harmful, there's nothing wrong with it really. Well, i can give you many religious tradition that are neutral. It's not really a problem. Like Shabbat for Jewish, praying in mosquee for islamic people, etc. If a tradition is not proven bad/wrong/harmfull you can't judge it, most of religious traditions make people happier and are neutral, and the traditions that are proven wrong often slowly disappear with time. And back to the topic, we don't have any scientific survey who prove that hallal/kashor is wrong. So you can't judge it. And like many people said it before, the conditions of living for this animals are way more important. *Ugh* I thought we just got past this >_<. You don't need to prove something is harmful or bad, logic and science doesn't work that way. Rather, the people who do it have the burden of proving it is good to do it, or at least that it's not harmful to do it. I can give at least 10 reasons off the top of my head why those traditions you just mentioned are net harmful, but that's outside the scope of this thread. Also, the idea that you can't judge something unless you are able to prove that it is bad is wrong as well, you certainly can judge something without knowing with certainty that it's not good.
I have to tell you something, i was ironic about me not knowing science, i actually studied maths and physics in university. So you can stop with your scientific arguments, i think you are too mentally blocked about religion, so let's stop this discussion.
|
On June 29 2011 17:02 tyCe wrote:
Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage.
Wow, describing the Netherlands as a generally ignorant and intolerant country? That's new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
