|
On June 30 2011 01:31 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 01:23 Roflhaxx wrote:On June 29 2011 07:24 Blasterion wrote:On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote:
I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they? Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote:
Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough. Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression. If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway. Because you are denying a people their basic constitutional rights for Animal rights. What you are is sacrificing rights of other humans for animals. Why can you not grasp the concept that humans are superior to animals? And that animal rights only matter when it does not sacrifice the rights of human beings? And not to mention Halal is rather painless way to kill the animals already. Why can you not grasp the concept that a few people's superstition does not mean they can torture animals? Why can you not grasp the concept that even though we humans are superior to animals (which also depends on how you define superior) that does not imply that we can treat animals like shit when they too can feel pain and the more intelligent ones have emotions.
Not to mention I'm not aware of a constitution that says it's okay to torture animals if you're religious. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to harm others because your religion says so.
|
On June 30 2011 01:31 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 01:23 Roflhaxx wrote:On June 29 2011 07:24 Blasterion wrote:On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote:
I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they? Because they don't have to. To impose your ideals on to the ideals of other members of humanity for what? For rights of beasts? I don't see how you think beasts of consumption's well being exceeds to rights of humans to have their own culture when that culture do not harm humanity itself. As long as humanity itself remains unharmed I see no wrong in such practices. Also we must not impose such kind of ideals on to others. the last time we did that there was a crusade On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote:
Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough. Keeping Religious tolerance open is definitely a priority rather than Animal rights. There is no reason to make a people suffer in cultural oppression. If someone starts suffering just because the ANIMAL (not beast) you are eating have been butchered in a humane way, I don't really feel sorry for them tbh. Really, why do you keep saying beast over and over again, I wouldn't call a cow or a chicken a beast.I'm not even gonna bother discussing the other crap you said, I don't see that you will listen to whatever I say anyway. Because you are denying a people their basic constitutional rights for Animal rights. What you are is sacrificing rights of other humans for animals. Why can you not grasp the concept that humans are superior to animals? And that animal rights only matter when it does not sacrifice the rights of human beings? And not to mention Halal is rather painless way to kill the animals already.
What is so complicated about understanding that making animals suffer for no good reason is foolish? Just because some people decided to convince themselves that their god needs them to find new and funky ways to kill animals doesn't mean the modern world needs to tolerate such backward thinking.
Religious freedom doesn't mean you can bypass the law, however much religious people seem to forget this. We kill animals in a humane way and now the religious will have to sedate the animals before they have their fun with them.
Halal and Kosher are not painless, this has allready been scientifically established. You shouldn't just keep screaming against scientific fact just because it doesn't suit your position. Accept that your side contains needless animal suffering, don't be so spineless as to cover that up.
There are no human rights being sacrificed here because i do not view religious slaughter as to be a part of religious freedom. Religious freedom is pretty limited in my view so there is no problem at all with preventing this needless animal torture.
Slaughtering animals in a ritualistic fashion just doesn't belong in a modern state. You need to stop trying to make this about wether or not humans are superior to animals, nobody is debating that in the slightest, you just keep screaming it like a broken record in an attempt to move the debate into a direction that nobody wants it to go. Well you want it to go there because then everything becomes so very simple.
Animals truly suffer in this form of slaughter. Their pain is real. Religion cannot be proven and should be relegated as not real until proven otherwise. The gain of these rituals are non existant or at best unproveable.
No need to torture animals just because some religious people can't get with the times.
|
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book.
Edit: In ny way am i an "Animal nut" btw. I hunt, fish eat meat in general etc etc. It's just that tradition (especially religious) is truly pointless/worthless imo. I
|
On June 30 2011 01:51 Rabbitmaster wrote:
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book.
your book isn't as popular as the other 2 books involved here.
|
On June 30 2011 01:53 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 01:51 Rabbitmaster wrote:
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book. your book isn't as popular as the other 2 books involved here.
Is that your attempt at an "Argumentum ad populum"?
|
The screeching hyperbole in this thread is silly. "Torture"? Come on. The fact is that there is evidence that the halal method is less painful, and evidence that the stunning method is less painful. Just because certain posters are biased against the religious advocacy groups studies doesn't mean that the animal rights groups are any more accurate. Just accept that there is conflicting evidence and move on.
Personally, I think any law that forces a specific group of people to import all their meat is blatantly discriminatory and wrong, but if there's one thing this thread has actually proven, it's that some people will take absolutely any opportunity to bash religion, no matter who gets hurt.
|
On June 30 2011 01:53 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 01:51 Rabbitmaster wrote:
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book. your book isn't as popular as the other 2 books involved here.
Atleast his book is up to date unlike the other 2 that don't make any sense at all in the current world we live in 
|
Can anyone link me literature from beyond this one on wikipedia?
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.[18]
Everything else on wikipedia is peoples opinion/ancedotal which I don't consider evidence.
I think the decision in the OP is more political than anything and a good way to win support of the average white guy. I'd also say that this was a good decision and one I back.
In April 2008, the Food and Farming minister in the UK, Lord Rooker, stated that halal and kosher meat should be labeled when it is put on sale, so that members of the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have been bled to death. He was quoted as saying, "I object to the method of slaughter ... my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after, and slaughtered in the most humane way possible."
|
On June 30 2011 02:13 Jakkerr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 01:53 XCetron wrote:On June 30 2011 01:51 Rabbitmaster wrote:
Animal welfare trumps tradition (even religious) any day in my book. your book isn't as popular as the other 2 books involved here. Atleast his book is up to date unlike the other 2 that don't make any sense at all in the current world we live in
Also, my "Book" is metaphorical, only used to convey an expression. It does not contain any information about what people you can kill, how to butcher animals or what you can and can not do with your genitals.
|
I do not see an issue of letting them continue the slaughter unless they do not eat the meat. Assuming they do not eat the meat then well they should not be doing it. I am sure some homeless person would love some food and it would be a waste not to consume these animals after the practice.
|
I think that in truth those "laws" in the religion were created for the sole purpose of killing the animal in a as humane way as possible for the time with the tools they had at their disposals, not dictate how we should kill the animals in the future, where there are even humaner ways to kill the animal.
|
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way
edit; I really don't like how you wrote the questions. Neither of them are worth more than the others.
I love animals, and I am in for animal rights.
However, in this concern I am voting Traditions.
|
There were no links in the OP, but this (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/06/201162945027320392.html) video made it seem like the law was nitpicking over a few minutes of an animal's supposed suffering. They aren't torturing the animal in some kind of "ritual;" they are cutting its throat and then butchering it for food. What could be more simple than that? Is anyone really losing sleep because their cow took 2 minutes longer to die than another cow?
This looks like more of a jab at muslims/religion than rational concern for the welfare of livestock.
|
On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way.
By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
|
On June 30 2011 02:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way. By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference?
This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
|
I voted Tradition.
In absence of any evidence that this method is more inhumane that stunning and given that googling any method of slaughter will give horrific results of it going wrong I'm calling demagogy which is a new word Time magazine taught me earlier this week ^^
dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/Noun
1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
|
On June 30 2011 02:36 DDAngelo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way. By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference? This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
|
On June 30 2011 02:36 DDAngelo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way. By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference? This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive.
The problem with that is that these pro-ritual researches are almost exclusively presented by religious people whilst groups like the university of wageningen clearly proves it does hurt animals.
You could also find researchers that would tell you all the health benefits of smoking. Now let's be honest, can you really expect a muslim cleric or orthodox jew to be unbiased? Atleast the univeristy of wageningen doesn't have an agenda it has to answer to or a personal intrest in the outcome. If McDonalds revealed a research that showed that fast food makes you skinny, would you really begin to chow down on fast food every day?
|
On June 30 2011 02:43 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:36 DDAngelo wrote:On June 30 2011 02:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way. By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference? This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive. Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion.
This comment made me grin. I agree.
From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
|
On June 30 2011 02:49 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:43 domovoi wrote:On June 30 2011 02:36 DDAngelo wrote:On June 30 2011 02:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:On June 30 2011 02:29 Nuf wrote:
It's a tradition, that many many people have used, for many years. Now they see something wrong with it? No. It's not more cruelty to animals, than to put them to sleep, for them to not wake up for the morning sun.
They die either way. By that same logic, isn't burning alive just as "humane" as lethal injection? I mean, in the end both people die so there should be no difference? This is a false dichotomy. There is just as much evidence showing the religious method is less painful as there is showing it is more painful. It seems like people just believe the side they like more. Since there is conflicting evidence you can't compare halal/kosher slaughter to burning alive. Seriously, the level of unthinking irrationalism from the anti-religious side borders on... religion. This comment made me grin. I agree. From a purely neutral standpoint, if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason why it can't continue. The meat is probably tougher though.People claiming its cruelty to animals would be interested to learn the many double standards that would be present in the meat industry if this in particular was "crossing the line" from Standard procedure to animal cruelty.
We are talking about ritual slaughter, that is the subject. Can you try and stay on subject? Do you think you could do that for me?
Over a dozen time people have tried to point to the meat industry and say "well they aren't angels either!". If your arguments are that desperate should you really be defending it?
This topic isn't about the meat industry, it's about ritual slaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
