|
On June 29 2011 19:14 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 17:39 Hasudk wrote:On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote: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 No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry). You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid. Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between. The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion. That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator. And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything. I recommend you watch http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup this channel.
It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well.
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists.
I hope that makes sense =)
|
The FSM analogy kinda works for any state-religion conflict :
I have the strong belief that killing people helps me get closer to my god. Am I allowed to kill ?
Answer is obvious. "All men are equal before the law".
|
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.
Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler
Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
|
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it?
The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it 
Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts.
This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything.
Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them.
I hope that makes sense =) I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all
I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
|
On June 30 2011 04:40 JamesJohansen 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. Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. By the sound of it, you have an agenda against this practice because it is as you say "ritual slaughter" and you find this primitive or foolish for the 21th century. I'm putting words in your mouth i suppose but I really don't see how throwing labels around makes the conversation any more productive. Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
Pro: Nothing
Con: Against the law
But maybe that's just me. I really can't come up with any pros. I don't even consider 'maybe more painful' a con since I don't know if that's true. If it is then we can add it to the cons. That it would be less painful sounds very unlikely.
|
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 19:14 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 17:39 Hasudk wrote:On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote: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). You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid. Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between. The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion. That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator. And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything. I recommend you watch http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup this channel. It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. I hope that makes sense =) I don't think the bolded part was a great argument. Feelings seem to be relatively simple and I'm quite sure there is plenty of so called empirical evidence in that field. And logic defines proof, you can't for example make someone with a properly working brain believe you or change the persons opinion without logic, even if the logic happens to be flawed.
Other than that I think the thread is supposed to be about how we kill animals, not the existence of gods.
|
On June 30 2011 04:40 JamesJohansen 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. Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal.
An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter...
Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it...
Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form.
The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it.
You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
|
On June 29 2011 22:10 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote:
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/ Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other.
Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring.
|
On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 19:14 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 17:39 Hasudk wrote:On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote: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). You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid. Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between. The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion. That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator. And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything. I recommend you watch http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup this channel. It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. I hope that makes sense =)
Of course you can understand religion from an atheistic viewpoint. I'd love for you to show me these supposed logical proofs for God's existence, you must be a genius. Also, how can more than one religion know their God exists for certain...that by definition is contradictory. Sorry, your hope fell through, none of that made sense, perhaps you should ask God for some assistance?
|
"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."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
|
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb 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."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
Re-read your post and measure how dumb it was.
|
On June 30 2011 04:54 SaYyId wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 22:10 zalz wrote:On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote:
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/ Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other. Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring.
Not true. Muslims are infact statistically more anti-semitic then other groups. This is regarding EU muslims. This isn't me making it up, this is actuall scientific research.
The polled muslims living in Brussels showed 50% of them being anti-semitic.
The scary part of the research was how the anti-semitism did not appear to drop off among higher educated as it does for most other groups.
I know you want a picture perfect world but i don't think you have earned the right to deny reality. There is a problem between muslims and jews, there is a great deal of friction between both groups. Denying this doesn't make it go away.
|
On June 30 2011 04:54 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:40 JamesJohansen wrote: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. Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal. An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter... Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it... Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form. The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it. You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas.
Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares?
I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
|
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb 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."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
Do you normally do this kind of "deep" thinking on a daily basis? If so, please find some psychological help.
|
On June 30 2011 05:00 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:54 SaYyId wrote:On June 29 2011 22:10 zalz wrote:On June 29 2011 21:12 GGitsJack wrote:
I'm christian but I still believe their traditions should be be more priorized, the results for me reek of people not liking muslims / jews as much in general, but I have sympathy for the dudes =/ Wich is ironic given how the two groups of people who both want this right actually can't stand each other. Most people, like you, don't know that muslims and jews don't hate each other. When I speak of muslims, I hope everyone knows who I'm referring. Not true. Muslims are infact statistically more anti-semitic then other groups. This is regarding EU muslims. This isn't me making it up, this is actuall scientific research. The polled muslims living in Brussels showed 50% of them being anti-semitic. The scary part of the research was how the anti-semitism did not appear to drop off among higher educated as it does for most other groups. I know you want a picture perfect world but i don't think you have earned the right to deny reality. There is a problem between muslims and jews, there is a great deal of friction between both groups. Denying this doesn't make it go away. Why attempt to sugar coat it, especially by using special pro-one side words like antisemite. If the majority of any of the sides valued people on the other side as high as their own the type of conflict we have today wouldn't exist, simple as that.
|
Just a little biology for you guys. Cutting the main blood vessels in the throat deprives the animals brain of blood therefore no pain/fear can be felt.
|
On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb 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."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end.
And you are one of us, a member of us humanity. Tell me do you wish to relinquish your status as a human being? If you do let us know, If you really don't want be a human being you don't have to
|
On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:54 zalz wrote:On June 30 2011 04:40 JamesJohansen wrote: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. Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal. An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter... Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it... Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form. The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it. You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas. Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares? I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
I don't, simple as that.
I don't think it's too much to expect them to knock the animal out before they begin their little ritual. If sedated the cow suffers 0 seconds since he isn't awake to feel anything.
I don't care if it makes religious people happy. There are a lot of things that make religious people happy that shouldn't be tolerated. Fantasy stories do not give a pass on the modern-world train.
We live in a modern civilized world first. If we have some space for religion to be crazy we can give them some space to be crazy. But if religion clashes with the modern way of doing things then religion can instantly go take a backseat.
Again, religion is not a free pass on following the rule of law.
|
On June 30 2011 05:09 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:58 JohnnyReverb 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."
WOW
thats exactly the reason why humanity are able to destroy themselves, or doing "unnatural" things to same race. really, i hate humans, if i would choose to save a dog or a child, sure it would be the dog.
human rapes human. thats how we gonna end. And you are one of us, a member of us humanity. Tell me do you wish to relinquish your status as a human being? If you do let us know, If you really don't want be a human being you don't have to Animals are not property and is it really so hard to have a little empathy for the other species on our planet? No wonder most humans feel no empathy for each other if they treat other living beings like shit too.
If you view animals as inferior because of their intellect, and therefore we can do whatever the fuck we want with them, why do you excuse mentally handicapped people from that? Simply because they are humans? Humans are animals too.
|
On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:54 zalz wrote:On June 30 2011 04:40 JamesJohansen wrote: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. Like I said, I was trying to be neutral. From a purely "pros and cons" standpoint, i see no reason this shouldn't continue. Does the animal suffer a bit more? Maybe, everything presented in this thread points to this being inconclusive though. Either way, I simply don't value the life of the cows enough to care. I know, I'm worse than hitler Yes its ritual slaughter. I get it. They pay a little extra for it, big deal. An agenda because i call it ritual slaughter... Seriously what is this? You know who else calls it ritual slaughter? The people that fucking do it... Ritual slaughter is not a derogatory term in any way, shape or form. The research is about as inconclusive as wether or not smoking causes health problems. You know on the one hand you have all these fine gentlemen that get paid by the tobaca industry to find out and on the other hand you have universities that try to actually do an unbiased research project about it. You can call it inconclusive if you are not able to poke through unreliable sources. If you can't poke through unreliable sources you are at victim of believing false ideas. Being able to spot good sources from heavily biased sources is essential if you want to protect your mind from false ideas. Listen, lets say your right, the cow thus suffers 20 seconds instead of 8 seconds or whatever. Is the cow's well being really so fucking valuable that its worth creating laws over such a small matter? It makes a few idiots happy so who cares? I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not opposed to all animal rights, but this is one case where there is just way too much prioritization on the animals.
The law exists already, and should be followed accordingly. Changing the law would only "make a few idiots happy", so who cares, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
