|
I don't think quickly cutting the animals throat puts them in any great deal of pain..
|
On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash 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. 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.
I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop.
|
On June 29 2011 01:57 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash wrote: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. 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. I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop.
But you are still killing it. Not killing it is better, for humans and animals.
|
We base the laws in our countries on what is morally correct, not according to religion last time i checked.
|
On June 29 2011 02:00 whiteguycash wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:57 Longshank wrote:On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash wrote: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. 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. I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop. But you are still killing it. Not killing it is better, for humans and animals.
Depends how you define "better". If you definite it (killing the animal) as providing the highest amount of utility to the vocal/sentient parties involved, then no, it's certainly not better.
|
On June 29 2011 02:00 whiteguycash wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:57 Longshank wrote:On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash wrote: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. 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. I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop. But you are still killing it. Not killing it is better, for humans and animals.
But they are getting killed whether you like it or not. So if it's to be done it better if it's done with minimal pain inflicted. Don't be silly.
|
On June 29 2011 01:57 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash wrote: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. 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. I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop.
ya lets brain dmage everything before we kill it, its the humane thing to do.
|
On June 29 2011 02:09 Warlike Prince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 01:57 Longshank wrote:On June 29 2011 01:50 whiteguycash wrote: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. 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. I don't cushion anything, removing the pain is better, both for animals and humans. Full stop. ya lets brain dmage everything before we kill it, its the humane thing to do.
I've never said a word about halal being more or less painful than stunning the animal. Try again.
|
On June 29 2011 01:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.
He's actually right, at least in terms of the dutch political context. This law might have been an initiative by the 'animal party', but it has pretty much turned into a vote on immigration and freedom of religion. The dutch right wing, and even some on the left, wouldn't have jumped on this issue so hard if it wasn't a muslim/immigration issue.
This makes it an issue way beyond animal cruelty.
|
There has been scientific proof that the level of adrenalin (stress hormone) is higher in a animal that is stunned than an animal that is Halal/Kosher slaughtered. This is due to that the animals are only partly stunned with conventional methods and is still consious when slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, while it takes approx. 3 sec for the animal to loose consious due to bloodloss if it is Halal/Kosher slaughtered. The shock in the animal will also take away the pain for these 3 sec, i.e. this legislation is just uncalled for.
Actually this is just a way of oppressing a minority in a country where extreme rightwing politics is highly popular and i am not suprised at all that they use the "cruel people" card to oppress.
|
I'm not judaicly observant at all, but my father has smicha (rabbinic qualifications) and is considered a learned man, and basically forced me to learn waaay more about these things as a kid then I ever wanted too (I've done daf yomi in its entirety for anyone who knows what that is). The laws applying to how the animal must be killed under kosher law are veery strict. The animal MUST die instantly, the knives are checked frequently and if there is a even slight nick in the blade the entire slaughter is not considered kosher. The laws are designed to prevent any pain to the animal and ensure an instant death. Every detail is predetermined even the angle of the blade and a good kosher butcher will take pride in this.
The recent PETA scandal was incredibly inaccurate, because the footage taken was not orthodoxically kosher schitah (slaughter). I can't claim to know anything about halal meat but from my muslim friends I have heard that the laws are very similar at least in regards to the animal. I rarely will take the side of defending judaism in an argument, but wanted to weigh in on this one because I actually really like the laws regarding slaughterhouses in Judaism. The detail with which the laws in the gemorah and various other derivations of it describe even just the kiling cut clearly emphasize the neccessity of an immediate and complete severation of the head. The first cut must COMPLETELY severe the head with "a swift and sure speed." Again, if even a slight bit of skin is left connected the entire animal is not kosher and the cow is a waste, meaning the butcher will surely be fired under a halachically kosher slaughterhouse.
edit: and c'mon that poll is terrible whatever your opinion is. Seriously that deserves a warning, it's worth debate but animal rights and judaic/muslim traidions are NOT established to be opposing sides. That is the definition of a poll which answers its own question.
examples of better ones:
Do you think kosher/hallal slaughter methods should be illegalized?
a) yes - The religous meat industries is inhumane, whatever the ancient/antiquated laws may be
b) no - The religous meat industry upholds it's own requirements of painless killing.
|
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 it doesn't matter whether we treat POWs (prisoners of war) humanely or not, because the end result is that we are holding them as prisoners against their will?
Hell, why even have comfort in life, we're all just going to die in the end. In fact, we should all go kill ourselves now to end this meaningless existence.
EDIT: Sarcasm aside, to answer your question is because the amount of effort it takes to reduce a lot of suffering and trauma (stunning the animal) is so little. We're not talking about putting animals up in 5 star hotels.
|
On June 29 2011 02:04 Catch]22 wrote:
We base the laws in our countries on what is morally correct, not according to religion last time i checked.
well then guess where you got your middle european set of morals from
|
this thread has only half of the information, you are allowed to slaughter it without stunning if you can scientifically prove that it causes the same amount / less pain to the animal than with stunning.
And to jokithedruid please if you have no clue about dutch politics then stop talking about it, we only have 1 extreme right wing party in the PVV from geert wilders and this is our first right prime minister since the early 1900's.
|
This is stupid. How are we even sure that stunning them is better subjectively for the animals than cutting their main arteries?
If we care about animal welfare, lets crack down on factory farms.
|
On June 29 2011 02:25 Jokithedruid wrote:
There has been scientific proof that the level of adrenalin (stress hormone) is higher in a animal that is stunned than an animal that is Halal/Kosher slaughtered. This is due to that the animals are only partly stunned with conventional methods and is still consious when slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, while it takes approx. 3 sec for the animal to loose consious due to bloodloss if it is Halal/Kosher slaughtered. The shock in the animal will also take away the pain for these 3 sec, i.e. this legislation is just uncalled for.
Actually this is just a way of oppressing a minority in a country where extreme rightwing politics is highly popular and i am not suprised at all that they use the "cruel people" card to oppress.
Do you know where the study can be found for reference?
|
In this particular case, I believe religious tradition takes over animal welfare. The process of stunning animals is to please those who care for animal welfare.
Who's going to care for the religiously devoted?
|
On June 29 2011 02:34 Torte de Lini wrote:
In this particular case, I believe religious tradition takes over animal welfare. The process of stunning animals is to please those who care for animal welfare.
Who's going to care for the religiously devoted? Not caring about animal welfare = harm done to animals.
Not caring about religiously devoted = no harm done to anyone.
It is clear which option is better if we view 'harm done' as a bad thing.
|
On June 29 2011 01:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They are both videos of the kosher method. I wasn't putting my opinion on anything- I was just trying to give a balanced view by showing two videos, one of which looks very gruesome as it shows cows struggling to stand and flopping around afterwards, and one that seems less so because the cows are restrained and it is a very orderly environment.
|
On June 29 2011 02:36 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 02:34 Torte de Lini wrote:
In this particular case, I believe religious tradition takes over animal welfare. The process of stunning animals is to please those who care for animal welfare.
Who's going to care for the religiously devoted? Not caring about animal welfare = harm done to animals. Not caring about religiously devoted = no harm done to anyone. It is clear which option is better if we view 'harm done' as a bad thing.
Physically, no.
But Spiritually yes and you have to think a bit beyond your own self to understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
