|
On June 29 2011 00:10 mordek wrote:
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.
Wikipedia in Spoiler featuring study about which method is more painful
+ Show Spoiler +In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.[13][17] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering
Meanwhile, the counterargument from Wikipedia seems to be made on baseless speculation :S
+ Show Spoiler +In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent advisory group, concluded that the way halal and kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."
I personally believe that the Halal and Kosher way to slaughter animals is MUCH more humane than stunning them and then slaughtering them... I won't even go on the religion/politics implication of this law, but it seems like the animal welfare associations panicking and throwing a hissy-fit upon seeing an animal bleeding, (which would be required for halal/kosher slaughter ANYWAY since the exsanguination is actually the MAJOR part of the slaughter) as opposed to the invisible-to-humans pain caused by stunning
|
On June 29 2011 00:18 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:09 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 00:06 caelym wrote:On June 28 2011 23:48 Thorakh wrote:On June 28 2011 23:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On June 28 2011 23:08 caelym wrote:
Thousand year old cultural practices are way more important than "animal welfare." Butchers have been slaughtering animals for even longer without a stun gun. They know what to do, so no reason for the state to interfere with their practices.
edit: people often go nuts when matters involve religion, but this is a case of cultural practice imo. Tradition is the most pointless excuse for not changing something that matters, that I have ever heard. 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? 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. I am not against religious slaughters. I am against religious slaughters that make the animal suffer with the only reason being an invisible man in the sky.
If, what some people in this thread have suggested, is true and halal/koshjer slaughter is not inhumane, I have no problems with that.
|
On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want.
You should be eaten by a tiger. It's fair, they can do whatever they want.
|
On June 29 2011 00:23 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want. You should be eaten by a tiger. It's fair, they can do whatever they want.
Yep, if a tiger get's close enough to eat me it would be fair. I have every means in the world to prevent it from happening. Specifically a bullet to it's head.
Btw; never said it was fair, it's just the way it is.
|
On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want. Tell me that again the day aliens visit us.
|
Which ever way they are killed they look the same on my dinner plate
unless
(There are certain ways to kill the animal to max potential taste and texture, then I'd be all for that)
ie: Live Lobster into pot
|
On June 29 2011 00:22 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:18 reneg wrote:On June 29 2011 00:09 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 00:06 caelym wrote:On June 28 2011 23:48 Thorakh wrote:On June 28 2011 23:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On June 28 2011 23:08 caelym wrote:
Thousand year old cultural practices are way more important than "animal welfare." Butchers have been slaughtering animals for even longer without a stun gun. They know what to do, so no reason for the state to interfere with their practices.
edit: people often go nuts when matters involve religion, but this is a case of cultural practice imo. Tradition is the most pointless excuse for not changing something that matters, that I have ever heard. 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? 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. I am not against religious slaughters. I am against religious slaughters that make the animal suffer with the only reason being an invisible man in the sky. If, what some people in this thread have suggested, is true and halal/koshjer slaughter is not inhumane, I have no problems with that.
That's a fair enough point. And i'd like to quote this poster above us, because quoted things tend to get more press:
On June 29 2011 00:21 RayzorFlash wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:10 mordek wrote:
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. Wikipedia in Spoiler featuring study about which method is more painful + Show Spoiler +In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.[13][17] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering Meanwhile, the counterargument from Wikipedia seems to be made on baseless speculation :S + Show Spoiler +In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent advisory group, concluded that the way halal and kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous." I personally believe that the Halal and Kosher way to slaughter animals is MUCH more humane than stunning them and then slaughtering them... I won't even go on the religion/politics implication of this law, but it seems like the animal welfare associations panicking and throwing a hissy-fit upon seeing an animal bleeding, (which would be required for halal/kosher slaughter ANYWAY since the exsanguination is actually the MAJOR part of the slaughter) as opposed to the invisible-to-humans pain caused by stunning
|
On June 29 2011 00:25 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want. Tell me that again the day aliens visit us.
Will do, i may not find it fair or nice or pleasant, but it's the truth. If we want to do it, we can and should do it. Cause i tell you the animals would do the same if they could, why should we be the only race to show mercy? just because we can? that seems pointless, the animal will be dead anyway so it won't feel or remember anything mere seconds after it's happened.
|
On June 28 2011 23:54 Sideburn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:52 Vore210 wrote:On June 28 2011 23:27 dakalro wrote:
There's no debate here. Just imagine the outcry if christians were forced to commit sin by the state. Freedom of religion kids.
On the other hand does it really hurt when you get a cut? No. If that cut was through a major artery the pain would be the same and you'd die peacefully from lack of oxygen, no pain. Getting electrocuted on the other hand ... ouch, if you ever touched some electrical wires you know. You mean like...having to have insurance if you drive a car (or in various other walks of life), when one of the core doctrines of Jesus is "give no thought for the morrow"? And "judge not and ye shall not be judged" but you get jury duty? Shouldn't be hard to find more. These are from the sermon on the mount by the way, pretty important. Either you are incredibly ignorant of how people treat religion or you are a massive troll. Either way your post really doesn't have any merit. I'm not religious myself, but fuck, I can't believe we are actually debating this.
Im completely aware how people treat religion. Thats why im saying it should get no special treatment in relation to animal rights laws, because that's already common practice. Also if you actually read the post I was replying to, it was directly in response to "Just imagine the outcry if christians were forced to commit sin by the state." - hence the references I made to the sermon on the mount and our already contradictory laws, which, according to the bible, already cause christians to commit "sins".
A good way of showing how things are done is by showing an established precedent within that religion or another competing one. Thats obvious...
I responded to a post while relevantly touching on each point. You posted bluster and accusation, and say mine had no merit. Hypocrite.
|
The only solution is to kill someone twice, once the halal way, once the other way.
Then we just ask which one hurt less. No problem.
|
It's not about religions, it's about traditions and I've no problem with people keeping them alive.
|
Its a friggin animal, we eat them for gods sake!
I dont want the state telling me I cant marry other guys or smoke pot, so I dont think it should be able to prevent people for killing their "food" even if for ritualistic reasons.
At least religion is a more worthy reason to kill a beast than taking his fur while hes still alive for some highborne bitch.
|
I personally could not care much for animal welfare. I'm not the type of person to humanize whats not human. I feel tradition is something that should be kept, and although i'm not at all a religious person it's tradition which has brought us to this point in our evolution. I celebrate christmas and easter, they slaughter animals in a ritual. I treat my dogs like dogs and i'm in turn given obedience as the dog is much more balanced. Kinda off-topic but at the end of the day, it's our welfare versus theirs and i'll choose myself over an animal any day. Animal sacrifice has been a mainstay in human culture for thousands of years, just because sheltered people today get squeamish over the killing of animals does not mean governments should step in. My parents were shown the killing of animals as children, and although in our culture today most are sheltered from acts like this people should have the guts to understand that it's normal.
|
On June 29 2011 00:27 Aelip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want. Tell me that again the day aliens visit us. Will do, i may not find it fair or nice or pleasant, but it's the truth. If we want to do it, we can and should do it. Cause i tell you the animals would do the same if they could, why should we be the only race to show mercy? just because we can? that seems pointless, the animal will be dead anyway so it won't feel or remember anything mere seconds after it's happened. Because we have the ability to do so. I watched a documentary on pet chimps today, in which a parallel was drawn between chimps and humans, as in that we are the only two species on earth that seem to derive pleasure from violence. However, chimps cannot control their anger/emotions and we humans can.
That's what sets us apart from every other species, the ability to control ourselves and the ability to reason.
pain = -1
slaughter = -1
no pain = +1
slaughter + pain = -1-1 = -2
slaughter + no pain= -1+1 = 0
Clearly one is better (although still not optimal for the being to be slaughtered).
Torturing something just for the sake of torturing (or being indifferent about it), is not a trait that we should be encouraging if we ever want peace in the world.
|
The true problem is that we has a race still follow old rules and dogmas that makes us hate each other..
It's so sad to see that people in the name of old rules would argue that their god demands that animals should suffer when its obvious to any person free from religion that if we have to kill animals at least we should make them suffer the least possible, or not?
Why would any god demand we should kill a animal the way he chooses? Doesn't he trust it's followers with that decision?
See what i did here? Put yourself in your god's point of view and make the decisions!
Don't blindly follow your priests, rabis or imans because they are not your gods.. they are humans and humans make mistakes everyday. Humans have rage, hate, anger, ressentment, they lust, kill, rape and die like everyone of us.
If all of us did this then we would see that no god created the pope, the rabi or the iman! It's our own creation because people want power and money! Don't follow them just because it's the tradition! Think with your own head that's why your god created you and gave you a personality. If he wanted soldiers we would make beasts!
I'm a atheist with roman catolic education and i know i'm right in this matter, animals that are purely created has food should die with the least possible pain just because we can give them less pain. I don't think any god would oppose giving a animal a good death instead of suffering.
|
On June 29 2011 00:32 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:27 Aelip wrote:On June 29 2011 00:25 Thorakh wrote:On June 29 2011 00:20 Aelip wrote:
It's just animals man, let the dude butcher them however they want. We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want. Tell me that again the day aliens visit us. Will do, i may not find it fair or nice or pleasant, but it's the truth. If we want to do it, we can and should do it. Cause i tell you the animals would do the same if they could, why should we be the only race to show mercy? just because we can? that seems pointless, the animal will be dead anyway so it won't feel or remember anything mere seconds after it's happened. Because we have the ability to do so. I watched a documentary on pet chimps today, in which a parallel was drawn between chimps and humans, as in that we are the only two species on earth that seem to derive pleasure from violence. However, chimps cannot control their anger/emotions and we humans can. That's what sets us apart from every other species, the ability to control ourselves and the ability to reason. pain = -1 slaughter = -1 no pain = +1 slaughter + pain = -1-1 = -2 slaughter + no pain= -1+1 = 0 Clearly one is better (although still not optimal for the being to be slaughtered). Torturing something just for the sake of torturing (or being indifferent about it), is not a trait that we should be encouraging if we ever want peace in the world.
Slaughter = -1, why? It's good isn't it, it grants us FOOD, food we need to survive.
And painful slaughter has nothing to do with anger, it's makes them feel like they're doing something right, something for the greater good, and while you may disagree, why is your opinion better than theirs? Just because it prevents some animals of potentially feeling pain. As it's been said, you believe it to be more painful, they believe the opposite, that our way it more painful, why is your opinion the right one? As long as it's all based on beliefs the discussion is frankly pointless. 'till someone proves that one way hurts more than the other, it's irrelevant, and no wikipedia is not proof.
|
On June 28 2011 23:09 legaton wrote:
Then they came for my meat
and there was no one left to speak out for my meat.
o,O
ancient religious practice over animal welfare....its not like i'm saying we all need to kick dogs or anything.
I speak not because i am a Muslim or because I am Jewish but because when it comes to my meat...i hope someone speaks out and disallows the Dutch government from outlawing what i do with it.
that is all
|
This is really stupid. If you ritually slaughter an animal, you just cut it's throat and let it bleed to death. It has the same feeling as a papercut, you don't feel it at all, just a little cut. Then you see you're bleeding and (in the animal's case), you die.
This is just another law because people don't know what they're talking about.
|
These animal rights groups are seriously pissing me off. Way more important issues for them to focus on for animal rights and yet they focus on this. The same people that eat medicine that was tested on mice, wear makeup that was tested on dogs, etc.
On topic though: Meh, I guess the Muslim and Jewish community do not have nothing to worry about if their practices are more humane than others. Still, I can understand their outrage about this law.
|
On June 29 2011 00:42 smacky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:09 legaton wrote:
Then they came for my meat
and there was no one left to speak out for my meat. o,O ancient religious practice over animal welfare....its not like i'm saying we all need to kick dogs or anything. I speak not because i am a Muslim or because I am Jewish but because when it comes to my meat...i hope someone speaks out and disallows the Dutch government from outlawing what i do with it. that is all It's not 'your meat', it's the animal's meat. And yes, it's like your saying kicking dogs is okay.
This is really stupid. If you ritually slaughter an animal, you just cut it's throat and let it bleed to death. It has the same feeling as a papercut, you don't feel it at all, just a little cut. Then you see you're bleeding and (in the animal's case), you die.
This is just another law because people don't know what they're talking about. If these specific practices are not inhumane, this law is not needed. However, the idea behind the law is still right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
