EPTBanning halal/kosher butchering - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
EnSky
Philippines1003 Posts
| ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:48 Thorakh wrote: Hmmm, my family has a thousand year old tradition of killing people who are called 'caelym', surely my tradition is more important than your life! wtf how did tradition (and personal attacks for that matter) get into this argument? What I'm saying is that you'd think butchers would know how to slaughter animals after thousands of years that the practice has been taking place. Why should they change something that they do well and effectively because it offends some people? Who are you to force your beliefs on other people's culture? for the sake of the argument though, I do think that nondestructive culture practices (like the case here) are more important than the "animal welfare". | ||
|
Holykitty
Netherlands246 Posts
On June 28 2011 22:59 Vashalgrim wrote: The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others? because its a slippery slope | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:57 Thorakh wrote: Nope sorry, if we allow exceptions for religions, the state should allow an exception for my religion too (which involves killing bald white males). My point is not the severity of the religious practice, my point is the exception itself. It shouldn't be made, never. That's an extreme view to try and prove your point. If you equate slaughtering animals for food with the murder of people, then we have nothing to discuss. The law should state that you have to stun your animal, unless you're doing it in accordance with Jewish or Islamic faith. Nobody's stopping you from following the rules of kosher, and then not marketing it as kosher. And you're not stopping anybody from expressing their own rights as a human being (which murdering someone sure would). The animals' deaths are already humane, as we've discussed, if done properly, the animal appears to feel nothing. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:06 caelym wrote: Who are you to painfully slaughter animals because you believe in a man in the sky?wtf how did tradition (and personal attacks for that matter) get into this argument? What I'm saying is that you'd think butchers would know how to slaughter animals after thousands of years that the practice has been taking place. Why should they change something that they do well and effectively because it offends some people? Who are you to force your beliefs on other people's culture? Also, it was not a personal attack, it was just to show how ridiculous your argument was. Yes, I believe in a scale of superiority with humans at the top, next chimps, gorillas, etc. However, the 'no torture' law should include every living animal, even insects. Disgusting to see children burn ants just for fun or whatever, fuck, what sick fuck would do that, jesus. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:57 Thorakh wrote: Nope sorry, if we allow exceptions for religions, the state should allow an exception for my religion too (which involves killing bald white males). My point is not the severity of the religious practice, my point is the exception itself. It shouldn't be made, never. At my high school, wearing hats was banned indoors. However, Jews and Muslims were allowed to wear their religious headdress. Are you really saying that this implies the school should have allowed people to slaughter the infidels? I understand your position of never allowing religious exemptions, but the slippery slope argument isn't the best way to make it. The law can weigh the pros and cons of rigidly enforcing a dress code that violates somebody's religion without having to take that to the extreme of exempting certain murders. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
FezTheCaliph
United States492 Posts
The OP is kinda bad, but the discussion is actually pretty good. The whole point of this tradition is to limit the cruelty done to an animal in order to eat it later. The state feels that knocking animals unconscious does that. These religions feel killing them quickly without them knowing whats going on does that. Some people of these religions are adopting the state method while others feel that it is in fact more cruel. Its less that Jews and Muslims are doing some random tradition that is cruel to animals. Both the state and these religions are looking to lessen animal cruelty. Some people are adapting and some feel their way is better than another way. | ||
|
cocaineduck
Sweden17 Posts
I couldn't give less of a damn when it comes to the culture/religion aspect of this. Either you are ok with killing animals or you are not, i respect and understand both sides. The only other think relevant to this is the pain level. As a civilized people who CAN survive without meat we do animals the courtesy of trying to kill them nicely. So if the method is to painful we should probably do away with it. However from my understanding halal isn't really that painful for the animal so that argument is on shaky grounds aswell. But whatever; Halalers is gonna Halal. | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:09 Thorakh wrote: Who are you to painfully slaughter animals because you believe in a man in the sky? Also, it was not a personal attack, it was just to show how ridiculous your argument was. Yes, I believe in a scale of superiority with humans at the top, next chimps, gorillas, etc. However, the 'no torture' law should include every living animal, even insects. Disgusting to see children burn ants just for fun or whatever, fuck, what sick fuck would do that, jesus. dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck  | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:10 Signet wrote: Our Dutch state is secular, no exceptions should be made. Your school shouldn't have either. Religious people in your example should have gone to a different school.At my high school, wearing hats was banned indoors. However, Jews and Muslims were allowed to wear their religious headdress. Are you really saying that this implies the school should have allowed people to slaughter the infidels? I understand your position of never allowing religious exemptions, but the slippery slope argument isn't the best way to make it. The law can weigh the pros and cons of rigidly enforcing a dress code that violates somebody's religion without having to take that to the extreme of exempting certain murders. Anyone got some documentation stating the stun gun is less painful (more humane) than the Jewish/Muslim traditional method, or vice versa? It seems like the question rests on that. If a religious slaughtering is painless, there is no problem. This law will just prevent the painful slaughtering (for no other reason than 'uuunicooorns in the skyyyy'). | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:12 caelym wrote: That would be grounded and no computer, tv and friends for a month if you were my kid.dude drowning ants was like my favorite summer activity lol. guess i'm a sick fuck Killing/torturing for fun is wrong, no matter what the living being is. Come on people, are we not better than that? | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:09 Thorakh wrote: Who are you to painfully slaughter animals because you believe in a man in the sky? Also, it was not a personal attack, it was just to show how ridiculous your argument was. Yes, I believe in a scale of superiority with humans at the top, next chimps, gorillas, etc. However, the 'no torture' law should include every living animal, even insects. Disgusting to see children burn ants just for fun or whatever, fuck, what sick fuck would do that, jesus. Who are you to say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the other method is immediately more cruel? It's done in a quick and apparently painless fashion. There's no reason to belittle people because they believe in a religion. You choose not to. That's fine, just like they choose to. Anyway, I'm going to step out of the debate now, I feel like no one is going to be convinced of their other sides, and I am glad that you have voiced your opinion. I personally hope this law does not pass. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:43 Zandar wrote: Just for the record: That might be true, but our constitutions have a lot of similarities. Acutally: The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces (Now the Netherlands). In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic The dutch and american law systems, especially when it comes to 'the constitution', are completely different. Under dutch law, the constitution doesn't fullfill the same role as the US one. In the US, you could attempt to fight this law on the basis of unconstitutionality (not saying it is), but the dutch legal system doesn't offer the same option. It is true that parts of the US constitution were based on principles set forth in the Act of Abjuration some 200 years before, but the actual legal systems are incomparable (common law vs civil law etc). On topic: I agree with this law, and hope it gets passed, even tho I'm not happy about how we got to this point. The law isn't as much about animal rights as it is about making a statement that immigrating to a country means having to adapt a little. I feel it is within a societies right to enforce certain cultural standards, like seeing someone's face when talking to them, or not slaughtering lambs in your bathtub (exaggerating ofc). The law won't ban halal imports, sale or consumption and you'll still be able to buy it everywhere, and most dutch livestock already gets slaughtered in southern europe anyhow. Practical implications near zero, statement made. Freedom of religion is not the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and immigration means limited adaptation. | ||
|
FezTheCaliph
United States492 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:15 Thorakh wrote: That would be grounded and no computer, tv and friends for a month if you were my kid. Ants are probably the only creature I never feel bad killing(aside from mosquitoes). Ants are the most violent and scary creatures on the planet. Probably the only thing that makes me redeem humanity is that "Hey, at least we aren't ants". The torture of drowning is a bit much though. As Day[9] would say, just go fucking kill them =p | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
It's kind of like with smoking - there are a million reasons to outlaw it but you would piss too many people off. | ||
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
On June 29 2011 00:15 Thorakh wrote: That would be grounded and no computer, tv and friends for a month if you were my kid. Killing/torturing for fun is wrong, no matter what the living being is. Come on people, are we not better than that? Wow dude you're really weird. Like super duper weird, whats it like up there on your high horse? | ||
|
Aelip
Denmark321 Posts
| ||
| ||
