|
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.
So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries?
It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
|
On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote:
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.
Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little.
All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme, simply under the assumption that a practice from one's religion is less legitimate than any other practice. Would you be ok with a democratically-passed law that bans SC2 playing, on the grounds that it promotes violent fantasies?
|
On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:49 JamesJohansen wrote: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.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
|
Vegetarian dictatorship ftw !
Jokes aside, I think it's almost a non-issue since the whole process of industrial breeding is torture. Stunned or not, animals know very well when they are about to die.
|
On June 30 2011 02:57 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote:
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. Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little. All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme.
It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
Religious people can sedate their animals and then perform their rituals. Religion has always made way for progress. Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
You need to begin by accepting the obvious truth, stop trying to make reality what you want it to be. It's going to be very difficult if you keep refusing to acknowledge facts.
I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal.
That would be a false point because scientific research showed otherwise.
|
"if you can handle that truth" hahahah ha ha ha.... thanks, my meat will taste better today thanks to this wonderful thread.
|
The wording of this poll is so badly done that there could only have ever been one result from it. The problem is that animal welfare and religious practices are not mutually exclusive. It's pretty ridiculous seeing so many people in this thread(especially Thorakh) continually saying "torturing animals is wrong".... humane killing of animals for food is not torture.
Besides anyone familiar with the Dutch government knows that this law has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare to begin with.
|
It's a cow. You can bitch about "humane" death when were not performing genocide. When it comes down to it you really shouldn't piss people off without good reason. Do you honestly feel any sympathy at all for the cow when you're eating a burger? No, I don't think you do. Most likely you are thinking "Damn! This is a tasty burger!" I know a lot of people who take kosher seriously as part of their culture and when it comes down to it the needs and desires of people will and should come before those of other species. Robbing people of their cultural practices because a cow will feel a burning sensation on it's throat for a minuet before passing out doesn't justify the government interfering with peoples' lives.
|
On June 30 2011 02:57 Roflhaxx 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. So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
You mean, if I were a cow or whatever, would I rather have my throat slit or be shot in the back of the head with a captive bolt pistol?
I don't know, as that is a really dumb question.
|
On June 30 2011 03:03 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:57 domovoi wrote:On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote:
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. Any reasonable balancing test would favor the preferences of several million people over the unproved claim that ritual slaughter hurts the animal more than the approved slaughter. Even assuming this is true (which we cannot), it is at most a few seconds of pain. It's simply unreasonable and bordering on religious zealotry to weigh the animal's rights so heavily and the human's rights so little. All the false comparisons about ritual murder are silly and irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that one's religion should always trump the laws. There are, however, many who suggest the other extreme. It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position. Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous. Religious people can sedate their animals and then perform their rituals. Religion has always made way for progress. Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure. You need to begin by accepting the obvious truth, stop trying to make reality what you want it to be. It's going to be very difficult if you keep refusing to acknowledge facts. That would be a false point because scientific research showed otherwise.
Show me. A quick google brings up references of "Studies overseas" "No hard evidence" "Vets think it hurts more". Report 161 is in Dutch? so I can't read it.
On wikipedia the EEG readings of animals slaughtered this way indicated that actually it is the same. Everything else is soft evidence.
There is talk that they are discussing combining stunning + ritual slaughter which is probably closer to the truth rather than a ban from the bits I found.
|
|
|
On June 30 2011 03:13 Kimoto wrote:
Religions, sigh... -.-
Yes, yes because your beliefs are superior to religious peoples' beliefs.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
On June 30 2011 02:57 Roflhaxx 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. So if you were to be executed, how would you want it done? By lethal injection or should we cut open your arteries? It is quite obvious the religious one is more painful.
I don't see how this is obvious.
|
On June 30 2011 03:03 zalz wrote:
It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous.
This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights.
Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure.
I'm not saying who cares. I'm saying the strong preferences of humans should outweigh the short animal pain. If a ritual called for, say, beating the animal to death, then I would say the animal's rights would outweigh the preference. You, on the other hand, are completely discounting a human right, and moreover keep insisting it equates to "let[ting] religion trample all over everything," a non-sequitur if there ever was one. A reasonable person would realize that nobody is advocating that religion trample over all laws. But it does require a balancing act, as any liberal would tell you people's preferences should generally be respected. To completely ignore preferences just because they are religious is similar to the religious fascism that Europeans disdain, in which they ignore preferences just because they find them deviant. To suggest this one religious exemption equates to exempting religion from everything is evidence of your biased view, because that sort of conclusion defies logic and empirical evidence.
Look at your own biases. Just because your preferences on animal welfare doesn't come from some sky-god doesn't mean it's any less arbitrary than religious preferences.
|
On June 30 2011 03:24 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 03:03 zalz wrote:
It has been established through unbiased scientific evidence that ritual slaughter induces more suffering on animals. If you can't handle that truth then you need to change your position.
Demanding that reality adapts to your worldview is ridiculous. This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights. Show nested quote +Some people here consider themselves ooh so tolerant to the point where they let religion trample all over everything just so they can wear the tolerant hat. Who cares that some animals suffer avoidable pain right? A small price to pay i am sure. I'm not saying who cares. I'm saying the strong preferences of humans should outweigh the short animal pain. If a ritual called for, say, beating the animal to death, then I would say the animal's rights would outweigh the preference. You, on the other hand, are completely discounting a human right, and moreover keep insisting it equates to "let[ting] religion trample all over everything," a non-sequitur if there ever was one. A reasonable person would realize that nobody is advocating that religion trample over all laws. But it does require a balancing act, as any liberal would tell you people's preferences should generally be respected. To completely ignore preferences just because they are religious is similar to the religious fascism that Europeans disdain, in which they ignore preferences just because they find them deviant. To suggest this one religious exemption equates to exempting religion from everything is evidence of your biased view, because that sort of conclusion defies logic and empirical evidence. Look at your own biases. Just because your preferences on animal welfare doesn't come from some sky-god doesn't mean it's any less arbitrary than religious preferences.
So what is the magic number? Why is 10 seconds of suffering a-oke but a minute of suffering not?
Please what is the magic number at wich things go from:
"Ancient ritual we should respect cause it's ancient!"
"This is so sick they are hurting an animal for no reason!"
Is it 1 minute and 12 seconds?
The fact is that i don't mind what crazy voodoo they want to perform on the cow, all i ask of them is that they knock the damn thing out before they go about it. It's a perfect compromise if not for the fact that religious people don't care much for compromise and want it all their way. Nobody is saying they can't recite their magic spells or cut the throat and bleed the animal dry. All i ask is that they do it whilst the animal is under so he doesn't feel it.
This is ironic. You are essentially ignoring all evidence contrary to your worldview by rejecting them at the outset as biased. My "worldview" is one of agnosticism. I have no a priori viewpoint on the efficacy of ritualistic slaughter, since I don't care about Kashrut or Halal, nor am I strong believer in animal rights
This would be ironic if my reasons didn't make sense. One of the most important things you can learn is being able to judge the validity of sources.
If you would be honest for a second you would admit that jews and muslims that practice their faith actively are not unbiased people in this situation. They will always steer the research to the conclusion they need.
One the one hand you have the religious people that do a "research" and want to keep ritual slaughtering. They have motivation to cheat.
On the other hand you have the university of wageningen wich has no reason at all to cheat and accusing them of bad research is a massive accusation that would completely undermine the entire institution if it was true.
Be honest and weigh the two sides against each other. The university is ofcourse less biased.
"if you can handle that truth" hahahah ha ha ha.... thanks, my meat will taste better today thanks to this wonderful thread.
This would really bother me...if i actually was a vegetarian. But my meat also tasted great tonight...soooo...again you seem to have trouble sticking to the actuall topic. This is not a topic about how tasty meat is.
|
On June 30 2011 03:37 zalz wrote:
So what is the magic number? Why is 10 seconds of suffering a-oke but a minute of suffering not?
Please what is the magic number at wich things go from:
"Ancient ritual we should respect cause it's ancient!"
"This is so sick they are hurting an animal for no reason!"
Is it 1 minute and 12 seconds?
Like most things in life if you're not a religious fanatic, there is no bright-line rule.
The fact is that i don't mind what crazy voodoo they want to perform on the cow, all i ask of them is that they knock the damn thing out before they go about it. It's a perfect compromise if not for the fact that religious people don't care much for compromise and want it all their way. Nobody is saying they can't recite their magic spells or cut the throat and bleed the animal dry. All i ask is that they do it whilst the animal is under so he doesn't feel it.
Again, you completely discount the preferences of people when they clash against your values; this is what religious fascists do. If you weren't so biased, you would realize this value of weighing any amount of animal suffering above all else is not based on any scientific principles, it's just as arbitrary a preference as wanting the animal to not be unconscious when it is killed. A priori, it's simply not possible to say which is more moral than the other.
One the one hand you have the religious people that do a "research" and want to keep ritual slaughtering. They have motivation to cheat.
On the other hand you have the university of wageningen wich has no reason at all to cheat and accusing them of bad research is a massive accusation that would completely undermine the entire institution if it was true.
Again, your values make you say those who disagree with you are biased, and those who agree with you are not. It's also a massive accusation to say the research that supports ritual slaughter, if it is properly done and peer-reviewed, is bad.
|
Unlike the other thread where some idiot left dogs in a piping-hot car to die, this is a much different case. The animals in question are bred for eating. They wouldn't even exist without our desire to mass-produce them for eating purposes. The animal is going to die anyways, whats the difference if it is stunned first, and then has its head chopped off, or just has its head chopped off. Its gonna die in <10 seconds either way. However that is really beside the point. The right of individuals to exercise their own beliefs/traditions religious or otherwise, so long as it does not cause undue harm to someone very much trumps any potential animal cruelty. We breed them, to kill and eat them. If you want to get really down to the basics here - their entire existence from conception to death is cruel. And for the record, to anyone who hasn't got an electrical shock before. Getting 'stunned' hurts to all high hell, its just as 'cruel' as killing the animal outright. They are a food source people, 95% of all livestock that is on the Earth today would not have existed, nor would their ancestors, and ancestors before that - none of them would have existed, if we didn't domesticate and start mass-producing them to eat. We can go on and on about what is and what is not animal cruelty, but the fact is the animals in question are FOOD. If you really cared that much you'd be a vegen.
|
On June 30 2011 02:58 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:51 zalz wrote:On June 30 2011 02:49 JamesJohansen wrote: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. I think his point is that they are both inhumane therefore equal. Stealing an apple and murder are both crime therefore equal...
...oh wait.
We can go on and on about what is and what is not animal cruelty, but the fact is the animals in question are FOOD. If you really cared that much you'd be a vegen. No, there is a difference between wanting to eat animals and wanting to eat animals while brutally murdering them.
DISCLAIMER: YES, I know these religious slaughters may or may not be inhumane, but that is irrelevant when we are arguing the idea behind this law, not the specifics.
|
Again, you completely discount the preferences of people when they clash against your values; this is what religious fascists do. If you weren't so biased, you would realize this value of weighing any amount of animal suffering above all else is not based on any scientific principles, it's just as arbitrary a preference as wanting the animal to not be unconscious when it is killed. A priori, it's simply not possible to say which is more moral than the other.
Ooh that's great. "That's what religious fascists do".
Oke...and? Religious fascists also breath, i tend to enjoy breathing, am i now a religious fascists? Being atheist i would have expected to be called a lot of things but i must admit this one is a bit of a stretch. But you may proceed with the obligated pussy-footing of how you didn't really call me a religious fascists, you just compard me to the possibility of the blah blah blah.
It is based on logic reasoning. Suffering of the animal is real. Religious benefits are false. As such not stunning the animal gives nothing whilst stunning the animal prevents animal suffering. There are no logical benefits to ritual slaughter but there are benefits to stunning the animal. It is as simple as that.
Again, your values make you say those who disagree with you are biased, and those who agree with you are not. It's also a massive accusation to say the research that supports ritual slaughter, if it is properly done and peer-reviewed, is bad.
A prime example of the danger of trying to be the tolerant "everyone is the same" fellow. You are now seriously suggesting that religious institutions and universities take their unbiased nature equally serious.
The fact is that universities handle extremely strict rules on being unbiased and any researcher that doesn't follow the strict rules or is considered to be manipulating the facts will get crushed by peer reviews and will even be fired if he keeps going. The scientific world filters itself from those that cannot do unbiased research work.
Religious insitutions don't do this at all. There is no culture of being unbiased. Being unbiased is not a virtue. The tobaco industry is not equally reliable as a university.
You barely understand that massive accusation you are making. To suggest that this university is not unbiased is catastrophical if it were to be true. People would lose their damn jobs, funding would dry up in a snap.
To suggest this university is biased is like suggesting that someone is a murderer. If you are going to make such a reputation destroying claim then you need some damn proof. Until that point the university has earned it's reputation and you have no right to tarnish that just because they don't say what you want them to say. Universities are not your puppets, they tell the truth, not what you want or need them to say. If they don't then they get swiftly punished for it.
Religious groups don't have that kind of a mentality. Their funding doesn't go down if they lie. Hell their funding probably does down if they release anything that doesn't promote their religious intrests. No religious group will ever bring out an unbiased research, the outcome must always be in their favour. They can't help it because they must serve the hand that feeds them.
In the end it all comes down to money. If a university is not unbiased it will lose funding. If a religious group does not promote religious intrests then it will lose funding.
Universities have a monetary incentive to be honest. Religious groups have monetary incentive to always speak the same message regardless of the truth. If they have to lie for their funding they will lie.
Finally there is motive. The religious groups have motive to lie, they want to keep their religion going in all it's forms. This university has no motivation to lie, it simply does research and concludes the truth derived from the work.
|
When I read about things like this I can't help to think about what the discussion would be like if it was about doing it to for example cats. I would put a lot of money on that death penalty would be mentioned, and so on.
I just eat meat basically every day, without trying to justify it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
