|
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 No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).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 =)
How exactly is a so called "Miracle" an accepted, empirical, proof? For what? And please show me how to proove the existance of god using logic. If you use the Ontological argument i will seriously laugh out loud, and the proceed to disprove it.
|
On June 30 2011 05:13 Chibithor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote: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?
Or you could look at it the other way.
The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence.
However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
|
If there was a logical proof for the existence of God, their would be no atheists. (Don't confuse the term with anti-theists).
|
On June 30 2011 03:24 Kentor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 02:57 Roflhaxx 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. 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.
One of them you don't feel a thing, the other one you do. How can it be any more obvious!?
|
On June 30 2011 05:27 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 05:13 Chibithor wrote:On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Or you could look at it the other way. The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence. However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
I don't really care if the people doing it are religious or not, and I'm no activist, so discussing it over the internet is as much as I'll do about it. If a law isn't being followed it should either be enforced or changed. Since being nice to animals is a good cause I think, enforcing is a better option than letting it go. Obviously they had reasons to make the law to begin with, and unless the reasons have changed it's another reason to enforce it.
|
Just gief the meat i really dont care
you can shot it or put it alive in grinder
but as far as i know muslim or jewesh pll wont eat that meat
so Netherlands ban cooking the lobsters alive too? i dont think so
it seems more like fight of religions not for the love of animals.
|
On June 30 2011 05:27 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 05:13 Chibithor wrote:On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Or you could look at it the other way. The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence. However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion.
Not to mention all the shit people would take from Jews and Muslims if the law was changed/inforced. I mean, just look at what happened to Salman Rushdie when he puplished a book. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to stop "them" from this stuff.
|
On June 30 2011 05:33 Rabbitmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 05:27 [Agony]x90 wrote:On June 30 2011 05:13 Chibithor wrote:On June 30 2011 05:02 JamesJohansen wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Or you could look at it the other way. The law exists, but a few people continue to break it. However, the majority of people don't care THAT much about animal welfare in order to enforce it. If no one cares enough to do something about it, then they're going to continue to break the law with no consequence. However, since you guys seem to be so defensive about this one point, perhaps you guys can go out and actual do something about it. Unless of course you guys are using this point for another reason, like undermining religion. Not to mention all the shit people would take from Jews and Muslims if the law was changed/inforced. I mean, just look at what happened to Salman Rushdie when he puplished a book. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to stop "them" from this stuff.
You do realise that the law has allready been passed in Holland right?
We even have animal cops wich are mostly dedicated with dealing with animal rights abuse. How exactly are they going to keep doing what they do? Random checks will see them facing harsh punishment and fines.
How long can you keep trying to "fight the power" until you start raking in those fines and have to start thinking about your business.
People adapt real fast when their income is at stake. Suddenly pleasing that god ain't as important as keeping your company afloat.
|
It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
|
I think unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't think this should be an issue you are concerned with. Unless it is you trying to debate god vs no god...
|
On June 30 2011 05:50 SluGGer wrote:
It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
In no sense would i say that a wolf killing pray is wrong. Nor is it wrong for a human to slowly kill an animal in order to survive. Like you said, in general, it's a dog eat dog world. But when you actually have the option, to either kill the animal quick, and without pain, or to slowly let it bleed to death (based only of outdated, absurd and delusional beliefs). That is a significant difference in my honest opinion. "Back in the old days" people also stoned homosexuals. Would it amuse you if people got upset over that practice?
|
On June 30 2011 05:51 Fattah wrote:
I think unless you are vegetarian or vegan I don't think this should be an issue you are concerned with. Unless it is you trying to debate god vs no god... You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
|
On June 30 2011 05:50 SluGGer wrote:
It amuses be that people put so much thought into this and "animal welfare." Yet in nature a wolf could slowly tear a cow or such animal to pieces slowly wounding it and eating it alive. Yet because we have a higher IQ or a self-awareness we put so much weight into things like this. Its a dog eat dog world. I can see both sides and agree its somewhat gruesome and if at all possible it would be ideal to stun the animal. But back in the old times they weren't worried about such things when they were repeatedly spearing an animal to death. The bottom line is we are at the top of the food chain and we do what we can to survive. I'd rather a human cut a cows throat to satisfy a religious belief and feed his family then a wild animal have it.
You do realise that the cows we are talking about don't exist in the wild right?
Domesticated animals are essentially retarded animals. They can't survive without humans taking care of them. Go ahead and release a cow or sheep into the forest and see how long before it either starves or starts trying to eat tree bark.
Just because we used to do things one way don't mean we gotta do things that way forever. We used to take a cart and horse to work. We used to hang people that disagreed with us. We used to do a lot of stupid shit.
People improve and that's how we get where we are today and will get better tommorow. To never improve is like taking a razor sharp knife to the throat of humanity, slithing it and letting it slowly die painfully.
|
On June 30 2011 05:13 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 05:09 Blasterion wrote: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.
Retarded people are still humans. And apparently our friend here hates humans. Which he is one. so I mean if he don't want to be human be my guest.
|
.You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly?
Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't.
Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it.
If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
|
On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:. Show nested quote +You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly? Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't. Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way.
|
On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:. Show nested quote +You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly? Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it.
Do you really believe that?
|
On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:. Show nested quote +You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly? Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't. Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it
If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity.
|
On June 30 2011 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:
You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way.
And how do you suggest they prove it is humane? How did the lawmakers who banned it, prove that any other way is more humane?
On June 30 2011 06:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:
Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. Do you really believe that?
What's up with the half quote? Read the whole thing.
On June 30 2011 06:24 Rabbitmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:. You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly? Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't. Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity.
Ok I am not a theologian, but the matter of evolution has something to do with theology rather than ritual.
|
Honestly I don't think its that big of a deal it's not like they are trying to cause huge amounts of pain to the animal it's a quick slit throat not some torturous way to die. Keep it in makes the Jews and Muslims happy while not causing an extreme amount of pain for the animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
