|
On June 29 2011 00:58 whiteguycash wrote:
Is it just me, or does the fact that they are legislating a way to be humane to animals yet they are STILL KILLING IT seem slightly, if not blantanty or abhorently hypocritical. The ends are the same, and the means of cutting the throat are not crual and unusual compared to actual spiteful abuse of an anumal, such as death by suffocation, removal of limbs, skinning while alive, etc.
It is silly to cushion the fact that you are killing an animal with the excuse "we did it in the most humane way possible." If you are going to go for the "most humane way possible," then stop going halfway, and just don't kill it. If you are going to reap the benifits of the harvested cattle, then don't bitch about the "how to do it," when your own demands based off mass consumption demand that the death be executed in the most efficient way possible.
So by your reasoning it doesn't matter in which way prisoners are executed in Texas? I mean they are about to kill them, why does it matter which method they use. I've heard crucifiction is growing out of style, bring that shit back, it makes for a great show aswell.
|
On June 29 2011 00:48 LesPhoques wrote:
Cutting throat is least painful way of killing an animal. Stunning it is worse and it doesn't guarantee that animal will not feel pain.
that sure is a nice opinion that goes against scientific testing youve got there
|
On June 29 2011 01:09 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:58 whiteguycash wrote:
Is it just me, or does the fact that they are legislating a way to be humane to animals yet they are STILL KILLING IT seem slightly, if not blantanty or abhorently hypocritical. The ends are the same, and the means of cutting the throat are not crual and unusual compared to actual spiteful abuse of an anumal, such as death by suffocation, removal of limbs, skinning while alive, etc.
It is silly to cushion the fact that you are killing an animal with the excuse "we did it in the most humane way possible." If you are going to go for the "most humane way possible," then stop going halfway, and just don't kill it. If you are going to reap the benifits of the harvested cattle, then don't bitch about the "how to do it," when your own demands based off mass consumption demand that the death be executed in the most efficient way possible.
So by your reasoning it doesn't matter in which way prisoners are executed in Texas? I mean they are about to kill them, why does it matter which method they use. I've heard crucifiction is growing out of style, bring that shit back, it makes for a great show aswell.
You're assuming that animals are equal to humans. And that executing prisoners is the same as killing a farm animal for meat.
|
On June 29 2011 01:04 moltenlead wrote:
But I remember seeing somewhere that in a properly done halal killing the animals suffer negligible pain depending on the knife and precision of the cut.
Exactly what I was thinking. I suppose a lot of people don't really like the idea of the of an animal's neck being cut and the blood being drained from it but I don't consider it to be particularly cruel. I actually think that in some ways this way is preferable to the industrial killing of livestock because this method is arguably more careful and respectful than the way animals are killed in abattoirs. Jewish and Muslim traditions are obviously also very important.
|
On June 29 2011 01:01 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:22 Thorakh wrote: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. Please atleast try to read the thread next time. Just a little. Please. There are tonnes of posts that the religious way of doing it is painless, and yet people ramble on about religion being painful and whatnot. Personally I couldn't care less. Let them do whatever the fuck they want. There are more important questions out there that requires the Dutch governments attention. Such as that they have a blantantly obvious racist as a big politician. It doesn't matter, people are arguing the idea behind the law, not the specifics itself.
|
On June 28 2011 23:28 Badfatpanda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:22 SaetZero wrote:
Unless you are an animal activist, or a member of said religion, you should not be posting in this imo. If you don't do either, most people will side with animals since they have pets. This is interesting issue, but asking general public for their opinions on it just seemed very biased to me lol.
Side note being I would say follow religious beliefs if they can prove how important that part of the ritual is, with excerpts from their doctrines or something similar. But i don't have an attachment to either issue personally. Interesting view of bias lol, requiring parties to be on either side of an issue to post seems like a textbook definition of bias in my opinion. But to the OP, I would appreciate some source links ^^
I mean in the way that most people couldn't see the religious side as equally as the 'don't kill animals' side. You might not really care about either side, but you can innately see a bad side to the killing thing. Might not be the same for breaking a 'silly religious custom' as I'm sure some people would see it.
|
The whole argument is ridiculous, the end result is the same. 2 seconds of an animal's pain vs pissing off an entire population of people? No brainer.
|
On June 29 2011 01:13 deth2munkies wrote:
The whole argument is ridiculous, the end result is the same. 2 seconds of an animal's pain vs pissing off an entire population of people? No brainer. That's what I thought, it's a no brainer really, causing pain always outweighs pissing someone off, so that population will just have to accept that they can't cause needless harm anymore.
|
On June 29 2011 01:13 deth2munkies wrote:
The whole argument is ridiculous, the end result is the same. 2 seconds of an animal's pain vs pissing off an entire population of people? No brainer.
Dangerous argument. By that standard those who are most easily anreaged, win. Some people might get offended? So what. Nothing happens. Also, you have to draw a line somewhere, especially if a reiligion holds values that are in conflict with the law on a frequent basis (i.e. Sharia).
Most religions are based on antiquated traditions, and those tradtiions must necessarily get in conflict with modern laws at some point. You cannot punish a whole society (or the majority) because a minority adheres to out-of-date concepts (e.g. no one really thinks about WHY meat must be kosher - i'm pretty sure that was functional at some point in time, but maybe it no longer is).
|
it's really interesting to see the vegetarians bash on religion when they are a religion themselves 
|
On June 29 2011 01:11 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:09 Longshank wrote:On June 29 2011 00:58 whiteguycash wrote:
Is it just me, or does the fact that they are legislating a way to be humane to animals yet they are STILL KILLING IT seem slightly, if not blantanty or abhorently hypocritical. The ends are the same, and the means of cutting the throat are not crual and unusual compared to actual spiteful abuse of an anumal, such as death by suffocation, removal of limbs, skinning while alive, etc.
It is silly to cushion the fact that you are killing an animal with the excuse "we did it in the most humane way possible." If you are going to go for the "most humane way possible," then stop going halfway, and just don't kill it. If you are going to reap the benifits of the harvested cattle, then don't bitch about the "how to do it," when your own demands based off mass consumption demand that the death be executed in the most efficient way possible.
So by your reasoning it doesn't matter in which way prisoners are executed in Texas? I mean they are about to kill them, why does it matter which method they use. I've heard crucifiction is growing out of style, bring that shit back, it makes for a great show aswell. You're assuming that animals are equal to humans. And that executing prisoners is the same as killing a farm animal for meat.
Not at all but the philosophy behind it is the same. Why kill animals in an inhumane way if it's not necessary? Due to religious tradition? No thanks.
(I'm no saying whether halal is more or less painful, I have no idea)
|
|
|
On June 28 2011 23:09 legaton wrote:
Vegans surfing on european islamophobia to forbid all of us to eat meat what we want because the "meat industry" makes animals suffer.
First they came for the Halal meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a muslim.
Then they came for the Kosher meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for my meat
and there was no one left to speak out for my meat.
This post made me laugh so fucking hard that I feel bad about it.
|
My religion only allows me to eat circumsized pelicans, roasted on a platinum barbeque.
To be fair, none of the priests have made it past the first year, I'm on the first aid as we speak. But I won't eat any of this vile hospital food. I demand my pelicans!
I think its silly. Beef is beef, regardless of how it was slaughtered. You can still get it across the border at germany if you really want it halal.
|
United States523 Posts
|
On June 28 2011 23:12 blackone wrote:
What a conincidence, islamophobic europeans fighting for animal rights when it comes to halal butchering. Just like the all become feminists when they're talking about the burka.
What's your take on lazy forum users who downplay actual arguments about what's right and wrong by calling the people who brought it up a made-up word (islamophobes)?
Don't they have farms in Israel that are entirely raised a couple inches off the ground to match orthodox rules about when you can farm the earth, and moreover hire a bunch of immigrants to do the labor? Eat your halal and kosher if you can demonstrate humane slaughtering, but these ancient religious provisions are just a waste of time and resources. I will continue to enjoy bacon that came from a secular-regulated FDA.
|
Animal wellfare is a step in the right direction.
|
Human rights > Animal rights?
Anyways, I heard it's not even 100% clear if the halal way of slaughtering animals is cruel at all. I vaguely remember there was some studies that show the halal way of slaughtering animals may actually be more humane.
|
On June 29 2011 01:09 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 00:58 whiteguycash wrote:
Is it just me, or does the fact that they are legislating a way to be humane to animals yet they are STILL KILLING IT seem slightly, if not blantanty or abhorently hypocritical. The ends are the same, and the means of cutting the throat are not crual and unusual compared to actual spiteful abuse of an anumal, such as death by suffocation, removal of limbs, skinning while alive, etc.
It is silly to cushion the fact that you are killing an animal with the excuse "we did it in the most humane way possible." If you are going to go for the "most humane way possible," then stop going halfway, and just don't kill it. If you are going to reap the benifits of the harvested cattle, then don't bitch about the "how to do it," when your own demands based off mass consumption demand that the death be executed in the most efficient way possible.
So by your reasoning it doesn't matter in which way prisoners are executed in Texas? I mean they are about to kill them, why does it matter which method they use. I've heard crucifiction is growing out of style, bring that shit back, it makes for a great show aswell.
Not quite. Don't bring in the straw man.
Slitting of the throat is by no means as painful or excruciating as crucifixion. with a severing of arteries and veins in the neck, the first thing to go is conciousness and body control, followed by subconcious body functions in a matter of a minute. The purpose is not to inflict pain, as crucifixion, but to provide a relatively quick death.
My point still stands, even given the face of your straw man. Don't be a hypocrite. If you are going to talk about the humane treatment, why even execute capital punishment? don't cushion the blow by implying that removing the pain ot of killing something is better, when the ends of killing are the same.
|
On June 29 2011 00:03 koreasilver wrote:
Loaded poll.
On June 28 2011 23:09 legaton wrote:
Vegans surfing on european islamophobia to forbid all of us to eat meat what we want because the "meat industry" makes animals suffer.
First they came for the Halal meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a muslim.
Then they came for the Kosher meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for my meat
and there was no one left to speak out for my meat.
Sounds like xenophobic laws trying to pass under the guise of being fair because it punishes Jewish people as well as Muslim.
Unless the cow is hooked up to a catscan while all this is occurring i don't see anything. All this is, is you putting your own opinion on how the animals feels based on how it looks you're humanizing with it. There is a reason why you call it humane i don't see lions stunning their prey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
