|
On June 29 2011 18:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote:
many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought.
the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious.
Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole. The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
well it seems that you missed my point.
Though I agree the origins are irrelevant many people here disagree with both you and me and dismiss an act only by what they see as its origin.Then they add to this act by not even know or bothering to find out what this origin they oppose to is.
That kind of thinking is another problem, a different one (and a bigger one I dare say)
but it obviously got entangled here as well.
To those people, who dismiss an act solely based on its "origin" with and/or without even knowing the origin my message was intended.
More on topic, I have yet to find a reliable source in this thread to convince me that shocking the animal is less painful. Only videos/articles with a bad smell of bias and integrity issues.
The only somewhat reliable sources I have found (and I may have missed some) are to say the contrary.
It's not that I favoure one over the other. In the context of animal cruelty I think they are both pretty much the same.
In any event, there is much more cruelty in the way they grow and house these animals then how they are killed. It seems more like an attack on uncomfortable tradition then on animal cruelty.
|
On June 29 2011 20:08 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that. I invite you to find any statements of people pro animal welfare in this thread in which is stated that animals living in horrible conditions is fine. I eagerly await your response.
I was talking of the Dutch context. Throughout the discussion on this ban in the Netherlands (that passed yesterday btw with a vote of 116 against 30), my impression was that most people supporting this ban in the Netherlands did so because it was a ban on a Muslim practice, hence, my last post.
Just yesterday, the deputy prime minister Maxime Verhagen gave a speech. He said that "fear of foreigners is understandable and legitimate...We must not dispose of these concerns as offensive or say that one must not think that way," NRC Handelsblad quoted Verhagen as saying in the speech. "The uneasiness must also be the uneasiness of a people's party like the CDA."
I hope my impressions were wrong, but given the current context in the Netherlands, I do not think so.
|
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote:
That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
Lol
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/human-sacrifice-beheaded-body-found-near-kali-temple-in-birbhum/607102/
You don't like human sacrifices? Well sorry mate.
That is your view and many others. I am not a Kali worshipper but I understand to some degree the significance of Kali beliefs and laws to the people who worship Kali. Kali's laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness.
|
That they grow up like shit (define this pls, this varies widly depending on country) is no argument for killing them in a more painfull way than necessary...
|
we should close this thread.
the argument here is belief vs belief.
the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future.
|
On June 29 2011 20:22 TALegion wrote:
Jewish and Muslim traditions, imo.
Animal Rights are fine, but i'm not so into sacrificing the rights of billions of human beings for the sake of lessening a few seconds of pain and fear for an animals who was born, raised, and kept alive for the sole sake of having that happen to him. Livestock animals don't really have rights imo. They're more like plants.
EDIT:
For clarification, i'm not saying that the traditions are ALWAYS more important. If there was a practice of stabbing a dog in the stomach and watching it bleed it out for no reason, I'd side with the dog. But, in this case, the animals are going to be killed anyway. It's only a few seconds. Are those few seconds of the animal really worth oppression, whether it be great or small?
If there is no valid reason for the cruelty, then yes there is cause to legislate out any exceptions to the laws protecting animals from needless cruelty.
The dificulty with getting rid of the legal exeptions is that A) The religoens in question can bring a lot of pressure to bear to resist the removal of the exemption and B) The government trying to remove the exemption needs to be very careful its facts are straight and there can be no claim of discrimination or persecution
|
On June 29 2011 20:35 Mykill wrote:
we should close this thread.
the argument here is belief vs belief.
the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future. It is not belief vs belief.
Suffering is not particularly nice for the being that suffers. That is a fact.
God is not a fact.
I'd say facts take precedence over nonfacts.
|
Exceptions in law for religious groups should not be made. Seems ridiculous to me.
|
On June 29 2011 20:38 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 20:35 Mykill wrote:
we should close this thread.
the argument here is belief vs belief.
the belief that animal suffering is wrong vs the belief of god.
Personally I don't give a shit about either, this thread isn't going anywhere, plus this whole "rights" bullshit is gone so fucking far. People just need to accept that there's a norm in society that is ever changing, animal rights is "fashionable" right now that's why we have this, plus halal is just a tradition, we all move on from them, you might as well get over it because it will happen someday in the future. It is not belief vs belief. Suffering is not particularly nice for the being that suffers. That is a fact. God is not a fact. I'd say facts take precedence over nonfacts.
Lol, if only it were this easy.
Half the issue with argueing with religeous nuts is that they claim thier belief is in fact...
fact !
(Just not a fact they can prove empyricly)
|
A whole bunch of people in this thread who don't even know a thing about halal/kosher butchering somehow thinking it's just some cruel tradition that causes animal suffering. These traditions aren't just baseless, someone linked a study involving EEG earlier in this thread showing that halal/kosher is very "humane". This law is incredibly ignorant and people who think it's just "protecting" religious rights are pretty ignorant too.
|
Shatter Storm, can you provide me empirical proof? (both for Hala and Shock)
Not asking as to taunt or any thing, I am really interested and have not found any thing close to that here.
*edit: The only thing close to that is the EEG study.That said halal is better.
http://mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm
Though the website is of question, this is the closest this thread has to offer.
|
Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
|
I'm not sure if the theist version of butchering animals is inhumane or not, I am not educated enough in that field.
If it is in fact any less humane than the non theist version. Then yes it should certainly be banned. Animals should not suffer needlessly for beliefs.
Lol, if only it were this easy.
Half the issue with argueing with religeous nuts is that they claim thier belief is in fact...
fact !
(Just not a fact they can prove empyricly)
It is "fact" to these religious nuts because they have based their entire life around these set of beliefs. To an outsider their beliefs may appear stupid, but you can't really prove or disprove any form of theism; the most you can do is point out logical inconsistencies.
|
On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote:
Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part.
Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
|
I'll start with this, know it will never happen but I almost see the Dutch law as an extension of the "kosher" idea. Now I'm not Jewish and please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always understood that aspect of kosher was to be humane to the animal you're about to eat. Knocking the cow out first before slaughter seems even more humane to me.
Perhaps there is more to it than I understand.
Well if this is to be believed it seems my understanding is correct?
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_kosherslaughtering.htm
|
On June 29 2011 20:55 tangwhat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 20:49 Technique wrote:
Hehe, yeah a lot of religious people still deny evolution as well... so.... no reasoning with religious people for the most part. Thanks do you have any other bigoted statements you'd like to make about minorities? African-Americans or Socialists maybe?
What minorities are you reffering too ?
If you are saying that religeous people denying evolution being in the minority of church goers, you may be right, but considering they take their anti darwinism stance on advice from the mother church... and that the church itself is definately NOT a minority group...I find it hard to get your point here.
|
People these days believe everything that comes out of that damn television
|
What a debate...
Actually most animals slaughtered by the food industry suffer much more. Sure they get stunned by electro-shocks (at least in europe that is law) but if you ever see their way to this point... you wouldnt care about a religiouse slaughter with a knife where the animals in most cases actually have a much more enjoyable life.
For example chickens in the normal food industry: They live their life in darkness with zero space trampeling on their dead mates and when the final day has come, they get pushed into a big machine that sorts them automaticly (while alive) and hangs them from the feet where they are pulled through a whole industrial complex. Right before they get slaughtered (they already see the machine that cuts off the head of their mates) they are pulled through a tank with water where they get an electro-shock stunning them, immidiately after this their head is cut off.
I would prefere a traditional slaughter anytime if I were an animal.
This law has nothing to do with animal wellfare, its only about discriminating jewish and muslim traditions while showing stupid stereotypes. The big food industry would be the first station any animal-rights supporter should protest about.
|
On June 29 2011 20:57 revy wrote:I'll start with this, know it will never happen but I almost see the Dutch law as an extension of the "kosher" idea. Now I'm not Jewish and please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always understood that aspect of kosher was to be humane to the animal you're about to eat. Knocking the cow out first before slaughter seems even more humane to me. Perhaps there is more to it than I understand. Well if this is to be believed it seems my understanding is correct? http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_kosherslaughtering.htm
If the goal is to be humane as possible, would there not even be a method more humane than a blow to the head or a electric shock ? Pehapse a major drug overdose would cause the cow to die REAL happy (and give those consuming the meat a little something "extra" as well.)
I can see it now "New Improved Kosher with 20% extra poppy juice" 
|
lol ShatterStrom,
I think every one will buy Kosher meat that way
1+
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
