|
On July 01 2011 01:40 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote:
This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies. Some kind of show of strength in an useless way. Animal welfare? Give me a break, Western companies treat animals ruthlessly. Just to poke something in the circle to make people disturbed. Honestly anyone who voted Animal Welfare but still eats meat is just a hypocrite lol. Westerners do not treat animals any better than a butcher who is using Halal or a Kosher method. Animals are still regularly abused and mistreated before their time of execution.
The way I understood it, it was more of a question of should religious people be exempt from this rule simply because of their traditions...and the answer is no. Explain to me if I'm missing something here.
|
On July 01 2011 01:40 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote:
This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies. Some kind of show of strength in an useless way. Animal welfare? Give me a break, Western companies treat animals ruthlessly. Just to poke something in the circle to make people disturbed. Honestly anyone who voted Animal Welfare but still eats meat is just a hypocrite lol. Westerners do not treat animals any better than a butcher who is using Halal or a Kosher method. Animals are still regularly abused and mistreated before their time of execution. Nope sorry, I find it mindboggling that you are unable to understand that I like meat, but still want to treat the animal with respect and not needlessly torture it.
It's not black and white, we don't have two camps, one camp that doesn't eat/use anything animal related because they love animals and the other that thinks of animals as property and does whatever the fuck they want with them. There's a whole lot of grey in between...
|
On July 01 2011 02:04 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:40 RoarMan wrote:On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote:
This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies. Some kind of show of strength in an useless way. Animal welfare? Give me a break, Western companies treat animals ruthlessly. Just to poke something in the circle to make people disturbed. Honestly anyone who voted Animal Welfare but still eats meat is just a hypocrite lol. Westerners do not treat animals any better than a butcher who is using Halal or a Kosher method. Animals are still regularly abused and mistreated before their time of execution. Nope sorry, I find it mindboggling that you are unable to understand that I like meat, but still want to treat the animal with respect and not needlessly torture it. It's not black and white, we don't have two camps, one camp that doesn't eat/use anything animal related because they love animals and the other that thinks of animals as property and does whatever the fuck they want with them. There's a whole lot of grey in between...
I can feel the hate that you have against Jewish/Muslim community. Why?
Because you are denying the documents that are proving that slicing the throat is the most painless way of killing an animal posted by many TL netizens on this topic and continue to spread BS..
|
On July 01 2011 02:15 mtwlinux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 02:04 Thorakh wrote:On July 01 2011 01:40 RoarMan wrote:On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote:
This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies. Some kind of show of strength in an useless way. Animal welfare? Give me a break, Western companies treat animals ruthlessly. Just to poke something in the circle to make people disturbed. Honestly anyone who voted Animal Welfare but still eats meat is just a hypocrite lol. Westerners do not treat animals any better than a butcher who is using Halal or a Kosher method. Animals are still regularly abused and mistreated before their time of execution. Nope sorry, I find it mindboggling that you are unable to understand that I like meat, but still want to treat the animal with respect and not needlessly torture it. It's not black and white, we don't have two camps, one camp that doesn't eat/use anything animal related because they love animals and the other that thinks of animals as property and does whatever the fuck they want with them. There's a whole lot of grey in between... I can feel the hate that you have against Jewish/Muslim community. Why? Because you are denying the documents that are proving that slicing the throat is the most painless way of killing an animal posted by many TL netizens on this topic and continue to spread BS.. First, I have no hate against any people who have a belief and don't try to force it upon others, or try to force their beliefs as laws. Second, I invite you to find any statement from me where I deny any study proving or disproving that halal/kosher is inhumane. I eagerly await your response.
If you want to comment on my views, please actually read my posts in the future to stop further embarassments of yourself 
|
On July 01 2011 01:40 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 00:31 Armut wrote:
This is so obviously done with the intention to alienate the Muslim and Jewish societies. Some kind of show of strength in an useless way. Animal welfare? Give me a break, Western companies treat animals ruthlessly. Just to poke something in the circle to make people disturbed. Honestly anyone who voted Animal Welfare but still eats meat is just a hypocrite lol. Westerners do not treat animals any better than a butcher who is using Halal or a Kosher method. Animals are still regularly abused and mistreated before their time of execution.
Life isn't black and white. I could say the same thing about any who supports commercialism because ultimately the neglect animals suffer in the meat industry comes from wanting to maximize profit. You buy goods that were made by exploiting the third world and if you drive a car your exploiting the Earth. At some point you just have to accept either human welfare is paramount or not and try and improve things. I'll stop eating animals when we can vat grow meat that provides the same animal proteins but until that happens I consider my welfare paramount to animal welfare.
There is very little evidence to suggest that humans don't require animal protein to function at peak conditions. For 300,000+ years we lived as hunter gathers following herds of animals and the species that we evolved from had meat in their diet as well. If you look into it you'll find that the branch that ancestors stem from was successful because they were omnivores and not vegetarians like the other primates that died off when the climate no longer supported that diet.
As for the traditional and modern approach to slaughtering animals I think both sides should be on the same page. The Jewish tradition was about minimizing suffering but it's outdated. Why can't they just update their tradition like in the past. Deuteronomy reformed the older Leviticus so why is it that now we can't update the text. Wouldn't the authors of the tradition want animals to be killed in the most painless way possible? Isn't that the purpose of the tradition? And why does it apply when most of that stuff was only applicable to animal sacrifices?
|
"animal welfare"... what does that even mean? on an abstract level it might be better than nothing. but as far as i am concerned its only an aggravation of the difficulty.
this is basic Wilde: the worst slave owners are the ones that are kind to their slaves.
i think it was one of the Singers who said: in its relation to animals, all humans are nazis.
i am sorry but i dont think the victims in the concentration camps cared if they were gassed, shot or bled to death.
edit: WATCH:
http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
![[image loading]](http://hugger-mugger-comicx.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/earthlings.jpg)
|
On July 01 2011 03:28 diggurd wrote:
i am sorry but i dont think the victims in the concentration camps cared if they were gassed, shot or bled to death.
I would definitely care!
|
On July 01 2011 03:28 diggurd wrote:
i am sorry but i dont think the victims in the concentration camps cared if they were gassed, shot or bled to death.
I would much rather be shot, than gassed. And i would rather be gassed, than bled to death. Are you trolling or what?
|
I think his point was that it wouldn't matter if you were to provide a less painful method of death. The animosity of the animals (if they were to express it) would be just the same towards humans, no matter how lightly you put them to death. The reason is because you can't amend how horribly we treat the animals by giving them a quick and painless death.
Going back to the needless nazi example, if all your family suffered tremendously and died in concentration camps, it would be nearly 0 condolense to hear, "oh your father died an easy death in the camps, despite the fact they worked him nearly to death the 3 years following up to his death".
|
On July 01 2011 05:05 Rabbitmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 03:28 diggurd wrote:
i am sorry but i dont think the victims in the concentration camps cared if they were gassed, shot or bled to death. I would much rather be shot, than gassed. And i would rather be gassed, than bled to death. Are you trolling or what?
this whole thread is a huge troll
|
Either way you're killing an animal, what does it matter if its stunned or not?
|
On July 01 2011 05:20 [Agony]x90 wrote:
I think his point was that it wouldn't matter if you were to provide a less painful method of death. The animosity of the animals (if they were to express it) would be just the same towards humans, no matter how lightly you put them to death. The reason is because you can't amend how horribly we treat the animals by giving them a quick and painless death.
Going back to the needless nazi example, if all your family suffered tremendously and died in concentration camps, it would be nearly 0 condolense to hear, "oh your father died an easy death in the camps, despite the fact they worked him nearly to death the 3 years following up to his death".
Nature is cruel. It created some animals, including humans, as carnivores and omnivores for a reason. The animosity of the animals is irrelevant.
|
On July 01 2011 05:24 SilverJohnny wrote:
Either way you're killing an animal, what does it matter if its stunned or not? Yeah, we're executing these criminals either way, I vote that we just pull them apart by binding their feet and head to tractors.
|
On July 01 2011 03:28 diggurd wrote:"animal welfare"... what does that even mean? on an abstract level it might be better than nothing. but as far as i am concerned its only an aggravation of the difficulty. this is basic Wilde: the worst slave owners are the ones that are kind to their slaves. i think it was one of the Singers who said: in its relation to animals, all humans are nazis. i am sorry but i dont think the victims in the concentration camps cared if they were gassed, shot or bled to death. edit: WATCH: http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
Im not going to watch some bullshit sensationalist animal rights movie designed to make people feel bad. Animals kill other animals all the time and I doubt that it is painless 99% of the time, so why does it have to be when a human (just another animal) does it?, get out of here with your guilt trips and your stupid double standard.
|
On July 01 2011 05:30 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 05:24 SilverJohnny wrote:
Either way you're killing an animal, what does it matter if its stunned or not? Yeah, we're executing these criminals either way, I vote that we just pull them apart by binding their feet and head to tractors.
1.) Animals aren't People
2.) I still really don't see a problem with that. A criminal is more deserving of pain and suffering than an animal is.
|
IMO animal welfare is a joke. What about gulag welfare? Nazi gas chamber welfare? Its the same thing. One way or another you are still murdering animals, doesnt matter if its gas, forced labour, or electrocution as in slaughter houses.
|
On July 01 2011 05:37 SilverJohnny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 05:30 Thorakh wrote:On July 01 2011 05:24 SilverJohnny wrote:
Either way you're killing an animal, what does it matter if its stunned or not? Yeah, we're executing these criminals either way, I vote that we just pull them apart by binding their feet and head to tractors. 1.) Animals aren't People 2.) I still really don't see a problem with that. A criminal is more deserving of pain and suffering than an animal is. Let's see what components are involved in the slaughter of a living being.
Pain, fear and the loss of life.
Both animals and humans (who are animals too) experience these three symptoms that are caused by slaughter. So animals are not different from humans in this aspect. Therefore, I do not see the relevance of point 1.
As for point 2, I agree, but my suggestion (which is by your logic) is a bit brutal, don't you agree? In any case, we aren't discussing the death penalty and criminal punishments here. I merely followed your line of logic and made an example.
IMO animal welfare is a joke. What about gulag welfare? Nazi gas chamber welfare? Its the same thing. One way or another you are still murdering animals, doesnt matter if its gas, forced labour, or electrocution as in slaughter houses. See my reasoning in this and above posts.
|
@usul:
i am sorry but i dont think you need to dig a little deeper.
lets say you are a veal. your whole life, which is 5 months, you have been placed in a little cell, tied up so you cant sit or move (your meat will be tenderer). when the time comes for your death, youll get a different set of options - would you give the butcher some karma points if you chose the least painful method?
@rabbitmaster:
i think you need to read zarathustra again. but something tells me you dont know what i mean.
@agonyx90
thank you, o wize one.
@andrewlt:
there is a big difference between non-human animals and human animals. choice may be one of them. did you know that in japan, they are making 'beef' out of human feces? you dont have to think and do what your parents thought and did.
@gosumalice:
see above.. but ive sort of given up on you
@silverjonny:
what kind of criminals are you talking about? does a pot smoking hippie deserve to suffer? the rest of you logic will be taken care of by thorakh.
|
Poll: This poll has better options.Allowing humane halal/kosher butchering. (14) 70% Disallowing halal/kosher butchering because I beleive it is not humane. (3) 15% I am a vegitarian/vegan and am against butchering of animals in general. (3) 15% 20 total votes Your vote: This poll has better options. (Vote): Allowing humane halal/kosher butchering.
(Vote): Disallowing halal/kosher butchering because I beleive it is not humane.
(Vote): I am a vegitarian/vegan and am against butchering of animals in general.
How about a less biased poll.
|
On July 01 2011 05:20 [Agony]x90 wrote:
I think his point was that it wouldn't matter if you were to provide a less painful method of death. The animosity of the animals (if they were to express it) would be just the same towards humans, no matter how lightly you put them to death. The reason is because you can't amend how horribly we treat the animals by giving them a quick and painless death.
Going back to the needless nazi example, if all your family suffered tremendously and died in concentration camps, it would be nearly 0 condolense to hear, "oh your father died an easy death in the camps, despite the fact they worked him nearly to death the 3 years following up to his death".
I, nor anyone else's post i've read in this thread (i might not have read all though), am not suggesting that a quick death would in any way "amend" previous threatment of the animals. I am simply suggesting that a quick, painless death should be preferable to a slow, drawn out one. How they are treated prior to slaughter is another question all together, one which i have quite a few opinions about as well.
Back to the "needless" nazi example: Lets say that you, personally, were in a concentration camp, and had to slave for 3 years. Ofcourse you would hate the nazis incredibly much etc etc. But are you seriously suggesting that after these 3 years, you would not care in the slightest if you were to be bled to death or shot in the head? Actually, to me, it would be consoling to know my father died painless, rather than painfully, but i guess im just fucked up in that way... Either way, your example is mute, since it was never a question wether or not the animals care how their "animal friends/family" die, it's about wether or not it is more/less painful for the animal itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
